1975-06-10

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I take just one moment to recall that today, June 10, 1975, marks the fiftieth anniversary of the coming into force, specifically on its own terms, of Chapter 100 of the Statutes of Canada, 1924, being an act to create the United Church of Canada. By its own provisions this came into force on June 10, 1925, that day being, of course, a Sunday.
A number of ministers and, of course members of that church, have sat in this House and today we are distinguished by the presence on a very regular basis of two of its more prominent ministers, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). There are also, of course, in the ecumenical spirit for which the United Church is so famous, a Baptist minister in the person of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and in that same caucus which is distinguished itself by its own ecumenical movement, a Roman Catholic priest in the person of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).
I know all hon. members would want me to pay this short tribute to the formation of that very important church in Canada which represents, of course, the interests and union of all Christian faiths in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE DEFENCE MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, MR. GEORG LEBER
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery-


An hon. Member:: Of Admiral Boyle.


James Armstrong Richardson: -of a distinguished visitor, one of our NATO partners, the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Georg Leber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the highly unusual action taken by the Consumers Association of Canada in appealing to the cabinet the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission regarding the granting of increases in domestic air fares in Canada; having regard to the fact that it appears from the evidence presented to the Canadian Transport Commission that, as far as Air Canada is concerned, the prairie provinces are cross-subsidizing air fares in other parts of Canada, and in view of the announced intention in the near future of Air Canada to review and revise fares based upon related costs of operation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House instruct the government to direct the Canadian Transport Commission to revoke the most recent air fare increases pending submission by air carriers to the Canadian Transport Commission of a schedule of air fares based upon related costs of operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the disastrous conditions that have existed since the beginning of the year in Canada, especially in Quebec, and considering the problems that face the provincial ministers of justice concerning delinquency, the detention and bail systems, escapes and other similar matters, and since the provincial authorities are at their wits' end to deal with the situation which is getting out of

June 10,1975
Air Fares
hand and they realize that the system is no longer adequate and does not meet the requirements of our present society any more, I move, seconded by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government immediately consider the opportunity of reviewing our legislation on penitentiaries, the bail and rehabilitation systems and take immediate steps to provide better protection to our society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that independent farm workers are discriminated against by the application of rule 172(4), paragraph (b), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, providing that half the gross revenues from farming operations must be considered as earnings, and since for some time net farming revenues are hard to come by, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Manpower to look especially into this rule in order to find out to what extent it is unfair to this group of workers and to make the necessary recommendations with a view to amending it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of both acting ministers of finance, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister? As the report of the Corporate Tax Measures Review Committee indicates that roughly 73,000 new manufacturing and processing jobs will have been created during the period 1972-75 as a result of the corporate tax measures and considering that employment in manufacturing, according to today's labour force survey, has declined by an amazing 90,000 jobs in the last six months, is the Acting Prime Minister satisfied that the measures to which I referred have had any permanent effect on employment in manufacturing and, if so, how great an effect?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, yes. We believe they have had a permanent effect. We believe they have sustained investment and therefore built a foundation for continued increases in employment in manufacturing.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: They seem to have built a foundation for further unemployment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As employment in manufacturing has actually declined, does the Acting Prime Minister believe that, without these measures, jobs would have declined by 163,000, instead of by 90,000?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I direct a final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? As the latest conference board forecasts indicated that employment would be lower than the 7.1 per cent rate being experienced today, is the Acting Prime Minister now willing to concede that the conference Board forecasts for unemployment for the last quarter of this year will in fact be something in excess of 8.5 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I never engage in those kinds of prophecies. I admire my hon. friend who seems to be so confident of his own position.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC REGION-SUGGESTED REVIEW OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN VIEW OF FAILURE TO CREATE JOBS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister? As regional unemployment in Canada has increased-notwithstanding a slight decline in the national rates-especially in the Atlantic provinces where it has increased substantially, the rate in Newfoundland still being in excess of 17 per cent, is the government currently
June 10, 1975

reviewing its regional development programs in view of the failure of the regional development policy to create jobs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the hon. member's statement, the answer is yes. The regional program is being reviewed. It is under constant review.


EFFECT OF MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES ON UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF NEW MEASURES TO PROVIDE RELIEF
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that unemployment in these regions, particularly the Atlantic region and certain other parts of the country, is increasing at a time when there should be a marked decline in the unemployment rate and in view of the fact this is a direct consequence of the monetary and fiscal policies currently being pursued by the government, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is taking into account the effect of monetary and fiscal policies on the economy, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, and whether new measures will be introduced to bring immediate relief to the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. In deciding monetary and fiscal policies, we always take into account very especially the position of the underdeveloped parts of this country, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. However, the hon. member will have to await the budget and other measures the government will be introducing to obtain an answer to the second part of his question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Following the decision yesterday by a second jury dealing with facts and law similar to an earlier acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler on the charge of performing an illegal abortion, will the minister now reconsider his earlier decision and recommend to the cabinet that Dr. Morgentaler be given a full pardon on his earlier conviction?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I, of course have not had an opportunity to read either the direction to the jury or the proceedings in this case. However, I do not see the connection that relates this case to the previous conclusion in the courts.


John Edward Broadbent: The issue at stake is the continuation of the jury system as part of our democratic heritage. In that light, will the minister approach the Quebec minister of justice and urge him not to appeal yesterday's decision in order to protect the right to trial by jury, which has been a fundamental part of our democratic tradition in Canada?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe it remains very much a part of our tradition. The Supreme Court was very conscious of this when it referred to the importance of the jury in the previous judgment. I think it would be rather unusual for me to volunteer to give advice to the provincial attorney general. It is really within his jurisdiction to institute and continue proceedings to the point where he feels they are satisfactory.


CRIMINAL CODE
John Edward Broadbent: The minister is normally not so reluctant to give advice in other directions on other occasions. So that the issue of the right to trial by jury and the supremacy of that will remain, will the minister agree to amend the Criminal Code in such a way that courts of appeal do not have the right to simply superimpose their own views over those of a jury without at least the legal provision of a reference back to a jury for reconsideration?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to give further consideration to the question of whether the law as it is written best serves the purpose for which it is intended. It has been my impression that the Supreme Court, in dealing with the issue of that particular section, dealt very carefully with it. It was made quite clear that it is not the kind of section that would be used at all frequently. Indeed, one could put it more positively. It would only be used in very, very unusual circumstances. While I would be glad to look at whether that is a problem in terms of the operation of our jury system, my conclusion is that it would not be.


ABORTION
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that in our society even the most hardened criminal is granted the right to appeal, can the minister inform this House whether his department would consider setting up procedures by which the father or other interested parties could appeal the sentences meted out to the unborn child by abortion committees?

June 10, 1975
Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that unemployment in both the Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore areas has reached nearly 31 per cent, could the right hon. gentleman advise the House whether he intends to tell the hon. Minister of Transport to put an end to the dredging work being carried out at lie d'Orleans at a cost of about $120 million, and to invest in an underdeveloped area an equal amount to build a deep sea port in the Lower St. Lawrence area?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am sure the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, that the deep sea port issue has been the subject of debates and bargaining for many years. Today, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to previous decisions. The minister is still considering the issue.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to meet with delegations from Riviere-du-Loup, Gros-Cacouna and Rimouski who are here on Parliament Hill today to make the government more aware of the necessity to create a deep sea port in the Lower St. Lawrence area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I met these delegations this morning. I cannot do it this afternoon because I am leaving for Winnipeg.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister tell the House what are his department's intentions regarding the general development of the banks of the St. Lawrence River and harbour approaches? Could he tell the House whether his department is now reviewing the safety standards for the south and north shores of the St. Lawrence River, taking into account the speed and tonnage of the boats?
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order because I feel that the Minister of Public Works did not know my question was addressed to him, and with your permission, I should like to pu t it again.
Is the Minister of Public Works aware of the answers the Prime Minister has just given, and considering those

answers, could the minister tell the House what are his department's intentions regarding the development of the banks of the St. Lawrence River, taking into account the speed and tonnage of the boats? Also, could the minister say whether those studies are carried out along the lines indicated by my colleague from Rimouski, in order that the St. Lawrence River, which is a tremendous inland asset, may actually be developed instead of being neglected?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to one of the hon. member's colleagues, this whole matter is now being reviewed. We realize that the St. Lawrence River could be improved, and we are at the present time looking for ways to do it.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that it may not be possible or desirable for him to make any particular comment, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether there is any information he can give the House with respect to the difficult situation in the B.C. Penitentiary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting the question in those terms. I think it shows there is a realization in the House that in this difficult situation where human lives are involved and where we are trying to find a solution, it would not be in the public interest to make statements which might increase public anxiety or cause any hysteria. I can say at this stage that we are still in communication with those prisoners who are holding hostages and that we are trying to find a solution which will save the lives of all the hostages. I do not think I can usefully add anything further at this stage though, of course, I would be prepared to take the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties into my confidence in my office and fill them in with more details.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As unemployment has now been in excess of seven per cent for a full quarter, would the Prime Minister advise the House when the government intends to stop using high unemployment as a means to try to curb inflation and to introduce policies to reduce it to a more acceptable level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that his understanding of our policy is quite incorrect. We are not trying
June 10, 1975

to use unemployment, as he puts it. Unemployment is the unfortunate consequence of the fact that the economies of many other nations with which we trade have been in a very soft position in the past year and also because in Canada we are facing difficult economic problems. I can assure the hon. member that when he hears the budget speech in less than two weeks' time he will see that we are attempting to deal at the same time with the problem of high unemployment and inflation.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said that the government is not trying to use high unemployment in order to try to curb inflation and I am very glad to have his assurance on that. As unemployment has remained at this very high level for a full quarter, and the Prime Minister implies that the government is really trying to reduce it, does the government not feel that it is capable of putting forward more effective measures than the ones which have failed to do the job of reducing unemployment during these last three months?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the Department of External Affairs approached by the Red Chinese embassy to support their lobby to expel Taiwan from the Olympics, and what was the department's decision?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Red Chinese embassy or an official from the embassy discuss with the Secretary of State for External Affairs the decision of the Taiwanese as far as the Olympics were concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no consultation on this point with the embassy at all. I understand the matter of membership is entirely within the jurisdiction of the International Olympic Committee. My understanding is that the application that has been made is under review and has not been finally dealt with by the International Olympic Committee.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If and when the Red Chinese embassy does approach the minister, would the minister tell us exactly what his decision will be?
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REASON MINISTER NOT ATTENDING ICNAF CONFERENCE
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Yesterday in response to a question put to him by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East regarding the ICNAF conference which begins today in Scotland, the minister said, as reported at page 6,548 of Hansard:
We shall be making statements at the meeting this week. We shall be putting the facts on the table and we have indicated that if there are further serious violations in the coming months we shall take action.
In light of these rather strong statements, can the minister tell the House why he is not in Scotland attending the meetings where he could make these statements and also perhaps give our delegation the weight of his office to get the quota system for which we are looking.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the ICNAF conference is at this stage mainly a conference of scientists who are assessing the condition of the stocks and are looking for reductions of certain species in certain areas. They report to their governments. Our delegation discussed at length the advisability of my going to the conference or not going. There have never been representatives at the ministerial level except that the host country usually has a minister who expresses welcome. We examined all these possibilities and made the judgment that I should not go. I would say that I have absolute confidence in Dr. Needier, my personal adviser who is heading a strong delegation and who has vast experience in this type of negotiation.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Would the minister confirm to the House that the main reason for his not attending the conference is insistence on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his fear that the minister will express statements that would be favourable to our fishermen but perhaps undiplomatic at the conference?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member, as he goes through his own province meeting groups of fishermen who realize the good things we have done for them, is not telling them that sort of fairy tale.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs promised to consider my request that he table a copy of the bilateral treaty between Canada and the government of South Korea. In view of the fact that last Thursday the Prime Minister said the proposed safeguards were the strictest of those of any member of the international community, and since we cannot gauge the effectiveness of those safeguards unless we have access to the bilateral treaty, I would ask the minister if he is now prepared to make it available to members of the House?

June 10, 1975
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I told the hon. member that while the safeguards or Canadian standards that are being proposed are the strictest, the actual bilateral negotiation with South Korea has not yet been completed. That is my recollection. When the negotiation is completed and the treaty concluded, I will be glad to consider the hon. member's representation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the non-proliferation treaty is not a sufficient safeguard in that any signatory may opt out on giving three-month's notice, is the minister requiring South Korea to agree to a periodic inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has that organization agreed to accept this responsibility?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will in the normal course have the inspection carried out by the international agency, and it is my expectation that the agency will carry out these inspections. In any event, in the absence of international inspections, which we fully expect to take place, we would contemplate bilateral inspections.


SALE OF REACTORS TO SOUTH KOREA AND ARGENTINA- CONSIDERATION OF STABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS PRIOR TO SALE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if final negotiations have been completed with the government of Argentina regarding a nuclear reactor and if, in considering this matter of selling nuclear reactors to South Korea and Argentina, the government gives careful attention to the stability of those countries and the inherent danger providing them with nuclear potential may have in provoking their neighbouring countries into also seeking to have a nuclear capacity? In other words, I am asking the minister if we are interested primarily in promoting peace rather than in selling nuclear reactors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are primarily interested in both, and that is why we, in undertaking these sales, go to very great lengths and take great pains to establish the most adequate safeguard system available. With regard to the specific question dealing with Argentina, we have not yet completed our bilateral negotiations as there are still a number of points outstanding about the safeguards themselves. We are pursuing these at the present time.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Since the Public Service Commission has often suggested that after eight years of application the Public Service

Employment Act should be revised, and since such a revision has also been supported by the Public Service bargaining agents and by the Treasury Board representative, can the minister tell the House if the government intends to follow up these suggestions, and can we expect that the government will soon announce the procedures or methods that will be used to proceed with such a revision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has had the Public Service Employment Act under revision from time to time. At the time of the last review it was concluded that this subject could not be finally dealt with until the Public Service Staff Relation Act had been revised. That Act is now being studied by the standing committee and it has already made one report. I hope it will make its final report on that Act soon. I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that the government has this question under active consideration but is awaiting the introduction of legislation to deal with the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which we think is a necessary preliminary.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with international agreements between various nations to the effect that there should be an uninterrupted exchange of international telecommunications. That particular convention is 30 years old and it has been generally followed by all countries except in recent months by the U.S.S.R. In recent days and weeks, the Soviet authorities have begun a policy of obstructing and interfering with telephone calls, culminating in a blackout. This practice has grown during the months until today it is impossible, I am informed by both Ukrainian and Jewish organizations, to get telephone calls through at all as they are blocked as soon as they are placed. I mention this as a representation at the request of the Canadian Jewish Congress that action be taken, and also for Ukrainian organizations, in particular the Committee for the Defence of Valentyn Moroz, which committee was successful over a period of six months in maintaining-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the right hon. member put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to get an answer to a question unless they know what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The government has had this matter brought to its attention and, in the interests of preservation of international relations and, in particular, the responsibilities of all nations to uphold the convention, I
June 10, 1975

would ask the minister whether he will make a protest to the U.S.S.R. against this completely unjustified, by any means whatsoever, course that is being followed that today denies Canadians the right to speak to intellectuals who are not committing any offences but to whom in the past information has been given and returned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman raising this point which has not been drawn to my attention up to the present time. I will investigate the allegations made and report later. If necessary, I will take appropriate steps by way of dealing with the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one further question. Does the minister say that his department has had no complaints along this line? I think he better review the file a little more carefully.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports by the Canadian Press, could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce confirm to the House that as a result of a directive within Statistics Canada all hiring and reclassification of personnel, including temporary personnel, was stopped as of 5 p.m. on June 4, pending the presentation of the forthcoming budget?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been told by Statistics Canada, regarding the number of casual employees and other budgetary measures taken, that these involve interdepartmental procedures adopted to ensure that departmental operations are kept within the bounds of the existing budget for 1975-76.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister advise the House whether, in anticipation of the budget, a freeze on hiring has been put in place in a general way in the Public Service of Canada, and if so could the minister tell us to what extent that exists at this time in anticipation of the budget both in terms of time and in quantitative terms?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government has ordered no freeze in the number of civil servants other than the reduction provided for in the budget speech of last November.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I would like to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Red Deer. I am pleased to inform him that the funds of the Prairie Farm Assistance Fund are not used for administrative purposes. The secretary concerned was never paid out of the Prairie Farm Assistance Fund when she worked for the ministerial office in Regina. She did it as a civil servant and she has always been paid out of the same funds. There is absolutely nothing illegal in this procedure.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I hope the ear of the Minister of Agriculture is sympathetically tuned to it. A week has passed since I raised the matter of the inability of Dutch student farmers to come to Nova Scotia. I understand that as of one hour ago only one farm helper had been offered domestically by the Manpower Department to some 16 applicants in central Nova Scotia. This also affects the ridings of Dartmouth-Halifax East and Central Nova. Will the minister consider permitting Dutch farming students to fill what apparently cannot be filled in other Canadian ways?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the number of foreign students permitted to come in for temporary employment during the summer was reduced this year because of the difficulty our younger people are having in finding jobs. That is the principle behind this inhibition. I will look into the situation of the particular farmers to whom the hon. member refers as having continuing difficulties and will step up our efforts to find Canadians to fill those jobs, but it would be only as a last resort that we would bring in foreign students.


NATIONAL, DEFENCE REVIEW OF STRUCTURE OF FORCES-DATE OF COMPLETION AND POSSIBLE TABLING OF REPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which I would ask you to ask him. In his statement of June 2 the Prime Minister, in referring to the NATO summit meeting, stated very clearly that a defence structure review is presently underway. Would the minister indicate to the House whether that review of the Defence structure is being undertaken by defence officials

June 10, 1975
Oral Questions
or by officials of the Prime Minister's office and in either case would he indicate to the House when this review will be finished and whether or not it will be tabled or made public in another way.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the forces structure review is taking place at the present time. It is in three phases. The first part deals with the tasks to be performed by the Canadian armed forces. The second part deals with the level at which these tasks will be performed and the third phase will deal with support services and costs. It will be only after we have completed the third phase that we will be able to make any public announcements or changes of direction for the forces.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would indicate if he made representations to the Minister of Finance in connection with the forthcoming budget concerning an increase in allocation of funds to meet many of the problems the Department of National Defence is now facing.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I make representations to my colleagues for more funds for the armed forces.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that his department and the province of Quebec are now in the process of negotiating the construction of a deepsea port at Gros-Cacouna. Can the minister tell the House whether he is confident that we will soon hear that the negotiations have been successful?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are working on this project in conjunction with the Quebec Department of Commerce. The latter is obviously interested in the development of ports but, as a general policy on Canadian ports has yet to be formulated, it is very difficult for me to tell you in what state of mind I am at the present time. In any event, I am an optimist by nature: I always feel that good things will happen at the right time.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROPOSED PORT OF GROS CACOUNA WILL NOT SUPPLANT GABARUS BAY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the last statement I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would he do his best to make sure that Gros Cacouna will not supplant Gabarus Bay so far as the new steel complex in Cape Breton is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister recently rationalized the aggressive sale of Canadian reactors all over the world on the ground that we have a moral obligation to promote energy sources in less well-off countries, would the minister tell us why the government is having a discussion with Iran about a CANDU reactor when Iran happens to be one of the richest countries in the world in energy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question and therefore I cannot deal with it.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us why Canada is negotiating with Iran with respect to the sale of a reactor to that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that negotiations are taking place at the present time.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the report of the Atomic Energy Commission in relation to countries we are dealing with says we are negotiating with Iran, will the minister indicate the reason this is going on?


Walter David Baker: It is under "I" in the
book.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, sometime ago discussions were underway but they are not underway at the present time; they are suspended. Obviously, at the present time the Iranian authorities have lost interest in continuing the discussions.


POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT IN CANADA-PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Further to his meeting yesterday with the French minister, Mr. Norbert Segard, with regard to the possibility of building a Canadian plant for the production of enriched uranium, can the minister tell the House what steps or initiatives he will now take to better acquaint himself with all aspects of that matter and, in addition, how long does he expect this process to last, bearing in mind the fact that France will be tempted to seek another partner if the Canadian government waits too long before advising France of what it intends to do?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the next step will be a
June 10, 1975

meeting between myself and my colleague the Quebec Minister of Industry, Mr. St.-Pierre. We expect to meet in the first week of July to discuss the feasibility report on the CANADIF project, to see whether such a plant is possible at this time, and also to explain the federal position to the minister.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could the minister tell this House what would be the respective shares of the federal government, the Quebec government and the French government if it were decided to go ahead with the project following the feasibility studies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the respective positions are not yet determined, but I can tell the hon. member that it is the federal government that will have to issue the building permit for such a plant, and in that sense, the federal government has a role of prime importance in this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He was here a moment ago.


George Harris Hees: All you have to do is call him home like the cows.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In light of the fact that the Turkish Cypriots voted overwhelmingly on June 8 for an independent Turkish Cypriot state in northern Cyprus, when does the government plan on recognizing this new state, and do we as Canadians approve of this move toward the creation of an independent state?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was out of the House. I was on my way to the Senate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I would like to congratulate the minister on making a fine move.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was not my intention to remain there permanently. I was going there to testify before a committee. I hope to be back in the House tomorrow.
As the hon. member knows, the leaders of both Turkey and Greece met recently in connection with the NATO summit, as did the foreign ministers of both these countries, in an effort to make some progress in resolving the difficulties. I believe that following the meeting between the leaders of the two countries there is some indication that negotiations will continue. I had the opportunity to meet the foreign minister of Turkey and the foreign minister of Greece during the NATO meeting, and because of
Oral Questions
our involvement in peacekeeping in Cyprus, I expressed our wish that negotiations resume and that some progress be made. We have not expressed a view on a new state. We recognize the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have one brief supplementary arising out of the reply of the minister. Are UN peacekeeping units still patrolling the ceasefire lines in Cyprus, and are there any plans to withdraw the Canadian contingent presently serving?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member the exact location of the work. We have not decided to withdraw our peacekeeping force. I believe that I am correct in recalling that we have reduced the number of the contingent in Cyprus, but we have not withdrawn them.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities would like to see mortgage interest rates, particularly government mortgage interest rates, lowered in order to stimulate housing construction, can the minister clarify the priorities to the House as to whether he believes mortgage interest rates should be lowered to stimulate the housing sector, or whether he agrees with the governor of the Bank of Canada that it might be necessary for all interest rates to rise as a method of combating a resurgence of inflation and excessive monetary growth, and to pay for the trade deficit?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the statements of the governor of the Bank of Canada or on those areas within the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Naturally we are anxious to have the greatest infusion of capital at the lowest rates into the housing market, but we also recognize that there are other factors involved.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, further to the questions I put a couple of weeks ago, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Since the minister has had the opportunity to inquire about the negotiations with the ship repair units in Esquimalt and Halifax, could he now tell the House what

June 10, 1975
Oral Questions
procedure he intends to take to break the deadlock so that the work in the ship yards will not stop completely?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, workers in state-owned shipyards in eastern and western Canada are now in a position to strike. It is not a general strike but a rotating strike, and I hope we will be able to meet at the bargaining table, to try and find a common ground for negotiations.
What they are doing now is legal. They exercise the right they were given by Parliament. For our part, we try to offer them the best possible compensation, but without creating at the same time a problem for the other sectors of the Public Service.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. What measures is he taking to protect those who want or must cross an eventual picket line?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a legal strike at this time. Not all workers are on strike. The union itself authorizes a great number of workers to report for work, so I do not see why I should intervene when the discretion of the union prevails in those circumstances.


OIL-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN VIEW OF PRICING POLICY OF EXXON- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that OPEC will most likely raise the price of crude oil by 35 per cent in October, thereby necessitating a rise in oil compensation payments to the oil companies in eastern Canada, and in view of recent testimony in the court case between Imperial Oil and Nova Scotia Power Corporation that Exxon and Imperial have manipulated oil prices to their own advantage, what measures is the government taking to reassess compensation payments made in the past and which will be made when the new round of price increases comes into effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As a result of the testimony in that case I have asked the officials of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to make a fresh assessment of the delivered cost of oil in eastern Canada, particularly having in mind the actions of Imperial and its affiliated companies in this respect. I hope we will not be faced with a situation where legal methods of that kind are employed to raise the price, but we will be alert to this possibility, as indeed is the Department of National Revenue.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact that the government faces a deficit in this year of $500 million by maintaining present compensation payments, and that Exxon, the parent company of Imperial, has the final say in the pricing regime for oil, but is beyond Canadian jurisdic-

tion, will the government consider lowering the compensation payments to Imperial Oil in view of the highly suspect pricing policies of its parent company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the compensation program is now under assessment with regard to some possible procedural changes. I do not think we would single out a specific company.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, and I welcome him back from Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Our fellows wanted you to stay out there, Otto. You are a great help to the Tories out there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since a counterclaim filed on behalf of the Minister of Justice in a law suit involving dredging on the Orleans Traverse alleges that the dredging companies knew what the estimate of the Ministry of Transport was as to what the job should be done for, could the Minister of Justice indicate to the House whether he knows how the dredging companies obtained the information as to what the estimate made by the Ministry of Transport was, and whether he is prepared to indicate that to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his welcome back to the House. He can welcome me back from Saskatchewan every other day because I am out there every other day and back here every other day checking the state of affairs.


George Harris Hees: You don't stay out long enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I think I would want to follow the ordinary course with regard to a matter which is going before the courts, and that is to have the evidence presented and the arguments made there, rather than to undertake an argument in this House which could be prejudicial to the matter coming before the courts, and which would be against our traditions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It comes about because of a motion moved by the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader, on June 3, 1975. At that time he moved that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development travel from place to place in Quebec and Ontario on two separate occasions in June or during the summer adjournment to study the economic development on reserves and to inspect historial sites and parks. I should like to know whether the government House leader would be receptive
June 10, 1975

to a motion to have this committee go to western Canada, and to Saskatchewan in particular.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I put forward this motion at the request of the committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Blaker.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,304 and 1,872.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,218 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,407 and 2,431?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of External Affairs on (a) January 1,1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?
Hort. Allan J. MacEacken (Secretary of State for External Affairs): 1. Full-time employees under salary in the Department of External Affairs: (a) on January 1, 1974, 2,977; (b) on January 1, 1975, 3,023.
Order Paper Questions
2. The number of employees in each salary range was:
	January 1, 1974	January 1, 1975
1 0,000-$ 9,999	1,930	1,158$10,000-$19,999	753	1,437$20,000-129,999	194	255$30,000 and over	100	173CNR HOTELS	
Question No. 1,872-	-Mr. Mazankowski:	
1.	In light of CNR's avowed aim that it plans to rid itself of running its hotels, what does CNR plan on doing with the hotels that will not be given to the consortium of CN, Hilton, Trizec and Air Canada?
2.	For what reason were these hotels not part of the transaction?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Under the projected agreement, ownership of hotels that were not to be acquired by, but would have been leased to the consortium, would have been retained by CN.
2. Because it was to CN's advantage to retain ownership.


'STATISTICS CANADA-DELIVERY SERVICES
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In how many provinces does Statistics Canada employ the use of private couriers, private mail delivery services or bus lines for the delivery of interdepartmental mail or any mail or correspondence with outside businesses or individuals?
2.	How long has this practice been followed?
3.	What amount of money was spent in 1974 for the services of private delivery companies and what is the projected expenditure for 1975?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 2,407 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre reads as follows: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Private couriers are used in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
2.	This practice has been followed since 1967.
3.	During 1974 the amount of $98,588 was spent for services of private delivery. In 1975 we expect to require the continued use of private couriers at approximately the same amount as last year. Sources other than mail are used only to meet urgent needs when it is imperative to collect statistical data to meet high priority deadlines.


TRADE BALANCE BETWEEN CANADA AND USA SINCE 1972
Mr. Laprise: At the end of each fiscal year since 1972, what was the trade balance between Canada and USA?


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 2,431 by the hon. member for Abitibi reads as follows: Statistics Canada reports that the following were Canada's merchandise trade balances with the United States in the fiscal years
6606

June 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
ending March 31: 1972/73, $1,080 million surplus; 1973/74, $223 million surplus; 1974/75, $194 million deficit.
Note: However, the United States-Canada Trade Statistics Committee, composed of trade statisticians from the two countries, has reconciled difference between the bilateral trade figures published by Statistics Canada and by the U.S. Census Bureau in order to arrive at mutually accepted measures of the trade balance according to a consistent conceptual framework. These reconciled figures are available for calendar years only. For the calendar years 1972 and 1973 Statistics Canada reported Canadian surpluses of $1.1 billion and $0.6 billion respectively, while the Committee's reconciled figures for these years are $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion respectively. An estimate for 1974 will be available later in May.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	For the period January 1, 1973 to date, by month, how much money was spent by the government in general and the Metric Commission in particular, on advertising all aspects of Metric Conversion?
2.	In each case (a) by name and location, which individuals or companies handled such advertising (b) how was the money disbursed in (i) print (ii) radio (iii) television (iv) other?
3.	For the same period, by month, name and location, which individuals, companies and/or departments were employed as consultants?
4.	In each case, what was the (a) financial or other remuneration given for services (b) n'ature of sucb services (c) time involved in giving such services?
Return tabled.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to a starred question that has been on the order paper since March 4 this year. I am aware that there is no requirement under Standing Order 39 for any new treatment of questions posed to the treasury benches. There is, nevertheless, a long-standing tradition in this House that starred questions indicate urgency in the minds of the hon. members posing them. It is three months since this question was placed on the order paper. I am totally satisfied with the competence of the public servants involved to prepare an answer quickly for the minister, and I should like an assurance from the parliamentary secretary that the matter will be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that 25 motions have been filed at the report stage of this bill. This gives rise to a number of considerations in terms of grouping, procedural acceptability, discussion and voting. After some consideration and preliminary examination at least, and subject to whatever comments may be made during the course of consideration, it is the view of the Chair that motions Nos. 1 to 5 do not seem to pose any procedural problems on the face of it; neither do they lend themselves particularly to grouping for discussion. Accordingly, it would be the intention of the Chair to call motions Nos. 1 to 5 individually.
There was a question in respect of motion No. 1 concerning the addition by that motion of a new concept in the bill, adding what is essentially a definition section by the inclusion of another term, "parliamentary committee". Because of the rather restrictive nature of the particular section and its restricted application, it really does not fall within the objection of attempting to amend the entire bill by way of changing the definition. Since the committee or boards or commissions referred to in that section are only there as a source of inspiration to the director in terms of his considerations about competition, it would appear to the Chair that the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the hon. member who proposed the motion in order that he might have an opportunity to have the concept discussed.
Similarly, motion No. 7 appears to amend the penalty provisions of the bill itself. That gives me some concern because clause 14 of the bill amends or repeals certain provisions of paragraphs 32(l)(a) to (d) of the original statute, the Combines Investigation Act. Clause 14 of the bill does not amend the actual penalty section. Having repealed and replaced the subsections which define the offence, the provisions of the bill do not go on to repeal or in any way to amend that part of the statute having to do with the actual imposition of the penalty for an indictable offence.
On the other hand, since the amendment set out in clause 14 of the bill seeks to amend the very definitions of offences in relation to the sections involved, it certainly seems to the Chair, after consideration, that although the amendment proposed as motion No. 7 may give rise to some concern it does not go beyond what is ordinarily involved in an amendment and, since the amending statute has redefined the very offences with which the act is concerned, it ought to be open to a member to suggest that
June 10, 1975

the same clause ought to be further amended by changing the penalty.
If it were not for that connection it would be easy to argue that since clause 14 does not amend the penalty itself, the hon. member ought not to be able to propose a report stage amendment which has that effect because he is going beyond the amending bill and amending the original statute. However, the connection seems to be obviously clear, in that the redefinition is attempted by the amending statute; therefore the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the member who seeks to propose that amendment as motion No. 7. Accordingly, motions 1 to 5 and motion No. 7 appear to be suitable for consideration by the House.
Motion No. 6 appears to suggest an alteration in the basic legislative process, in that it suggests that certain aspects of the legislation ought to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of some sort of reference. I must confess that there is serious reservation as to whether the regular legislative process of this House ought to be subject to that sort of process as suggested by the amendment. Accordingly, the Chair wishes to reserve its decision on motion No. 6, which together with motion 24 gives the Chair some concern. I wonder if we could reserve consideration of those motions until we have finished out other proceedings, in order that hon. members on both sides of the House may have an opportunity to discuss them and make their representations. The Chair could then consider those questions later on in this stage.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if Your Honour is now ruling that motions should be considered in groups, without inviting comments from the House. I have very serious reservations on a number of things, including any suggestion that may be made about grouping, for discussion, particular amendments, amendments which we first saw this morning upon publication of the notice paper. I refuse to accept what the government has done. These were all clauses-am I to be silenced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am coming to the remarks I have to make about grouping amendments for discussion. After that I will hear the hon. member for Edmonton West; that is, I will hear him after I have dealt with all the motions that are on the order paper at present.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was wondering if Your Honour was going to make a ruling and if I am to be precluded from saying anything.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I am giving some preliminary indications, having made a cursory examination of these motions. I wish to make a preliminary suggestion about the procedural acceptability of motions, and after that a suggestion about the grouping of the amendments for discussion. However, in every case the Chair is open to receive comments and contributions of hon. members and will listen to any arguments they wish to raise about the procedural acceptability of motions, or on their grouping for discussion and also on the subject of voting, which may give us some difficulty.
Combines Investigation Act
Having indicated some basic reservations with respect to motion No. 6, the Chair suggests that consideration of that motion should be reserved until later in our proceedings. Motions 8, 9, 12 to 17 inclusive, 19, 22 and 25 all deal with penalties. Accordingly, the Chair suggests that they be grouped together for discussion only. Unless there is some indication that the House is favourably disposed to voting on groups of motions, and consent might be given for that, it seems to the Chair that the motions ought to be voted on seriatim as consideration of them arises. The remaining motions, with the exception of motion No. 24, appear to be acceptable and, again, ought to be taken one at a time. They do not seem to lend themselves to grouping. They would be discussed separately and voted on separately.
Motion No. 24 poses some difficulties in that it refers to the provisions of section 31 of the original act, which is not touched upon in the amending bill and, furthermore, proposes penalties which in the opinion of the Chair are not in any way germane to clause 22 of the bill which the motion seeks to amend. Accordingly, the Chair has some reservations about motions 6 and 24 and suggests that their procedural acceptability be discussed later in our proceedings after members on both sides have had an opportunity to give them more consideration.
The last subject to be considered is that of voting. If hon. members seek recorded divisions during the course of today's discussion, there could be as many as 15 divisions. The Chair is concerned if there is a suggestion that many divisions may take place within a short space of time. If it is agreed that divisions are to be deferred, the Chair suggests that after we have accumulated five divisions, or a number close to five, we should, when convenient, interrupt the proceedings, take the recorded division, clear the slate, so to speak, and then carry on with the report stage proceedings. If hon. members wish to make any comments on the suggestions of the Chair, I will be pleased to receive them now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I essentially agree with a great deal of what you have said. I am not prepared to comment on your decision to reserve judgment on the two motions Your Honour mentioned. There is one point I should like to make. There is an easy way to look at many of these amendments which provide for substitutions of penalty. Unfortunately, the minister has not gone through the act and we are going to get part V penalties which will be much lighter than other penalties. We are going to get a severe onslaught of penalties, so to speak-I wish the minister would listen to this point- and I find this totally unfair.
The committee sat and received amendments from the minister in December. Those were to be essentially the basic amendments. They were numerous. Some of them amended penalties. Then there were representations from the public, but not as to the severity of penalties. There were some 16 or 17 meetings for clause by clause study, and not once did the minister advert to the inadequacy or otherwise of penalties. The committee accepted the bill a week ago, but the first time we saw that the minister had changed his mind about penalties in sections 36 to 39 essentially was this morning when the notice paper was received.
29576-5'/2

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
There is a fundamental change in principle; it is not merely a question of saying the penalty shall be $5,000 or $10,000. There is a great deal of addition. Imprisonment penalties have been increased, and there is much that can be said about importing criminality into what is essentially an economic bill, particularly about importing very severe, new penalties of imprisonment. I, for one, do not feel that the government is being fair with the House and these amendments should not be grouped together.
I would say that while there might not be a call for separate divisions, there certainly ought to be separate discussions, because the offences are not the same but the penalties are the same. They are barbarous in the extreme and I feel we should separate them for discussion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the admissibility of some of the amendments which have been proposed. Your Honour has reserved your position with respect to motions Nos. 6 and 24. On examination, other of these proposed amendments seem to us to raise doubts as to their admissibility at this stage. Motion No. 2 seeks to provide for the undertaking of class action by the federal government. There is no mention of this kind of action anywhere in the bill. In our judgment, therefore, it is very doubtful that the amendment is relevant to or within the scope of the bill.
Motion No. 3 seeks to give authority for the governmental control of the supply of goods, a power that is not dealt with in the bill. It seems to us, therefore, the amendment is irrelevant to and beyond the scope of the bill.
Motion No. 5 is a difficult one to reach a judgment on, as I suppose are many of them. In our submission, this one raises particularly difficult problems. It seeks to extend the definition of "affiliated" to include businesses that have a contractual relationship concerning trade marks or trade names. If one considers that it merely extends the definition, it would be relevant and in order. However, there is no mention in this part of the bill of the use of trade marks or trade names. One could argue, therefore, that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and is out of order. I do not press this with the same vigour as I do some of the other objections.
Motion No. 7 proposes a penalty for offences which are described in the bill. However, at this point the bill does not deal with penalties; therefore, any amendment that deals with penalties at this point is, in our judgment, irrelevant to and beyond the scope of the bill.
Motion No. 10 also raises doubts. It seeks to add a new offence concerning loss leaders to the list of offences of pricing policy. There is no other mention in the bill of loss leaders. We doubt its relevancy on that ground. It can also be argued that loss leaders are concerned more with advertising than pricing. Your Honour might wish to consider this point. I do not press it as vigorously as I do others.
Similarly, with motion No. 11. Most of the provisions of this motion, one could argue, are really elaborations of the provisions of the earlier sections of the clause, although it is a somewhat tenuous argument. The last subparagraph of the amendment, however, seems to us to settle the

question. It brings in totally new material and does it in an improper manner. The last part does not concern advertising at all; it concerns standards or packaging and, therefore, seems to us to be irrelevant to the bill.
We also have some doubts about motion No. 20 because it brings in matters that do not appear in the bill; therefore, it makes the amendment irrelevant to and beyond the scope of the bill. I submit these points for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say, for the guidance of hon. members, that perhaps it would be preferable that individual discussion of clauses which might have some question about them ought to be directed to the occupant of the Chair at that time. It would be impossible to proceed if we were to make a blanket ruling at this time on the basis of arguments that exist at the present time. In addition, it would tend to limit the possibility of argument that might come out of discussion. To attempt to make a definitive ruling of procedural acceptability at this stage would tend to eliminate the possibility, during the course of the explanation of the clause, of any questions, discussion and debate which might come to light if there is a procedural problem at that time.
My intention was to indicate in a preliminary way that, having examined the amendments, the Chair was prepared to call them and to put them, and if in individual cases there was argument as to procedural acceptability, that would be done at the beginning of the discussion on each amendment. Is that agreeable?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, what you have just now said is quite acceptable. Indeed, prior to the intervention by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), my intention was to limit my comment to about one sentence. It was my intention to say that we have considered carefully the preliminary comments you have made from the chair. We find, for the most part, they are acceptable.
The only case where Your Honour has said something we might want to argue about is with regard to motion No. 24. Even with respect to that one, Your Honour said that the argument could be heard later. We shall abide by that. Otherwise, we felt that your rulings were wise, as they always are from the chair. We also feel that the proposition to group a number for one debate, albeit with separate votes, is well taken.
I must say, now, that I object to the objections being raised by the President of the Privy Council with regard to motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 20. In accordance with the proposal Your Honour just now made, we will be prepared to argue in support of your view that these are procedurally acceptable, if the objections from across the way persist.


Mr. Speaker:: All parties having been forewarned about the considerations involved, I might say there is one exception to this process. That is with respect to the objection raised to motion No. 7. Perhaps it is best that that should promote vigorous discussion. I did give an indication that we had given some thought to the fact it attempts to amend the penalty provision rather than amending the definition of the offences themselves. That
June 10, 1975

would seem to make a connection with the amending statute. However, there is the possibility of arguing, as has been put forward, that since the amending statute does not specifically amend that clause, there should be some discussion about whether that is procedurally acceptable.
In any event, like all other clauses, the discussion on the procedural acceptability ought to be left until we call the amendments one at a time. Perhaps we could begin by calling motion No. 1 at the present time.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-2, an Act 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 amended in clause 9 by striking out line 18 on page 9 and substituting therefor "mission of inquiry or a parliamentary committee charged with any such".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to broaden the groups which have a right to information and have a right of access to information presented to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which will be set up under this bill. As the bill now stands, the definition of "federal board, commission or other tribunal" is as follows:
For the purposes of this section, "federal board, commission or other tribunal" means any board, commission, tribunal or person who is expressly charged by or pursuant to an enactment of parliament with the responsibility of making decisions or recommendations related directly or indirectly to the production, supply, acquisition or distribution of a product and includes an ad hoc commission of inquiry charged with any such responsibility but does not include a court."
I am very concerned about the fact that a parliamentary committee would not be privy to evidence, material or information from the director of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It seems to me that members of parliament, because of the role they play, because of the fact they are the voice of the people, have a responsibility and a right to hear evidence and hold hearings on any matters which may come before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission as set out in the act. With this in mind, I move my amendment so that the scope of this particular clause may be broadened and in the hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member seeks here to clothe a parliamentary committee with some sort of judicial function. The whole of subclause (2) which appears on page 9, subject to the amendment, must be read subject to subparagraph (1), and subparagraph (1) imposes upon the director of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission the responsibility, upon request by the federal board or commission or other tribunal-and a parliamentary committee is not a tribunal-to make representations and, in effect, to act as a prosecutor in front of that board.
It is all very well for a parliamentary committee to conduct examinations and to make recommendations, but I have yet to see any standing committee or special committee of this House, or any joint committee of parliament being clothed with judicial attributes. In other words, I have yet to see a committee given the power for the production, supply, acquisition and distribution of a product. To that extent, I find that the amendment goes far
Combines Investigation Act
beyond what I would like to see in any statute. To my mind, there is complete confusion here as between the judicial or investigatory function and the legislative or advisory function, and as far as I am concerned, in our parliamentary system there should be such a distinction and we should resist any attempt to give parliamentary committees a sort of flying squad role. To that extent, I do not favour the amendment.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I entirely agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I do not feel this amendment adds much to the act in any case, since at all event, a committee can always summon a departmental official. I think this definition of boards, commissions or high tribunals does not really apply to a parliamentary committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Motion No. 1 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-2, an act 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 amended in Clause 12 by adding thereto, immediately after line 31 on page 13 the following subsections:
"(5) The Attorney General of Canada, for the benefit of any persons or class of persons who have suffered loss or damage, or who allege that they have suffered loss or damage, as a result of
(a)	conduct that is contrary to any provision of part V, or
(b)	the failure of any person, or persons, to comply with an order
of the commission or a court under this act,
shall be empowered to commence and maintain any action or proceeding on their behalf, as provided in subsection (1).
(6) Any judgment in an action maintained as a class action under subsection (5), whether or not favourable to that class, shall include and describe those whom the court finds to be members of that class."


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the comments the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) made earlier in connection with this amendment. It seeks to provide for the undertaking of class actions by the federal government. Since there is no mention of this kind of action anywhere in the bill, it is doubtful, in my opinion, whether the amendment is rele-

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
vant to or within the scope of the measure before us. I suggest it is out of order for that reason; it goes beyond the scope of the bill and the royal recommendation involved.


John R. Rodriguez: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill outlines in part V various offences against consumers. It also provides a measure of protection for small entrepreneurs and small businessmen. In addition, it provides that certain actions may be taken by individuals to obtain justice in the civil courts. That is in section 31.1. All I have done in this amendment is extend the right to take such action from one individual to groups of individuals. The bill recognizes the right of individuals to take action. I have extended it, logically, one step further.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, without going into the merits of the amendment, I would say that it is perfectly in order from a procedural point of view. This matter was raised in the committee, though in a different form; the chairman considered this particular point and agreed that the amendment was in order. Obviously, the parliamentary secretary was not present during the committee hearings or he would not have alleged, in effect, that the chairman of the committee, who is a very learned chairman, had misdirected its proceedings. There was no real question raised at that time as to the admissibility of the amendment; it was debated and the matter was finally decided on its merits. I suggest, with the greatest deference, that this is how the matter should now be dealt with in this chamber.
The type of action proposed comes after provision for recovery of damages, limitation as to costs, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and so on. It seems perfectly correct, in sequence, that one should consider this point. Once the amendment was in, we could then determine freely whether a class action was a remedy that should or should not be incorporated within the statute at this time. From a procedural point of view, I see nothing wrong with the amendment.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I must say I am disappointed that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) should bother to raise this point of order in view of his well known expertise regarding the rules of the House. I think there is very little doubt, with the greatest respect, that this amendment is in order. When one looks at the proposed amendment to the act that the minister has introduced, it specifically provides a remedy in civil damages to any person affected by violations of the act. Section 31.1 provides:
Any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of
(a) conduct that Is contrary to any provision of part V-
What the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) seeks to do is to extend that remedy, instead of to an individual person, to more than one person. That is clearly related to the act and is within the general intention of the minister in bringing forth amendments to the legislation. It would indeed be a surprising ruling, Mr. Speaker, to find this kind of amendment to be out of order, because this would very severely limit the opposition in the future in regard to any kind of change they wished to make to amendments to legislation proposed by the government.
[Mr. Reid.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it seems to me that the Chair's original reaction to this motion is the one that should stand. Mr. Speaker gave us a preliminary survey of all the amendments and this one was included among those that he felt were in order. It strikes me that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and his parliamentary secretary are taking the view that if some words or clauses are being added which were not in the amending bill, they must be new and foreign to the bill and therefore out of order.
I make the point that has been made by the other three members who have spoken on this side of the House, that what is proposed in this amendment is an addition to something the minister has put before us in this very bill. To allege that these additional clauses are an amendment to the act behind the bill is, I think, a mistake. They are a germane addition to the bill before the House, and I think the original suggestion that this amendment is in order should stand.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a few brief comments, I was amazed by what my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that great purist when it comes to royal recommendations, said. I am wondering whether or not this does purport to give leave to the attorney general to bring an action on behalf of a class of persons. One can take judicial notice of the fact that bringing an action in court at this time in our economic history, with the horrible inflation that the government has perpetrated upon us, is a matter of considerable expense. Witnesses have to be called and counsel have to be engaged.
I will not express myself as to whether I am in sympathy with the argument that there should be class actions or should not be class actions, but in view of the fact that even the Attorney General of Canada, vast as his powers are, cannot engage in litigation expenditure of money and without a royal recommendation permitting it, I wonder whether this is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The Chair thanks hon. members for their contributions to the debate on the procedural acceptability of motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) quite correctly referred to the question whether or not this motion does affect the royal recommendation. That question has been looked into by the Chair, and the Chair is satisfied that it does not affect the royal recommendation in any way.
That point having been cleared away, we are left with the argument made by the parliamentary secretary regarding relevancy. It seems to me that no clear argument has been made that the motion is not relevant. There is perhaps some question about it, but it is not apparent. That being so, there is no doubt in the mind of the Chair that if any doubt does exist, it should be exercised in favour of the mover of the motion. Therefore, the ruling of the Chair is that from a procedural standpoint motion No. 2 is acceptable.
June 10, 1975


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-2 has another name; it is called the competition bill. It is a bill by which the government has attempted, as they say, to encourage competition in the marketplace. I have always expressed the opinion that it is rather strange that in the free enterprise system one has to legislate corporations into competing. One would have thought that with a system like this, which they say they have built on, corporations would be scrambling madly over each other in an attempt to compete and to make sure that free enterprise continues to exist and to grow.
This competition bill has been around since 1971. When it was introduced in that year, lo and behold, a claque of very well-heeled corporate leaders got together and created such a furore that somehow or other the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs emasculated or suspended the bill at that time. It has been in a state of suspended animation since 1971.
I should like to refer to what the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who left or was forced out of the cabinet in 1974, said in committee when the committee was studying this bill. As reported in issue No. 45 of the committee report dated May 8, he said:
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to another area. Again I want to place on the record of this committee that in February, 1974, I stated, speaking then as minister, that it was my intention that this bill, by the time it was before the House for third reading, for final decision, had words in it that would enable the right to sue for damages and provide the exercise through class or representative actions. I regret very much that the government has not yet offered to add such words to this bill to achieve this purpose ...
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think that having the right to have class actions in this bill is the logical, appropriate and timely place to do it. This bill creates the right to sue for damages for breach of the Combines Investigation Act.
That is what the former minister said in committee when referring to a statement he had made in February, 1974. More recently in history, the present minister, that darling of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is quoted in the Globe and Mail of January 28, 1975, as saying in Vancouver, British Columbia, that "we think in order to fully protect the consumer that the class action should be allowed".
What did the minister have to say when the matter was raised in committee? One would have thought, in view of all the time that had elapsed, that the government would have been able to study and report upon those jurisdictions, countries and states that have class actions. One would have thought the minister would do his homework and that the government would do some research into the subject of class actions, where they have been established and what the results were. However, I guess they have not done so. Indeed, the minister said in committee:
I submit to the members of the Committee that the proposed amendment by Mr. Rodriguez does not satisfy me fully. I also submit that the class action device can be used in circumstances other than the case that is interesting us, the case respecting the Combines Investigation Act.
In this particular bill, the minister and the government have broadened the offences under the act in respect of certain practices in the marketplace. The minister says he is the minister of consumer affairs. If he is the minister of
Combines Investigation Act
consumer affairs, one would assume he has the interests of the consumers at heart. Indeed, some of the amendments to this act would indicate some interest in the consumers. For example, the minister is outlawing double-picketing, pyramid selling, bid-rigging, and he is certainly broadening the false advertising section of the act.
In respect of all these practices he has argued that they are in the interests of the consumer. I have no quarrel with that; he is quite right. They are practices, as well as others in respect of which I have amendments, which Mrs. Plumptre in her report to this government, to this House and to the people of Canada, referred to as common practices which take from the pockets of the working class people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no, that's not so.


John R. Rodriguez: Indeed, this does a lot to escalate inflation in respect of the consumers in this country. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) say this is not so. It is so, because every nickel and dime that is added to the purchase price for the consumer in this country puts pressure on him when negotiation time between employer and employee rolls around.
One would think that in a bill such as this, which expands the opportunity for the consumer to be protected, the minister would in fact go further than just permitting the individual consumer to bring an action against a company. We have the classic case in point regarding the owners of Firenza cars. These people were all taken to the cleaners in respect of this car which did not perform in the manner for which it was designed, advertised and touted to perform. Against whom would the individual have brought an action? He would have had to bring the action against that "impoverished" company, General Motors. Can you imagine an individual Canadian bringing an action on his own against General Motors and obtaining justice within 100 years? The idea boggles the mind.
That is the kind of thing that scandalizes the consumers of this country. On the one hand, the minister talks about building in some protection for the consumers. The most effective manner in which he could show how serious he is about protecting consumers is by putting class action into his legislation.
We do not want to have a punitive society that wants to punish, punish, punish. Surely we want people who, because of the implications of their actions, will obey what we consider as parliamentarians to be fair and just regulations in dealing with consumers. One of the most effective ways of having large corporations obey the regulations is to provide them with the knowledge that the consumers have the alternative, under the legislation of this country, of bringing a class action.
We had some other interesting comments in the committee. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) said that under certain circumstances he would be quite prepared to support this question of class action. He said:
I do suggest that the minister look at the Saskatchewan act where the consumer class action is permitted if it is processed through the attorney general, that is, that the attorney general of the province determines whether the class action is just a frivolous and vexatious one that will be any use to the consumer. I think I could support that kind of class action possibility immediately-

June 10,1975
Combines Investigation Act
1 gave the government the opportunity. I took the class action legislation of Saskatchewan and, with a few changes, put it into the amendment in exactly the same form. There was concern expressed by Conservative members of the committee to the effect that we would have bounty hunting by small groups of unscrupulous consumers getting together with an unscrupulous lawyer or lawyers.


An hon. Member:: There are no such things.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) suggests there are no such things as unscrupulous lawyers who would get together with consumers and take a large corporation to the cleaners. I can understand the concern of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for Edmonton West in that regard; this matter comes within their constituencies.
If you placed this kind of amendment on the statute books, the effect would be that the Attorney General of Canada would determine which actions were legitimate, and it seems to me that would be a sufficient and good screening. Surely no one in this House could argue the legitimacy of that kind of thing. The adoption of this suggestion would indicate the government's sincerity in moving with some determination and integrity in this whole area.
Many of the speakers in committee opposed class action. It is not enough for members to get up and say that in principle they are in favour of class action and they will put it into part II of the anti-combines legislation. It took us from 1971 to 1975 to get this part I before the House at report stage. Can you imagine how much longer it will take for part II to see the light of day? Indeed, part II will be even more technical, as I am sure the minister will say in a day or two. He will say that part II will deal with mergers and combines, etc. If we thought we saw a lot of lobbying by corporations in respect of part I of this bill, imagine the lobbying we will see in respect of part II.
If the minister has any kind of leadership aspirations in his party, now is the time to show leadership. He is creating an image and trying to be a friend of the consumer, but he cannot escape the reality of this situation. The minister is faced with an amendment that will give him an opportunity to provide some protection for consumers as a class or a group. Much was said in the committee in criticism of class action. I want to bring to the attention of the House the comments of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. He said a very surprising thing on this particular part. This is why I said earlier that the corporate sector is rightfully his constituency, and I do not want to take that away from him. In the discussion in committee on class action, the hon. member said, and it is very revealing:
I think we miss this point sometimes. Really what we are deciding when we decide on a class action, is what right have one or more individuals in a group to make a claim against all consumers in this country, or the taxpayers of the country, concerning what they think is a legitimate claim, be it a damage or some other type of retribution.
The fault lies not with a group of consumers who may wish to get together in order to bring an action against a corporation. Surely such people are victimized. In respect

of the Firenza example, the people who purchased those vehicles did so in good faith. They went to their General Motors dealers and purchased a Firenza. They were entitled to have certain expectations, such as that the car would run for a week without breaking down, especially when it had been in the garage three times in the previous week. Surely those are not great expectations when one has spent $5,000 or $6,000 for a car. Yet when these people were faced with problems in respect of this vehicle, the company refused to take back the vehicle and refused to refund their money.
Surely there is government responsibility involved in such cases, or responsibility on the part of those who are elected by the people to ensure that their interests are protected, because we operate at a level at which they have no power. Surely we should be the ones responsible for that kind of decision-making.
In committee we were told about the experience in the United States. A great deal was made about calling on the experience of the United States in respect of class action. I do not live in the United States and I could not care less what they do in terms of legislation respecting consumers. They have to answer to their constituents. The people in government in the United States must answer to the voters in the United States. What I and, I am sure, many members of this House are concerned about is how we legislate in this parliament in terms of the Canadian people. In committee, much was said about the experience in the United States and the fact that such a system did not work there and therefore it would not work in Canada. As I have said, I could not give two farthings for the legislation the United States legislators pass in respect of their consumers.
It is interesting to note that indeed United States' citizens take advantage of class action. There have been prosecutions under the class action legislation in the United States. The latest example is the class action being used by the crew of the Mayaguez against the captain. It involves the fact that the captain directed the ship too close to Cambodian waters and therefore endangered the crew, created stress among the crew and resulted in their incarceration.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a frivolous example.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who claims to be the great defender of the consumer, says that is a frivolous example. The point I am making, for the benefit of the hon. member for St. John's EasT- is that in fact in the United States class action is used as seen fit by the people. That is wnat the hon. gentleman should keep in mind. Yet in committee all these red herrings are dragged out about what is done in the United States. I am not interested. What I am interested in is the way in which we proceed in Canada in respect of class actions.
In committee, the minister said that he could not support this amendment because the department had not done enough research. Well, class action did not just arrive when I brought in my amendment on behalf of my party. In the committee, the onus with regard to class action was placed on the members of the opposition who raised the issue. It seems to me that class action has been hanging
June 10, 1975

around for some time now, and it was the responsibility of the government to have carried out research into class action and to place before parliament legislation which effectively dealt with the rights of consumers as a group or as a collective body in an effort to obtain justice in the marketplace.
This bill would provide an opportunity for individuals to take action in an effort to obtain justice in the marketplace against a corporation or a group of corporations. I suggest that is not acceptable, because unfortunately the average Canadian is not well-heeled and cannot go through the process of a long intervention in order to obtain justice in the marketplace.
We have seen examples of rip-offs in this country. We saw the example of the sugar cartel involving the three major sugar companies in this country. They took the Canadian people to the cleaners over a period of ten years before they were found guilty under the combines legislation. They were fined $25,000 each. Now they are before the courts again. This shows how ineffective our system is. If those three sugar companies knew consumers as a group could get together and bring an action against them, I dare say we would not have to be going through this charade again in the courts in respect of the same three companies. A fine of $25,000 is a licence to fleece the Canadian people.
Every single day in the marketplace the consumers are being fleeced, while we are told that the workers created inflation. The workers are blamed for the predicament in which the government finds itself. The situation is ridiculous when one realizes that the government has had sufficient time in which to come up with proper class action legislation, which is the only true method by which to obtain justice for the small people, and I use the word "small" in terms of power-which they may hold individually.
I believe the amendment I have placed before the House is a well thought-out amendment. It would provide an opportunity for a person or group of persons to screen what may be called frivolous actions or frivolous attempts to take advantage of the system. It would place the authority in the hands of the Attorney General of Canada; he would have the power to screen intended actions. Also, on behalf of a group he would present the action against the corporation or corporations involved.
I believe this amendment is very reasonable. I do not see the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs in the House. I find this rather surprising since he pleaded with the committee to have a proper discussion on class action, and said he would be ready to come to the House and to vote for the class action amendment. I also notice that the hon. member for Mississauga is not here. He supported the concept of class action provided it followed the Saskatchewan pattern. I have used the Saskatchewan pattern in which the attorney general screens intended actions. It seems to me that these hon. gentlemen are conspicuous by their absence.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Did you ever hear of committees sitting at the same time?


John R. Rodriguez: This is a very important bill. It has been hanging around for a long time and a great deal of concern for this matter has been expressed by hon. members. Surely certain things must take priority around here, and
Combines Investigation Act
this is one of them if consumers are important. There are enough Tories to filibuster in committee, as was done with regard to Bill C-2, but now we are discussing the bill at report stage.

I think this amendment is very reasonable and certainly ought to command the support of hon. members of this House. When I was in committee I listened to a great deal of foofaraw to this effect, that by putting class actions into legislation in Canada we would be making the "poor" corporations the victims of all sorts of unprecedented, frivolous actions. I have listened, to that criticism and I have tried to answer it by putting into this amendment the provision that the Attorney General of Canada would indeed screen such actions.
In committee, we listened to the hon. member for York-Simcoe. He gave a very detailed presentation in which he said that one of the banes of our society is lack of productivity; that it was ruining Canada and what we should be doing, instead of moving against the corporations in providing class actions and creating problems for the corporations, is making smooth the way and levelling the mountains so they can compete with the world and sell their products.
I suggested in committee, and I suggest now, that one of the most serious problems facing our society is not one which operates at the economic level but one which operates at the individual human level. I mentioned an example in committee and I will mention it here because I think it is very relevant. Every time someone gets ripped off, whether he pays $5 for an umbrella which does not open, whether he puts a dime-it is now 20 cents, thanks to the Liberal government-into a pay telephone and loses it, or whether he puts a quarter into a Coke machine and loses it, he is further alienated from the system and says to himself that if that thing or that person can rip him off, he will rip them off when he gets the opportunity.
So we have this vicious cycle. If he is working in the mines, he puts a roll of toilet paper in his lunch-pail and takes it home. This also happens with light bulbs. INCO or Falconbridge will not miss two or three light bulbs; after all, they have ripped him off, so he will rip them off. This vicious cycle of animosity is building up in our people. It is one of the most dangerous trends in society.
This class action in a small way attempts to bring some level of equality and justice to consumers in the marketplace. It gives them an umbrella under which they can go into the marketplace, knowing full well that they have some protection. Small suppliers would also have the assurance that they are operating under an umbrella. I suppose it is much like the argument made for life insurance. The fact is that a small supplier expects that a dealer will deal with him in an honest and fair way. When he spends his hard earned money, he expects to receive value; he does not, and ought not to expect to be ripped off.
This is a very important amendment which should be included in any legislation which prides itself on having the consumer as its main thrust. There were all sorts of questions raised in committee in terms of cricizing the amendment and class actions. I should be specific in outlining why we want class actions and how they are to operate. In committee the minister said that there would
29S76-6

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
be no regulations accompanying this particular legislation. This amendment would empower the Attorney General of Canada to carry out an action on behalf of a group or class or persons. It is he who will determine what actions are brought, so if a group is clearly identifiable and if the action should result in a favourable judgment on their behalf, the group, being clearly identifiable, could be refunded whatever the court passes down in judgment.
I ask hon. members to consider the thrust of this bill and to view the amendment I have placed before the House with the consumers of Canada in mind. They do not have the same kind of power that corporations have when coming before the committee. The corporations trotted before the committee with their "fancy Dan" lawyers and their reports properly bound up. Some of them even took us to lunch, and we listened to their arguments while they lobbied Bill C-2 down. The one little group which came before the committee was treated with disdain. This group called itself Action Bell Canada. They were treated in an offhand manner. They did not have suits, white collars and ties or "fancy Dan" lawyers, but they were consumers who were concerned about this bill and they came before the finance committee.
There was a fight in the steering committee to even get them there, and when they did appear they were treated shabbily. I was ashamed of the performance of the committee that Friday morning. To me it seems that arguing with this group of witnesses and haranguing them was completely out of line with the purposes of the committee in examining the legislation. That is why I say that all of the representations which were made, except those made by the Consumers' Association of Canada, were made by the well-heeled corporate sector. They had done much research and they were arguing from the standpoint of their particular corporate interests. On the other hand, there were no individual consumers or consumer groups which came before the committee, probably because of lack of funds. The committee held its hearings in Ottawa, so if there was a small group of consumers prepared to come to Ottawa to make a presentation, it was financially difficult.
I point out to hon. members once again that this is a very important amendment. It states very clearly what the minister has run around the country and said in press interviews, and so on. I have been very leary of this minister ever since he said that the anti-profiteering bill was a piece of window-dressing. I have been leary about any legislation he has attempted to steer through the committee. I could go on to reveal the things he said in committee when we were prepared to toughen the punishment for infractions under the legislation. I found that the minister said one thing out of one side of his mouth, and today I see amendments with regard to punishment which are completely contrary to the assurances he gave me as a gentleman. I do not want to hold that against him because he is a nice looking fellow, and I know what his ambitions are; however, one has to keep in mind that he is not here just to serve his ambitions but to serve the interests of the consumers of Canada.

I find that it is highly illogical for him to be the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. How can he have one foot in each camp? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that we have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who stands up for farmers, and that there is a Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) who stands up for labour. Here we have a minister straddling the fence-he is for consumer affairs and for corporate affairs. No man can serve two masters, because he will love one and hate the other. I do not know which one he will hate, but I know which ones he loves; that is, the one that prevented him from putting in a class action-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I would draw to the hon. member's attention that he should address himself to the amendment, which is quite specific. We are not involved in a general debate on the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We should direct our attention to the phrases and the clauses in the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I got into the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but it does have relevance to this amendment which deals with class action. One has to be able to identify the class action that one is interested in. I submit that in the approach to this amendment on class actions, the minister has not seemed to be at all concerned about the consumers of Canada. I say to him, as I say to other members of the House, that if he is serious about consumers and would like to do something for them, he should accept this amendment and allow it to become part and parcel of consumer protection in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in anybody's mind that in discussing competition policy or amendments to the Combines Investigation Act we must obviously address ourselves to the problem of class actions and the right of any group in our society to full recourse to the courts. It is also true that this bill, which has been so eloquently referred to by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), has been around for a long time. It goes back to the report of the Economic Council of Canada on competition policy in 1969. Certainly we can trace it back to 1971. Indeed, three ministers of consumer and corporate affairs have had the rather dubious honour of piloting this bill through the House.
The hon. member who just resumed his seat has some things to say about the present minister. I am certainly not going to take my time to throw bouquets at the minister, but I will say that he has succeeded where his predecessors failed. He has brought this bill much further than the former minister or the one before that. The fact is that the bill before us, with all its faults, having been the subject of some 35 meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in all likelihood will get through the House before we adjourn for the summer recess. I say that is a feather in the cap of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
A question was raised during committee stage of the bill as a consequence of an amendment put forward by the
June 10, 1975

hon. member for Nickel Belt. That particular amendment was rejected by the committee, and in my view rightly so, because it fell far short of meeting the conditions that most of us strongly support for the principle of class action. The hon. member provided a service to the committee by moving his amendment because it gave an opportunity to address ourselves to the problem and to put on the record the views of the minister, views which had been expressed on a number of occasions in speeches across the country.
The amendment we now have from the same hon. member does not really go much further in alleviating some of the fears of the committee. We are dealing with a very complex bill and the fact that it has been around in its present form for a long time does not change that. The bill is only stage one, the first phase of the government's competition policy. In addition to the expectation of phase two, which the minister tells us is on the way and assures us will be ready within a year, we now have a royal commission. This royal commission is the first to be appointed by this government to look into the affairs of mergers, monopolies, concentrations of business and competition.
I think this parliament would be ill-advised and hasty if it were drawn into an amendment on class actions before it had an opportunity to see the full package of the government's competition policy which will be embodied in phase two, whenever it emerges. It will also have a direct relationship to the report of the royal commission when that comes out.
When this amendment was before the committee, the minister expressed his agreement with the principle of class actions and said that he was not satisfied with the experience of other jurisdictions. He referred specifically to the jurisdiction of the United States, although I personally find that of questionable value. He said:
I am not totally satisfied with the U.S. experiment and I have asked officials in my department to act actively on this. There is study taking place at present in my department by some officials and they are looking at all the aspects of the class action. It is a very complex issue and it will require very careful drafting and very serious consideration before we go to it.
I am prepared to accept that and I am prepared to accept the minister's word that he has the matter under consideration. There are other statutes which afford consumer protection and recourse to the courts which will have to be amended. I think, for example, of the Weights and Measures Act and the laws covering packaging and labelling. There would be a whole series of concomitant amendments to other statutes if we were to embody the principle of this amendment in the legislation before us. In the interests of good legislation I think it is necessary for us to think this thing through very carefully and not allow ourselves to be rushed into it.
I commend the hon. member for Nickel Belt for feeling so strongly on the subject-some of us feel just as strongly-but I would remind him that if his colleagues had supported the proposition as enthusiastically as he, perhaps we might have had action in the last parliament when this party was in a strong position to influence government policy. The fact is that they did not choose to proceed at that time.
Combines Investigation Act
In Canada we only have the experience of the province of Saskatchewan to go on. That has been of short duration, so we must look to the United States. The hon. member gave two examples. The first one strongly supported his argument-an argument that I myself advanced in committee. He quoted the case of the Firenza automobile and the fact that many hundreds of Canadians who bought this automobile were not able to take on General Motors on an individual basis. The Firenza case is probably the strongest and most compelling argument there is for class actions.
The other argument is how to protect against harassment, frivolous and irresponsible actions or unscrupulous lawyers taking advantage of the situation in order to get fat fees. I do not think it is enough to borrow from the experience of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member's proposed amendment would make it incumbent on the Attorney General of Canada to vet all class actions before they could be heard by the courts. I suggest that this could involve all kinds of difficulties. It would require the establishment of a substantial new bureaucracy to assist the attorney general in that complicated task.
Let us look for a moment at the U.S. experience. The hon. member referred to the Firenza case as a strong argument in support of his amendment. Then he referred to the case of the Mayaguez. The ship's crew are suing the captain, literally for making a' mistake in navigation. Surely no one would suggest that the captain of the ship deliberately charted his course so that the vessel would enter waters under the jurisdiction of a belligerent. There one sees an example of harassment. That action, to say the least, is frivolous and irresponsible. We must be careful to guard against situations like that.
We must not allow ourselves to rush into acceptance of this amendment. This bill despite all its faults and its positive aspects-and there are many positive aspects-is only a small part of the government's competition policy. We must remember the work of the royal commission to which I already referred.
The minister promised to introduce phase two within one year. We intend, while waiting for that bill to be introduced, to hold the minister accountable to the House and to the country for the undertaking he made in committee and in speeches across the country. He says that he has this under study, that he sympathizes with the rights of consumers as groups to take class action, that they are entitled to the protection of the law and that he hopes to bring in an amended or new, comprehensive statute which will cover all federal statutes, including the bill now before the House. He hopes that it will be effective in providing direct protection to the consumer and that we can avoid a judicial nightmare, evidence of which one can see in the United States. They are trying to extricate themselves from that situation south of the border.
We commend the hon. member for Nickel Belt for raising this issue; he has done the House a great service. But we do not feel we should rush into acceptance of his amendment. The amendment was hastily conceived by the NDP and brought forward with great sincerity by the hon.
29576-6%

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
member for Nickel Belt. As legislators, as members of parliament, we must give the minister the opportunity to study the matter. He says that he will. Let us give him the opportunity, after having made those studies, to bring forward good law which will provide consumers with sound protection, allow them to take class action and provide protection against harassment and irresponsible actions.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for his worth-while amendment. I am surprised at the comments of the noted consumer advocate from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I was surprised by what he said about class action, and particularly about frivolity. I ask the hon. member for St. John's East to look again at motion No. 2. It does not go as far as I would go. I suppose I should congratulate the hon. member for Nickel Belt for his reserve, caution and good judgment. As I say, I would have gone further. His is a pretty cautious amendment. It says that it is up to the Attorney General of Canada to handle cases of class action. That is what it involves.
When the hon. member for St. John's East argued vigorously-on both sides of the question, I might add-about frivolous actions, he avoided two telling points. First, the amendment says that the Attorney General of Canada must judge when to commence an action. This, surely, excludes all suggestions of frivolity, especially when you consider the non-frivolous Attorney General we now have. Second, lawyers who commence an unsuccessful action which is held as frivolous, personally pay the costs of that action. In a class action you cannot assess costs against the class; costs are assessed only against lawyers either brave or stupid enough to begin a class action. Therefore, the two points raised by the hon. member for St. John's East are met by the provisions of the motion as courts award costs against lawyers who begin a frivolous action. As I say, if the court deems an action to be frivolous, it will assess costs against the lawyers themselves.
Clearly, when we establish judicial procedures for class action we must make sure that the merits of the case can be determined at a pre-trial hearing. Such procedure would result in more adequate disposition of cases. For too long we have avoided allowing public wrongs to be righted by the courts. For too long we have been content to deal with the individual claimant but not with the whole class of claimants.
It can be said that consumers as a class suffer. When you, as an individual, buy a defective Toastmaster for which you paid 20 per cent or 30 per cent too much because of fraud or conspiracy, you are not going to sue the manufacturer. There is no reason why you should; the costs are too great. Therefore, some manufacturers are getting away with murder. So long as there is no provision for class action, it is more profitable for a manufacturer to breach the provisions of the act than not to breach them. Also, we reward vendors with excessive profits. Surely penalties provided in the legislation should take these facts into account.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt has attempted to increase penalties, and I congratulate him. Possibly- indeed, probably-the public sustains damages running

into many hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate wrongdoing. Let me give an example. Two years ago the British Columbia court fined the cement industry about $460,000. It fined the prime movers in the cement industry. Some major federal government construction projects had been undertaken in which cement was used. The cement conspiracy had gone on for some 14 years. It appeared that all the cement that had been poured in British Columbia had been artificially raised in price by virtue of the conspiracy. Little of the cement used in British Columbia was not involved in the conspiracy, according to the finding of the court.
The fine imposed was, I think, $426,000, but no economic impact study has been done to determine by how much the public had been bilked in those 14 years. Obviously, the sum was substantial. My point is this: this legislation will not cover such a situation unless we allow individuals as a class to right that sort of wrong. We no longer live in a pre-industrial society as so often these laws seem to reflect. The amount of public wrong is never, or rarely, reflected in the penalties contained within a statute unless you allow that class to have its day in court so the court can properly assess the damage done.
I am pleased to note the minister has said on several occasions that he is giving serious consideration to this subject. I am pleased he has not rejected the idea of class actions. One of the problems in our country has not been merely legislative, but a lack of imagination in terms of the legal profession. Many times class actions can be started under our legal rules, but because of the caution and conservatism of the legal profession they rarely decide to embark upon departures in legal procedure. Too often we allow our American friends to embark upon new areas in terms of class action.
The lack of a class action section to a large extent renders this bill meaningless. I wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. Lang) asking what could be done in the cement case. His response, in terms of that particular problem, the great loss that the Canadian public suffered as a result of the cement conspiracy, was:
There is little or no authority on the liability of trade conspirators to third parties who may be affected by their operations and, to the best of my knowledge, no such action has ever been brought in Canada.
That is in respect of third parties. I congratulate the minister for providing in clause 12 that individual actions may be commenced as a result of a loss. That is certainly a forward step. However, the real, major losses to a society are not the ones that can be identified in the $100,000 range; they are the massive profits accumulated as a result of shoddy goods, shoddy merchandise and slick sales practices where the public has no redress in terms of its position in court. As a lawyer, I regret seeing the court system being avoided when we have ample precedent in the United States and England for commencing class actions by those who suffer as a result of the fraud and illegal activity of others.
There is no doubt that it pays to be dishonest. Under this legislation it will continue to pay to be dishonest until the House is ready to accept this most reasonable amend-
June 10, 1975

ment to permit class actions. I am somewhat taken aback at my colleague's action in leaving it in the hands of the attorney general. I know the practice in Saskatchewan. The attorney general has similar legislation but very rarely, if ever, commences a class action. I much prefer leaving it to my colleagues in the legal profession to commence this kind of action. I can assure the hon. member for St. John's East they will not be frivolous actions.
Ralph Nader, an individual in the United States, promoted the class action to a level in which the companies now operating in the United States have had a very careful look at the way they manufacture cars. That is a result of the class actions taken by Mr. Nader and his group. Environmental damage is now being corrected to some extent as a result of the class actions by Mr. Nader. Ample precedent is before us in the United States. We should not reject everything that comes from that country. It is one of the most forward and progressive groups using a progressive legal technique to redress what are becoming massive wrongs in our society because of the bigness of business and the mass-buying public.
That is all I want to say at this time. I strongly recommend that this amendment be accepted.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the reasons put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in support of the amendment dealing specifically with class action. There are some of his arguments that I should like to point out because they do not seem to do justice to the discussions held in committee.
First of all, it is objectionable to maintain, as the hon. member did, that since 1971 the government has failed to take any action in support of class action. As a matter of fact, the bill before us today for third reading was tabled in the House in 1971 and it is being considered for the fourth time. If the approval of class action is being discussed in the second phase of the government policy regarding consumer protection, it is not because the government is lagging behind, but rather because, due to particular circumstances, we had to postpone this debate until today.
I am not trying to decide who is responsible among the members of this House for the delay in passing this bill. I believe those who were present at that time can decide by themselves who is responsible. To claim, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt did, that it is because of the government's carelessness that we are not considering today a bill on class action is unacceptable.
Moreover, I should also like to remind the House that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), last fall, during a visit to western Canada, emphatically stated to the Canadian people that his department was working on the definition of the main features of a bill to define class action. The Canadian press in particular echoed the minister's statement and as the hon. member for Nickel Belt pointed out, I do not think the minister's image has been damaged that much at this time in the eyes of the consumers. On the contrary, since his appointment, the minister has taken action many
Combines Investigation Act
times in support of Canadian consumer groups, like the Consumers' Association of Canada or the ACEFs. All those groups benefited by the full support and interest of the minister, they even received quite considerable grants from his department, and I do not think the minister's image has been damaged at this point to the extent that we may question his ability to protect the interests of consumers.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall some of the things the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said about the very nature of class action. Like him, Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer myself, and I had the opportunity during the committee proceedings to look somewhat more fully into this matter of class action. I realize on reading the amendment moved by my hon. colleague that he overlooks three very important aspects of class action.
The first of those aspects is the procedure of initiating a class action as such. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to pass the amendment as proposed, we simply could not proceed because the procedural implications of a class action are much more complex than those suggested by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). On the other hand, he did not deal at all with the division of the award. As you know, when an award is made by the court following a complaint lodged by means of a class action, the court must try to divide the award among all those represented in the class action. Well, the division of the award involves very complex principles of distribution overlooked in the amendment moved by my hon. colleague.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out a specific difficulty with this type of action under a federative system. Indeed, class action is not only an action designed to protect the consumer. However, it is an action that exists in the whole area of education. It is also an action that is open in bankruptcy cases. Indeed, as you know, this House has before it a bill to consolidate the bankruptcy act and those affected by bankruptcy-the Canadian people. Consumers affected by bankruptcy may also petition the court by way of class action.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment as proposed allows us to define once again the priority that we, as a government, give to class action, but I do not think it is sufficiently developed to allow us in the final analysis to take immediate steps in order to provide the increased protection to Canadian consumers that the hon. member wants this House to ensure, which we could not do today at any rate if the amendment were to be debated as proposed. So I hope this amendment will be deferred and that in the second phase of the government policy respecting consumer protection, we will have the opportunity to reconsider this bill as early as possible. However, I would point out to my colleague, not without irony, that before proceeding with that discussion, we shall have to dispose of this bill once and for all with respect to the amendments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I had the opportunity to speak to the admissibility of this motion. I said that I wished to consid-

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
er the merits of the proposal. There was debate in the committee on the subject of class actions, and lately we have been able to read a good deal on this topic. I am afraid, though, that the public has been led down the garden path when it comes to the type of relief which may be granted as a result of class actions. This was to have been the means of salvation, the ultimate protector of the public interest.
I must say I am more concerned that the public should really be protected in more ways than one. Class actions, the right of recovery and the right of protection have been used as facile phrases. I think all of us should consider the responsibilities of manufacturers when offences against the public are committed; there must be some means of controlling these companies and some means of compensating those who have suffered. One of the means which has been suggested is the class action. It is pointed out that in the United States class actions are common. But I wonder whether we should incorporate in the bill before us an amendment to provide for the protection and the compensation of consumers beyond that which is already provided in the law. In the law of contract governing the sale of an automobile, for instance, breach of warranty is actionable and I, as a lawyer, have had occasion to sue motor companies and recover money paid by the individual concerned for a defective motor or something of that nature.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thirty dollars!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This does not necessarily go far enough. If hon. members would only be patient and listen, they might see that there is, undoubtedly, or that there has to be, undoubtedly, a way of protecting the consumer, and a better way. In devising such protection we ought not just to set up some scheme which will merely end up as an additional cost to the manufacturer who will simply recover it by way of an enhanced sales price. In the end, this would not protect the consumer at all; yet this has been the result, in some ways, of the type of action which was permitted in the United States.
In that country, where legal jurisdiction is different from our own, contingency actions are much more available to unscrupulous attorneys-I will not say consumers-and major companies take out insurance to protect themselves against such claims. These things are known. Unscrupulous lawyers, acting on behalf of a few named clients and many unnamed people, announce an action. In the United States, of course, it is possible to blow up a claim into millions of dollars without much difficulty. In practice, the action is out of the hands of the companies directly concerned; it is up to the insurance company.
I, personally, am familiar with cases where having officers travel into some strange and faraway jurisdiction usually leads, in itself, to substantial costs. The insurance company will be faced with these costs plus the cost of counsel, plus the cost of settlement. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and others who have practiced liability law in this country know that all too often just at the door of the courtroom there is an offer of settlement. That is all that is being asked-a settlement of, say, a quarter of a million dollars on the basis of a 50 per cent contingency and you can see the encouragement

onered to unscrupulous counsel. There have been too many such cases.


An hon. Member:: The company loses the case.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They do not lose the case because in these circumstances the insurance company is always prepared to settle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-TRANSPORT-Tolls on St. Lawrence Seaway-possibility of increase; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-TRANSPORT- Request for assurance proposed Port of Gros Cacouna will not supplant Gabarus Bay.

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motion.


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among members of the House and I think they agree to consider Bill C-233, an Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements), in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House shall proceed with consideration of Bill C-233, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and that the other bills stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 10, 1975



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: that Bill C-233, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to guarantee people being interrogated or accused by the police the right to refuse to answer questions in the absence of a lawyer, if they so desire to have legal counsel, in order to obtain evidence from them which may be used against them in court proceedings. The bill follows very closely decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in a number of cases. The amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that I am proposing spell out the rights of such people.
Let me put on the record three sections that I propose to add to the Canada Evidence Act under the provisions of this bill. My proposed section 54 would read as follows:
No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal proceeding unless it is a voluntary statement.
Proposed section 55 would read:
No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal proceeding if such statement was made while its author was in the custody of a person in authority unless prior to making such statement its author was duly warned by a person in authority that
(i)	he was not obliged to make any statement, and
(ii)	if he voluntary chose to make a statement, it would be taken
down in writing and may be given in evidence and,
(iii)	he was entitled to counsel and that if he could not afford
counsel, one would be assigned to act on his behalf if he so desired.
Proposed section 56 would provide:
If, pursuant to section 54 a request for counsel is made, the person in authority shall give the person who made the request an opportunity to contact his counsel or advise the local legal aid office director in the event the person who made the request cannot afford counsel.
I bring this bill forward as a result of a number of cases which were heard by the United States Supreme Court in which they found that the defendant had not received a fair trial. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court because they had not permitted the accused to be represented by counsel at a very early stage of the case. I refer hon. members to the case of Gideon, which was dealt with by the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1960s, and to the Miranda case, which was dealt with in 1966. I should like to quote from the New York Times of June 14, 1966, which reported on the Miranda case as follows:
The Supreme Court announced today sweeping limitations on the power of the police to question suspects in their custody ...
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Earl Warren, broke new constitutional ground by declaring that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination comes into play as soon as a person is within police custody . ..
The suspect, the court said, must have been clearly warned that he may remain silent, that anything he says may be held against him and that he has a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
Canada Evidence Act
In dealing with the case, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren, said as follows, if I may quote a few sentences from his decision:
We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently in Escobedo v. Illinois. There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder.
I would like to refer hon. members to a case that was heard in 1959. I am not going to give the name of the case, but I am sure that those members of the House who are lawyers will recall it. It was a case in which a boy of 14 years of age was interrogated by the police and then charged. He was convicted of murder, served a number of years, and was then granted a pardon. I do not want to discuss the case in any detail except to say that in the year 1959 the police were able to question this boy at the police station for five or six hours without a lawyer being present, without even his father being present. His father was outside the room in the courthouse asking to see his son, but was not permitted to do so. Neither was a lawyer permitted to be with this 14-year old boy while this interrogation lasting five or six hours was continuing.
That is the kind of situation that my bill, if enacted by parliament, would prohibit. I am not asking for something that is not now the law of the United States. Nor am I asking for anything that has not been supported by a number of very experienced and distinguished lawyers in Canada. In this regard, may I refer hon. members to an issue of the Criminal Law Quarterly wiiich I think is published in Toronto. This issue appeared in the late 1960s, I believe, and contains an article by Brian Donnelly entitled "Right to Counsel". Let me put on the record some of what Mr. Donnelly said in his article:
In Canada, the courts have tended to uphold police powers unless there has been a flagrant violation of rights which will result in the production of unreliable evidence ...
In sharp contrast, the United States Supreme Court has become a champion of the rights of the individual. It has enumerated certain basic rights, the violation of which will result in the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the violation and in proper cases acquittal. The privilege against self-incrimination has been applied to pre-trial events.
In the case I referred to, this young boy would have been entitled to counsel from the moment the police began to interrogate him. Let me just put on the record what the Supreme Court of the United States found. This is what they held in one case:
(1)	the investigation has ceased to be a general inquiry and has begun to focus on a particular suspect;
(2)	that suspect has been taken into police custody;
(3)	the police carry on an interrogation that is directed towards eliciting incriminating statements;
(4)	the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyers; and
(5)	the police have not warned him of his absolute right to remain silent.
There are literally thousands of cases in Canada, most of which are dealt with at the lowest level of our courts, which used to be called magistrate's courts, where people are apprehended and never told they have a right to counsel. Frequently, when they ask to make a phone call

June 10, 1975
Canada Evidence Act
to their family or their lawyer they are told they cannot do so until the police have finished questioning them. In no case, to my knowledge, are the police required by law or by the custom of the city or the province to instruct the person being interrogated, or who will be or has been charged, that he has the right to remain silent until counsel is present; that he has the right to have counsel present whenever he feels that if he does not have counsel he may get into difficulty.
It is because we do not have the protection which the United States Supreme Court has, by its decision, given the citizens of the United States that I feel the Canada Evidence Act needs to be amended along the lines suggested in my bill. This is necessary in order to give Canadian citizens, those people who rightly or wrongly are being interrogated and who will be later charged by the police of the city or the province with a criminal act, their necessary rights and protection. I believe they have this right, and without it there can be, and have been, occasions of miscarriage of justice. For that reason I propose this bill.
Let me take a few moments to summarize very briefly the recommendations of Mr. Donnelly who is a very experienced and distinguished lawyer in the province of Ontario. At the end of his article in the Criminal Law Quarterly, entitled "Right to Counsel", he makes several recommendations. I should like to put them on the record. They are as follows:
(1)	All rights and freedoms accrue as of "arrest or detention".
In other words, the right to counsel accrues when the person is first detained or arrested. The other recommendations are as follows:
(2)	Immediately upon arrest the accused should be told that he is under arrest and informed of the charge against him.
(3)	Immediately upon arrest or detention the suspect should be warned of his right to remain silent.
(4)	The suspect should be warned that anything he does say may be used as evidence against him.
(5)	The suspect should be informed that he has the right to the presence of counsel during interrogation.
(6)	The right to presence of counsel, retained or appointed-the establishment of a public defender system.
(7)	Non-compliance with this procedure should be grounds for exclusion of evidence obtained after the non-compliance. Where this is the only evidence against the accused, he should be acquitted.
(8)	Warnings. There will be a problem as to what constitutes a warning.
Mr. Donnelly goes on to specify that the accused should be warned of his rights. The next recommendation is:
(9)	Waiver of rights. Law enforcement authorities should be free to use voluntary statements made by an accused.
The final recommendation is:
(10)	Tangible evidence procured through the prohibited statement. This problem should be covered by the proposed legislation.
I am sure that if the government were to agree to this bill in principle, the difficulties which Mr. Donnelly foresees-which he is much more able to evaluate than I am- would be worked out by the committee. I do not have time to put on the record one of the arguments that Mr. Donnelly makes very effectively to the effect that the passage of legislation spelling out the right of an accused to counsel

would go a long way toward making the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was enacted by parliament when the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, a living piece of Canadian law, giving the people of Canada all the rights which the right hon. gentleman believed he was extending when he brought the Canadian Bill of Rights to parliament for its approval.
I urge all members of parliament to support my bill, let it be given second reading and sent to the committee where it can be studied in detail and where representatives of the Department of Justice and the legal profession can make recommendations and suggestions on the details which have not been covered by the bill, and where they can spell out in more precise legal terms the rights people in this country ought to have, those rights which I suggest have been provided the citizens of the United States by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member referred to Mr. Donnelly as the author of this article. I wonder if he would identify Mr. Donnelly further for me.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, at the bottom of the first page there is an indication that Mr. Donnelly is a B.A., a Bachelor of Commerce and an LL.B. of Osgoode Hall. Unfortunately, I did not make a note of the date of the article. As I said in the course of my remarks, this is from Criminal Law Quarterly. I am sure I could get the date by going through back issues. At the time the article was written, he was under articles with the Toronto firm of Wahn, Mayer, Smith, Creber, Lyons, Torrence and Stevenson.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this most interesting bill both directly and indirectly, if hon. members will bear with me. First of all, I should like to indicate to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that I have read his bill with attention and think it is properly drafted. I might indicate, as well, that I agree with it in principle.
I find at this particular juncture in time that it is essential in the criminal process that there be adequate representation afforded an accused. In order to support my position I will not be referring to legal cases. Since being elected I have attempted to refrain from citing legal jurisprudence. I would, however, like to refer to a document I have found most interesting. It is entitled "Criminal Procedure Discovery" and is the fourth working paper of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. It is a document which in effect would support this particular bill as it indicates that in order to achieve a proper balance and equilibrium in our legal process, there has to be an equilibrium between the two antagonists, namely, the Crown on the one hand and the defence on the other.
Perhaps I might indicate, for members who are not thoroughly familiar with our criminal system of justice, that in fact we have what is referred to in Canada as an accusatorial or adversary system. It is to be compared to
June 10, 1975

the inquisitorial system used in France and Germany. Basically, in Canada it has always been recognized that our criminal system of justice is one which seeks to establish the guilt or innocence of the party brought before the court. In order to achieve that particular end, it was felt that we had to pursue the truth. In the pursuit of the truth there were a number of barriers placed in the way. Those barriers were placed there because we felt that in the pursuit of the truth we were running the danger of creating some injustices. Let me refer to a citation from this working paper, namely, the statement of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce in the case of Pearse v. Pearse (1846). ViceChancellor Knight Bruce said:
Truth, like all the good things, may be loved unwisely-may be pursued too keenly-may cost too much.
In effect, it is clear, as cited in that particular case, that society is not prepared, in its search for truth, to trample on the right to human dignity and privacy. The first concern we have is that when we are trying to establish guilt or innocence we do not trample upon privacy or human dignity. It seems to me that my friend's bill comes within that particular domain. The other concern we have is that we ought not to convict an innocent person while attempting to establish guilt. That has always been recognized. I shall paraphrase an old saying which I am sure has been misquoted on a number of occasions. It is to the effect that it is better that ten guilty persons should be freed than that one innocent person should be convicted. I fully agree with that.
In order to implement particular barriers and implement the pursuit of truth, we have brought into our criminal justice the adversary system. We could, as did the French and Germans, have adopted the system of inquisition where the judge is the one who conducts the investigation. In that system the whole investigation is conducted before a judicial officer and guilt or innocence is established.
However, because of the unfortunate experience with relation to the Star Chamber in the United Kingdom, in the mother of parliaments and the mother of our administrations, we felt it was important, especially after the experiences of the Spanish inquisitorial period, that we ought not to opt for inquisition as the method of establishing guilt or innocence but, instead, should move toward the adversary system. I suppose we based our choice on the system used by the knights, who in order to determine guilt or innocence fought each other and the winner was judged to be the innocent party. We have transferred that system to our criminal courts where on the one hand the Crown prosecutor represents the state and proceeds to bring the criminal to justice and attempts to persuade the court that the individual is guilty, while on the other hand we have the defence, namely the accused, who resists the accusation of the prosecutor and seeks to have the case against him diminished.
As an assistance to the accused we have given him the presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty. In that particular context, in the pursuit of truth we have managed-I suggest this very sincerely-to respect human dignity and to protect to a certain extent against unnecessary conviction. It has been suggested that sometimes
Canada Evidence Act
there is public pressure to secure convictions and that when we succumb to that particular pressure the unnecessary conviction of innocents results.
It is in that context I find this bill is timely, because we have now reached a level of sophistication in our investigation of crime. We have created a number of statutes to which Canadian subjects are subjected, if I might use the term twice in one sentence. In effect, it is very difficult for the citizen of Canada to know exactly what action he has committed and how that action could in some way infringe a criminal or quasi-criminal statute either at the federal or provincial level. It is, therefore, essential in this complex society that before an individual performs any action which may be detrimental to his defence before the tribunals, he receives full assistance from legal counsel.
I was fortunate to have practised at the criminal bar for nearly seven years before I became a member of parliament. I must admit that of all the facets of my practice at that time, that was the most interesting and most stimulating. I had occasion, as well, to act as duty counsel under the Ontario duty counsel or legal aid plan. I acted in that capacity in smaller communities of northern Ontario, having gone there from Toronto where I had practised for four years. In these communities I was amazed at the absence of information made available to an accused, not because of any intention to deprive the accused of his rights but simply because there was not a tendency among the constabulary or the prosecuting attorney to furnish an accused with that sort of information which would be beneficial. I therefore found that perhaps I could be of assistance in that regard.
It was with a great deal of pleasure that I found the legal aid plan in the province of Ontario was of tremendous assistance in this regard. I was very pleased, therefore, when I became a member of parliament, to find that the government of which I am a supporter was furnishing substantial sums to the individual provinces in order to permit them to implement their own provincial legal aid plans.
When I say this legislation is timely, I do so because we are now at a stage when legal assistance is available to Canadians from coast to coast. I note with some interest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has recognized this. I am sure he was mindful of this when he proposed his bill, because in the new section 56 we find this provision:
If, pursuant to section 54 a request for counsel is made, the person in authority shall give the person who made the request an opportunity to contact his counsel or advise the local legal aid office director in the event the person who made the request cannot afford counsel.
I feel any provincial legal aid plan should have the obligation of making counsel available at any time this is required. I say that is so because of the fact that unless there is some mandatory requirement it may be very difficult for the police to continue their investigation as a result of there not being any lawyer available to advise the person accused. We could well find ourselves in a situation where an individual is arrested under suspicious circumstances, brought before the authorities in order to permit them to continue their investigation, and then if this bill were accepted the person would be advised that he has the right to obtain counsel, at which time the police

June 10, 1975
Canada Evidence Act
would have to wait until counsel was retained for that individual.

By that time, Mr. Speaker, that pattern of malfeasance might have disappeared. The opportunity for the Crown to complete its investigations would in fact be almost ruined and, of course, there would be no justice.
It is necessary however to achieve a balance. An officer of the court should be appointed by the province to meet the needs of the accused and inform him of his rights.
At the outset of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the working paper of the Law Reform Commission entitled "Criminal Procedure Discovery". Obviously, this document proves that there is an imbalance in the present procedure because the police and the Crown have all the authority and the means required to conduct their investigations and obtain the essential evidence. And in obtaining this evidence, some aspects of it that could be beneficial to the accused are not disclosed to him. Of course, his counsel cannot establish what is this evidence because the Crown never produces it. Such are the provisions of the Evidence Act at present. The accused has no way of finding out what aspects of the investigation or what facts revealed by the investigation of the Crown could be of assistance to him. Then, this document mentions that there should be a process of discovery of evidence to allow the defence to know what the situation is. Of course, this would eliminate to a certain extent the difficulties now experienced by the accused.
Mr. Speaker, you know that the accused has often said too much before assistance can be provided. Then, it is hard for him as well as for his lawyer to find out the true facts that could help him. I remember defending on many occasions accused people who had been intimidated by the police to such an extent that they could not relate to me what had happened before their arrest. They had forgotten certain facts which could have been essential to their defence. Naturally, the police, who were aware of those facts, refused to reveal them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the passage of this bill would perhaps permit even to a greater extent the bringing to fruition of the recommendations made in working paper No. 4 on criminal procedure of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, namely, discovery, because there is no doubt that since there are a greater number of lawyers involved in criminal law there is greater pressure on the authorities who administer justice to change the rules effectively so that if we are to maintain an adversary system that is fair to all parties, the accused as well as the Crown, they should be somewhat equal before the courts when they present their cases. In effect, by having more solicitors directly involved in the system of criminal justice, we may best achieve this.
If I might just reiterate, in summary the point is that we have an adversary system, and that is a system where there is a prosecutor and a defence. The judge sits passively and determines guilt or innocence. It is based upon the belief that by both the prosecution and the defence showing their mettle and arguing their own cases to the best of

their ability, all forces being equal, the truth will emerge, mindful of all those pxOsections the law of evidence has furnished.
However, in such a contest between the prosecution and the defence it is impossible to arrive at a just decision unless there is an equilibrium between the two forces. If the defence is not represented by counsel, or if at one time in the legal process the defence was not represented by counsel, it is impossible to establish that equilibrium. I say that contest begins immediately upon the arrest of the individual who is suspected. He ought to be advised as to what his rights are, just as the police or the investigators are advised as to their particular rights as peace officers or public authorities.
In conclusion, if we can achieve that with this bill, I will support it, and I have no doubt that we will achieve that particular equilibrium with this bill. Hopefully as an offshoot we will find ourselves with a new system of discovery, so that effectively our system of justice will do what it is intended to do. It is intended to find the truth after due pursuit, with all respect to human dignity and the right of the individual.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. members who spoke before me and I admired the style and the political thinking of my colleague, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who has been able to inform us of his vast experience in the criminal field and of his personal and professional findings on the subject now before us.
As for me, I am always a little surprised at the way our parliamentary system works where some subjects can be so important; whereas in other countries, these subjects to be found in constitutions or in bills of rights; while we find them in a statute under a title as dull inocuous and common as an Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements).
When I was practising law, although I never had the opportunity to practice criminal law, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing-unfortunately, neither my clients, my friends nor even some of my acquaintances were involved in that field. Most of the people who came to consult me belonged to the other side. With regard to the Evidence Act, Mr. Speaker, we remember quite well that, in French-speaking Law schools we were told by our professors that they did not want to lecture on evidence. It goes without saying that the obvious does not require long speeches.
However, the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is serious and important. A quick glance at the bill reveals that it is extremely difficult to find fault with or to object to the kind of representations being made by the hon. member. Whoever is interested in our civil law and I am one of them, may be impressed by the added protection the hon. member would like to see in our Canadian law.
However, Mr. Speaker, as was suggested by the hon. member for Nipissing, the need to strike a balance, to reach a suitable compromise, is always present is these matters.
June 10, 1975

We must protect the rights of the individual, but we should also protect the rights of society, the people, who are also entitled to some protection. In these matters, I suggest we should always consider both sides.
When I read the bill, I am amazed at the fact that no reference was made to one particular provision which is included in clause 58, the last clause in Bill C-233.
No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal proceeding if he was without the benefit of counsel at the time the statement was made, unless the author knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
Although much of the bill is, in effect, a codification of the protection normally afforded by our jurisprudence to the accused who makes a voluntary statement under our present legal system, I suggest that this provision is not a codification of current practice.
I suggest this is rather an extension of current practice, because the bill is affecting the admissibility of evidence. I have already referred to this matter in this House. I have great difficulty seeing this extension in connection with this subject because in my opinion, it would prevent the court from pursuing its quest for truth and would leave out evidence that may not have come up in the best circumstances, but which may still allow the court to clearly understand a case. Personally, I have always objected and will always object to the fact that a man who has committed a crime may escape conviction because the evidence against him might have been obtained illegally.
After all, as the hon. member has said, the American way of thinking which is being adopted goes much further than that based on the jurisprudential traditions of Canada and England. Like the hon. member who has introduced this bill, I read last night the rather exceptional judgment rendered in the case Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, I was struck by certain views aired by Chief Justice Warren, for instance, when he made an historical review of the way the principles involved in this bill were adopted in the United States and also in England. I hope you will excuse my accent when I quote Latin expressions. I would like to read a short extract from this judgment. On page 705 of the 1966 issue of the U.S. Report, the Chief Justice said, and I quote:
Over 70 years ago, our predecessors on this court eloquently stated: "The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which (have) long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, (were) not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a
Canada Evidence Act
popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment."

Mr. Speaker, this accounts for one of the basic differences between the jurisprudential traditions of the United States, which adopted the 5th Amendment, and our own jurisprudential evolution following the judgments referred to by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. and which have resulted simply in a consolidation of section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act rather than in a constitutional provision.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I object to that part of the bill which deals with the acceptability or exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. This is provided for in the bill itself, and, frankly, I have several reservations on that. I was very happy this year to see that the Law Reform Commission, in its 10th volume on evidence entitled The Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence, seems to share some of the concerns that I had myself voiced in this House when we discussed the acceptability of evidence obtained by means of wiretapping.
The Law Reform Commission is obviously an institution established by this Parliament, a Commission which has been given specific terms of reference for reviewing in details all effects resulting from a change, especially in our Criminal Code. The Commission has also reviewed thoroughly other areas, but it was particularly responsible for the revamping and reform of our Criminal Code, and is, of course, now carrying out those terms of reference.
A number of reports have been tabled by the Commission, one of which is Report No. 10 which I referred to and which deals with the inadmissibility of evidence obtained illegally. I should like to quote from this report. As a matter of fact, the point is very well made at the outset of the document submitted to the Commission by the group reporting to the Commission. Here are two short paragraphs I should like to quote:

The question of whether illegally obtained evidence should be admissible has been debated at length, yet remains controversial. There are good arguments for what can be called the American position: the exclusion of both illegally obtained evidence and all other evidence derived from it. There are equally good arguments for the traditional English and Canadian positions: that evidence should not be excluded simply because it has been illegally obtained.

I am quoting now from the third paragraph:

It is often said that in criminal law, especially in matters of evidence, the legislator must find the proper balance between the imperatives of suppressing crime and guaranteeing fundamental human rights, between efficiency and fairness, between crime control and respect for individual freedom, and between the need to search for the whole truth and the need to safeguard certain basic values. The problem of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence raises these issues. Any solution to the problem reflects an inevitable choice between sets of apparently contradictory values.

June 10, 1975
Canada Evidence Act

Thereupon, the hon. member chose, as he could rightfully do, a solution truly designed to rule out evidence obtained illegally. This is not, however, the solution adopted by Parliament in various other cases.
I quoted a while ago the case of the Protection of Privacy Act, and if you refer to section 178, paragraph 16, of the Criminal Code, you will realize that Parliament had been made aware of this problem and had elected to allow the evidence obtained illegally. Although in a somewhat limited way.
There are also other cases. For instance, when a man is arrested for drunken driving, he must submit to a breath-alizer test. Of course, if the kind of principles the hon. member is talking about were to be expanded, I wonder why it should not cover also the breathalizer test, so that an individual could be told: "Of course, you are certainly not compelled to submit to a breathalizer test, unless you have a lawyer at your side".
Obviously, the application of an act whose effects have been most beneficial would become almost impossible. Inevitably, any person apprehended by the policy would then say: I cannot afford to retain a lawyer. Get me a legal aid lawyer. I suspect that before the legal aid representative had a chance to see him, within the two weeks specified, the breathalizer test would be in his favour.
Of course, I admit that is an extreme example and I recognize as well that extreme cases are not of the type on which a general policy should be based. However, when speaking of a general policy on such an important matter, I am inclined to think we should study closely the findings of the Law Reform Commission, or rather the work group that reported to the Commission on this matter. Their findings, specifically about the matter of accepting evidence obtained illegally, is that preference should be given to the present system whereby Canadian jurisprudence still gives the accused the right to defend himself adequately, to prove, if needs be, that the voluntary statement was not freely obtained, even while, on the other hand, the voluntary statement remains a fairly important instrument in the fight against crime, whether it be organized crime or crime generally.
Mr. Speaker, though I may agree with and be very favourable to the position outlined by the hon. member, I have the impression that with regard to the admissibility of evidence, he went too far. We must not forget that certain rules, certain clauses of the Criminal Code in this country and others, were passed to face specific situations, in specific cases.
In the Miranda ruling, when one reads carefully the opinion expressed by the very learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, one quickly realizes that he was up against a social situation that differs greatly from our own.
Charges of police brutality, of illegal imprisonment, founded accusations in the United States of extremely close examination and cross-examination, with psychological constraints of all kinds, have led the U.S. Supreme Court, and perhaps rightly in this instance, to put an end to such situation. But do such situations exist in Canada? I am inclined to believe that our Canadian tradition is

rather different from the American tradition and that we are in a position to act with much more discrimination by enacting regulations allowing to tell the judge: "It's up to you, Your Honour, to decide if in the particular case before the court it is in the interest of justice that the charge be cleared up, and if there is such an irregularity that it offends the sense of justice of Canadians in general, that this evidence should be rejected".
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the questions I am asking. All in all, I believe a forum has been especially instructed by the Parliament of Canada to look fully into that question, namely the Law Reform Commission, and I feel that we should at least wait before coming to a final decision about the kind of points raised by the hon. member, and see what are the final findings of the Law Reform Commission on a matter affecting not only the rights of the defendant but also those of society as a whole.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have only a few minutes left before the end of the private members' hour. As the previous speakers, the member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, the member for Nipissing and the mover of the bill (Messrs. Fox, Blais and Orlikow). I fully agree, as a rule, that this formula should be amended.
I realize that on this side of the House we are concerned with the matter as well as the NPD members, but the Progressive Conservative members have not uttered a single word, Mr. Speaker. I wish to stress this fact, because they have a topflight expert in the person of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). When those issues are discussed, he is not there. I remember also a while ago, Mr. Speaker, when a petition was tabled in the House about abortion, there was not a single Progressive Conservative member from Quebec in the House. I clearly remember that. We had tabled a petition representing one elector out of thirteen throughout Canada, namely more than 1,200,000 people. Once again, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was not there.
I cannot help recalling the discussion we had, as the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes referred earlier to the matter of wiretapping. I would have had many questions to ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who was against the bill allowing the use of wiretapping in some cases for the protection of privacy.
But look what happened in the last five or six months since we passed that legislation, Mr. Speaker; he was against that bill and I remember I took part in debates with him. Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe think it was better to eat carrion than to use wiretapping facilities to discover all these networks which were investigated in depth? I commend the three commis-sionners who are responsible for this and if we ask them, if we ask the RCMP and the Provincial Police, Mr. Speaker, they will tell us that had we not passed that bill in the House of Commons, the investigation would never have taken place and we would never have found out that we were eating carrion without knowing it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to speak much longer on that bill. I will probably have the opportunity to discuss, either in committee or on other occasions in this
June 10, 1975

House, a bill as important as this one. I would have liked to see all political parties participate in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, private members' hour has expired. I have to remind hon. members that tonight is the 40th and last private members' hour. From now on, under Standing Order 15(6), there will be no private members' hour on Mondays and Tuesdays for the remainder of the session. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had a few things to say before the adjournment at five o'clock with regard to the proposal contained in the terms of this particular amendment concerning class actions. I have indicated that I, and some of my colleagues even more so, find that a class action may be one of the solutions for the better protection of the consumer. However, I will say, because I have not considered it in detail, that I do not think we have had sufficient experience.
In any event as a lawyer, I find that the form of the amendment is far from good enough to introduce into a bill that this House anticipates will become law some time this year. There are many deficiencies in it, particularly as to the ultimate solution in the event that there are awards in favour of consumers. There is no prohibition in the amendment against contingency actions.
I have discussed this matter with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I would point out, subject to correction by those who may be greater authorities on constitutional law than I, that in the judicature act of the province of Ontario and I would think in the judicature acts of some of the other provinces, there are provisions which allow class actions. I think that avenue of the present law should be examined very carefully before we start stumbling in with an incomplete amendment.
With all due respect to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), his amendment is legally deficient. For that reason I cannot support it, although I think the idea
Combines Investigation Act
of a class action can have some application if there are adequate safeguards, not only for those who are going to be affected by it, but also for the beneficiaries. Unfortunately there are far too many remedies in this world today. Panaceas and easy solutions get peddled and bandied about in newspaper stories, headlines, and what have you, by people who do not really stop to think out the proposals. Therefore I cannot support this amendment in its present form.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for many years, I expected he would find reasons not to vote for the proposed amendment. Indeed, had he announced that he was supporting the amendment I would have had to reconsider my position to see what was wrong with the amendment. But I am surprised at the minister, who has spoken so often and so eloquently about his desire to help the consumer.
It is over 50 years since Canada first had legislation purporting to regulate and control combines, certainly to prohibit the illegal getting together by business organizations to charge the public more for goods that they should be paying. That legislation was passed by a Liberal government headed by Mr. Mackenzie King, probably the most successful political leader this country has ever seen. It has been in existence, with slight amendment, for more than 50 years, during which time Liberal governments have been in office for 40 or more years. That legislation failed completely to prevent corporations from getting together and setting a price which would be high enough to permit them to make a substantial profit in a totally illegal manner at the expense of the consumer.
Over the years we have seen a large number of investigations into such illegal acts by Canadian corporations. Over the years there have been a substantial number of prosecutions. Some of them were unsuccessful; the requirements of the law were so strict that the government was unable to prove that the corporations had in fact committed an offence although it was evident to everybody but the judges that they had. In other cases the prosecution succeeded, at which time we witnessed the spectacle of the courts assessing monetary fines of $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 on some of the largest corporations in the country.
In a recent case, as one of my hon. friends mentioned earlier in debate, a group of companies was assessed a total of $450,000 in fines. Those fines, Mr. Speaker, were completely unsuccessful in their objective, which was to prevent corporations from combining illegally to mulct the public. Indeed, as has been said many times, they were in effect a licence issued by the government authorizing those companies to steal from the public.
It is not my intention tonight to put on record the sorry performance of Canadian corporations in this area. One would see that in virtually every sector of economic life the large corporations have gotten together and knowingly broken the law. What makes one sad is the knowledge that the same corporations have been investigated, charged and convicted not once, not twice, but in many cases, three times. One can look at the paper industry, the electrical

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
industry, the coal industry. In almost every area of industry in this country the large corporations have been guilty of breaking the anti-combines law.
Let me digress by recounting a personal experience. Around 25 years ago I was a new member of the Winnipeg City Council serving on a committee which dealt with purchasing, particularly of electrical equipment. The committee had called for tenders for electrical cable. Lo and behold, there were four bids, each quoting exactly the same price per hundred foot of cable. In my innocence I thought this was perhaps an accident. I got a friend of mine, who was even newer and younger than I was, to spend an afternoon at City Hall going over the records of the purchasing committee and getting illustrations during the previous ten years of the number of times identical bids had been made. To my amazement there were several hundred cases like that.
We did not have computers in those days, but I asked a friend of mine, a professor of mathematics at the University of Manitoba, to calculate the odds on the assumption that the similarity of the bids was only accidental and that the companies had not got together to agree on a price. Well, my professor of mathematics told me the odds were several billion to one against.
I got the committee, and subsequently the City Council, by a majority of one vote-it was nine to eight-to send a letter to the federal Department of Justice asking that an inquiry be held. The federal Department of Justice looked into the matter and decided there was sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry. They appointed a prominent lawyer-he is a much more prominent lawyer at the present time; he is now Senator Goldenberg-to conduct the inquiry. What he found was that the likelihood that the companies had not got together on these bids was virtually nil. But he could find no evidence. In other words, they had put nothing in writing, so he could not recommend that the government prosecute since there was no real expectation of a prosecution succeeding. That was one of many instances in which the law did not work.
There have been dozens of cases like that. There have been dozens of other cases in which the law has worked. Here we are, in the year 1975, and we know that the laws are still being ignored. But again lo and behold, after 50 years the government is bestirring itself, and in the harbour dredging cases, for the first time if I am correct, it is not simply prosecuting the corporations concerned. It is not merely asking for a fine. It is proceeding in a manner which, if the people charged are guilty, evokes the distinct possibility that some of them may go to prison.
Suddenly in the year 1975, or maybe 1976 or '77 or '78, a corporation executive, if convicted, may go to prison. It so happens that any ordinary person who is unemployed and hungry and who steals $25 worth of groceries from a supermarket will go there tomorrow, the next day, or next week. Shall I get up and bow, or crawl on my belly and thank the minister? We are not there yet but we are certainly getting close to having one law for the rich and another for the poor.
They have had a good deal of experience with this problem in the United States. Although they have not

been much more successful in solving it than we have, for a number of years they have had in their law a provision that permits class actions. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think I am far from wrong in saying they also permit a court to assess triple damages in a case where a corporation is found guilty of breaking their anti-trust laws.
My colleague from Nickel Belt has not said, and neither has my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), nor I, that every corporation will be prevented from breaking the law. Of course not. But this provision will give the people of Canada, who have been mulcted probably for the last 100 years since Canada has been a country, one more defence against corporations that do break the law.
I have always assumed that my colleague from Nickel Belt, in the spectrum of our party, was on the left wing, whereas I am on the right wing, and I must admit I wondered why he was being so cautious in bringing in an amendment under which people who wanted to launch a class action would first have to get the permission of the Attorney General of Canada. I would be suspicious of almost any attorney general who is a member of the Liberal party. Although I have not discussed this with my colleague, having listened to some of the debate this afternoon I have the strong suspicion that he thought he would be able to get this very mild amendment through the House. Obviously he was wrong. I do not blame him for that; he was trying to get a slice of bread because he knew he could not get the whole loaf.
I have listened in amazement to some of the speeches made on both sides of the House. One would think that any crackpot, any lawyer who did not have a client, or any poor native in my constituency in Winnipeg could irresponsibly go to the court and start a class action, judging from what some people have said. As my colleague from New Westminster has pointed out, if that were the law and someone did choose to proceed in the direction suggested by my colleague for Nickel Belt, that person would first have to get permission to proceed from the attorney general.
Let us assume for the moment that the attorney general would do the right thing and would permit that person to go ahead with a class action. If he won his case he would be in a very excellent position. But let us not plead ignorance, Mr. Speaker. Let us realize the very simple fact that the corporations that were charged under this or any other prosecution would have, as they always have had, the best trained, most experienced, highest paid lawyers in the country defending them. I do not question their right to do that; it is the right of any person or corporation to get the best legal defence in the country if they can afford to pay the fee.
As I say, if the person or persons who initiated such a class action were successful, they would win damages, and I presume that the court would assess costs against the corporations that had broken the law. But these court cases would not be easy. They would not be over in a day or two. We can all be sure that the corporations would fight these cases from day one right through to the end, appealing to the appeal court of the province, then to the Supreme Court of Canada, and so on.
June 10, 1975

Let us ask ourselves this simple question: what happens if the class action is lost? Who would pay the costs, not only of the lawyers who represented the initiators of the action but of the lawyers representing the corporations that were charged, as well as the court costs themselves? As my colleague from New Westminster has pointed out, the costs would be paid either by the people who initiated the action or, if they did not have the money, as would be likely, by the lawyers themselves. I suggest it would be a pretty foolish lawyer who would act in a case of this kind unless he were reasonably certain that he had a pretty good case.
Let me say a word about some of the experience in the United States. There was a case there very similar to the one I have referred to in the city of Winnipeg, having to do with an illegal combine of electrical manufacturers. In the United States case I am thinking of, the issue was not electrical cable but electrical generators. The complainants won their case against the largest manufacturers of electrical generators in the United States-General Electric, Westinghouse and other large corporations. I am speaking from memory, but these companies were required to pay tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars by way of damages. But who was it, Mr. Speaker, who received all these damages? These damages were paid not to the individual consumers who had launched the action but to the buyers of these generators, namely, the companies that produce electric power in the United States. I presume these companies were able to show a better profit picture and used this money to reduce the price of electric power to their customers.
That is all we are asking the minister to do in this case, Mr. Speaker. He says he is prepared to consider this in phase two of the bill, but let me finish by asking this question: how long must the people of this country wait for the government to act? I forget which minister it was when this particular bill first saw the light of day many years ago, but it has taken at least four or five years to get this bill to its present stage.
I do not know as well as the minister what representations were made to him and his colleagues in cabinet, and also to the other members of his caucus, by every special interest group in this country, but one does not have to read their briefs. One need only look at the Financial Post or Financial Times week after week to discover that the business interests of this country either want no legislation at all on this subject, or as weak and meaningless legislation as possible. Why must our people wait so long before getting a class action provision in our anti-combines legislation?
I say that the experience in the United States has been a wholesome one. It has not stopped companies from getting together illegally, but it is certainly one more of the many methods that have to be used to control illegal combinations of corporations in that country. I appeal to the minister even at this late stage to listen not only to members of this party but to consumers. I do not say this in any criticism of the consumers' association, but if one compares the power and wealth of the corporations in this country with the-
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I do not intend to deal exhaustively again with all the points I have already made before the committee, since I have already discussed this matter at length at the sitting of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Friday, May 2 last.
I simply want to reaffirm what I said at that sitting of the parliamentary committee and reassure the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) of my profound desire to make a more comprehensive, more intensive study of the idea of class actions which I fully support. I also want to confirm the fact that officials of my department are now considering various avenues to introduce a class action not only with respect to the Competition Act but also a great many ather acts that come under the jurisdiction of my department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 3 as it appears on the order paper, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: 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 amended in Clause 12 by
(a)	striking out the word "and" at the end of line 24 on page 14
(b)	striking out line 38 on page 14 and substituting therefor "the
article in Canada, or"
(c)	adding thereto immediately after line 38 on page 14 the following
subsection
"(g) where the product is not in ample supply, order that suppliers

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
in the market share the available quantities of the product with all established customers on a pro rata basis."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this proposes to amend the section dealing with the refusal to sell where particular products or items are in short supply.
One of the most effective ways corporations have had of controlling the marketplace is by controlling the distribution of goods or items. My amendment is most concerned with the ways in which small suppliers and small retailers can be put out of business. They can be put into very dire straits when they cannot obtain supplies or items with which to conduct their business.
During the course of the committee hearings I presented a specific example which took place in the Sudbury basin, where we have the large city of Sudbury and many small communities on the outskirts. In one of those small communities we had a ski-doo dealer who was dealing in Bombardier ski-doos. His clientele was very limited and he did not handle too many of these Bombardier machines, but he was able to make a living.
In the city of Sudbury there is a large Bombardier dealer whose clientele is much larger, and he makes much more than the fellow out in the small community. Last winter, for reasons known only to the manufacturer, and incidentally I wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) about this matter, the manufacturer had only so many machines and parts. He had to make a choice as to whom he would supply. He made that choice, which was to supply the large dealership in the city of Sudbury, to the detriment of the smaller dealer.
I put that example in a light which would seem most advantageous to the Bombardier company. Far be it from me to suspect that the company was trying to squeeze out this small dealer, centralize this operation in the city of Sudbury, and maximize its profits. Far be it from me to accuse the company of doing that.
Be that as it may, the small dealer in the outlying community could not get the parts or machines to supply his customers. As a result his customers first of all were inconvenienced in that those who lived in this smaller community had to drive into the city of Sudbury to get their supplies. Secondly, this small dealer lost the line because he could not service the machines he had sold and, of course, he had no new products to sell. As a result he has gone out of that line and out of business.
This is a rather sad commentary on a system that prides itself on competition and free enterprise, particularly when in fact we have these small businessmen who put their money into these lines and then, lo and behold, the investment is gone and no one cares a hoot.
The minister replied to my letter with some facetious comment about the company saying it had limited supplies. Far be it from me to suggest that we should interfere with the way Bombardier does business, but surely there is an injustice in this particular situation. This happens across the country every single day of the week.
When I presented my amendment in the committee, one of the members felt that if my amendment were carried by the committee it would create an injustice, and he outlined a typical case. He said:
-we will say, one dealing totally in imported products and one dealing

in a domestic product. If that particular product became in short supply under the terms of Mr. Rodriguez' amendment what he is saying is that the domestic supplier would then be compelled to supply his product to the fellow who is normally importing it, and when the imported product comes back into the marketplace again then he would drop the domestic supplier. This is the actuality of what you are saying.
Those were the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling). He raised a very good point. As soon as he had done that, I tried to do what I think the minister should be doing. He should be taking advantage of the ideas put forward to strengthen this bill. That is one of the things I want to stress to the House that we are attempting to do in proposing amendments to this bill.
From the moment we embarked on a consideration of this bill we began attempting to strengthen it, making it better and more useful to the consumers. We have observed a very positive approach throughout the hearings in committee, as well as during the debate on second reading. We are now at the report stage trying to be very positive in strengthening the bill.
Keeping in mind the criticism of my colleague, I tried to rephrase the amendment to include the words which would satisfy his criticism. My amendment now states in part:
(g) where the product is not in ample supply, order that suppliers in the market share the available quantities of the product with all established customers on a pro rata basis.
The customer would have to be an established customer of that particular supplier, and .could not be someone who is importing a foreign article in competition with another domestic retailer who is selling the domestic product. The customer concerned would have to be an established customer of that particular company. I see the hon. member nodding his head vertically, so I suspect he agrees with that suggestion for a change.
In criticizing this amendment the minister previously asked how the available supplies will be shared. The amendment states that the available supplies would be shared on a pro rata basis. That obviously means a ratio based on the size of the business, for instance how large it is. That would seem to me to be a very fair way. Surely the intent is not to develop large and powerful conglomerates in our society. I am no defender of the free enterprise system because I have said, time and time again, that there is no free enterprise system, that this is a hoax, and that we are dealing with a contrived, controlled, and administered market. Surely we do not want very large and powerful suppliers. Is that what the game is all about, that the strongest will survive and crush the small fellow?
I have heard many pious statements about the small businessman and the help he needs. Indeed I have heard hon. members of this House say that the small businessman is the backbone of society. He is. We might consider how we treat the small businessman. I suggest that my amendment goes some way toward alleviating the problems which face the small businessman. I gave the example of Bombardier.
When the small retailer comes up against the powerful and big, he is supposed to close up his tent and steal away.
June 10, 1975

Surely that is not the approach we should take in this country. When politicians speak on the election platforms, surely this is not the approach they would take. Surely that is not what is expected of us as legislators. Surely we must have laws which give the small businessman an opportunity to obtain supplies in order to service the customers he has.
I do not believe we should consider legislation of any kind which in any way interferes with the operations of the small businessman when he is attempting to earn a living. I should not be the one making the argument for these people. Surely all these corporate defenders should be making this case, but I suspect they are the defenders of the large and corpulent corporations, the affluent corporations rather than the small businessman.
Since I believe I have made my point very effectively I would ask members of the House to consider very carefully the logic I have put forward in this amendment. Indeed the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) said there are small businessmen in his riding who are faced with the same problems. He endorsed my amendment, and said it would certainly come to grips with some of the problems in his particular riding.
In conclusion I wish to point out that the minister took a very callous view of the small dealer in my riding. When I raised the question with him in committee and we locked horns on this particular amendment, he suggested that the dealer to whom I referred should get another line, such as lawn mowers. No one who knows Sudbury would suggest that such a dealer should deal in lawn mowers. That would be like a death knell. If there were grass to cut one could do very well in the lawn mower business. The minister took a very callous view when he suggested that this small dealer get out of skidoos and go into lawn mowers. That is not the kind of comment one would expect from a minister who is supposed to be concerned about the consumers and the kind of deal they get in the marketplace. The way we treat the small businessmen reflects on the consumer.
I mentioned once before today that the small retailer passes on to the consumer the same treatment he receives in his relationship with the large corporate suppliers. That is a very dangerous trend. Once again it is part of the philosophy on which I touched earlier today whereby one takes the position that he will do to others what has been done to him. That is a very bad attitude.
I would like to see an atmosphere created where whatever the available supplies may be, if for some reason or other the materials necessary for the manufacture of a product should be in short supply and the manufacturer can produce only half of his normal production, they would be shared equally in the market where he has established dealers. This would refer only to established dealers and not to anyone who should come on the scene. The crux of this is that the small dealer should be able to have his supplies in order to stay in business and deal in the marketplace. This is very important if we are looking for justice in the marketplace.
The other point I wish to raise concerns available supplies. I realize that in the legislation the minister has introduced he has taken a tough line in respect of refusal to deal, but if a large corporation does not wish to deal
Combines Investigation Act
with a particular customer it has many ways in which to squeeze him out of the marketplace. One way would be, if a manufacturer had his factory in Oakville or Port Credit and the dealer were located in Sudbury, he could ship his goods via the Suez Canal, or he could send them by mail which would probably be effective enough to get them to the dealer ten months later. During that time the dealer would be unable to supply his customers. Then in another situation the dealer might open up a box and find that the items were broken, or that somehow or other the wrong items were packed and shipped to him. In the meantime his customers have to wait and, as a result, the small dealer goes down the drain.
This amendment calls on the corporations to be a little socialistic in their thinking for a change. The amendment calls on the corporation to share what available supplies there are with their established customers on a pro rata basis. Not even my colleague from Halton-Wentworth can deny the justice in this amendment. I call on members of the House to take a very hard look at this amendment and consider the justice of it. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I call on all members of the House to vote in favour of this amendment.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that an hon. member could speak for that long on a very weak point and say nothing.


Gerald William Baldwin: You haven't heard anything yet.


William James Kempling: This amendment really makes a pretty weak case. The hon. member is taking an individual example from his riding of a small distributor of snowmobiles who found himself in difficulty in obtaining parts for snowmobiles in his area. I do not think there is anyone in the NDP who has ever been in business, or knows anything about it. If there were someone like that, he would not talk like this.
I do not suppose there is anyone who has been in business who at one time or another has not had some supplier come to him and indicate that there would be a short supply of a product the following winter, spring, or some time in the year. Whether a businessman reacts is his responsibility. It has happened in my business, and I know of hundreds of other people who are faced with the same problem.
Suppliers have come to me and asked me to place orders two years in advance so that I would have ample supplies on hand, and if I chose not to place those orders, then I did not obtain the supplies.
What the amendment is really doing is suggesting that the government legislate inefficiency. It is suggesting that if a product for one reason or another becomes in short supply, the government should decree through the Restricted Trade Practices Commission that all the suppliers in that particular field share their production jointly with established customers. I do not know what an established customer is. The amendment does not say "the established customers of that particular supplier." It just says "established customers," so it might be assumed that anyone who is in the field selling that particular product is an established customer, and that is a pretty weak case.

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
If one is running a business, one has to take chances. Inventory and market must be considered. If a product is going to be in short supply, perhaps inventory should be increased so that customers can be served. If that decision is not made, I do not think one should come crying to the government, because of a lack of foresight, because he did not look far enough ahead, because he did not have the money, because of lack of space or whatever reason, and demand that it legislate and make all the suppliers sell this product which is in short supply. That is the way business operates.
Suppliers give companies a proposition. If those companies turn it down, if they do not act on the suggestion of the supplier, if they do not analyse the suggestion properly-if their analysis proves that the supplier is wrong and they do not act on it, they are all right-but if the supplier is right and companies do not act on his advice, I do not think they should come to the government and ask to be bailed out because of error in judgment, or because of lack of foresight with regard to adequate space for servicing machines which are sold, or whatever the case may be. I do not think companies should demand that the government get after a particular manufacturing concern and make it share all its products equally on a pro rata basis with all the people in the marketplace.
As the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has already stated, at the committee I mentioned the case of a distributor of raw steel or sheet steel buying his products off-shore. This matter was brought to our attention, I believe, by the president of the Steel Company of Canada when he was before the committee, and I agreed with his position. Why should he share his steel supplies with someone who normally imports steel and does not normally use the domestic market? The frivolous change in this amendment with regard to established customers does not cover that situation at all.
The same thing exists in the rubber industry. We discussed the rubber industry last week or the week before, when there was an opposition day with regard to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and here we have a situation where in the last year something like 60 per cent of the tires sold were imported into Canada. We recognize that there was a serious strike in a couple of the industries, a shortage of supply, and many other things. It could be a strike, it could be a shipping problem, lack of money, lack of capacity, or a number of things, but to suggest that the established manufacturers of a product share their production on a pro rata basis is just ridiculous.
The same applies to distribution. One could say that any product imported into Canada would fall under the meaning of the word "product". When someone who has foresight, who sees a market, who sees a potential, fills his warehouse full of products and all of a sudden there is a great demand for that product, through his foresight his warehouse is full. His competitor down the road did not have the foresight, but under this amendment the person who had this foresight would have to share his available supplies with the person who did not have the foresight to look ahead and see what was required.
I am always amazed at the way the socialist members in this House come down on corporations. Every third word
[Mr. Kempling.j
they utter is about corporations this and corporations that. It is really rather sickening. In the twenty-ninth parliament we heard about the corporate rip-off and all the other things which go with it. Those hon. members are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. They view a corporation as some sort of corporate ogre trying to shaft consumers at every opportunity.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


William James Kempling: That is just a lot of nonsense. The average corporation in this country, large or small, which manufactures or distributes products does so for one reason to supply and sell those products, and it will do everything it can to continue that process. I get a little sick of hearing that story from my hon. friends to my left. They really do not have much to go on, so they go after corporations. Who answers for corporations? Not very many people.


John R. Rodriguez: You do.


William James Kempling: I am really surprised that the hon. member moves this amendment today. I thought that at committee this legislation was thoroughly discussed. I suggest that all the hon. member is trying to do is to stall this legislation as long as he can. I do not think he wants it to pass. If he had any concern for this legislation he would not have moved a frivolous amendment such as this.
What is ample supply, and who is going to judge what it is? What rules is the Restricted Trade Practices Commission to use with regard to ample supply? What is meant by "share the available quantities," and what are "established customers"? These terms are broad and have very little meaning or effect. They are nebulous words. What is ample supply of a product?
Most people in business of any substance, large or small, project ahead. In my small business I look ahead to what my inventory requirements will be 12 months or 24 months hence, and I plan accordingly. Even a grocer has to plan what supplies he thinks he will require, and if he does not have the right things on his shelves, tough luck. That is his baby. He has the opportunity to buy, and if he does not take advantage of it, that is his tough luck and he does not have much business.
I would recommend that my colleagues not support this amendment. I think the hon. member moved it so that he could put a few words on the record. He wanted to repeat his story again and take a crack at corporations, which is really all his party is here to do anyway.
This is not a good amendment. It is not worded properly. It does not have much substance to it, and I recommend that we do not support it. At least I certainly will not support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
June 10, 1975


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived on division. [Translation]


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal and Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 1 on page 18 and substituting therefor "for a reasonable period of time, not exceeding one year, to".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, my amendment is again put forward in order to clarify what seems to be a very loose subclause of this bill. The relevant part of clause 12 of the bill, being the last five lines on page 17 and the first four lines on page 18, reads as follows:
(4) The commission shall not make an order under this section where, in its opinion,
(a) exclusive dealing or market restriction is or will be engaged in
only for a reasonable period of time to facilitate entry of a new
supplier of a product into a market or of a new product into a
market,
There is a sort of holding period until a new supplier or a new product enters a market, but there ought to be more leeway. I wanted to clarify this subclause so that we would know what we are dealing with in terms of the time element.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kem-pling) said that my amendments were not specific, but this one is. The amendment is to ensure that "a reasonable period of time" would be "not exceeding one year". A new supplier or product would have at least one year to become established in the marketplace before the provisions of this bill would come into effect. This would give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission an idea of how long a reasonable period of time is. In the opinion of some suppliers it could be 50 years, and other suppliers might wish that it was never. My amendment to put in a time frame is very important to this bill. I therefore ask hon. members to support the amendment which clarifies "reasonable period of time".
Combines Investigation Act


William James Kempling: I do not want to be the one who is always speaking against the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but with this amendment he shows that he does not know very much about business, how products are introduced to the market, or indeed anything at all about retailing.


An hon. Member:: He is against the small businessman.


William James Kempling: Sure he is-he is against the world, the corporations-you name it, he is against it. A new product introduced to the marketplace may take five years or eight years to become established; it depends on what is already there. I do not think the parliament of Canada should be involved in determining the period that should be allowed for the introduction of a product. It should be left to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to look at the industry concerned and determine whether the time allowed for the introduction of a product is reasonable and whether certain protections are given under this act.
All sorts of things could happen in one year. We saw how wheat shipments in western Canada were held up because of weather. There could be strikes, or anything else that would use up a good portion of the year. To my way of thinking this amendment does not add anything to the bill but makes it more restrictive. Products that have not even been designed yet will occupy the shelves in the next decade, and if we pass restrictive legislation it would not do much to help them get under way.
I cannot support the amendment. The hon. member is nit picking. I think his amendment is out of place and should not be accepted. We talked about it in committee and thought it was restrictive. I think we should leave the bill as loose as possible in this regard and give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission room to move if any problems arise when a new product arrives in the marketplace. I recommend to my colleagues that we not support the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I, of course, concur in the very reasonable arguments made by my learned and honourable friend, but there is one point that concerns me, and maybe the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) or the minister has the answer. Is the ruling of the commission appealable under section 27 or section 28 of the Federal Court Act? The minister has indicated that it is appealable. Section 28 of the Federal Court Act sets out certain conditions under which the federal court can hear appeals as a regulatory agency; if they were of the opinion that the length of time in respect of which the commission made its recommendation was not reasonable they could sit in appeal and change it. I see the minister nods his head to indicate yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now consider motion No. 5, in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That Bill C-2, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal and act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 12 by adding to subclause 31.4(5) immediately after line 34 on page 18 the following:
"(c) companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and persons are affiliated if between them there exists a contract for a definite or indefinite period, in which one grants to another the right to use a trade mark or trade name to identify the grantee's business related to the sale or distribution of commodities or services pursuant to a marketing plan or system prescribed substantially by the grantor." and by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) and adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House is significant for the franchising industry of Canada. I hope to convince all hon. members to support this motion. I earnestly hope the minister will stand up at the appropriate time and say if the government intends to support the motion or intends to stick to the position it adopted in the committee, a position of refusing to accept this amendment which could be of tremendous advantage to the franchise industry of the country.
Some members considering this bill in the finance committee had some unfortunate experiences. Although we were given many learned and extensive briefs dealing with certain sections of the bill, the Liberal members on the committee virtually ignored the briefs. Time and again, after we had referred to briefs, asked questions about them, and asked why the minister would not accede to the requests contained in those briefs, we were told nothing. Liberal members did not ask any questions about points raised in those briefs.
The committee received 90 briefs and heard many applications when we dealt with clause 31.4 of the competition bill. Altogether some 37 briefs were submitted on the question with which I want to deal this evening. Despite the presentation of those many briefs I must confess that Liberal members on the committee made no meaningful contribution to the discussion of that clause which motion No. 5 seeks to amend. They contributed little, even though briefs were submitted by firms like Abitibi Paper Company Ltd., which spoke for many other notable companies in Canada. Briefs were also submitted by Allied Beauty Association, Canadian Association of Equipment Distributors, the Canadian Bar Association, Canadian Council of Furniture Manufacturers, Canadian
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and others.
I emphasize that these briefs touched specifically on those clauses of Bill C-2 we now propose to amend. Briefs were also submitted by the Canadian Institute of Chartet-ed Accountants, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Canadian Machine Tool Distributors Association, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, The Canadian Real Estate Association, Canadian Soft Drink Association, Canadian Tire Corporation Limited, Central Contract Bottlers Association, Coca-Cola Ltd., Comcheq Services Limited, Consumers' Association of Canada, Dominion Dairies Limited, Dominion Foundries and Steel Limited, and others.
All those briefs expressed varying degrees of alarm at the provisions of clause 31.4, the clause which we hope to amend at the report stage.
Included in the various briefs submitted were briefs by Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, Imperial Oil Limited, the National Automotive Trades Association of Canada, Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada, Reinforcing Steel Institute of Ontario, Saint John Beverages Limited, Sun Oil Company Limited, 3M Limited, Toilet Goods Manufacturers Association, Western Contract Bottlers Association, and others.
Liberal members deliberately ignored the efforts which these concerns had made to impress upon the government the necessity for changing proposed clause 31.4. They voted down every effort which was made to accede to requests contained in those briefs.
As hon. members no doubt know, the bill before us has been considered by a committee of the other place. It suggested many amendments. We have asked the minister repeatedly to comment on amendments the other place has proposed. Almost without exception he has shown little interest in what members of the other place have said.
At present we are dealing with franchising. The interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, contained in issue No. 33 of the proceedings of that committee, says on page 33.9:
An important instrument in the life of the business community is the franchise agreement, e.g., an agreement whereby the supplier permits the customer to use his trade mark or trade name in connection with the customer's business, on condition that certain standards with respect to the operation of such business designed to protect the good will associated with the trade mark or trade name are maintained. These arrangements permit a decentralization of economic activity which is in the interests of both the consumers and the small businessman. However, they may necessarily involve some degree of exclusive dealing, tied selling and marked restriction practices.
Your committee recommends that an amendment be made to make it clear that no order under section 31.4 shall apply to such practices where they are carried on in accordance with a franchise agreement as described above.
Despite the observations of the independent committee of the other place, the minister has refused to accept the amendment before us, an amendment which, if passed, would ensure that franchising is not undermined in this country.
The Independent Grocers' Alliance, IGA, presented a thoughtful brief which points out at least one inconsistency. An affiliated company is defined as one which, among other things, is 51 per cent owned by another company.
June 10, 1975

The net result is that IGA will be in competition with wholly owned groceries, such as Dominion Stores, which will not be caught by the provisions of clause 31.4 of the competition bill. If a grocery store distributes groceries under a franchise, it will come under the provisions of clause 31.4, whereas a grocery store which is a wholly owned distributor, in the sense that Dominion Stores is a wholly owned distributor, will not be affected by the provisions of this clause.
The IGA brief says in part, beginning on page 6:
Some of the proposed sections of Bill C-2 discriminate against the voluntary group system, in that they contain prohibitions, and trade practices which may become subject to prohibition, which would apply to the voluntary group system, but which at the same time would not apply to the chain distributor. These proposed sections are of major importance, and in our opinion can threaten the very existence of the voluntary group system as it exists today.
In their brief the IGA also point out, and I quote:
Section 31.4 deals with "exclusive dealing", "market restriction", and "tied selling." Under the section, the commission may prohibit the practice of a supplier of a product requiring a customer to deal primarily in products supplied by or designated by the supplier or his nominee.
They point out that when you link that with the exclusive dealing provisions, you are going at the very heart of franchising in this country. The net result is that if the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission were to find that there is a significant lessening of competition in the market notwithstanding the fact that a franchisee may be involved, they may make an order that in fact may mean that franchisee can no longer carry on in business, notwithstanding the fact also that, with the same position, a company owned store will not be open to attack by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
It is particularly unfortunate, and I suggest giving the benefit of the doubt, that the civil servants who are proposing this provision, and the minister who is acceding to their request, do not properly understand the functioning of franchisees and franchisors in this country. If they did understand the process I am sure they would see the danger of having these clauses cover the very substance of franchising arrangements.
I personally believe that it is better to have a franchisee who, to the extent he is able to operate his own business, does so. He is an entrepreneur. I suggest it is better for the government and we parliamentarians to encourage that type of individual inititative and entrepreneurship than to be discouraging it and forcing more and more small businessmen to give up their franchising arrangement with no alternative but to end up as wholly owned subsidiaries of other concerns. In truth, they simply act as employed managers for other companies in whatever business they choose to be active. That is what is at stake here tonight.
The government, for reasons I have indicated or perhaps for other reasons, has chosen to deny to the franchising industry, as they have spelled it out in their briefs, any exception with regard to the provisions of this bill, in spite of the fact the exemptions have been extended to certain of the large corporations that our friends to the left like to speak about so often.
Combines Investigation Act
I stated that Imperial Oil Limited submitted a brief. I believe it is important to note certain sections of it. At page 13 they state:
As we have stated above we believe that an exemption should be provided for franchises which involve a degree of "tied selling"-
I would emphasize that. Imperial Oil then point out:
This was contemplated in Bill C-256 which provided in section 40(2) that: "a practice is not a restrictive practice where it meets one or more of the following conditions: (a) the practice is engaged in between or among affiliated companies; (b) in the case of tied sales, i) there exists a technological relationship, between the tied commodity or service and the tying commodity or service that makes the practice necessary to the satisfactory performance or use of the tying commodity or service; ii) the practice is incidental to, and reasonably necessary for, the purpose of enabling two or more persons to carry on business under a common trade description or designation and is not significantly restrictive of competition,"-
All we are asking is that that type of accommodation be put back into the bill as it was originally contemplated when Bill C-256 was introduced in this House some time ago. It is a simple matter. The simple matter is this: do we believe in the franchising industry in Canada? Do we believe it is preferable that groups of businessmen can get together in an association and have the advantage of multiple buying, advertising, and a known management system worked out?
Do we believe it is worthwhile to encourage businessmen to get together and go into these franchising or franchisee relationships, or do we agree with the government's position to date? It would sooner see a greater concentration of business in the sense of those who are now active in the franchising business deciding it is not worthwhile to live with these types of government regulations and it would be preferable to exempt them by simply taking over the franchisees they have been working for up to the present time. That is the problem that faces us.
If hon. members support my motion, this problem will be relieved. This motion will make it clear that not only is it 51 per cent or more companies that are designated as affiliated and exempted from the act. It will also make it clear that franchisees in the relationship spelled out in the motion will also be exempted from the provisions of the act. They will be able to carry on business free of any type of indiscriminate order that might be made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
I would refer hon. members to the Canadian Bar Association brief. They make what I believe is a very good case as to the danger that will arise if this clause is allowed to remain in its present form. I will not take the time of the House to read the various paragraphs in their brief. Presumably the minister is well aware of it. It is something he should deal with tonight.
The simple question is whether the minister will put some accommodation into this clause to assist the franchisors and franchisees who have come before this House asking that they be given some relief from what they think will be an unbearable provision if it is wielded by the Restrictive Trace Practices Commission. In short, will the minister accede to their request?
Having said that, we must also look at the other side. What is the minister trying to overcome here? What is the magnitude of the problem? Frankly I was surprised when in committee I asked the minister how many complaints

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
the department had received concerning, for example, clause 31.2, and he replied 200. When I asked over how long a period, he stated since the department was formed. As we know, the department was formed as something rather innocent back in 1968. That means that in a seven-year period they have had an average of 30 complaints a year, and this has given rise to the provisions that we find in 31.2 of the bill before us.
When we reached 31.4, I asked the minister how many complaints had been received that gave rise to the provisions in 31.4. If I was startled under 31.2, I was very startled under 31.4. I found out there had not even been as many as 200 complaints. There was no great problem the minister could show to the committee concerning a large number of complaints to his department demanding that action be taken. In short, I believe that the provisions throughout 31.4 have been inspired by over-eager, overanxious civil servants wanting to spread their wings and get into new and perhaps unexplored avenues that they have no business getting into.
If the minister insists on pushing it through, as he did in committee, we have no choice but to go along. That is the way of the brutal majority. But surely we can plead with the minister not to trample indiscriminately to the ground a budding franchise industry in this country-in the United States its counterpart handles about 25 per cent of the total merchandising. It is a question of leaving those independent entrepreneurs to do their thing. If it is competition that the minister is looking for, let him not inadvertently impede competition as he will do if he persists in this action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hope I will have further bpportunities to speak concerning many other provisions contained in the bill before us. I believe many of them are ill-conceived and poorly worded. We find today that 11 more amendments are being suggested by the minister, in addition to the two or three dozen which were introduced during the committee stage. Members opposite say we should get on and pass this bill. The truth is that they are not able to get on with this bill or, indeed, with other legislation, because they are in such a state of disorder. I understand that some of the amendments which were introduced only a few hours ago are to be re-amended in the course of further proceedings in this House. What a state of indecision! Let us make sure that while in this state of indecision the government does not inadvertently trample out the franchise industry in this country.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I must say I have heard that speech as many times in committee as there were amendments from the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Have you learned it yet?


John R. Rodriguez: But when he was reciting the litany of all who came before the committee it read like a corporate Who's Who? There were Sun Life Insurance, Imperial Oil, the whole gang of them. And then he used the ultimate-

he read from recommendations of people in the other place. Well, Madam Speaker, I don't know who you could get in the other place who does not have a corporate axe to grind. Indeed I wonder if the conflict of interest provisions ought not to be looked at closely by some members of this House when they are dealing with this particular bill. That raises a very serious question, Madam Speaker, and I do not say it with tongue in cheek. I say it very seriously because I have heard the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), that great defender of the corporate sector. As a matter of fact it was his great defence of the corporate sector which made me so avid in my defence of the consumer. When I see anyone try so hard to be so convincing, then I know something has to be wrong.
The hon. member is arguing that we exempt franchises from the provisions of exclusive dealing, market restriction or tied selling. Considering all the exceptions that the minister is prepared to put in here-he has them all listed including the franchises-then against whom will these restrictions be held? Who is left when you have excluded the franchises, you have excluded the subsidiaries, you have excluded all the oil companies, and you have excluded those who are affiliated or those who are sole partnerships or joint partnerships? Who is left after we exempt the franchises?
You know, Madam Speaker, this great defence of the franchises makes me say I do not know where or to whom the hon. member was speaking, because I listened to the dealers, the men who operate the gas stations, the Imperial Oil stations and the Gulf stations and the Texaco stations, and there you can hear a tale of tied selling like you have never heard before. To assume that somehow or other there are all sorts of competitive factors at work in the marketplace is not to understand what is going on in the marketplace.
I, too, listened to the National Association of Tobacco and Confectionery Distributors. They appeared before the committee. The hon. member for York-Simcoe did not mention them. And, boy, did they ever rip into the National Grocers and all those outfits, the National Grocers owned by the western outfit, complaining about the way they are treated, complaining about the practices used by those large distributors in respect of the small retailers and small wholesalers. Those are the tales that are told. To make it sound as if this corporate group which appeared before the committee were all so innocent is to underplay the whole situation.
I have no use, either, for these exceptions the minister is making with respect to exclusive dealing, market restriction or tied selling and I say a pox on both their houses! In effect, the minister wants to exclude companies one which is a subsidiary of the other, or where both are subsidiaries of the same company, where both are controlled by the same person, where each are affiliated with the same company, and a partnership or sole proprietorship, where there is an affiliation with another partnership or sole proprietorship or a company. That is setting up legislation, Madam Speaker, and then leaving it standing like a scarecrow in a field. It isn't effective in scaring off anything at all. In fact it does not apply to anything. To say you have consumer protection in legislation is a farce. Against whom is it going to be applied?
June 10, 1975

The hon. member for York-Simcoe wants to exclude franchises. That is one of the areas that is very seriously affected with respect to tied selling, whereby the company supplying the materials says that before you get the material you will have to carry this and this. There are many examples of that, and during committee hearings we tried to bring up specific examples.
One of the examples we used was that of the fellow who has a dealership for Imperial Oil. He is pumping gas and has his own garage. The guy is quite happy pumping Imperial gas. But Imperial comes along and says he cannot be satisfied with just pumping gas. He has to take Atlas batteries, and Atlas windshield wipers. The fellow says he doesn't want the stuff. He says he is happy pumping gas and does not want to expand his work force.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What a bunch of nonsense!


John R. Rodriguez: If you want to say something you can take the floor. In effect, Madam Speaker, this little dealer is being tied with respect to obtaining Imperial gas and has to take all the other things. He has to take all the contests they run; he has no choice in the matter. This is the great free enterprise system! This is the great system which says the individual is free to make a choice. Well, he has no choice in the matter. He is stuck. So it is with the consumer.
A consumer goes to a particular dealer who may be representing Gulf Oil, and maybe he does not want the particular battery the Gulf Oil dealer has to offer. Maybe the consumer wants an Atlas battery. Well, the fellow says he hasn't got an Atlas battery because he carries Gulf products. Now the consumer has to go maybe across town-we all don't live in large cities-and so in effect the consumer does not have a choice of products in his neighbourhood gas dealership. I do not understand this great defence of the kind of monopoly system that operates. For Heaven's sake I could just imagine this debate taking place right back maybe 60, 70 or 100 years ago, and if there were no legislation at all with respect to monopolies there are members in this House who would be quite happy.
I do not believe the hon. member for York-Simcoe, or any other member in this House should underestimate the ability of Imperial-Esso, IBM, Gulf Oil, and Sun Life Insurance to work around the legislation that is passed by this House. Indeed I have a strong suspicion that it is purposely designed for smart lawyers, corporate lawyers and others to move in on. For example, proposed section 31.4 opens up a whole avenue and permits an elephant to walk right through the legislation. Certainly any smart corporate operator in Canada can get around the legislation. There is nothing in the bill that a self-respecting corporation could not get around. I said that on second reading, and I say it again now. It is as much "huffery and puffery" as a pinch of snuff. The legislation is not designed to give sleepless nights to the boardrooms of the nation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you going to vote against it?


John R. Rodriguez: I certainly am. None of my amendments have been accepted so far. It is ludicrous to think that this
Combines Investigation Act
provision will suddenly change corporate behaviour because it will not. The class action amendments that we have proposed were defeated. This bill is a hollow shell, and the minister knows it. I intend to vote against this amendment, and I urge members of the House to vote against it because it is hollow and useless.


William James Kempling: Madam
Speaker, I do not know why I always seem to follow the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but it seems that is the way it is in this debate.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It does not make much difference anyway.


William James Kempling: I have not been in the House for as many years as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), but in the time I have been here I have never yet heard him speak on anything.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are never here when I speak, that is why.


William James Kempling: I hear your interjections, which are about all you offer to the debates of this House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You should be in the House more often.


William James Kempling: I should like to say a few words about this franchising provision in the bill and the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I am wondering whether the minister and his officials have closely thought out the implications of the bill and have really considered this amendment. Franchising operations commence every day. There are all sorts of small companies that go into business. They get a line of products or design a line of products, or they invent something, and immediately want to sell it, and they go across the country establishing franchise operators for that product.
I have been involved in this business for 20 to 25 years and I know exactly how it works. You establish a franchise operator and in some cases advertise on a national scale. You tie your franchise operators together by getting them to agree to service the product if it comes into their area from another area. It is quite involved. These people are individual entrepreneurs.
What is happening in the country today? I do not know whether the minister and his officials realize it, but there is building in this country a tremendous service industry, and franchising is part of that industry. Corporations move to Canada from the United States as well as from Britain, and buy up the operations of small entrepreneurs. They do not come within the Foreign Investment Review Act because they do not have the necessary assets to be considered by the Foreign Investment Review Board. But these small companies are being built into giant corporations across the country. I am not going to name them because I do not think it would be proper to do so; they have not done anything illegal.
The thing that concerns us in this regard is that this type of operation is not covered by the legislation at all. There are company owned service centres spread all across

June 10, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
the country, and this sort of thing is growing day by day. An entrepreneur enters into a franchise agreement to sell a product in a given area, and in direct competition with him is one of these company owned operations. One is covered under the act, the other is not. I suggest we should look at this very closely. There should be some measure of protection given the franchisee in this country, yet he is not covered under the legislation at all.
My colleague from York-Simcoe made reference to the briefs submitted to the committee. I have to concur with him; I do not think the minister's officials, let alone the Liberal members who sat on the committee, really looked at these briefs and at what they said about franchise operations.
A good way to build up a business is through franchise operators. As I say, I have been through it myself. Basically you go around the country looking for good, solid operations, and you negotiate an agreement with them to franchise a product and sell and service it. This involves demonstrating the product, showing it at national and trade shows of one type and another across the country, and in some cases national advertising. You supply these operators with literature and go through the whole process of starting them up in business. Yet no protection whatever is afforded by this legislation.
Corporate groups are moving into this country and expanding because, I suggest, they are sheltered under this type of legislation. The Sherman anti-trust laws on vertical integration are very stringent in the United States, but here in Canada they see an open market. I learned at a meeting I attended a few weeks ago that a British firm is presently in the process of getting a franchise from a Swedish manufacturer to distribute a line of products in this country. These products will be distributed totally through company owned operations. In some cases Canadian entrepreneurs will be bought out. In other cases straight company owned operations will be set up. As I see this legislation as presently framed, it comes down on the side of company owned operations and against small franchisees.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like dredging.


William James Kempling: That is a whole story in itself and I am not going to get involved in that at this time.
This is the danger I see, Madam Speaker. I had rather hoped that in committee the minister would take this question under consideration and would accept the very thoughtful amendment put forth by my colleague from York-Simcoe. We asked the minister in committee what he thought about it, but he did not give us very much of an answer. He said that he thought the amendment might negate that section of the act. I do not think it will do that at all. If we pass legislation that will work against the interests of franchisees, we are not doing very much to help entrepreneurs, those small businessmen who want to expand a little. Rather we are promoting the interests of the large corporate owned store or operation which is spreading very rapidly across the country.
Some of these company stores have been a success, others not. Many have tried to operate with franchises in the distribution stream, but some have not been very successful. Some have gone back to a franchise type opera-

tion where, over a period of time, the operator is allowed to buy into the corporation and to operate as a franchisee. I think that really we have to give that individual some protection under this legislation. I do not know whether the minister intends to reply or respond to this. He is nodding that he will. If he responds in a meaningful way I am prepared to conclude my remarks now, as I am very interested to hear what he has to say on this matter.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, let me say that the government considered very carefully whether it was feasible to exclude franchises from the application of this clause. I know very well the feeling of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who has pleaded his case very strongly in committee, and again tonight. I listened to him and tried to meet his concern in the committee, but I think there is an honest disagreement between that hon. member and myself on this question. I think he is a little too sensitive to the implication of this particular clause in dealing with franchises.
I see no likelihood that the provision will prevent the operation of any useful franchise operator. I have said in committee, and I repeat here tonight, that exclusive dealing which may substantially lessen competition has been prohibited since 1940 in the United States, and I know of no nation where there are so many successful franchise operations. We in Canada are not against franchise operations just as the Americans are not against such operations.
On the other hand, if a firm does operate in such a way that competition is substantially lessened by a requirement it imposes, I submit to you it is hard to justify refusing to disturb the situation simply because it is a franchise operation. This provision has been amended in committee in order to meet many of the points presented in the many briefs, and we have made some amendments in order to clarify the clause to make sure it is really getting at the heart of the question. But to accept such an amendment would, I submit to you, Madam Speaker, cut the heart out of the clause. Therefore I do not accept it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on Motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
June 10, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division of this motion stands deferred.
In accordance with a statement made earlier this day by Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 6 will stand until later in the proceedings on the report stage of this bill when some hon. members may wish to make representations as to the acceptability of the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, on that score, for the purpose of hon. members who may have some comments to make, I wonder if Mr. Speaker could indicate his concern with this motion. I do not think he assigned any reasons, but perhaps if he could give his reasons hon. members could be prepared. It may well be that the reason for concern would be so persuasive that we might be prepared to withdraw the motion. Of course, I am not saying that we will, but I was wondering if there would be any opportunity for us knowing the concerns Mr. Speaker has with regard to this particular motion so that we might have an opportunity to consider them.


An hon. Member:: Call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think it would be agreeable to the House that we disposed of motions that do not seem to raise objections, such as motions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I think we have amendments which have more or less the same meaning for every clause, except that motions Nos. 16 and 17 do not provide for imprisonment and jail sentences. But let me add this:

Let me make my short pitch on this one. I am more and more perturbed at the tendency of the Department of Justice and the government to insist that in known criminal cases people be sent to jail. There is this continuing division in respect of indictable offences and summary conviction matters. Under an indictable offence a mandatory jail sentence is given. I will protest and protest that it should not be the role of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada to determine that a man shall go to jail. That is a function of the court. I know this is a thread that runs through the Income Tax Act, through this act and many others, but there should be-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let me finish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order-
Adjournment Debate


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will likely consent to this, but for goodness sakes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not
consenting. Call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made at this time. Therefore the question is that this House do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, the question I debate tonight is pursuant to my oral question asked in the House on Wednesday, March 26. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to allow no increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I have been a free trader and it hurts me, and millions of other Canadians, to see the tolls and fees for vessels using the Seaway steadily increase, year by year, in the history of the operation of this great utility.
Since first coming here 13 years ago I have been a consistent protagonist of a free Seaway because that is the only way to bring commerce into the heartland of Canada and to serve best the economic interests of all of Canada; that is, to have the seaway as open as we possibly can to the commerce of the world.
This is especially important to us now because of the generally poor condition of our economy and the stagflation we are experiencing as a nation, with a combination of serious unemployment and rampant inflation. I have put my views on behalf of a freer St. Lawrence Seaway on the record more than once in the past, as early as 1966-67, at pages 5552 and 5553 of Hansard for May 22, and again in 1971 at pages 7298 and 7299 of Hansard for June 23. I still oppose any further increase in tolls on this waterway.
Although we do not have the time tonight to go into the detail, I am sure the House will agree that the current year, 1975, certainly is a very poor time to place further charges on the users of the Seaway, which would only make our international trade situation worse, increase the costs of our imports, and at the same time increase the cost of our vital export trade, which would tend to price us as a nation out of world markets. This has gone far enough.
6638

June 10, 1975
Adjournment Debate
I am alarmed when I read statements such as the following which is contained in Canadian Transportation and Distribution Management, March, 1975:
A vessel with 20,000 tons of general cargo would have to pay $18,000 to get from the St. Lambert Lock near Montreal to Lake Ontario, under present Seaway tolls. Should these be raised 27 per cent, as the Carr Report suggested in 1971, this would add another $5,000 to the charge: no small change in anyone's money.
As the accompanying table indicates, Seaway tonnage in 1974 was down 25 per cent over 1973 and, ominously, bulk cargos declined as much as general merchandise shipments.
The following are the statistics quoted in this magazine: Bulk cargo in 1973 was 48.50 million tons. In 1974 it was 36.14 million tons, a reduction of 25 per cent. Iron ore in terms of tonnage slumped 13 per cent. Grain slumped 33 per cent; oil and petroleum products slumped 49 per cent. There are fractions involved here but they are small. Other items slumped 16 per cent. General cargo in total tonnage was down 23 per cent. Manufactured iron and steel was down 20 per cent. Containers were down 51 per cent and others were down 22 per cent. The total cargo loss from 1973 to 1974 through the Seaway was 25 per cent. This magazine article states further:
Whatever his proposals, Ottawa has three basic options in reaching a decision about them.
It can raise Seaway tolls, as suggested in the 1971 report by D. W. Carr.
It can retire the Seaway debt and accumulated interest as a federal obligation, and hope the Seaway profits will continue to at least balance the Welland Canal losses.
It can retire the Seaway debt and accumulated interest as a federal obligation, and raise Seaway tolls, as Normandeau has suggested.
Or, it can subsidize the operation of the whole Authority, allowing free, or nearly free, passage along the Seaway and into Lake Erie for all vessels.
Now, Madam Speaker, I recommend to you and the House a meld of the last two recommendations; that is, that the people of Canada retire the Seaway debt and accumulated interest as a federal obligation, and subsidize the operation of the whole authority in the same way we subsidize the railways, and allow free or nearly free passage along the whole of the Seaway. In doing so we would in a short time correct and cure many of our economic ills in this country. We could create here in the heartland of Canada an economy which would grow and prosper. Such measures would fight and defeat unemployment in our area. If we did this, our economy and our creative activity could become the envy of the world.
The Seaway serves directly an area of about 1,200,000 square miles, with a population of about 65 million. The area produces about 78 per cent of North American steel, as well as one-half in value of North American manufacturing. From it comes 40 per cent of the continent's food for both human and animal consumption. It generates about 34 per cent of the capital investment used in both Canada and the United States respectively, and receives about 40 per cent of the total freight traffic moved in each country.
These impressive but wholly factual statistics indicate clearly the immensity of the asset which the seaway is to the Canadian economy as a whole. But it must always be remembered that this immensity is economic. Therefore it is vulnerable to such economic forces as inflation, unemployment, and rising competitive costs, and among the

rising costs which have to be considered no item is more important than transportation. This is the basic truth which the bureaucrats in Ottawa are forgetting.
I plead with the government not to yield to the demands and recommendations of the Ottawa bureaucrats to increase tolls and lock charges on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and to make its decision for a freer and thus more prosperous Seaway and a freer and more prosperous Canadian nation.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member will admit that the government has always considered the St. Lawrence Seaway as an important cog in the maintenance of the economic health of the country. Since 1959 this fact has become more and more obvious to both Canada and the United States. The Seaway is essential not only for the goods we import from other countries, but it is critical for our exports of wheat and other raw material and finished products.
Since 1959 the debt of the Seaway has consistently increased because revenues often do not permit the authority to pay off even the interest on the original capital expenditures. In 1970 the United States took measures to rationalize the debt structure of their portion of the seaway, thus helping them maintain and improve facilities where necessary.
As the hon. member is aware, we are revising the whole transportation policy. It is obvious that the St. Lawrence Seaway is an integral part of Canada's transportation system, and it is obvious that there is a problem of re-financing with regard to the Seaway.
The Ministry of Transport has been studying this matter for several months now, and it is hoped that a submission to Cabinet will go forward in the near future. However, I do not think it is possible to anticipate what Cabinet will decide when it addresses itself to this question. I can assure the hon. member that whatever decision is taken, if indeed Cabinet decides that changes are in order, will be in the best interests of the country.


TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROPOSED PORT OF GROS CACOUNA WILL NOT SUPPLANT GABARUS BAY
Andrew Hogan: Madam Speaker, before making my comments I would like to inform the House that I was called out of the Chamber tonight and told that the brother of my friend of long standing, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), was suddenly killed tonight, and I would like to express my sympathy to the minister.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What was his name?


Andrew Hogan: John MacEachen, Allan's brother. He was killed in a car accident.
This afternoon the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) a question relative to the development of the super port at Gros Cacouna on the St. Lawrence near Riviere-du-Loup. My supplementary question
June 10, 1975

was designed to bring to the attention of the House that there is strong potential competition between Gros Cacou-na and the Gabarus Bay super port in my riding as the site of a possible new and very large steel complex in eastern Canada.
Later, after the question period, it was brought to my attention that approximately 27 bus loads of Quebec citizens were engaging in a peaceful demonstration in front of the House of Commons to show their support for the involvement of the federal government in the development of their super port. The people of Cape Breton, and of Nova Scotia in general, are fearful that we will once again lose out in competition with the larger provinces of Canada in trying to attract such an industrial complex.
I had a meeting with three representatives of the Gros Cacouna delegation for one half hour, and they assured me that what they were looking for primarily was dry bulk transportation facilities to transport wheat, paper, etc., and that they wanted a grain elevator built there. They informed me that they were not now interested in the proposed large steel complex as such. Well, I have to take them at their word. There are some 36,000 people within a radius of 25 to 30 miles of Gros Cacouna, and since they have a high unemployment rate in that area of the Gaspe, I can understand their concern.
My worry is the some 130,000 people who live in the county of Cape Breton and who, to a major extent, depend upon either the complete renovation of the Sydney steel plant at the present site, or a new major complex at Gabarus Bay, which is a magnificent superport some 26 miles from the Sydney area. In order to make the Gabarus possibilities become a reality, a consortium of steel buyers has to be put together by the new Canstel Corporation recently set up by the Nova Scotia government.
When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, the minister, on May 6, 1975, said:
Two provinces, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have indicated a very real interest in having a major steel complex. Newfoundland is in the picture still but-I think this is fair and I believe I saw where Premier Moores was quoted recently on this-they are not as far along the line as the others are.
The minister went on to say:
I am by no means convinced that it is a mutually exclusive proposition, in so far as, let us say, Quebec and Nova Scotia are concerned ... I think it is quite possible... to satisfy both provinces and indeed perhaps to have additional benefits for other provinces out of this kind of undertaking.
On that occasion the minister guaranteed to me that nothing would be done that would in any sense jeopardize the Sysco type of operation. I quote him again as follows: That is to jeopardize the existing jobs or to in some way or other act in a manner that would be detrimental to the future of the Sysco company and its employees.
We in Nova Scotia are glad to have the DREE minister put that statement on behalf of the Government of Canada publicly on the record. However, I want to make two comments on this matter in the short period at my disposal this evening.
Adjournment Debate
First, I think that the failure of the federal government of Canada to make the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which it set up in 1967, responsible also for the development of the Sydney Steel industry was an error of major magnitude-and this is not hindsight on my part for I said so publicly at the time. The result was that a relatively small province with inadequate finances, and little or no bureaucratic civil service expertise on international steel matters, was practically forced to fend for itself without adequate support or leadership from the federal government and its agency, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, even though the latter did indirectly subsidize the Sydney Steel Corporation in the late sixties and early seventies with low prices for coking coal.
It is true also that DREE made intermittent grants to Sysco, but the judgment is still valid that they did not play anywhere near the leadership or support role that they ought to have played. We are suffering to this day for that. As a member of parliament from that area-in fact one of the reasons for my entering into politics was of that failure-I feel that they have a special obligation to the people of that area and to Nova Scotia on this whole question of a future site location for a major steel complex.
Second, while economic factors have to play a most important role in such site location decisions, the political power of the province of Quebec in the federal Liberal caucus and otherwise, should not be a major element to be used against Nova Scotia in its legitimate quest to become a "have" province within the context of this Canadian confederation.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the project at Gros Cacouna is under serious consideration by officials at MOT. The Quebec government has approved the project in principle.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has discussed this project with Quebec provincial officials. Talks between MOT and provincial officials are presently under way. They are studying such things as the complementary aspect of this project vis-a-vis other Canadian ports. As the hon. member is aware, the Scott report, presently before Cabinet, deals with this very important issue of port development in Canada.
I am reminding the hon. member that the minister responsible for regional economic expansion tabled a preliminary report on a study commissioned by his ministry on November 26, 1974. In it it was determined that six deep water facilities, including Gabarus Bay and Gros Cacouna, were considered to have potential for development of a steel complex.
I should like to emphasize to the hon. member that it is the responsibility of the provinces to develop viable proposals. Essentially, the provinces will be competing among themselves with respect to the possibility of a steel complex being built. Owing to the magnitude of such an interprise it is obvious that the federal government will be very interested in proposals brought forward.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, June 11, 1975