1975-10-16

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 announced objective of the Canadian Wheat Board to encourage producers to deliver grain to elevators as soon as possible this fall, in view of the announcement by the Canadian Wheat Board of an intended interim payment of $1.50 per bushel, and in view of the fact that it appears that the interim payment will not be subject to the same rules of tax deferral as in the case of an initial payment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House direct the government to take the necessary steps to have the interim payment on grain, anticipated next month, put into the same category as the initial payment for tax deferral purposes, so that farmers delivering grain as requested by the Canadian Wheat Board will not be adversely affected from an income tax point of view.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion dealing with an urgent and important issue.
Since it is urgent to give a new impetus to housing to eradicate unemployment and meet public needs and since we also have to increase at all costs our productivity and that the duty of any government is to make the life of the people as easy as possible, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House take the necessary means to reduce immediately the interest rates on mortgages in accordance with the recommendations of the white paper on control over inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43 this motion 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.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 arising out of the low morale in the Department of External Affairs, and in this case pertaining particularly to the shocking state of the Canadian High Commission in London, England. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House of the number of persons on the staff of the Canadian High Commission in London, England who have at various times been involved with assisting the High Commissioner, the Hon. Paul Martin, in compiling his political memoirs at public expense, and specifically whether this total includes six persons, and further that the minister advise the House why it has now been necessary or justifiable to assign three permanent secretaries to Mr. Martin to devote almost full time toward compiling his political memoirs at public expense.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 16, 1975

Finance


MANPOWER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of extreme urgency which requires immediate attention.
In light of the recent publication of unemployment statistics which particularly affect Quebec, and since we are now in the process of choosing local initiatives programs related to this project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the budgets earmarked for local initiatives programs be increased immediately in line with the higher unemployment rate, particularly in the province of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the constitutional position of the government respecting its restraint program and the report in the press that the government of the province of Quebec plans to introduce legislation to establish its own system of control of prices and incomes in that province. Has the Prime Minister received any positive assurance from the premier of Quebec that he accepts the constitutional position adopted by the Prime Minister of Canada and expounded in this House in that regard?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a similar question in the House a couple of days ago and indicated that the constitutional problem had been raised at the meeting I had with provincial premiers. They indicated interest in knowing if we had examined the constitutional aspects of it. I indicated to them that we had and we were confident that the bill, as it is drafted, is within the constitutional power of the government of Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
If Canadians who want to buy a house find it increasingly more difficult to do so, it is in part because of the rising prices of houses, but mainly because of the high interest rates on mortgage loans. Since the steps taken by the government have completely failed in this area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance to come up with a policy which would allow owners of single family dwellings to deduct from their taxable income the amounts paid in interest on their mortgage loans. Such a policy would make it possible for low and middle income Canadians to buy a house, so as to live decently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion 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; the motion therefore cannot be put.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the premier of the province of Quebec indicated that he accepts the constitutional position outlined by the Prime Minister of Canada, and can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that the government of the province of Quebec does intend to establish its own system or its own program of controlling prices and incomes within that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the premiers expressed various opinions on my statement about the constitutionality. None of them rejected our claim that we would have a bill which was clearly constitutional. Of course, they had not seen the bill by then so they reserved judgment until they had seen it. None of the premiers indicated that they were challenging or even questioning the right the federal government had to do what they themselves, the premiers, had urged us on at least two previous occasions-at the interprovincial meeting of St. John's and the other interprovincial meeting of premiers at Toronto the year before-when they urged the federal government to take strong leadership in the fight against inflation. I think the discussion I had at the meeting with them indicated they were generally happy that we are taking leadership. They wanted to examine the bill and project in more detail.
On the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I have no information as to the course the Quebec government will follow. Mr. Bourassa has spoken to me since the Monday meeting indicating he was examining various ways by which they could co-operate with the federal government in enforcing our strong anti-inflation stand.
October 16, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary. Has the Prime Minister received an assurance from the premier of Quebec that it is the intention of the province of Quebec to co-operate with the policy as outlined in the white paper? I ask this question with regard to the province of Quebec simply because of press reports to the contrary today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is clearly an unequivocal no-yes, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Why don't you just compromise with "maybe"?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The truth will out!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It might be best to compromise by saying that the premiers will speak for themselves. I indicated previously what transpired at the private meeting we had. It was not up to me to say what position they had taken. I think I am free to say that the province of Quebec indicated a genuine willingness to co-operate with us in fighting inflation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Defence is supplementary to the question of my leader. The minister stated on October 10, 1973 in a self-styled "new era" speech that: National Defence will be increasing dramatically the amount of money being spent for new capital equipment.
Since 1968 we have been awaiting the choice of a new long range patrol aircraft only to see it confused with the question of a new interceptor and the restructuring of the Canadian air industry. Will the minister inform the House how the new program of restraint will affect the choice of the LRPA, if the choice has been made and, if so, the general terms of the contract?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, major decisions on procurement are before the cabinet at present in the form of the forces structure review and when the decisions have been reached they will be announced in the usual way.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO COLLECTIVE SECURITY OF EUROPE-ROLE OF CF-5
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister stated his agreement with the need "to play a useful part in the collective security of Europe." Will the minister inform the House how he intends to acquire the capability to make such a contribution, and does the minister expect to be taken seriously when he suggests that the CF-5 is being considered as an alternative to the purchase of the F-15 or F-16?
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I said in Brussels and here, and the Prime Minister said before the NATO heads of government, that Canada intends to maintain the level of its contribution to the NATO alliance. The form in which we are to do that is being considered as part of the structure review to which I have just referred. There is no suggestion that the CF-5 would replace the F-15, the F-14 or some next generation fighter, but that does not mean we should not make use of the CF-5 which is an excellent ground-support tactical aircraft.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is just entering the chamber. In view of the buffoonery indulged in yesterday and statements made by Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plumptre at a press conference yesterday which clearly indicate a bias against agricultural marketing boards and the intention of the anti-inflation review board to give top priority to the investigation of agricultural marketing boards, will the Minister of Agriculture tell the House if the government intends to allow the controls program to destroy the best mechanism which agricultural producers now have for ensuring that their prices are related to costs of production? If not, if that is not the government's intention, how does he interpret Mr. Pepin's statement of yesterday?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I said before and I say again, a well-run marketing board has nothing to fear from anyone.


An hon. Member:: You don't know Beryl.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While I may agree with the Minister of Agriculture's remarks, that does not deny the fact that the threat has already been made against marketing boards. As there are now over 100 marketing boards, federal and provincial, in the country, boards which farmers worked for and desired for decades, can the minister explain how we are to reconcile Mr. Pepin's remarks with the statement on page 18 of the white paper which says that prices received by farmers and fishermen for their products are exempt from the guidelines?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I know of Mr. Pepin's statements is what I read in the press. I will try to arrange a meeting with Mr. Pepin as soon as I can. I will hear what Mr. Pepin has to say, and I intend to meet with him as soon as possible. I am sure what the hon. member said, Mr. Speaker, is well recognized by many, namely, that marketing boards have a role to play in the pricing system, and that we support the concept of properly run marketing boards-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 16, 1975
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: These are closely related-


George Harris Hees: And so on, and so on.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to pay any more attention to John Turner than I paid before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: With regard to the government's program to control inflation, if hon. members study what a marketing board does, they will find that it is probably more closely related to this program than any other business operation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I might say that I am very grateful for the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture about marketing boards. Yesterday Mr. Pepin referred to himself and Mrs. Plumptre as "two distinguished fools". I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain, in view of that ludicrous performance yesterday, what grounds Mr. Pepin might have for using the word "distinguished"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since 135 owners of land, plots of land, houses and other similar properties have not yet been granted a final settlement for the expropriations necessitated by the development of the Mirabel project, could the minister tell the House if the offers made to them will be increased by 10 per cent, as has been promised, in order to cover the increase in real estate values which has taken place since then? Moreover, could the minister say if those people will get $3,000 more as compensation for relocation costs and for the disadvantages to which their relocation has given rise?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at the exact timing of the various settlement attempts in the case of Mirabel and discuss the details of that with the hon. member.


Léonel Beaudoin: I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House whether the government is willing to consider the possibility of giving all Mirabel expropriated parties an increase of 50 per cent over the initial offer, just as he has agreed to do in the case of the expropriated of the Forillon park?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No,
Mr. Speaker.

fEnqlish]


CONSULTANTS' CONTRACT TO RAY MCLAREN-ALLEGED VIOLATION OF POLICY OF RESTRAINT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I note he is not yet in his seat. Perhaps I can direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the national call to restraint issued last Monday evening by the Prime Minister, and the notation in the white paper that the government plans a reduction in expenditures for private consultants, will the minister bring the spirit of these commitments to his own department and cancel the atrocious contract given to one Roy McLaren of Toronto?


An hon. Member:: Here he is now.


William James Kempling: I will repeat my question to the minister. In view of the national call to restraint issued last Monday evening by the Prime Minister, and the notation in the white paper that the government plans a reduction in expenditures for private consultants, will the minister bring the spirit of these commitments to his own department and cancel the atrocious contract given to one Roy McLaren of Toronto?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for not having been in at the outset. I am not sure if the contract is atrocious. In fact, I personally have not seen it. However, I am having discussions this afternoon with my deputy minister with regard to this and other related matters. Perhaps I might be able to reply more fully later. As far as I know at this moment, there is no contract.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question. We understand this contract was foisted on the minister's department by Messrs. Pitfield and Davey. Will the minister agree that a contract which calls for a salary of $50,000 a year and $40,000 a year in non-accountable expenses is not in keeping with the call for restraint and the commitment to reduce expenditures?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that he and I are the least likely people in this House on which anything could be foisted by anyone. I look at it in terms of whether I consider the gentleman's services to be of the value that is now being negotiated.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
October 16, 1975

I compliment the government and him on that appointment and endorse the words-the eloquent words-used by the Prime Minister when he said: "He will bring freshness and vigour to the post."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister having stated that he knows the dangers inherent in crime expansion, living as he does in Vancouver, I ask him, therefore, whether he would do something to expedite the private bill which I introduced to provide that any gun carrier committing an offence or endeavouring to commit one should, in addition to any other penalty, be subject to five years for possession of firearms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I hope he will do this, because while the package for which we have been waiting for months does not seem to come, this would do something to meet the serious situation today when gun carriers are holding Canadians up to ransom everywhere.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I would, first of all, thank the right hon. gentleman for his kind comments. I trust I can live up to the words of the Prime Minister he quoted. In answer to the question, I should like, if I might, to review the right hon. gentleman's bill to determine whether some action on this side should be taken with regard to it. I should like him to know that I share his concern about the present adequacy of gun laws; my colleague the Solicitor General and I have proposals which are presently before cabinet for consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Since this question of a package has been under consideration for several months, I hope that this one suggestion, which will in no way interfere with the package and which would strike terror into the hearts of wrongdoers, will be permitted to be brought in and expedited through the House at the earliest moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It concerns a grievance which has been directed to my attention by a group of CNR employees at the passenger sales department in Winnipeg. The grievance refers to the manner in which the Official Languages Act is being applied. After receiving the maximum amount of French language training which the CNR allows them, and passing, they are not designated bilingual. These people are now being demoted, with loss of pay, or being laid off. Will the minister implement an immediate investigation into the unjust treatment accorded to these employees and inquire why they are not receiving the 12-month language training courses as laid down in the official languages resolution adopted by Parliament in June, 1973?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, be very glad to look into any matter that any hon. member brings to my attention in sufficient detail so that I can follow it up.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As these employees are not receiving the proper job protection as laid out in the 1973 resolution, will the minister recommend to the cabinet that the resolution be made law by becoming an official part of the Official Languages Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will not draw any conclusions until I have investigated the matter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he advise the House whether a specific program is being considered and will be implemented under the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to provide some relief, and hopefully some stability, to the cow-calf operators of Canada who are in a very serious state of affairs at the present time?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have had some meetings with the provinces and the different producer organizations and I can say this-I am sure the hon. member is aware of it. Some organizations are suggesting that nothing be done; others are suggesting that many things be done. I received letters from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture yesterday telling us what they think should be done. We are considering all of these proposals at the present time, though I realize some of them are late.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in Edmonton on September 19 the Minister of Agriculture indicated that a cow-calf stabilization plan would be unveiled within two weeks, may I ask the minister why he has changed his position, or was he simply engaging in a game of hot air, or in a game of politics where he says one thing in one part of Canada and another thing in the House of Commons?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, from what the hon. member has just said, certainly he should be the expert on hot air and politics, at least as far as I am concerned. I said that we were working on a program and that I hoped a proper program would be announced in due course. The hon. member knows full well that representations have been made by different people in the cattle industry. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association have been strongly suggesting that nothing be done, and also the Saskatchewan growers have practically said nothing should be done. If they are not representative, then let the hon. member say so here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister said in his
8258

October 16, 1975
Oral Questions
speech last night that he has assured the farmers that they will not be left holding the bag if the bottom drops out of the market for the product, would the minister not consider that the bottom has dropped out of the market so far as the cow-calf operators of Canada are concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are bound by the stabilization act to stabilize the price of beef, and we will do that.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement in the white paper that the government intends to keep the growth of the public service in the coming year to 1.5 per cent, and in view of the fact that some years ago when the Prime Minister announced a freeze on the hiring of public servants a large number of contracts were made by various departments with employees who were not permanent members of the public service, so that departments could get the people they needed, may I ask the minister whether he has given consideration to limiting the number of people who can be hired under contract by government departments?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the department will not be allowed to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, in line with the statement he has just made, he has put a limitation on the total amount of money allocated for payment of contracts to hire people in the coming year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, every department's budget provides a certain amount for contracts, naturally; those amounts will certainly not be increased, in compliance with the policy announced by the government.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board.
As the aim of the Local Initiatives Program is to invite the Canadian people to help create employment and fight effectively against unemployment; as much publicity was made to invite the population to submit LIP projects: as

the public responded positively to the appeal of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as shown by the many projects submitted in Bellechasse, to mention only my constituency, which total $25 million, as only one fourth of the budget was earmarked for this purpose, can the minister tell the House whether additional supplies will be allocated to the Department of Manpower and Immigration to subsidize more projects and follow the guidelines of the white paper, aiming at fighting inflation and particularly unemployment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the budget was brought down last June, the Minister of Finance had then provided for an additional sum of several million dollars for LIP projects this year, and as a matter of fact, more money will be available for those projects this year than last year. But if the hon. member wants to know if we are going to add more money to the budget brought down by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton last June, the answer is no.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary of the President of the Treasury Board.
As I always have taken seriously the government's policies regarding inflation and fight against unemployment, in view of the disproportion existing in the same budget mentioned by the minister for job creation through the Local Initiatives Program and the amounts allocated to unemployed persons, i.e. through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, may I ask the minister if he would urge his cabinet colleagues to reconsider that disproportion in order to face the unemployment problem more efficiently by allocating enough additional money to fund more projects?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I already said, we will be able to accept more projects this year than last year, but it is impossible, at this moment, to increase the amounts in this area under the current circumstances.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Communications. While the recent federal by-elections afforded good news for members on this side of the House, would the Acting Minister of Communications communicate with the head of the CBC, the CRTC and the relevant media bodies in this country and assure this House that in future no longer will the right hon. Prime Minister be accorded prime time on the eve of elections, be they general or by-elections, for so-called non-political speeches?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was perfectly clear at the time that the speech that was made was perfectly proper and in accordance with the rulings.
October 16, 1975


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister agree with Mr. Pepin that a first priority for the new Anti-Inflation Board should be an investigation of athletes' salaries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have constituted the Anti-Inflation Board and will be looking for their active guidance in dealing with these questions. From my standpoint the principal areas of concern, initially at least, will be the areas of food and rents.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to this very important post.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Robert Howie: I attempted to give the minister notice of my question yesterday and I hope he received it. In view of the fact that the Regional Development Incentives Act applies only to companies achieving commercial production on or before December 31, 1976, and recognizing that the planning and implementation stages of new manufacturing projects often require 18 months or more to complete, does the government attach priority to the amendment of this act so that its effective date may be extended?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for his kind words and for the fact that yesterday he gave me notice of his intention to ask this question today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I may say to the House and to the hon. member that the government has decided it will extend the present act for five years past 1976. I am looking forward to tabling this very short bill in the House as soon as possible which is designed to achieve this objective. I hope that the interest shown by hon. members in this place would indicate that I will receive strong support and quick passage of this bill so that we will achieve the goals set in this department.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his very positive and wise answer which is well received. Is it the intention of
Oral Questions
the government to continue to fund the Multiplex Corporation in New Brunswick after December 31 of this year?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, this specific question is under review at the present time. There has been some discussion going on within the department about that popular subject and I hope I will be able to report on some decision in that regard soon.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a total force of nearly
10,000	men will be used for security purposes during next year's two-week Olympic games in Montreal, consisting of the RCMP, the Montreal and Quebec police forces, as well as 5,000 members of the armed forces, will the Solicitor General advise this House who in fact will be heading this mammoth security operation, and can he assure us at the same time that costs can be expected to remain at the originally projected figure of $90 million, particularly in these times of restraint?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Olympic security is under a co-ordinating unit which is directed by a representative of the Montreal urban community police force. The RCMP along with the Quebec provincial police and the armed forces are represented on the co-ordinating group, but the director, and I forget the man's name right now, is from the Montreal urban community police force.
As to the costs, I cannot give the hon. member the over-all figure, but I know that in respect of the RCMP for which I have responsibility we are doing our best to keep tight control of these expenditures.


POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF SECURITY FORCES BECAUSE OF BILLY GRAHAM CRUSADE
Otto John Jelinek: I have a supplementary question. Keeping in mind that the costs are related to direct grants from the federal government, and therefore are taxpayers' costs, and because of the fact that during the Olympic games Billy Graham is planning a mammoth crusade at one of the Olympic sites, will the minister inform the House whether he intends to divert security from existing areas for the Olympic games, add further security or, indeed, is it the government's intention to ask Mr. Graham to hold his crusade at some other time in order to prevent further potential dangers developing in an already potentially explosive situation which will exist in Montreal?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I read that Mr. Graham will give a talk or a series of talks during the Olympic games. I did not hear that he would give them on Olympic territory. I will check into that. I must say in respect of the costs that the costs for
29669-39/2

October 16, 1975
Oral Questions
which we are responsible are those relating to the RCMP. These are costs of equipment, men and facilities, and they do not relate to the other three groups involved in security.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the objection of the people of the Morna neighbourhood community to the choice of their area for the location of a minimum security institution, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has abandoned plans for the construction of the institution at that location?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this point because we have received approval in principle from the New Brunswick provincial government and from certain persons associated with the government of the city of Saint John. I understand there will be a further meeting of the council of the city of Saint John very shortly and we will await the decision that follows that meeting. If there is overwhelming objection to the site we will then consider withdrawing it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board confirmed in the House on Tuesday that senior civil servants had received very large pay increases of up to $6,500 I should like to know whether the order granting all or part of the increases was actually signed on October 14, the day after the Prime Minister's televised statement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I said recently, this decision was approved by the Cabinet in the month of July and the process of salary level selection went on during the following days. I do not know exactly when. The order to which the hon. member is referring was signed but I did not sign it myself at that time, I am sure of that. Besides, the agreement is for one year only. From April 1, 1976, the parties will be governed by the white paper guidelines. The holders of such positions will not be entitled to more than $2,400 a year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not know whether he signed all the agreements, and in view of the new regulations, will he tell the House whether he has reconsidered some of the very large increases that have been recommended in order to obtain more equity within the public service of this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this decision had been made by the Cabinet in the month of July. It is not possible to review it right now.


NEGOTIATIONS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS GROUPS-NEED FOR INSTRUCTION ON WAGE GUIDELINES
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board which arises from a similar difficulty regarding the date of the signing of an agreement and the purport of the interpretation to be placed on page 20 of the white paper in respect of the matter of special considerations. Will the minister undertake to investigate the case presently before the conciliation board of the aircraft operation group of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, who are having some difficulty, as well as the chairman of the board, in interpreting page 20 and the provisions thereon? Perhaps he could give instructions to the Treasury Board negotiators on this matter so the chairman of the board can deal properly with this question that has been brought to the minister's attention.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and if I can be useful in this matter, I will readily do so, but I do not know whether it is possible. Anyhow, if a collective agreement has been signed by that group, it could be reviewed by the board which we have just set up.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Does she feel confident that her representations to the United States Government have been successful in assuring that the environmental program for the Great Lakes, through an agreement with the United States, will not be delayed, reduced or watered down in any way?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, during our talks with Mr. Kissinger, reference was made to the agreement which Canada signed with the United States to clean the Great Lakes. He renewed the assurances already given by Mr. Train that the United States would try once more to make up slippage in the allocation of funds under that agreement.
October 16, 1975


AIRPORTS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Pickering airport project is back in the black box I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether any policy is being established regarding the use of agricultural land and, if so, when will that policy be forthcoming to indicate the kind of protection the federal government intends to give in respect of the utilization of agricultural lands?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we had heard that the province of Ontario was backing away from its previous participation in the airport project we indicated that for the present time the land we had acquired for airport purposes would be available for leasing back to the individuals to be put to use as soon as possible, and that is underway.


AGRICULTURE
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. When will the soil classification maps for Canada which were promised to soil scientists four years ago, be available, having regard to the fact that no sensible soil utilization plans can be developed until Canada has these maps available to soil scientists in the country.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of any promises having been made four years ago. I will certainly check on the position that this project holds and let the hon. member know.


COMPATIBILITY OF CONTROLS ON MARKETING BOARDS AND EXEMPTING FARM PRICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it relates to the same subject matter as the question put to him by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. My question is simply this: is it the minister's position that the principle of exempting prices at the farm gate from price controls is compatible with the principle of subjecting farm marketing board prices to such controls? In other words, is it the minister's opinion that exempting prices at the farm gate is compatible with the imposition of controls on the marketing boards? Can the two work together?


Eugene Whelan: I want to say first and foremost that I do not use the term "farm gate". I do not think it is practical because farm prices are much farther afield than that. I do say that what the marketing boards are doing is compatible with the policy under the anti-inflation program which we are trying to adopt at present.
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


PROPOSED CAMP HILL COMPLEX AT HALIFAX-DATE OF TENDER CALL
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it still the intention of the government to proceed with the much needed building of Camp Hill veterans complex in Halifax this fall and, if so, approximately when will the tenders be called?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member has been discussed by the provincial government of Nova Scotia and we are awaiting their views on this very important subject.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the light of the minister's strong anti-inflation speech on Tuesday, will he undertake now to designate a specific section of his department to monitor the supply and delivery of home canning supplies for next year to prevent a recurrence in 1976 of the shortages that have developed in the last three years which have prevented many Canadians from fighting inflation as effectively as they wish to do?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the companies concerned have met with officials of my department and that of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The meetings have been fruitful and I believe that not only has one part of the problem been solved this year but measures are taken to avoid any future repetition of last year's and this year's experience.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, but first I would like to congratulate him on his appointment to his new portfolio. The Canadian National Railways have requested permission from the Canadian Transport Commission to discontinue rail service between Liverpool, Nova Scotia and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. In light of the fact that this is the only CNR connecting link between Halifax and Yarmouth which services our export trade from the South Shore with the New England states and

October 16, 1975
Oral Questions
since this action will seriously affect industry, large and small, along the South Shore of Nova Scotia, will the minister investigate this request by the CNR in the hope that this rail service will be continued in the area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's representation and look into it.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice and also wish him every success in his duties.
Now that the government has decided to allege before the Supreme Court that Quebec's crime commission, with whom the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and officials of the Department of Justice and that of the Solicitor General of Canada have cooperated for the last three years, sat and is sitting illegally, could the minister tell the House whether, in the event the Supreme Court agrees with that belated and astonishing allegation, he would be prepared to recommend the establishment of a federal inquiry commission on organized crime throughout the country to carry on the work of the Quebec commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, our intervention in this matter was only at the level of the Supreme Court of Canada where, I think, the Attorney General of Canada is expected to intervene. I have indicated that in the event that the position put forward by the Attorney General is the correct one, I am ready, willing and eager to discuss with the minister of justice of the province of Quebec alternatives to make the kind of inquiry under question properly and constitutionally well based.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE QUEBEC CRIME COMMISSION WHEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENED
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the minister confirm to the House that, at the time of his intervention in the inquiry on organized crime, the inquirers had already heard, in camera, and intended to hear publicly, a testimony involving well-known political organizers, members of a patronage system relating specially to the Loto-Quebec concessions and the granting of licences from the Quebec Liquor Board?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Under the recently published anti-inflationary guidelines as they appear on page 24 of the white paper it appears the dividend payments are to be frozen at last year's level. Aside from wondering why dividends should not be subject to the same 10 per cent guidelines and other relevant guidelines as other forms of compensation, especially for the elderly who had the good sense to look after their advancing years, I am moved to ask the minister whether this means that company earnings are henceforth to be confiscated by the Crown should those earnings surpass the limits permitted under the guidelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
hon. gentleman will be able to examine the procedural nature of this, but in general terms we feel that with regard to corporate dividends as with regard to certain other types of income, for example corporate profits, to put them at the level at which they have been in recent years is not doing them an injustice. We would be arriving at an agreement with all sectors of the community if it could be made clear that those who are owners of such property would be sharing in the restraint program.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: My
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the promise that the minister made when she was visiting the Okanagan in mid August that she would sign the Okanagan water basin cost sharing agreement within two weeks, I would ask her now when she is going to sign it?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I did not promise to sign it within two weeks. I said I was expecting it could be signed within two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: I understand there are still some problems and it will be signed shortly.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the answer to my question by the Solicitor General would be somewhat misleading and I am sure the minister does not wish to mislead the House or the public. It is my understanding that there is agreement between the minister and his counterpart in general as to the construction of a penal institution in the province of New
October 16, 1975

Brunswick but that there is no agreement as to the specific location, particularly to Morna in the area of Saint John. I would be happy to be corrected if the minister would care to present me with documentation that would show that such an agreement has been reached, but I do not think the minister wants to leave the impression, which I think would be denied, that an agreement as to the specific location has been reached between himself and his counterpart in the province of New Brunswick.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that agreement in principle for the construction of the medium security institution in Saint John was obtained from the government of New Brunswick. Let me also say that the site that has been indicated was not picked by us but was indicated to us as a possible site by the authorities in the city of Saint John. We said that we wanted a site near the city or within the city, and that site was indicated as a possible site, but we are awaiting further reports from the open meeting of the city council to see what will be done.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader what business we will have for tomorrow and the next few days, assuming that we are going to proceed with the government's bill with regard to price restraints. If, in the orderly progress of that bill, time is available for other matters, what matters will we be dealing with? Will the government House leader please go as far as he can so that this party may, as usual, attempt to facilitate such good legislation as the government may, as it infrequently does, bring forward?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to proceed tomorrow with the anti-inflation bill, which will be read for the first time in a few minutes. I welcome the intervention of the House leader of the official opposition, but if possible I should like to lay before the House an orderly program for the consideration of this bill and others which are on the order paper. We are as anxious as he is to give hon. members due notice, with some idea of the time during which this bill and others could be disposed of. I think it is in the interests of everyone in the House that there should be an orderly and sufficient discussion of each of these measures but that it not go on indefinitely.


Gerald William Baldwin: I listened with great interest to the hon. gentleman, and having said that, will he now indicate what other business we may be considering after we finish the one bill to which he referred?


Mitchell William Sharp: The bill on unemployment insurance and Bill C-65 dealing with the amendments to the Income Tax
Visit of Dr. Kissinger
Act, which were not disposed of, have the highest priority. There are one or two other measures which there may be a disposition to put into committee, such as the bill on superannuation, which I would like to discuss with the various leaders; but I hesitate to commit them until I have had an opportunity of discussing the program in detail.


Mr. Alexander:: I should like to have some clarification with respect to the bill regarding unemployment insurance and Bill C-65. Can the minister indicate, now, which one has the highest priority so that we can determine at what time we should be dealing with these matters?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have a little difficulty in this respect. Bill C-65 may turn out to be not very controversial and there may be a disposition to deal with it quickly. If so, I might be inclined to put it ahead. However, if that is not the case, certainly the unemployment insurance bill has the highest priority.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the government House leader of the fact that just before we broke up at the end of July the minister indicated that there would be laid before the House a bill as promised in the budget speech of June 23, amending the Government Annuities Act to provide for the escalation of benefits under that act. Can he say whether that bill is now ready, and will it soon be presented to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect that it will be before cabinet within the next few days and then will be laid before the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am a little doubtful about the jurisprudence, but I am perfectly certain that this point of order should be raised and I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) can disabuse me quickly. Allegations have been made in Washington that both the speeches and the private conversations and comments at a dinner held by the minister in honour of the visit of Dr. Kissinger were broadcast to the press room of the Lester B. Pearson Building and have become the subject matter of news stories in the United States. I submit that this will do serious damage to an otherwise useful visit of the United States Secretary of State.
If these allegations are true, they surely affect the privileges of members of the cabinet and of parliament and constitute a serious invasion of privacy. I hope the minister can give the House an explanation and also assure us that if the allegations are correct, arrangements will be made so that such an occurrence cannot again take place.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this matter. It is true that there was a story in the Washington Post this morning. In fact, I happened to be in Washington and I was given the Post as

October 16, 1975
Social Security
I was leaving the hotel for the airport. In the article there is an account of what I understand to be fragments of the conversation held between Dr. Kissinger and Madam Morin who was sitting next to him at the table. I am not quite sure how this happened, except that arrangements had been made that the toasts made by Dr. Kissinger and myself would be made available through a line to the national press building. If these fragments are correctly reported, the only explanation is that the microphone was left open at a time when it ought not to have been left open.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member raises a very serious question as to the propriety of any person reporting even fragments of what obviously was a private conversation between Dr. Kissinger and the hon. member of this House who was sitting next to him. I am quite troubled, personally, by this incident, and when I returned to Ottawa I called Dr. Kissinger on the telephone and expressed my regrets for it. I feel sure the hon. member will want to know that the Secretary of State said he would not permit this incident to mar in any way what he regarded as an extremely successful visit to Canada. It was an extremely successful visit and I regret that this incident did happen. I believe the fact that any effort was made to report a private conversation, even in fragments, is worthy of contempt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member. It is obviously of great importance. The hon. member has done, as expressed in the words of the minister, a service to the House by raising the point. It is difficult to see how we can get into a prolonged dialogue about it at this point. However, if the hon. member has another suggestion, we will hear it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I appreciate the minister's frankness on this point. I think, however, that the House is entitled to know whether Dr. Kissinger knew of the arrangements with the national press building, and also whether the minister is conducting an investigation to see who was responsible for this extraordinarily sloppy arrangement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am quite certain that Dr. Kissinger did know that the tape-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the toasts were to be made available for distribution in Canada and the United States. Obviously, it was not intended to go beyond the official toasts in what was to be made available at what was otherwise a private occasion. I have asked that an investigation be made into the circumstances which permitted this to occur, and I am personally quite mortified at it.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies of the report of the Advisory Committee on the Canada Pension Plan entitled: The Rate of Return on the Investment Fund of the Canada Pension Plan.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESTRAINT OF PROFIT MARGINS, PRICES, DIVIDENDS AND COMPENSATION
Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 478, 1,705, 2,574, 2,769, 2,872, 2,889, 2,911, 3,014, 3,029 and 3,052.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all those classified as special assistants who have been employed by, attached to or on loan to the Prime Minister's Office since April 20, 1968, along with their annual salaries, dates employment commenced and, where applicable, dates it terminated and for what reason?
2.	What is an absolutely complete description of all the main functions performed in the case of each of these individuals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1.
1.	Employment Employment	SalaryName	Commenced	Terminated	Range $ 20,000-25,000Mr. T. Porteous	20-04-68	*2-04-73	Mr. M. Vennat	20-04-68	**27-11-70	20,000-25,000Mr. R. Rolland	22-12-69	**22-06-74	20,000-25,000Mr. P. Levasseur	13-06-68	*5-01-70	20,000-25,000Mr. F. Fox	15-01-70	***1-09-72	20,000-25,000Mr. G. Gibson	20-04-68	***1-09-72	20,000-25,000
October 16, 1975

1.	Employment	Employment	SalaryName	Commenced	Terminated	Range 'tMr. J. Mongeau	22-06-70	**28-09-73	15,000-17,500Mr. T. D'Aquino	1-11-69	**18-11-72	17,500-20,000Mr. J. Olivier	17-08-71	***1-09-72	17,500-20,000Mr. G. Elliott	1-03-72	**31-12-72	20,000-25,000Mr. M. Gillan	28-11-72	*2-04-73	17,500-20,000Mrs. A. Jamieson	26-08-68	*5-12-72	12,500-15,000Miss M.-H. Fox	30-11-70	-	20,000-25,000Mr. T. Webb	4-01-72	-	20,000-25,000Mr. J. Moore	1-03-72	-	20,000-25,000Mr. K. Jespersen	4-01-73	-	20,000-25,000Mr. G. Dufault	5-02-71	-	20,000-25,000Mr. C. Kenny	23-02-70	-	25,000-30,000Mr. A. Grossman	1-05-73	**1-09-74	20,000-25,000Mr. E. Rubin	1-11-73	**1-09-74	25,000-30,000* Reassignment	in the public service	
** Returned to private sector employment
*** Resigned to seek political office
2.	Assignment of duties in each case is made by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Canadian Committee on Oceanography still charged with the responsibility of the co-ordination of activities in marine science and technology?
2.	Was this the description of the mandate of the Committee given by the Minister of State for Science and Technology in a news release dated July 12, 1973, entitled "New Oceans Policy"?
3.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,329 which stated that "the Canadian Committee on Oceanography has not met within the last six months", who now has the responsibility of co-ordinating the activities in marine science and technology and on what date was the change, if any, affected?
4.	Does this Committee intend to meet within the next six months and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Is it the intention of the Minister to in any way alter the parameters and outlines of the government policy on oceans from those presented July 12, 1973 and, if so, on what date?
6.	What is the assessment of government of the value of the Canadian Committee on Oceanography and of the role of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology in Oceans Policy?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. Yes
2.	Yes
3.	The Canadian Committee on Oceanography has met since Question 1,329 was answered, that meeting occurring on June 10, 1975. No changes have been made with regard to co-ordination of activities in marine science and technology.
4.	The Canadian Committee on Oceanography intends to meet within the next six months.
5.	The Minister of State for Science and Technology has no specific intentions of altering the parameters and outlines of this government policy on oceans from those announced on July 12, 1973; in his responsibility for conducting a continuing review of ocean policy, the Minister will recommend changes in that policy to Cabinet when the need arises.
Order Paper Questions
6.	In the view of the government, the Canadian Committee on Oceanography is fulfilling a valuable role in reviewing and advising on activities in marine science and technology. The government also considers that the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has performed, and continues to perform, an essential role in the development of the Oceans Policy and in the continuous review of issues related to this policy.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Privy Council Office for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. $270,000,
2. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) $124,800. (d) $145,200.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What was the cost of furnishing the office of Mr. Jack Austin, special assistant to the Prime Minister?
2.	In what years and under what terms of reference was the cost of the furniture shown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2. Fiscal year 1974-75 as a charge to the Privy Council Office Program-capital expenditure.
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	For each department, Crown corporation or agency, as of January 1 (a) 1969 (b) 1970 (c) 1971 (d) 1972 (e) 1973 (f) 1974 (g) 1975, how many (i) security or intelligence officers (ii) individuals otherwise concerned with security-related or intelligence-related matters, were employed directly, by contract or in any other way by the government?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) salary range (b) rank or classification (c) job description (d) name of each such individual?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not
considered to be in the public interest to provide detailed information about security arrangements.


Mr. Brisco: How much has actually been paid by DREE in the Constituency of Kootenay West in each year in which the DREE programme has operated in the Constituency?


Marcel Lessard: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows;
8266

October 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
	Expenditures	Expenditures
	made in	made in
	Kootenay West	Kootenay West
Fiscal Year	under RDIA	under ARDA1969-70	$	$ 	1970-71	33,490	24,1811971-72	231,661	2,0841972-73	353,474	8,3731973-74	-	8,7031974-75	302,352	-1975-76	368,772	
(to July 15/75)


Mr. Malone: 1.	Has the government authorized Senator Earl Hastings to present on behalf of the government cheques to any person or groups of persons in the Province of Alberta and, if so (a) how many (b) what are the names of the persons who have received cheques through Senator Hastings (c) was Senator Hastings directly involved in negotiating for any such funds and, if so, who are the persons or groups of persons with whom the Senator had such involvement?
2.	Has any other Senator from the Province of Alberta issued cheques on behalf of the government since July 8, 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. No. (a)
Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
2. No.


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Louis Desmarais, Director of Power Corporation of Canada Ltd. been or is he a member, officer, director or in any way whatsoever associated with (a) a Crown corporation (b) the government (c) a department, agency, advisory board, council or committee and, if so (i) what position did he or does he hold (ii) with what corporation, department, agency, advisory board, council or committee (iii) between what dates (iv) was the position attained by appointment, contest, promotion or through a personnel agency (v) if by appointment, by whom or by what authority was he appointed?


Mitchell William Sharp: (i) Member of the National Harbours Board; (ii) Montreal Port Authority; (iii) December 15, 1971, to date; (iv) Appointment; (v) Minister of Transport. Vice-Chairman, Canada Development Corporation. Appointed by Governor in Council (see sections 4 and 5, CDC Act).


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Laurent Beaudoin, President of Bombardier Ltee. been or is he a member, officer, director or in any way whatsoever associated with (a) a Crown corporation (b) the government (c) a department, agency, advisory board, council or committee and, if so (i) what position did he or does he hold (ii) with what corporation, department, agency, advisory board, council or committee (iii) between what dates (iv) was the position attained by appointment, contest, promotion or through a personnel agency (v) if by appointment, by whom or by what authority was he appointed?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) Yes, Canadian Patents and Development Limited; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable, (i) Member of Board of Directors; (ii) Canadian Patents and Development Limited; (iii) June 25, 1970 to November 15, 1971; (iv) appointment; (v) Board of Directors of Canadian Patents and Development Limited. Director, Canada Development Corporation Appointment by Governor in Council (see sections 4 and 5, CDC Act), (a) Nil; (b) Nil; (c) Industrial Incentives Advisory Board, (i) Member; (ii) Industrial Incentives Advisory Board; (iii) May 18, 1971 to November 15, 1971; (iv) By invitation of the Minister; (v) The authority for this Board is contained in Section 15A of the amended Regional Development Incentives Act.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	How many free passes were handed out by Air Canada to the staff or management of the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 and to what destinations?
2.	What was the total value of the passes for each year?
3.	How many passes were for (a) economy travel (b) first class travel in each year?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Nil, (b) Nil, (c) 5, (d) 10, (e) Nil. Moscow, Paris, Halifax, Vancouver and Miami.
2.	Records of territorial coverages actually travelled by each passholder are not available. However, the cost of standard economy class travel over the routes indicated on the passes would have totalled approximately $10,500.
3.	(a) and (b) All passes were issued for economy class travel.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,885 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that question No. 3,094 be made an order for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: In regard to the 96 community pastures operated by PFRA, in each case (a) where is it located (b) what is its size (c) what was its (i) revenue (ii) cost for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?
Return tabled.
October 16, 1975


Mr. Beatty: For each of the past five years, what was the government's annual bill for electricity?
Return tabled.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 2,871 and 2,946?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What was the total amount of money spent on security or security-related matters from March 31, 1974 to March 31, 1975 and what is the identification of every vote in the Estimates which authorized such expenditure?
2.	What was the total amount of money voted to be spent on security or security-related matters from March 31, 1975 to March 31, 1976 and what is the identification of every vote in the Estimates which authorized such expenditure?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, it is not considered to be in the public interest to provide detailed information about security arrangements.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is the Department of National Revenue planning to locate a computer centre in Winnipeg and, if so, will the Department or the Department of Public Works be buying or leasing a building?
2.	Is the CAE Air Canada building at 570 Ferry Road being considered and, if so, will it be bought or leased?
3.	If the Department of National Revenue occupies the building will renovations be required and, if so (a) what will be their cost (b) who will pay for them?
4.	For how many years would either Department lease the building at 570 Ferry Road?
5.	Did either Department advertise for tenders to lease or buy such building and, if so (a) who submitted tenders and in what amounts (b) was the contract to occupy 570 Ferry Road the lowest offer?
6.	Who are the owners of the building at 570 Ferry Road?
7.	Will the computer operation be affected if jet aircraft are only a short distance above the building when landing?
8.	Are any other new computer centres being planned and, if so, in which cities?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and Public Works as follows: 1. The Department of National Revenue will open a Regional Data Centre in Winnipeg using some small scale computer equipment. The Department of Public Works will lease a building for that purpose.
Combines Investigation Act
2.	The CAE Aircraft Building in Winnipeg will be leased to house the National Revenue Taxation Data Centre.
3.	(a) The estimated cost of tenant services is $1,760,000. (b) The cost of the tenant services will be the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue.
4.	The DPW will lease the CAE Building for a term of three years. The lease will include three 1-year options on the same terms and conditions.
5.	(a) The DPW advertised for proposals to lease approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of space in an existing building. One offer only was received from Metropolitan Estates Properties Corporation. The offer was disqualified as it did not meet the terms of the tender document which called for space in an existing building, (b) Due to the limited time frame available, offers for space in existing buildings were solicited and the proposal received from the CAE Aircraft for accommodation at 570 Ferry Road was the lowest.
6.	CAE Aircraft Limited, Winnipeg International Airport, P.O. Box 1700, are the owners of the building at 570 Ferry Road. Located on a site leased by CAE Aircraft Ltd. from the Ministry of Transport.
7.	No.
8.	Other Regional Data Centres are in the planning stage but no further cities have been selected as yet.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 15, consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal 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. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising, of course, in support of the amendments presented to this House by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I was most interested to listen to the debate yesterday, particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). He seemed to become very exercised about the effect of the amendments which have been placed before the House and the obvious interference in the marketplace of Canada. In fact, he became so upset that he suggested they were not only nonsense but were mainly baloney. That is pretty strong stuff, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the hon. member for Nickel Belt can get emotional from time to time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Abbott:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
29669 -401/2

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) on a point of order.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: My point of order is that I did not refer to the amendment as baloney; I referred to the content of the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) as baloney.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we can expect a favourable vote on the amendment today. Since the hon. member seems to find favour with the amendment but not with the speech, I will be delighted if he will join this courageous group on the question of advertising and vote for these very sensible amendments which certainly should recommend themselves to anyone with some experience in advertising and of enforcing the existing provisions.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Mississauga had to say about the general provisions which he said are satisfactory and general enough that prosecutors will not have their hands tied. In fact, the reverse is true. If you talk to anyone who has had experience in prosecuting firms for misleading advertising, they will tell you the success ratio is very low. One of the real problems is that we have no properly legislated, clear standards of what is a violation and what is not. The work "misleading" is far too broad and generic to be of any value whatsoever. Convictions under the act are difficult-almost impossible.
What the hon. member for Nickel Belt is attempting to accomplish is something that I thought would have recommended itself to all members of this House, that is, simply the question of providing truth in advertising. I am pessimistic enough, however, to believe that when these amendments come to a vote tonight we will have the usual lock-up between the government side and the official opposition in opposing the strengthening of those provisions dealing with the marketplace and the manipulation of the consumer by advertising.
There is no way that we can continue to argue out of one side of our mouths that society is becoming permissive, is becoming soft, and yet when it comes time to be counted in this House and lay some of the blame where it belongs, on the advertising media of this country, we say that we cannot interfere in the marketplace.
It ill becomes the Prime Minister of this country to go on television and waggle his finger at the Canadian population, as he did the other night, and say, "You fellows have been living too high on the hog. You are to blame for this inflation. You people out there have been buying too much; you have been seeking too much." Surely it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to do something about the way the public has been manipulated, by advertising, into seeking the most useless kind of cosmetic junk that is promoted over and over again because of the capitalist demands of the media.
Nobody answers what the organs of communication tell us. There is no anti-advertising program. Therefore, when representatives of my party propose amendments to put teeth into the "truth in advertising" concept, they meet 
the typical response, "We cannot change the market-place. Besides, you may reduce sales; your proposal is too harsh on some who produce in the marketplace." Nothing is further from the truth.
I am going to talk about how some companies advertise. The other day we went to McDonald's. They have not improved their product; they have improved their menu instead. In the restaurant it is not the food that is important, but the picture of the food on the menu; and every time the picture gets better the price goes up. They have not improved service, but their advertising.
The Post Office also advertises. Because of the many complaints it received from across the country it introduced something called guaranteed mail service. The department painted post boxes with a nice white line and said, "Now you have guaranteed mail service". But the service continued to decline and became less and less guaranteed. That Crown corporation fell into a trap which had been set, by example, by major commercial corporations. The trick in advertising is to tell the Hitler-like big lie. Don't tell a small lie; you have to tell a really big one.
Imperial Oil's advertising about the north looks very appealing. They portray themselves as nice guys in the north who are concerned about our ecology. Let me tell you that if anyone is threatening the ecology of the north, it is the oil companies. Their advertising tries to counter criticism. They indulge in the big lie technique and say, "Our people are up there; they are concerned about the ducks." They show people rowing their little boats across lakes and having a grand time protecting "your ecology in the north."
Actually, in 1971 Imperial Oil was told to discontinue its operations in the Mackenzie delta because the company was breaking conservation rules laid down by the Department of the Environment. The department was slow to act. Companies like to use the big lie technique. Just consider what is happening in the north. If you watch "Hockey Night in Canada" you will see Imperial Oil using prime time every Saturday night to bring you this message: It takes a lot of money to develop the north. It costs $10 million to sink a hole in the Beaufort Sea.
The company really is saying that the government should keep its sticky fingers out of company business so that profits can be kept at a maximum, otherwise the company cannot operate. The company says this in prime television time and there is no opportunity for political response. It does not claim its oil is better or that its service is superior. It does not even try to sell its product directly. It is selling an insidious idea, an idea to which the government or those who hold the opposite view cannot respond. So you can see how the Hitler-like, big lie technique is one of the most insidious influences which we must fight in this country. It manipulates the public, its values and standards. This is done by advertising.
People tell us we are becoming a permissive society because we have so many welfare bums or people drawing unemployment insurance. Apparently we are soft because we do not want the poor to starve or the unemployed to go hungry. Actually, we are soft because subtly, insidiously we are being manipulated to want things which make us soft, and no section of our population is more open to manipulation by advertising than the female section.
October 16, 1975

I think the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) mentioned this yesterday and I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) will agree: it is amazing how many women think that the way to be attractive is by buying cosmetics. Nobody in advertising suggests you can become more attractive if you become smarter, if you write poetry, if you become a sculptor or win the Nobel prize. Our women are told they can become more attractive if they buy pretty purple lipsticks, wrinkle cream which allegedly takes the years off, or wear attractive sets of fish across their fronts. What nonsense!


An hon. Member:: Careful.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will not take offence. My point is that women, probably more than any other group, are being manipulated by the media.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I feel the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is singling out women in this House, one woman especially-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Simma Holt: -and referring to her personal attire. I think that is totally inappropriate. I did not hear the hon. member singling out men in the House and drawing attention to their attire.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I assure you I intended to compliment the hon. lady. There are many attractive members in this House, but she just happened to catch my eye.


An hon. Member:: There are many more. You need glasses.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Withdraw.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly withdraw; I merely suggest that females are being corrupted and manipulated by advertising. But we are all manipulated and corrupted by advertising and I should not single out a special group.
Let me now speak specifically about the amendment. We say that advertised qualities must be definable and that you must not say something is new when it is not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that we should consider a new name for our party-we have been around for some time-and instead of calling ourselves the New Democratic Party we ought to call ourselves the Democratic Party, a name which I feel is better because we are probably the most democratic party in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Why should hon. members object to an amendment which says that no company shall:
(e) make a representation to the public containing exaggerated price claims of a general nature, unless such claims are fully supported by evidence of a substantial nature.
Why should companies be allowed to lie? Why let them get away with something they could not get away with in court? For years and years you could adduce pretty well
Combines Investigation Act
any evidence in court. Then the hearsay rule was introduced. But in the area of the public's manipulation by advertising we refuse to impose on companies standards of truthfulness which any court would enforce if the company were in court, or which we expect our children to abide by. We expect our children to tell the truth, but somehow people engaged in commerce are exempt from the normal rules of morality.
The next paragraph of the hon. member's proposed amendment reads:
(f) make a representation to the public that, either explicitly or implicitly, arouses or tends to arouse unwarranted expectations of product effectiveness.
Some ridiculous claims are made for products. I am thinking of claims made for wrinkle creams. The advertisers say that these creams will take the years off. What about claims made for toothpastes which are made of little more than artificial fat?


Donald W. Munro: What toothpaste do you use?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Colgate's.


Donald W. Munro: No commercials, please.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The next item refers to making a representation to the public, and I quote:
(h) make a representation to the public containing suggestions, either implicit or explicit, of product effectiveness in areas other than those in which the product is intended primarily to have effect.
That is a very simple request. Why not tell the truth about the product? There is no law requiring a commercial enterprise to say that its product is bad. We only say, "Don't lie." That is a very simple proposition; one that I think should appeal to all sections of the House. The last paragraph of the amendment the hon. member has proposed perhaps gets to the subject matter better than the others. I quote:
(1) and in all cases, products shall be sold on the basis of definable qualities and grades, where that is possible.
What we are trying to accomplish here is a way for the consumer to get a break in what he is buying. He has been manipulated. His needs have been artificially stimulated. What we are saying is that if the quality or grade of a product is defined, an objective judgment can be made in the marketplace. At the moment this cannot be done. Advertising has become so sophisticated that we are no longer capable of resisting many of the ploys or status approaches used by advertisers.
I do not think there is any industry more typical of the insidious nature of the advertising we have been faced with than the automobile industry. Over a ten-year period they have clearly been attempting to manipulate the public in order to sell high-profit, large, expensive gas-guzzlers. The public has been able to resist slightly but not entirely. People began to ask whether they really needed these large cars, and slowly the small cars started to grow in popularity. The resistance continued and Detroit would bring out a small car. However, the compact car of one year would suddenly become a medium-sized car the fol-

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
lowing year. As I recall, they fought for ten years to get the public to buy a wasteful, largely stupid product. A new small car has now been put on the market. The Chevette appears to be the only real attempt to bring out a small car. I hope that next year the Chevette will not become the Chevelle and we will not be back to a big gas-guzzler within three or four years.


An hon. Member:: What about the Wally Wagon?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That was a very practical suggestion. My alma mater, the University of British Columbia, developed the Wally Wagon. I hope in the future one of the major manufacturing concerns will produce the Wally Wagon on a large scale so that Canadians will develop sensible driving habits.
In summary, it is not good enough to say that Canadians have become soft and permissive and do not produce anything, while we continue to have a value system imposed upon us through advertising. The amendments of the hon. member for Nickel Belt go a long way toward improving that situation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss the substance of the motion during the detailed consideration of the bill by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I can assure the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that I approve the object of this motion which could spell better protection for consumers.
I have stated on several occasions in the House and elsewhere the constant concern of the government and especially my department to assure that the Canadian consumer is not swindled or wronged when he is buying needed goods. This concern is more clearly and specifically shown in the bill under consideration and in my desire to publish as soon as possible a report on the second stage of the reform of the competition legislation.
As I stated on several occasions, part of the report on stage two will more precisely deal with commercial practices aimed at deceiving consumers.
This motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt is based on some provincial legislation. On closer consideration of its content, one finds almost literally some excerpts of the British Columbia act on consumer protection.
But it must be noted that some provinces where such legislation is in effect have adopted a so-called civil recourse approach characterized by definite discretionary and controlling powers that cannot be translated or fitted in a piece of legislation which is characterized by a similar approach to that found in criminal law.
Several expressions used in motion No. 11 now before us illustrate this point very well. For instance, the words: "tends to arouse unwarranted expectations, implicit suggestions, undesirable side-effects". Those are expressions that do not agree at all with the spirit of criminal law which must necessarily refer to definite and clear offences, so that a person may know in advance exactly the scope of his responsibility.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, several suggestions made in motion No. 11 are already included in the bill under consideration. For instance, the suggestion in paragraph (g) is a copy of what already exists in section 36( 1) (d), a section which, as a matter of fact, appears to me to be clearer and more effective than what motion No. 11 proposes.
I refer hon. members to section 37(2) of the current legislation which has been preserved in this bill and which is certainly more effective and useful to consumers than the gist of this motion introduced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (j) in the motion refers to the word "improved". In this respect, I should like to remind the hon. member for Nickel Belt that we have already succesfully instituted court proceedings against a manufacturer who was advertising his product as "improved" while, in fact, it was not improved at all.
There is no doubt-I want to make myself perfectly clear on this-that this motion offers nothing which does not already exist in the present statutes. The law, as it now stands, is in a general context and is implemented in a criminal context.
Now the words we find in the motion submitted by the hon. member for Nickel Belt are in a rather different context; he has a so-called civil approach which I think does not suit Bill C-2, which is of a criminal nature.
As I said, we are now examining the law in the area of commercial practices aimed at deceiving the public and I want to assure the hon. member and all hon. members in this House that I do not exclude at first the possibility of adopting a civil recourse approach and an approach of regulatory power in the federal legislation aimed at protecting consumers.
I can assure hon. members that the substance of motion No. 11, as submitted to us, will be examined with the same openmindedness as the other suggestions already under review when we formulate the reform on the law on competition in phase two. For the moment, such an approach seems to me untimely and unsuitable to the existing Combines Investigation Act, all the more so because certain parts of this motion are already provided for in the present legislation, that under the current legislation we have already prosecuted companies that have been accused of having used "improved" when in fact nothing was improved. Furthermore, in a recent case put before the court, a company was fined $5,000 after we submitted this case to the court.
So, I want to say that if, on the one hand, I agree with the spirit of the hon. member's proposition, I do not want, on the other hand, at this stage of the study, to approve the wording. I therefore recommend that the motion be rejected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.
October 16, 1975


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on this amendment stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 18.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion at this stage. You will recall that, before last summer's recess, I had said that, provided this House were prepared to limit the debate on Bill C-2 to two days in the fall, I would be willing, in a spirit of cooperation, to present, at a suitable time, an amendment to clause 31.4 of this bill, which would partly meet the views of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on the matter of franchises. Now there appears to have been discussions among the various leaders in the House concerning this and, if the House is agreed, I shall now move this amendment.

That motion No. 5 (Mr. Stevens) be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"(c) A company, partnership or sole proprietorship is affiliated with another company, partnership or sole proprietorship in respect of any agreement between them whereby on party grants to the other party the right to use a trade mark or trade name to identify the business of the grantee, provided
(i)	such business is related to the sale or distribution, pursuant to a marketing plan or system prescribed substantially by the grantor, of a multiplicity of products obtained from competing sources of supply and a multiplicity of suppliers; and
(ii)	no one product dominates such business."
and by striking out the word "and" at the end of line 29, substituting a semi-colon for the period at the end of line 34 and adding, immediately after such semi-colon, the word "and".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that this is a motion in substitution of motion No. 5? I do not think that was made very clear. In other words, the minister is asking for unanimous consent to reopen and reconsider motion No. 5. Whatever our view may be about the substance, we have no objection to the motion being reopened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair wishes it to be clear that there is to be a recorded division on motion No. 5, so it would need to be agreed that such division on the previous motion No. 5 would be eliminated, and that by unanimous consent the House allows the minister to forgo the provisions of paragraph (5) of Standing Order 75 which calls for 24 hours' notice of an amendment and authorizes the
Combines Investigation Act
minister to place a new amendment before the House which will be studied and debated in due course. Is that agreed?


William James Kempling: We agree to this procedure, Mr. Speaker. It was my understanding that this motion would also apply to clause 38(7) on page 41.


André Ouellet: No.


William James Kempling: That has been sorted out, has it?


André Ouellet: Yes, but it cannot be dealt with there.


William James Kempling: Very well. We shall accept it on that basis. Are we going on to debate this motion now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready to proceed with the consideration of new motion No. 5?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were suggestions through the usual channels that we would now proceed to motions 18, 20, 21 and 24 and discuss motion No. 5 later today. Was that not the understanding?


André Ouellet: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we stay with the understanding?


André Ouellet: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If that is agreed, we will proceed with motion No. 18 which appears in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The motion is the following:
Motion No. 18
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 18 by striking out lines 19 to 36 on page 38 and substituting therefor "chance and skill whatever".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this motion is in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and you have put it in his name, but it would be appreciated if the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) could speak at this time and introduce the motion without denying the hon. member for Nickel Belt the right to make his speech later on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of this amendment which is put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The purpose of this amendment to Bill C-2 is quite simple and, I think, most important to the consumers of this country. The motion would remove from the marketplace the expensive practice of promotional contests. If this amendment is accepted, a few Canadians will no longer have the opportunity to win a free car from brand "X" or a trip to Hawaii from brand "Y", but all Canadians will be saved the price of these so-called give-aways.
The give-aways have been with us for many years and they always have to be paid for. At one time it used to be

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
the custom among certain establishments in the business of selling liquid refreshments to offer a free lunch along with their regular wares. There is no such thing as a free lunch, Mr. Speaker. There is no such thing as a free drink. There is no such thing as a free trip to Hawaii with a few thousand dollars thrown in, as sometimes is the case with these contests. Somebody has to pay for that, and that somebody is the consumer who buys the product that is sponsoring the so-called give-aways. Indeed, there are a number of my constituents who could not even afford to accept such a give-away, the situation is that bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They can just buy one.


Walter (Wally) Firth: I do not know how many people buy one brand of breakfast cereal instead of some other, just on the off chance that they will win a free car, or what have you, but I do know that every person who buys a giveaway brand is paying part of the price of the car that is offered in this promotional type of contest. These people are also paying the cost of advertising the give-away, of promoting the give-away, and the salaries of the bright young executives who think up these give-aways. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a free lunch.


An hon. Member:: Or a tax write-off.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Exactly. Surely we are having to pay enough for essential commodities like food, without paying a surtax. Perhaps "lottery" is a better word for these contests, but it is a cruel kind of lottery because the consumer has no choice in the matter. I suggest that if he or she wishes to purchase a brand that is running this kind of free lunch, then he or she is forced to buy a ticket. They are given no alternative and they are not even told how much of their money goes to support the give-away.
People should be able to take a chance. If you are inclined to gamble a little, then there are a number of lotteries in the country. People can go to the horse races, buy an Olympic lottery ticket, or there are many other lotteries in the provinces. In that case one knows exactly how much one's gamble is going to cost, one knows exactly what one's money is going into, and one has a free choice. That is not the case with promotional give-aways, especially in the food industry. In the great, promotional free lunch lottery the gamble is not so clearcut.
In Bill C-2 the government is offering us guidelines for some of these situations. It is giving us the ability to know the approximate value of the prizes offered, as described in the bill. The bill will ensure that the prizes are not unduly delayed. It will also let consumers rest easy in the knowledge that prizes will be distributed on the basis of skill or random selection. That is all well and good, but once again this government is marshalling its vast resources to solve the wrong problem. The problem is not that free lunch contests should be carried out in a fair and equitable manner; the problem is that they are carried out at all. I suggest we cannot afford them.
The government is now in the process of waging a dramatic war on inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has asked all Canadians to do their bit by accepting tough limits on their behaviour and cutting back on their expectations. The Prime Minister told us that the govern-

ment was limited in its ability to act and that he needed our support to "knock the wind out of inflation". He said that our actions were absolutely necessary to win this fight and that the weapons were in our hands. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware that the government is having trouble fighting inflation, but here is an example of a weapon that is in their hands: they can adopt this amendment and save us the cost of a "free lunch" by putting their support behind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. That is all I wish to say at this time in support of the amendment.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion. Bill C-2 includes a number of initiatives in the field of consumer protection which are not restricted to the prevention of false market information. These provisions in each instance focus on specific exploitative marketing practices, ranging from bait-and-switch selling to resale price maintenance, which can be shown to injure the consumer. Promotional contests, provided consumers have a fair idea as to the way in which the contests are conducted, would not seem to fall into this category of unfair selling methods.
For this reason, Bill C-2 specifies a substantial number of safeguards to ensure that correct and adequate information is provided to all possible participants in a promotional contest. I think it would be useful for all hon. members to draw their attention to the safeguards. A promotion would be unlawful unless the following criteria are provided for:
(a)	there is adequate and fair disclosure of the number and approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which they relate and of any fact within the knowledge of the advertiser that affects materially the chances of winning;
(b)	distribution of the prizes is not unduly delayed; and
(c)	selection of participants or distribution of prizes is made on the basis of skill or on a random basis in any area to which prizes have been allocated.
If the court decides after a fair hearing that a promotion is unlawful, then there are penalties by way of either indictable or summary process. The proposed amendment to motion No. 18 would prohibit all promotional contests, and I consider that in the absence of proof that an honestly run contest takes unfair advantage of the consumer, I cannot support the proposed amendment.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), has touched on the very salient points and reasons for the introduction of this particular amendment. Having listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) explain the reasons for his and his party's opposition to this amendment, I suggest they are the same reasons which strike fear in my heart and which prompted my party to put forward this amendment.
He said Bill C-2 provides some protection to consumers because it outlaws certain practices. For instance, it outlaws the practice of double-ticketing. The new method of computerized pricing, with the new and the old price appearing on the article only as five coloured lines, makes a farce of this particular practice being outlawed. How
October 16, 1975

does the computer, once it has registered a price change, inform the consumer of that change if the consumer is unable to read the coloured lines on the particular item?
The hon. member also said that suggested resale pricing was to be outlawed. I suggest that this practice will not be outlawed, because in another section of the bill it is stated that if a manufacturer places the price on the item or on the package, it is quite all right and that is exempt from this provision of the bill. So in fact we will not have lists of suggested resale prices; we will have the suggested prices on the item or the package.
Let me point out that the amendment would not prohibit games of chance or lotteries; it would prohibit the merchandising of products by the use of contests, games of skill and games of chance. I have mentioned before in this House that the marketplace is like a jungle and many consumers may not be as sensitive to market trends as certain members of this House who are in business themselves. Consumers are not generally in this field, and as a result they have to go into this jungle to make a selection of goods for which they must spend their hard-earned money. We are permitting, in this jungle, the predatory practices now being foisted on the consumer.
Let me refer specifically to this whole business of contests and games. As the hon. member for Northwest Territories correctly pointed out, somebody has to pay for these things. I suggest the people who do not believe in gambling or in this kind of hocus-pocus are forced to pay a share of the cost. Nothing is being given away by these stores. All consumers must pay the cost of this gambling in the prices they pay for their foodstuffs and other consumer items.
If a consumer wants to gamble, he has a myriad of lotteries and other such things. We will have the Olympic lottery with us for years to come, I suggest. If the consumer wants to play the horses, he can go to the racetrack. If he wants to participate in a provincial lottery, there are many of those around. If he wants to play bingo, I suggest there are bingo games in arenas right across this country, all being conducted under proper supervision and regulation. Why should we permit this kind of lottery in the marketplace in respect of consumer items?
Surely what is important is that the consumer knows the cost, the size, the quality and the ingredients of an article. By permitting this kind of lottery in the selling of consumer products, we are allowing stores to divert the attention of the consumer away from those things to which he should be paying attention, including quality, price and size of particular products.
We are not asking the government to interfere in the marketplace. The minister kept suggesting that this kind of thing would be an interference with the market. He suggested this would be difficult to administer. What has been tabled in this bill is the establishment of wage and price control legislation, and that is a complete intrusion in the marketplace. If the proposed board can overcome the difficulties involved in regulating prices, then surely it is not beyond reason to ask the government to legislate fairness in the marketplace so that consumers will not feel the pinch of inflation and, as a result, escalate their wage demands in order to keep pace.
Combines Investigation Act
I have mentioned only a few of the predatory practices that are allowed, but this business of contests and games of skill is really dishonest and should not be permitted in respect of the sale of consumer items. The consumer is faced with many other problems in the marketplace. In some instances he is faced with a proliferation of the size of packages. Cereal products, for example, come in 17 different sizes, and there are seven different sizes of frozen vegetable packages. There are six different sizes of instant coffee.
The consumer is therefore confronted with the necessity of making an evaluation as to the unit cost of these items. The consumer is confronted with all this gimmickry of loss leadering, being led to believe he is getting something cheap when in fact the retailer is making up the difference in the price of other items in the store. We still have the operation of double-ticketing. Even now, as we spend time here talking about the establishment of a board to look into these increases, prices are going up; even now they are being changed.
By this amendment we have tried to eliminate some of these practices which this government is not prepared to outlaw. We have tried to direct attention to and focus the debate on this particular issue because it reaches right down to the grassroots level. These are the issues the consumer is faced with every single day when he or she goes out into that jungle to forage for food. We have tried to focus the debate on the specific items because they are concrete and represent the concerns the Food Prices Review Board was set up some two years ago to look into. These are the kind of complaints the review board has been receiving. What we have tried to do is eliminate some of this legerdemain and foliage. We have tried to clear the jungle of a lot of this underbrush so that the consumer can be aware of what he is buying-the size, the quality and the price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 18. 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 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-2, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in clause 18 by adding immediately after line 46 on page 38 the following section:
"37.2A(1) No person shall offer a product for sale to the public under conditions which enhance, or are intended to enhance, the appearance, colour, or other characteristic of the product in an artificial way or through artificial means, or which are intended in any way to deceive the public as to the true appearance or quality of the product, or both.
(2)	No person engaged in the supplying of products to the public shall obstruct the view of cash register windows or, in any other way, whether deliberate or not, conceal the price actually being charged to a customer.
(3)	No person shall offer a product for sale to the public that does not have the price per unit clearly indicated on the item or in some other way.
(4)	No person shall offer a product for sale to the public at a price which exceeds, in terms of price per unit, the price at which smaller quantities of that same product are offered by the same person.
(5)	No person shall offer a product for sale to the public at a price that does not fully reflect the intended consequences of any government subsidy programme then in effect with respect to that particular product.
(6)	No person who offers a product for sale to the public shall distribute, or offer to distribute, coupons or stamps of any kind that are redeemable for cash gifts, or any other consideration.
(7)	Any person who violates subsections (l)to (6) is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a)	on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment not exceeding
five years; or
(b)	on summary conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court
or imprisonment for not more than one year, or to both."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I am putting forward on behalf of my party is with respect to false advertising. The Food Prices Review Board, which this board set up at a cost of some $2 million to the Canadian taxpayers, did certain investigative work and made certain recommendations. The amendment that I propose incorporates many of those recommendations. It seems to me it is only right and proper that in a bill which purports to do so much for the consumer, according to the minister, many of those recommendations should be incorporated. Since the bill does not contain them, my party is proposing this amendment. For example, subclause (1) provides:
No person shall offer a product for sale to the public under conditions which enhance, or are intended to enhance, the appearance, colour, or other characteristic of the product in an artificial way or through artificial means, or which are intended in any way to deceive the public as to the true appearance or quality of the product, or both.
Surely, putting that kind of amendment into consumer legislation is not interfering with the way in which corporations do business. Surely, to ask the supermarkets not to place red lights over the meat counters-a practice that is common across this country-thus enhancing the colour of the product, is only common sense. The minister said once that this bill would be the Magna Carta for consumers. Surely, to amend the legislation in this way will assure consumers, when they go to the marketplace, that they will not be confronted with such gimmickry which is designed only to deceive.

When we teach our children that it is important to tell the truth, we should demand no less from those who are in the marketplace trying to promote their products. There is a double standard in our society when we are prepared to say to our young people "be truthful" and then we permit the practice of deception. For example, it is a common practice to inject into meat certain colouring substances to give the impression that it is tempting or fresh meat. That kind of practice can even be harmful to the human body, yet we do not legislate that kind of deceit out of the marketing practices in this country.
This is not a radical or earth-shaking amendment to any consumer legislation; it is only common sense. I have never sat in the board room of any corporation, but I listen to the consumers in my constituency, as I know many hon. members here do, and I am sensitive to their reactions. One should also be sensitive to the ways in which consumers can be bluffed. This is, in many cases, a widespread practice and the consumer suffers as a result.
The second part of the amendment which we ask the House to consider provides:
(2) No person engaged in the supplying of products to the public shall obstruct the view of cash register windows or, in any other way, whether deliberate or not, conceal the price actually being charged to a customer.
Surely, every customer has the right to know what he or she will be paying and if that is the price rung up on the cash register. There is a move toward computerizing the registering of prices. As I have mentioned before, a new system is coming into being of coloured lines being put on the product. In effect, that is going to be recorded in the computer and the price rung up on the total amount for the consumer. Surely, it is not too radical a request to ask that the price which is rung up on the cash register be clearly visible to the consumer.
The Food Prices Review Board, in their 1973 report on practices which they noted were prevalent in November of 1973, called the hiding of cash register windows "another deceptive device, long protested by consumers". They said it was-
-the practice adopted by many stores, of hiding the back window of cash registers with a large quantity of minor items or magazines. This means that as they unload items from shopping carts, customers cannot watch the price being charged by the cashier for individual products. The board considers that regulations should require that both the cash register windows, back as well as front, should be clearly visible at all times.
The problem of the public not being able to see the price as it is rung up, however, is nothing compared to the problem the public is going to face when it tries to compare prices under a new computer check-out system which will completely eliminate the price marking from the product, at least in any language the consumer can read. I pointed out earlier that when such a pricing system comes into effect it will make the so-called outlawing of double-ticketing irrelevant because there will be no way in which the consumer will know when there has been a price change. Surely, this amendment is not asking too much, and surely it cannot Re considered too radical. As I pointed out before, it is the right of the consumer to know, and to be assured that what he has paid is in fact the price of the item he selected and put in his basket.
October 16, 1975

Another part of our amendment reads as follows:
(3) No person shall offer a product for sale to the public that does not have the price per unit clearly indicated on the item or in some other way.
We have seen several instances of this. The Consumers Association of Canada has called on the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make it illegal to sell any merchandise not marked with a visible price tag. Surely, when the item is advertised or the price is put on the item it should be possible to make a comparison with the price per unit of the same product in another container. Why should it be that when you buy ten ounces of a particular product for $1.50, which works out at 15 cents an ounce, you find that a 15-ounce package of the same product is marked with a higher price per ounce, even though it is exactly the same product, manufactured by the same company? The only thing that is different is the size of the package.
The matter becomes even more complicated when you get all sizes of packages. For example, we get a can of fluid containing 4.75 fluid ounces, and other cans of the same fluid containing 4.50 fluid ounces. I mentioned before that there were 17 sizes of cereals, 11 sizes of crackers, 7 sizes of pasta, 8 sizes of processed meat, 7 sizes of frozen vegetables and 6 sizes of instant coffee. One can imagine the problems with which the consumer will be faced if we do not try to standardize our procedures of marketing products so that the consumer can have the benefit of the best possible price.
Surely, if we were to standardize packages and place on them the price per unit, the consumer would be able to go into that jungle and compare prices in an intelligent and knowledgeable way. One can only assume that the reasons for these various sizes and for the absence of unit pricing is to confuse the purchaser and to obfuscate the issue and, as a result, rip off the consumer. Surely, to ask that kind of protection in a consumer bill is not an unreasonable request.
Another part of the amendment we have proposed is that no person shall offer a product for sale to the public which, in terms of price, exceeds per unit the price at which smaller quantities of the same product are offered by the same person. It seems to me that I covered that matter in my previous remarks. This part of the amendment attempts to bring some kind of order into the marketplace so that the consumer can benefit from that kind of system.
Another part of our amendment proposes that no person shall offer a product to the public for sale at a price which does not actually reflect the intended consequences of any government subsidy program then in effect with respect to that particular product. In the past there have been many examples of subsidies paid-powdered milk is one-where the government, in order to keep down the price to the consumer, offered to the manufacturer a subsidy on a particular product; and lo and behold, it was found that the consumer was not receiving the benefit of the subsidy. We found the price was steadily rising in spite of the fact that the manufacturer or processor was receiving a subsidy on the product.
Combines Investigation Act
Surely, it is not unreasonable to ask that a bill to protect consumers should make it illegal for any processor or manufacturer not to pass on the subsidy which he receives from the people of Canada for that specific purpose. If it is not passed on, surely it ought to be an offence against the people of Canada because it is taking money under false pretences. I also point out that we have never provided any machinery whereby a consumer who has been ripped off as a result of predatory practices can be reimbursed. However, we will have an amendment later which will try to correct that situation.
We have also included in this part of our amendment the provision that no person who offers a product for sale to the public shall distribute, or offer to distribute, coupons or stamps of any kind that are redeemable for cash, gifts, or any other consideration. We return to another very prevalent practice in this country, that is, the practice of handing out coupons or Gold Bond stamps for the purchase of food or other products.
My colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories, pointed out earlier that nothing is given for nothing: if you are receiving something, you have to pay for it. The practice of giving Gold Bond stamps and coupons is one for which the consumer pays; the cost is added to the price of the products. The company does not take a lower profit margin. Someone has to pay for the advertising of that program; someone has to pay for the gifts or prizes which are handed out. If a company is prepared to have that kind of program, instead of using money for the printing of coupons and for gifts it should use it to reduce prices.
Canadian Tire is a prime example of this kind of thing. If one buys $60 worth of goods, Canadian Tire is prepared to give $6 in coupons. If Canadian Tire is prepared to give $6 in coupons, it ought to be prepared to reduce the purchase price by 10 per cent. But no, the purpose is to have customers come back and spend more money there. Of course, this is discriminatory in respect of people who live in rural areas and do not often go to large urban centres where they can buy regularly from Canadian Tire stores. They may go once and not return. The point is that they never have the opportunity to take advantage of the lower price which may accrue to them by turning in the coupons.
Surely, it is not unreasonable to ask companies like Canadian Tire to advertise that they will offer a discount to customers and to indicate how much that discount is and what it is discounted from. Surely, it is not unreasonable to ask them to advertise in an honest and truthful way. Let the consumer know just exactly what he is paying for: that is very important at today's prices.
We are willing and anxious to jump in and control wages, and supposedly we want to control prices. It is not unreasonable to do even better than that and to tell companies how they shall operate when selling products to consumers. I suspect that if we did not have these predatory practices, prices would not be jumping as wildly as they have been and forcing workers to demand more wages, resulting in the kind of war measures act we saw introduced today.
Another part of our proposal deals with punishment for those who disobey this amendment. I would point out that it is not just the New Democratic Party which is advocating this: the Consumers Association of Canada and its
October 16, 1975

Combines Investigation Act
95,000	members have passed a resolution calling for many of the things I have listed in this amendment. For example, the Consumers Association of Canada last summer passed a resolution calling on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make it a legal practice that pricing be clearly placed on items consumers contemplate purchasing. The consumers of Canada as represented by that association are calling upon the minister to implement many similar proposals.
All we received during the meetings of the committee, and in this House, have been promises that some of these things will come in the next phase of the bill. It is always next year or the next phase of the bill. One has only to look at the history of this bill to see that next year is indeed a hollow promise, and has been since 1971. In 1971 it came in as phase one and phase two together. The government was going to do this as well as look at monopolies, vertical integration, interlocking directorships, and so on, but the corporate sector howled so furiously that the government decided to split the bill and bring forward its more innocuous part, which is here today.
Here we are, at the end of 1975. It took four years to get this part of the bill to the House. Can you imagine how long it will take before phase two comes before the House? Who is the minister kidding when he says we will have phase two next year? Don't forget all the flack that is put up when an attempt is made to move in on monopolies in this country; yet all we keep getting is that next year, or in the next phase, the government will consider these things. How easy it is to say to the people of Canada that there will be a freeze on wages; how easy that is to implement. But according to the minister it is difficult to start moving in the marketplace and telling companies that they shall operate in a certain manner for the benefit of consumers. Surely, Mr. Minister, if we can do one we can do the other. Surely, it is not unreasonable to expect that from the minister who calls himself the minister of consumer affairs. But it must be remembered it is "consumer and corporate affairs." We often forget that part, and I wonder if he really is not the minister of corporate affairs rather than of consumer affairs.
These amendments are not radical by any stretch of the imagination. They are not amendments which emanate just from this party, but from every interested consumer group in the country, and as a result there is wide support for them. As the minister has admitted, he will not be embarking upon a new area: many provinces have legislated many parts of this kind of proposal, so he will be strengthening their hand.
I appeal once again to the good sense of members on all sides of the House to support this amendment.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to motion No. 20, starting with a few general remarks. As a member of the finance and industry committee, I spent more of my time on the competition bill, Bill C-2, last session than on any other piece of work. In addition to many committee meetings, I and my Liberal colleagues spent many hours preparing for these discussions. That time was well spent and was a credit to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) as well as his parliamentary secretary at that time.
The competition bill is not only important; it is extraordinarily challenging. Free enterprise is one of the most important elements of our mixed economy and our democratic way of life, and competition is one of the most important elements of free enterprise. Both are normal features of Liberal philosophy. However, every man's freedom encroaches on the freedom of every other man and, ironically, the more effectively a man competes, the more he tends to eliminate competition.
Thus, we have seen great powers develop in our type of society. We have seen freedom and free enterprise eroded by itself. Competition, the lifeblood of our way of life, has eliminated competition, because not all competitors are equal and not all competitors play by the spirit of the rules. Freedom and opportunity are sacrificed to efficiency and power. Thus, we must have a balance in both freedom and competition. Ideally, the market forces would safeguard this balance and government intervention would be unnecessary. But, unfortunately, it has not always worked out this way in practice and necessary legislation has resulted. Such necessary legislation is also a normal feature of Liberal philosophy.
Market forces are delicate and complex and very difficult to replace with a set of rules. But public opinion has decreed that there is no longer enough competition in the marketplace, no longer the best combination of high quality and low prices, whether for goods or services. Public pressure has decreed that the government must get involved, be the arbiter in the marketplace, protect the consumer; and not only protect the consumer but also the small competitor, the typical Canadian businessman.
As detail after detail of such legislation is examined, as witness after witness states his case, some general problems begin to emerge with this type of legislation. Firstly, much of it has to be left in generalities because it is a physical impossibility to cover all possible case examples which might occur. Secondly, there is a grey area in the middle of each ruling where only experienced and wise judgment can begin to cope with the right balance between protecting the interests of all parties involved-the customer, the big business, the small business. Thirdly, in many aspects of the legislation the fine line is crossed from the original intention of assuring healthy competition to the related and worthy area of protecting the customer from the businessman. For clarity, these sections should perhaps have been part of a consumer protection bill rather than a competition bill. Indeed, some aspects of the legislation might even suggest the need for a businessman's protection bill.
These aspects of the bill which tend more to protect the consumer or individual than to protect competition include perhaps foreign laws and directives, conspiracy relating to professional and amateur sport, misleading advertising, materially misleading warranty or guarantee, double-ticketing, pyramid selling, referral selling, bargain prices, bait-and-switch selling, sale above the advertised price, promotional contests and price maintenance. However, it may be argued that to whatever extent these tactics are able to deceive the customer or individual, there is also a potential to gain some market advantage
October 16, 1975

and thereby eliminate competition. Therefore, these clauses will probably remain too difficult to define and need to remain in the act.
Whatever the content, this act will involve many fundamental aspects of our way of life. To be workable, it will require the co-operation and good faith of all sectors of society, including any tribunal or commission which might have to be set up to carry out the provisions. Such a body can become frighteningly authoritative, even unfair, but this must not be allowed to happen. Not only must the consumer and small competitor be protected, but also the legitimate rights of the large competitor. That, too, is only fair.
If all parties were to play fair with our own system, as they should, enforcement of this act would not be necessary. However, many of us, be we businessman, labourer, consumer or whatever, are our own worst enemies. Until we all understand the true spirit of our system upon which this act is based, there will be infractions which the marketplace cannot handle. Hopefully, this legislation will be able to resolve such cases, not with the precision we would prefer but at least with some measure of justice.
In that spirit, then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by speaking against motion No. 20 to amend the bill. This motion, as already indicated in discussing motion No. 11, poses the problem as to whether the consumer can be better protected by criminal law prohibitions of very specific practices or well formulated general rules which can apply to new problems as they develop. The government is not convinced that the benefits to be gained from the specific enumeration of offences, such as those proposed in motion No. 20, outweigh the danger that any such list will be viewed as an exhaustive statement of prohibited practices. This would have the unfortunate result of exempting other forms of false market information from the purview of the act.
It should not be forgotten that the very general prohibition of misleading advertising in the Combines Investigation Act has produced very extensive jurisprudence which has applied a prohibition, stated in very concise form, to a large number of specific representations. This process has not, however, restricted the prospects for application of the provision to new problem situations as they arise. With regard to the specific offences proposed in motion No. 20, there would also seem to be some question about whether the punitive power of criminal law is necessarily the most appropriate means of controlling in all cases the kinds of abuses mentioned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is
the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 20 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Combines Investigation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on this motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider motion No. 21 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 21.
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 18 by striking out the proposed subsection 38(5), lines 12 to 14 on page 41, and renumbering the following subsections accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to plug another loophole in Bill C-2. The bill on one hand outlaws a particular practice and on the other hand it creates a loophole through which an elephant could crawl. For example, the particular section we seek to amend says that a suggested retail price is outlawed, but in the next breath it creates an exception when it says that the prohibitions do not apply to a price affixed or applied to a product, its package or container; such items are exempt from the provisions governing suggested retail price.
In committee, I asked the minister his purpose for including that exception. He said, "I had a good reason for it some time ago; let me find out what it was." I suggest that his only reason was the creation of this particular loophole. Surely, the way to sidestep the provision forbidding the suggested retail price is by printing the price on the container or product at the factory. In that way manufacturers or wholesalers can sidestep the provisions governing suggested retail price. We ask for the loophole to be closed, for the exception to be eliminated.
This kind of theme runs right through Bill C-2. Most of us know that this country's anti-combines legislation has a bad reputation. When I first came here I heard talk of anti-combines legislation being introduced. Most members who heard the talk said, "We have no faith in it." Not many in this House put much faith in the sort of anti-combines legislation this House has passed ever since 1889. Even today, not many of us have much faith in this kind of law. The penalties for breaking our puffery anti-combines provisions were little more than a licence fee which companies paid to continue the practice. That is true even today, as is evident from monopolies which have grown up over the years. We must eliminate that kind of situation. I suggest that the proposed amendment will close at least one loophole. I will not labour the point. I ask the House to support the amendment so that we can plug one loophole by eliminating the exception provided in the bill. As I say, our amendment seeks to eliminate that exception.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is
the House ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In
my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on motion No. 21 stands deferred.
The House will now consider motion No. 23, standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Motion No. 23.
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 19 by striking out line 21 on page 43 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"may be instituted at any time within two years after the".
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: believe there is unanimous consent for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to introduce a new motion No. 5. With unanimous consent, the House will now permit the minister to introduce this motion.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during committee consideration of section 3.14, strong representations were received to the effect that because of special considerations relating to the nature of the soft drink bottling industry, investments made in the industry might be jeopardized by the market restriction provision of this section. After careful consideration of these representations, the government concluded that an amendment covering the basic concerns of the industry would be acceptable. As a result, section 31.4(7) was proposed and accepted by the committee.
Some hon. members now wish to see this provision widened to exempt all franchise arrangements of whatever kind. Such an extension would effectively emasculate the provisions covering exclusive dealing, market restriction and tied selling, because these practices are not commonly used outside the area of franchised distribution. I should also point out that constraints on franchised distribution under United States law similar to those which appear in this bill have not prevented the United States from leading the world in the development of franchise arrangements.
In order, however, to expedite passage of this bill, the government is prepared to extend the exemption now contained in section 31.4(7) in a way that will ensure that the franchise operation involving a multiplicity of products obtained from a competing source of supply will not be subject to section 31.4. I am, therefore, ready to accept the amendment to motion No. 5 proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) but with a further amendment which will clarify and qualify certain aspects of franchise operations. I am, therefore, pleased to move that all the words in motion No. 5, in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, following the word "following" be struck out and that there be substituted the following:
"(C) A company, partnership or sole proprietorship is affiliated with
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]
another company, partnership or sole proprietorship in respect of any agreement between them whereby one party grants to the other party the right to use a trade mark or trade name to identify the business of the grantee, provided
(i)	such business is related to the sale or distribution, pursuant to a marketing plan or system prescribed substantially by the grantor, of a multiplicity of products obtained from competing sources of supply and a multiplicity of suppliers; and
(ii)	no one product dominates such business."
and by striking out the word "and" at the end of line 29, substituting a semi-colon for the period at the end of line 34 and adding, immediately after such semi-colon, the word "and".
It is my view that because the exemptions relate to a large variety of inexpensive goods, the possibility of serious distortion of the competitive process as a result of this exemption is more remote than it would be if the exemption covered big ticket items. We intend, however, to maintain a careful watch over development in this field. We will be prepared to amend the proposal I am now making to the House if this proves necessary in the future and if and when circumstances require it. However, I feel that this motion by the hon. member for York-Simcoe as now amended is acceptable. It will in a large way meet various representations that were made from all corners of the House on this subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is
the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my understanding that there have been discussions regarding motions Nos. 6 and 24. With the permission of the House, we will proceed to the business of private members' hour.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, am I right in assuming you have asked if the House agrees with motion No. 5 as amended, or is it just the amendment that has been voted on? Has the motion as amended been voted on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my understanding that the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was withdrawn, and the minister's motion stands and was carried. Is it the pleasure of the House to call it five o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when do we deal with motion No. 24?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: And motion No. 6?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that motions Nos. 6 and 24 were reserved in an earlier disposition, there being some reservation about the procedural irregularity of the two motions. As it is so close to five o'clock, perhaps hon. members would prefer to begin their procedural argument at eight o'clock rather than now. There is a private member waiting to begin a private members' matter at five o'clock, which is only three or
October 16, 1975

four minutes away. The argument, I am sure, would scarcely begin before that time. It was for that reason I suggested we call it five o'clock, begin private members' hour and have the discussion on motions Nos. 6 and 24 at eight o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for the production of papers. Is there agreement that motion No. 30 standing in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) shall take precedence and be considered at this hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an order of the House do issue for copies of the Area Program Summaries for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, covering such areas as Commonwealth Africa, South America, Francophone Africa, and any other area breakdowns for which Area Programs have been prepared.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the motion in my name, I would have liked to congratulate the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin), but unfortunately I do not see her at this moment. In any case, I congratulate her and I also want to share her satisfaction with her new and well deserved appointment. I also wish to convey to her my best wishes in her new duties. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure her of my full cooperation until she gives the government's answer to the request for production of certain papers.

When this motion for the production of papers was presented in the House on March 26 of this year, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs requested that it be withdrawn on the ground that release of some or parts of these documents "might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canadian foreign relations". To which I say "rubbish."
I am asking for these programs for 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. I could perhaps understand the reply of the then parliamentary secretary if in asking for 1975-76 programs I was seeking the release of documents on projects now under negotiation. If that were the case, their release might be detrimental to the future conduct of our relations with that particular country or with a neighbouring country. That I can understand. However, I am not asking yet for current, newly shaping-up programs. I am merely asking for program summaries of projects that are already
Area Program Summaries
in the works, projects that are on stream. That is all I ask. Incidentally, I know that such summaries exist. I can hardly imagine how a desk officer in CIDA could operate if they did not exist. Therefore, they are available and I see no reason why they should not be made available to members of parliament.
I still say "rubbish" to the suggestion that the release to parliament of this material might prejudice our relations with the country in question, unless Canada is up to something just a little shady in that country. I have no reason to think we are, and I hope we are not. We certainly were not in any of the countries of which I have knowledge.
My main reason for wanting these documents to be made available to parliament is to enable us, as parliamentarians, to judge the nature and extent, in detail, of our overseas assistance programs. I will return to this aspect of my case in due course.
There is, however, a second reason for wanting these documents, these country by country project summaries, a reason that has been strengthened by developments since I originally put forward my motion. Last May, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was able to wring from the government an agreement to allow the committee to examine the changing relations between the developed and the developing world in light of the changed world economic circumstances following the sudden and dramatic increases in oil costs to which we were all subject.
The question I have to ask myself, in these circumstances, is how we are going to examine the changing relations unless we know in some considerable detail what are our existing and present relationships. How can we know what we are changing to until we know what we are doing now and what we are changing from? One way to find out, I submit, would be to have these documents made available to parliamentarians, who could examine them carefully and then decide what we are changing from and what we want to change to. So I say these documents could be released, should be released and, indeed, ought to be released.
Having served for a number of years in the Department of External Affairs, I am aware how frequently, and at times how thoughtlessly, documents can be classified. I was probably guilty myself of overclassifying documents. But in my own defence I submit that I did make an honest effort to get documents declassified more regularly. I dreamed up all sorts of schemes to enable this to be done. But I was invariably shot down. Would it not be ironic in the extreme if, now, some of the documents for which I am asking are those which I myself classified at an earlier period? Ironic or not, I shall face that risk. The government has indulged in the overclassification of documents for long enough, and it refuses-as in the case of a report on personnel in CIDA which we sought to obtain-to declassify anything which might prove politically embarrassing.
I know the criteria for classifying documents; I had a hand in devising them. I respect the need to preserve individuals from hurt or to avoid public disclosure of

October 16, 1975
Area Program Summaries
material which could damage a person's chances of pursuing his career. But the principal criterion for classification is, and ought to be, national security at various levels, be it "restricted", "confidential", "secret" or "top secret". It should not be party political security, but national security. That is what we are talking about. Documents are being withheld because they could prove embarrassing to the party, not because they could be embarrassing to the nation.
So I contend that these documents ought to be released unless there is a real, down to earth risk to national security involved; for instance-and I use this only as an example-disclosing the improper provision of nuclear reactors to traditional antagonists. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Therefore, I say that failure to release these documents to which we are entitled leaves us with two conclusions. The first is that there is some skullduggery going on which the government is anxious to hide. The other, and I find it equally deplorable, is that the government is so disdainful of this House as to feel it unnecessary to grant its members the documentation to which it is traditionally entitled. In other words, it is declining to entrust to parliamentarians material concerning programs for which the Canadian people will this year be paying an amount in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars in program development, and goodness knows how much more in export credits.
These conclusions are inescapable unless the papers are released. They were refused on an earlier occasion. I do not know who will be taking part in this debate and will refuse them for the second time this afternoon. But if they are refused, we shall be bound to reach those two conclusions. If we were to be guided by the departmental estimates and the figures contained therein, we would be led to believe that Canada's external aid program amounted, in 1973-74, to over $525 million, to almost $590 million in 1974-75, and to just short of $735 million in 1975-76. In other words, the program has grown from half a billion dollars to almost three-quarters of a billion dollars in those three years.

I am very happy to see the new parliamentary secretary here with us, and I congratulate her on her new appointment.

I base those round figures on the estimates only; I have not delved into the Export Development Corporation's figures to discover how much additional overseas assistance is being administered through that organization in the form of credit. As I say, the amount involved has grown from half a billion dollars to three-quarters of a billion in three years-respectable figures. I want the size to register, not because I want to question it but because I wish to discuss the ability we as parliamentarians have, or are allowed to have, to examine the way in which such vast sums are being spent.
As I went over the proceedings of the committee at which these matters were under consideration, I found we managed to work in eight meetings on CIDA. These meetings lasted about an hour and a half, giving a total of about 12 hours in which to examine the ways in which we are spending the vast sum I have just mentioned. If we go

more deeply into the time at our disposal in the committee, we find that by and large half of the time allocated to the examination of the estimates was consumed by ministers or officials reading lengthy statements, statements which could easily have been given to members of the committee the night before: I find the excuses given for not doing so completely unacceptable. They could have been handed to us, we could have examined them and we could have begun our questioning immediately we arrived at the committee meeting.
About 20 of us, sometimes more, usually gathered at committee meetings to question the minister and his officials. We had, in all, about 360 minutes, roughly six hours, in which to discuss the manner in which the government is spending three-quarters of a billion dollars. Given that the replies are usually very lengthy, is it any wonder that we feel we have really not managed to get very far with our inquiries? We were allowed 360 minutes, at the most, for the entire estimates, and since each member is allowed only ten minutes in which to develop his line of questioning, how far is he likely to get? It is a major exercise in frustration to examine the estimates of any department, but when the amount involved is as high as this and the subject matter is of such importance, I am sure members on all sides of the House would like more time and more information to be made available to them.
Then, again, once the estimates have been examined, attempts to go into detail of CIDA's overseas activities are frustrated by the minister refusing to permit a reference to the committee of CIDA's annual report, for example. This occurred, to my knowledge based on my own requests, on three occasions this session, first on November 27, then on January 22 and finally on January 31. Each time I asked for a reference to the committee of reports of one kind or another. Each time I was put off and this reference never occurred. The entire exercise, from this disadvantage point, looks very much like a closed shop. Parliament has no right, according to the minister, to look into these matters. That is the government's attitude and it is an attitude I can only deplore.
When, on top of this, ministers take an almost sadistic pleasure in commenting witheringly that the opposition is incapable of formulating questions of substance about CIDA, as I have heard them say in their usual arrogant way, I begin to lose my temper and my sense of proportion. This is another reason behind my request, my insistence that the government produce, as a matter of course, country and area programs, showing country by country and area by area the way in which Canada's half-billion or three-quarter billion dollars are being spent. That is what lies behind my motion for the production of these papers; it is as simple as that.
I believe that parliament and, through parliament, the Canadian people, have a right to know project by project how their aid dollars are being spent. We have had enough criticism, particularly from those in need in these difficult days, about Canada's aid program. They say, "Why do you lend money at no interest rate abroad, yet we have to pay 12 per cent at home?" These criticisms do come up. How can that be explained unless we have this material? We are given a lot of pap by ministers about what good
October 16, 1975

international citizens we are and how we are working steadily toward the United Nations goal, which seems ever elusive, of 0.7 per cent of our GNP as our aid figure. At the present time, if I am not mistaken, we have reached just over 0.5 per cent in working toward that goal. This is fine, grand, wonderful and makes everyone feel happy. But what are we spending the money on? We do not know- and we should know. The Canadian people deserve to know; the Canadian people are entitled to know.
On April 29 of this year I tabled a series of questions in committee. I knew, by name, some of these projects and therefore I was able to be specific. I will own that the answers were given promptly to those specific questions. But what about members who have not had the opportunities that I have had to know specific projects as they were begun or as they were working their way through the system? Who had ever heard of the Nam Ngum project, for example? It is unfair; members of parliament should have this information as a matter of course.
I therefore ask for the production of these country programs covering the 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 fiscal years. I think we are entitled to more than just CIDA's programs. For example, I should like to know in what countries CIDA is contributing to CUSO programs, and how far it is assisting other NGOs in particular countries. Further, I want to know whether export credits have been extended to any particular country, and I want the figures. How many students have been sent to Canada from these individual countries? That is not too difficult a matter to bring forward.
In the minutes of proceedings of our Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for April 10, there is a selected list of projects appended as appendix B. I have also seen, bound in convenient form, area or country programs relating to the 200 projects. We are offered a selection of programs. This was in June of 1974. I have also seen country by country programs listed in digest form. These are the documents that need to be produced. But we want all of them, not selections. I believe we are entitled to that, not just to add paper to the piles already covering our desks, and in some cases our floors, frequently finding its way into our waste-baskets. In this case it will not be put in our waste-baskets. We should know how many Canadians are involved on the ground, how much is allotted to each program, how the money is being spent, how much is being spent, and how a project stands on the critical path to completion. These facts are our due.
I placed a question on the order paper earlier this year which related to the number of universities granted funds to develop overseas aid projects, scientific teaching, and so on. I was told that CIDA's accounting system is not geared to extract that information except through a file by file search. I was asked whether, in consequence, I would withdraw my request. I probably will, particularly if I get the papers I am asking for in this debate, because if the documents I am asking for are properly and fully prepared, that matter will be revealed in due course.
I have asked questions in committee about the fundamental need in developing countries for developing proper water supplies and transmission systems for water, knowing how fundamental water is to the very notion of development. Anyone who has been in a developing country
Area Program Summaries
knows that it is impossible to calculate the number of man, woman and child-hours absorbed in the simple task of carrying water from a spring to the home for cooking and washing purposes. I raised the question and I was told that I should look at the tense of the verb-they "are" now going to be doing it; in the past they were not doing it so much. But why should that have been left to one side by CIDA and/or its predecessors for 15 years until it has now been taken on in this form? I encouraged the minister, when making a visit to Africa, to examine this particular aspect during his trip.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, the motion of my hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is quite important since it provides us once again with the opportunity to discuss the program of help to development, and to study the documents prepared by various civil servants from the departments which deal with that matter and I think that in the years and in the months to come it will be extremely important that we all give very serious consideration to that question of help to development.
Having had the pleasure and pride of belonging to the Canadian diplomacy, I think a lot of what my hon. colleague said was true when he mentioned the over-classification in the Department of External Affairs with respect to international policy. However, I think my hon. colleague is misled when he says that political parties or for that matter the political party in power hide behind that kind of classification. Madam Speaker, I cannot agree with that statement since unfortunately that policy may be one of the drawbacks of that career. People in tbe diplomatic service have to classify a lot of documents since you never know what might happen when a document which may look harmless to an ordinary civil servant is not reviewed, and since it may concern various departments, it might sometimes be prejudicial to declassify that document.
At the outset of his statement the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich also said that he resented the fact that those documents were not released because he was asking for documents relating to 1972-73 and the years before 1975-76. Here again I have to disagree with my hon. colleague, since when it comes to developing programs respecting countries, that programming cannot be effected on a mere 12-month basis. Quite obviously we have to take previous data into account, historical and economic data as well as information dealing with bilateral relationships, and we also have to take into consideration a five or ten-year projection, and more specifically with respect to foreign help, some programs extend over several years and others which, even if they are in effect for one year only, may have an impact over a number of years. I therefore believe that certain documents, even going back to 1972, may still be of a confidential nature.
I would now like to address myself more specifically to the motion by the hon. member requesting the tabling of area programs. After reading the motion and learning I

October 16, 1975
Area Program Summaries
would have to speak on the matter, I inquired with CIDA officials as to what exactly CIDA considers an area program, even though I had an inkling on what was being done in that field of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The answer I received from CIDA officials is that the so-called area program documents are a part of a whole, and I do not think this is a novel thing to the hon. member.
So these area programs are a part of an overall scheme. Every year they have to go through the same process. There are consultations in the receiving country. Governments for instance are consulted, in countries where aid is to be extended. Those governments are asked to state their priorities, their most pressing needs. Reports are sent to Ottawa by our embassies, by officials in CIDA, External Affairs, Trade and Commerce, National Defence or any other body with a foreign representation or contacts in receiving countries. We act on the basis of these reports that we study, along with certain reports from international agencies such as the World Bank, which are sometimes provided on a confidential basis. With all these documents, we are able to produce one program per country. But our troubles are not over when we get to that stage. The officer who works for CIDA on Bank Street receives some information and develops for a given year a certain program for a given country.
Officers at External Affairs, Industry and Commerce and other departments, including National Defence, do exactly the same job. Then, everything that has been done on this subject ih each department is submitted to an extremely strict review because, of course, even though the officer concerned may be very knowledgeable about the particular country, he may not have all the data required to make a valid decision and can sometimes become over-enthusiastic if he favours the country involved, and so on.
This first draft of a program for a given country is then submitted to a program review. I shall not take the trouble to quote all the data related to this review, since my hon. colleague can find them in the paper provided by CIDA in April 1975. My hon. colleague will find that this first draft is submitted to the general review of the highest CIDA officers and that it is then examined by the chairman's office. Afterwards, a study of each program is conducted by an interdepartmental committee and the results of all these reviews are submitted to another interdepartmental committee which includes all departments with international involvements before being referred to the cabinet.
Madam Speaker, the papers requested by my hon. colleague are part of a whole; they are but a link in a chain. I believe that it would not necessarily help us to develop our foreign policy to produce such papers because we can find, in a specific paper, which has not been summarized and studied by the various people involved, things that could be detrimental, I think, and as my hon. colleague the former parliamentary secretary suggested, that could be detrimental to the carrying out of our foreign policy. I am firmly convinced of that.
I also consider that when my hon. colleague says that it is frustrating to work on the Committee on External Affairs and National Defense and to have to consider under pressure in a few hours estimates exceeding $700

million that it is undoubtedly frustrating for committee members to say that they must be passed in a hurry when sometimes one does not quite know what one is talking about.
However, I think it is not the purpose of the motion nor my purpose here to pass judgment on the system used in the parliamentary committee. My colleague could introduce another motion and we could discuss that subject at another time.
On the other hand, the question raised is of very great importance because we do not always have all the necessary tools to carry out our work conscientiously. I am not suggesting that the tool requested by my hon. colleague is the good one. However, I think we should all together here in this Parliament consider the possibility, and let us take the case we are concerned with at the moment, namely the question of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, so the political parties will have either a delegate or members of the Committee on External Affairs will be invited as observers to certain inter-departmental meetings where the main orientations of our aid policy are decided. I think that would allow us to pass a much more consistent and much more enlightened judgment on the policies put forward by the government.
I would finally like to point out that the problem raised, as I mentioned earlier, the problem of development assistance is a basic one, especially after the seventh special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations which was held in New York in September. The new economic order has been defined in a very general way.
I think that we must all, as parliamentarians, during this year endeavour to study more specifically the implications of the new international economic order and tackle the task which has been delineated not necessarily for us alone parliamentarians but also for the Canadian people. This task was defined by the president of the Canadian International Development Agency who, at the Vienna Institute, spoke on development and co-operation and concluded his speech as follows:
The establishment of a new social order in which the men of all nations, rich and poor, will shape their common fate as a challenge to the collective conscience of mankind.
From a moral point of view it is no doubt a matter of duty, but it is also a possibility which can become reality.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will all endeavour as parliamentarians to make this possibility come true.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) for trying to defend the indefensible, and doing so quite articulately and spiritedly. There is an old saying among lawyers that when you have a tough case you pound the books, and when you have an impossible case you pound the desk. I heard a lot of desk-pounding from the other side of the House.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for bringing forward this motion. Needless to say, our party supports him 100 per cent in his attempts to bring forward this necessary infor-
October 16, 1975

mation to make parliament work because, quite simply, that is what he is asking. This is almost entirely a privilege motion asking those of us who have to work in this area to be given a chance to do the job.
This is not the first time the opposition has requested a fairer share of information about the operations of CIDA. Last February my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), spoke in support of a motion moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) which deplored the secrecy that surrounds CIDA. I am sorry to see today that nothing has changed in the government's attitude. The principle at stake, which is the openness of government operations in general and CIDA in particular, is most important. From time immemorial governments have desperately tried to protect themselves from the discovery and criticism of their blunders by throwing a cloak of official secrecy over as wide an area as possible.
The right of parliament and the public to information on foreign aid is absolutely vital and tremendously important if the foreign aid program is to have any continuing public support. At present it is losing support among the public, I am sorry to see, and one of the reasons for that is this continuing government secrecy about its own programs.
CIDA has been the subject of scandal and rumour recently. A number of very expensive programs have been found seriously wanting. The press has reported great sums spent on railways that do not exist and sewer systems that do not work. Beyond that there have been reports of internal dissension, staff turnovers, and serious criticisms by an independent professional body, Price Waterhouse. It was because of these rumours that the opposition called for further disclosures last February. Our party regretted the government's stubborn refusal to provide the necessary information. We will regret it again if the government refuses the reasonable requests of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
The necessity of disclosure has more important dimensions than those of the occasional blunder. It is important now for the country to begin to debate the spirit and purpose of foreign aid as it has developed since the war. But we cannot begin to do that without the necessary information. I said earlier that the government has not changed. Ministers continue to be the same stubborn, arrogant and secretive bunch. But our appreciation of foreign aid itself is changing.
There is a body of literature emerging now which puts the purpose and design of present aid programs into serious doubt and calls out for a very serious and fundamental review. Such a review cannot begin unless we are first able to understand the agency, its tasks and its approach, not only in general but in detail. We should really be calling into question the purpose and design of the foreign aid programs of the entire western industrialized world. What seems more obvious to observers every day is that, whatever may be the intention of these programs as they are now designed, far from helping third world countries to develop to a stage of independence consistent with their national potential, they prevent the third world from developing self-reliant socio-economic societies.
Most of Canadian aid, about 70 per cent, is channelled through CIDA's bilateral division. Aid in this division
Area Program, Summaries
ranges from outright grants to loans at slightly less than the going rate. Increasingly this aid takes the form of loans which must be repaid, and increasingly such loans are being used by client countries, with the encouragement of the developing countries, to balance their budgets, in individual cases, a budget which then continues to increase in deficit and tie the developing country increasingly to the aid country.
The value in real purchasing power in terms of manufactured goods of the exports of developing countries has plummeted in the past 20 years until, with respect to commodities like sugar, cotton, coffee, jute and tea, their purchasing value has lost ground drastically. Quite obviously then, increases in the purchases of manufactured goods from developed countries distort local economies drastically, causing physical disaster and social disorder.
Borrowing from the World Bank in order to finance development is conditional upon acceptance of the advice of the IMF, advice which is founded on economic liberalism, the widest possible play for free market forces, and the narrowest play for government intervention which may protect the client country from imports and encourage indigenous substitutes for the products of the western industrialized world.
Acceptance of IMF guidelines encourages a dependence on imports in the client country, but with the continued decrease in the real purchasing power of their exports developing countries go more and more into the hole. Increasingly foreign aid is used and encouraged as a balancer to make up the difference in the cost of imports and the price received for exports. Therefore foreign aid is not fostering self-reliant development but just the opposite; it encourages increased dependence by cushioning its immediate effects on the local economy.
The hon. member for Charlevoix referred to the new economic order. I think it is probably the most encouraging thing to happen in terms of international aid in a very long time. I am disappointed from time to time, when I attend international conferences, to listen to the rhetoric of the third world representatives who blame so many of their problems on an imperialist system. In my view, some of that information may be right, but they do no service whatsoever to their own cause in continuing to belabour that argument because the developing world is ready to help and enter into serious negotiation in terms of the new economic order. I suggest that the third world representatives whom I meet at these conferences tend to be their own worst enemies. If they would forget about the shibboleths of the past and get on to the future in terms of the renegotiation of prices of world products, we would make significant gains in terms of helping third world countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I want to end by agreeing with my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, in what he had to say about the operations of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Those of us who have to struggle on that committee with almost no time to deal with meaningful questions, and to deal with a government which may refuse this motion-I hope it will accept it-cannot do a job with the kind of limited facilities that are available to that committee.

October 16, 1975
Area Program Summaries
I hope that the government will give serious consideration to expanding the role of the committee, to expanding its terms of reference, to providing us with wider powers in terms of subpoenaing witnesses, and let parliament itself take a serious and deep look at the subject of foreign aid, because I think that in that committee there is substantial agreement among all members, no matter of what political persuasion they may be, that they want to do a better job in terms of foreign aid. I think this is not the time for the government to be partisan on the subject. Good will in that committee can go a long way in helping our government do a good job abroad.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I fully support the motion presented by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). It is long overdue. We certainly need complete disclosure of all CIDA documents.
There has been a new CIDA committee established to deal with CIDA and its programs, but unless we have all the documentation and all the evidence in regard to how CIDA operates, there is no way in which we could do a complete job. The terms of reference establishing this committee are a farce. They are nothing else but a motherhood motion, and just another cover up by the government which is most reluctant to allow a complete and thorough investigation into the operations of CIDA. I have presented some evidence to the Auditor General who is looking into some of the matters for me. If we are going to be blocked as we were in the last committee meetings, I would call on the Auditor General to do more investigations into CIDA operations.
I should like to refer to an article which was written a number of months ago in regard to CIDA. The headline reads '"Spend, spend' (it's your tax money) How CIDA Squanders Cash on Bungled Overseas Aid":
The Canadian International*Development Agency is rushing to spend $117 million within the next few weeks in an effort to impress treasury board officials.
Lagging disbursements in the bilateral branch of CIDA are causing concern because they shortfall the treasury board's $497.95 million limit set for 1974-75 spending.
CIDA apparently feels it must spend the leftover $117 million in order to strengthen its bargaining position when the treasury considers the agency's 1975-76 cash allocation.
This effort tends to bear out one of the main contentions of CIDA dissidents-that the chief emphasis in the agency is placed on producing figures to support an impression that Canada is in the vanguard of nations providing development assistance.
The purpose is to meet the target of the World Bank's commission on international development once headed by the late prime minister Pearson.
The target was that, by 1975, official aid should reach 0.7 per cent of the gross national product of donor countries.
In fact, the Canadian government has never set a specific date for achieving this objective. It remains a CIDA preoccupation without official sanction.
Commenting on the CIDA operation, Madam Speaker, the article says:
"Your career in CIDA depends on how you spend", a former agency official said. "You are constantly being hammered over the head and told 'Spend, spend'."

That is enough reason right there for our looking at all the documents in dealing with the operations of CIDA. That is the least we can do for Canadian taxpayers. We should not suppress these kinds of goings-on in CIDA.
The article continues:
"It's not how well you spend your money, but quantitatively. Can you spend the budget allocated to you? That's what counts."
A second official said: "The whole criterai here is spend. Anyone who says it isn't doesn't know the facts."
Especially, there is CIDA's president, Paul Gerin-Lajoie, a deputy minister unlike the others, who has his own firm ideas about running CIDA.
When Gerin-Lajoie refused last May to let the Commons external affairs committee see a management consultant's report on CIDA's high personnel turnover, he was assured that the MPs would henceforward take a much greater interest in the aid agency's affairs than in the past.
The Conservative external affairs critic, Claude Wagner, said the refusal amounted to contempt of the House.
It is amazing how little information we have been able to obtain from Mr. Gerin-Lajoie in the committee meetings. As one newsman stated, the opposition did not even lay a glove on him. That is a disgrace. We cannot lay a glove on him because we cannot obtain the information. It is an exercise in futility sitting in those committee meetings. We had to hammer away at the government in the committee and raise motion after motion, and finally it condescended to allow us to establish this new CIDA committee, but with our hands tied due to very weak terms of reference.
I should like to give further comments on why there has to be complete disclosure of all these documents from an article which points out the following:
CIDA's critics do not argue with the use of even more money to send wheat to drought-stricken areas, to vaccinate cattle, to develop agriculture and commercial fishing, to build badly needed bridges, power dams and irrigation systems.
But many of CIDA's country-to-country projects have been arousing interest.
The article goes on to give as an example:
A machine which weighs grain and automatically fills and sews up bags, was delivered to Calcutta, India, about a year ago at a cost of $300,000.
Fortunately, it has not been installed for use since labour-saving devices have sometimes provoked riots in Calcutta, a city with massive unemployment.
What happened to this $300,000 machine? Has it been brought back to Canada, or is it sitting there rotting? We are entitled to have this information.
The article goes on:
But CIDA recently had tenders out for a second and more advanced machine of the same kind, estimated to cost $500,000.
So there has been $800,000 put out on two machines, and we are not even sure if they are operating.
The article continues:
In Senegal, where labour is similarly cheap and plentiful, the polytechnical school at Thies is equipped with automatic dishwashers, according to CIDA employees. Also a ham slicer, a curiosity in this Moslem land where dietary rules forbid the eating of the flesh of swine.
This would certainly indicate that there is great mismanagement in the CIDA operation. I should like to point out that the only way we were able to obtain any sound
October 16, 1975

information at our last committee meetings was for CIDA project officers to telephone from countries like Kenya and other places to give us information, and to send us documented information on the mismanagement of CIDA's projects. Therefore I realize why the government does not want to reveal any of its documents.
The article continues:
Schools have been built in several hot countries along Canadian lines with few windows but plenty of electric lights.
"You know what happens?" said a CIDA man. "The hydro in these countries is a terrible price, so what happens is that the local government can't afford to use the building and it's wasted."
I should also like to read some other comments from CIDA staff members, such as the following:
"Ours is a terribly complicated agency. It requires people who know the whole range of subject matter in very sophisticated management."
That is exactly what we are trying to find out. If we have all the proper documentation, we can do a job in committee in regard to the CIDA operation and foreign aid. The staff member continued:
"Not only know it, but can implement it. But I can't see in our agency one single individual with that capacity. We have had them, but they have quit.
They have been hired only a very short time when they shrug their shoulders and say, 'Nobody wants to use any expertise. They all know better than I. I have been given no authority to implement things. I can't get decisions. To hell with you. I'll go somewhere else.' "
We have had reports from CIDA project officers that they are left stranded in countries; their telegrams are not answered; their letters are not answered. They do not know what to do or in which direction to go. This indicates more mismanagement within CIDA, and explains why we must have a complete examination of all these documents.
I quote again from staff comments:
"There are some projects where decisions have been made by a project officer who hadn't the slightest idea what he was doing when he put his name to a document which amended the project.
It's going to cost us our shirts and it's going to cost the countries involved their shirts, but they can't afford it like we can. There are errors based on sheer stupidity which are costing two, three, four million dollars.
There is a complete and appalling lack of leadership ... I see a complete failure in the agency to develop younger people. God, some of these younger people have got an idealism.
We have grown up in an atmosphere of absolute amateurism. The only thing that has enabled the program to be as valuable as it is at the moment is the relatively small handful of people who by sheer work have got things done, if not as well as they should like.
I think the situation is getting worse, rather than better. The pity of the whole issue is that the senior levels of management don't themselves understand what is wrong."
It is a fair conjecture that all of these criticisms have not reached Germ-Lajoie. His personal staff have a reputation for shielding him from such irritations.
Paul Gerin-Lajoie has been described as a man who loves humanity but dislikes people, according to a former top CIDA aide who once had regular contact with the ... agency president.
It is said that many of the present 930 CIDA employees don't even know what their boss looks like in the flesh because he restricts internal office contact to the few.
I think it would be an excellent suggestion if some members of this new CIDA committee visited some of these CIDA projects to have a first hand look at what is going on, and to speak to these project officers.
Area Program Summaries
I continue quoting:
Unlike all other deputies, Gerin-Lajoie does not make his home in Ottawa, preferring to commute to Montreal for weekends he is not travelling around the world.
The criticisms go on about the operation and its management, and we are hardly any the wiser. Had it not been for these project officers giving us this information in the last few months, we would know very little about the whole CIDA operation. I find it very strange that the government members want to conceal these documents. I think the Canadian people are entitled to full disclosure, and in order for this committee to work properly all these documents should be presented to the members for study.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I should like to refer to my colleague who just talked, and I say it was rubbish what he said about Mr. Gerin-Lajoie-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) on a point of order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I was quoting project officers' statements from a news report, and this news report has never been repudiated. If those statements were rubbish, the government or CIDA should have answered the news report.


Claude-André Lachance: Madam Speaker, the matter under consideration today has, in substance, made a lot of ink and saliva run on the floor of this House as well as in the newsrooms of the media. I said, in substance, because I feel there is no doubt about the motives of the mover of this motion who is seeking, through his demand to table the Area Program Summaries of CIDA, to disclose the contents of government documents, a subject that is recurring periodically during the sittings of the House.
In my opinion, today's motion is nothing more than a pretext and the procedure is not new. Besides, we have noticed in that last few months a notable outbreak of this procedural device to raise periodically the well closed lid.
Periodically is even a mild expression, since every occasion is a good one, even the most futile subjects, to question the cogency of the "confidentiality" of some government documents.
Yet the rules of the game are clear and to make them even more obvious, so as to leave no room for doubt about the general principle of confidentiality, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in a speech on March 15, 1973, explained some guidelines and tabled the 16 recommendations the government can sometimes invoke to deny the production of confidential papers and reports of consultative committees. The statement followed a speech by one of our procedure experts in the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who then gave the reasons why he thought the confidentiality principle should be changed so that every document would be considered public unless the government justified its wish to have the document considered confidential.

October 16, 1975
Area Program Summaries
Then rose in the House another procedure specialist, the then President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who stated the position of the government on this subject. He said, and I quote:
My approach and the approach of the government is exactly the approach of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Our objective is to make as much information available as possible. We believe that Members of Parliament require factual information about the operations of the government in order that they may carry out their parliamentary duties. That statement is included in the general principle. We are also aware that the desire to make available as much information as possible must be balanced against effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights to privacy. It is always a delicate matter of judgment to balance the desire to make information available with the effective administration of the government, security of the state and other considerations.
Mr. MacEachen then went on to explain the reason for this general principle-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on a question of privilege.


Donald W. Munro: I got the impression, while listening to the hon. member who now has the floor, that he is questioning my motives to pursue this question. I protest energetically against this insinuation regarding my motives which are as parliamentary as can be. We are entitled, Madam Speaker, to have a look at documents which report on the activities of CIDA abroad.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is certainly aware that the question of privilege can only be brought up when the rights of the hon. member are affected. Now, I doubt very much that the rights of the hon. member are limited. It is rather a question of debate.


Claude-André Lachance: In spite of everything, I did not want to antagonize the hon. member across the way; I wished to reassure him. I have no intention of discussing his personal motives. I am merely trying to explain the position of the government, which has been the same for many a year. I shall therefore pursue my argument.
As I was saying, the principle has a historical background in that Mr. Disraeli, the renowned British Prime Minister, first explained it. In addition, many authors have explained it in writing. Others took the opposite tack, but that is democracy.
Having said this, I see I have very little time left. Let us say simply that my friend and colleague from Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) dealt with it much more ably than I did, saying that the interim reports requested have precisely this advisory and non mandatory character and on this sole basis the government seems justified in firmly dismissing the demands of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would be remiss in failing to point out that the whole problem of the minister's responsibility towards CIDA and the power of evocation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been discussed at length and I feel the matter was settled once and for all. The bitter controversy which arose from that debate became the stock argument of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and of his party.

In spite of the claims of some members, particularly in the light of the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Charlevoix, I think that this House has enough information to pass judgment on the performance of CIDA, without prejudice to the necessity of throwing some light on the matter and of requiring the responsible minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), to report to the House on the activities of CIDA.


Mr. Roche:: Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
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.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House having considered all motions except Nos. 6 and 24, it appears appropriate now to give those two motions consideration. It was agreed that those two motions would be deferred until all other motions had been considered. That point having been reached, presumably it would be more orderly to deal first with motion No. 6, and then with No. 24. However, I am in the hands of the House.


An hon. Member:: Take motion No. 6 first.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: First we will consider motion No. 6. I had previously expressed my reservations about motion No. 6, but the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who moved the motion has not appeared in the House this evening.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to that matter? The reason for this amendment was the sense of frustration felt by all members of the committee, myself included, who felt that, in some ways, they had been dealt with cavalierly by the minister on this impor-
October 16, 1975

tant point. We raised some serious constitutional questions about the power of parliament to assign to the Federal Court a criminal jurisdiction. Section 46 of the act seeks to do this. I do not have the details before me, but attention to a very serious breach was drawn by an eminent constitutional authority, on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, I believe.
My colleague from York-Simcoe and I wanted to question the experts or law officers who advised the minister. All we now have is the minister's own assertion that he is satisfied with the advice of his officers. That is not good enough, and that particular point concerns me.
My colleague from York-Simcoe has said with regard to this important question of constitutionality that parliament cannot grant a criminal jurisdiction to the Federal Court, and that is what the act attempts to do. He said that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling before these provisions come into force. That is the purport of the amendment.
Someone can say, "But this is novel!" So what? There is always a first time. After all, Your Honour's predecessor on a couple of matters in which, I suggest, the procedural arguments were in my favour but in which he did not feel they were, said, "I am going to treat the matter as a first time and rule in such and such a way." I did not particularly care for his rulings because they went against the weight of the authority of precedents set elsewhere, not in this House. But he said that this was a first effort, as it were, in this House, and Mr. Speaker ruled as he saw fit. That was quite within his power.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is within your power to rule that such an amendment as this is acceptable. That is all Your Honour has to decide. Your Honour cannot rule on the legality, or on whether parliament can refer a matter or put a bill in suspension because part of it involves a constitutional question with regard to which there is grave doubt.
I say that it is the duty of the opposition, indeed of all members of this House, to question propositions in a statute which may be unconstitutional. Those of us who are lawyers would be remiss in our duty if we casually let such propositions go unchallenged. Our colleagues in the profession, who have the right to do so, could readily point the finger at each and every one of us and ask "Where were you when this matter was under examination? What opinion did you have? Is there or is there not constitutional authority?" If the answer were to be "Well, that did not bother us", then each and every one who said so would be derelict in his duty. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to put it quite plainly on that basis.
My colleague is questioning the constitutionality. Your Honour cannot rule on the constitutionality, but can accept a motion which deals with the question of constitutionality. If the procedure is put forward to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the authority to rule on constitutional points, so be it. I submit that even if the argument is that this is the first time this has happened, my colleague has the right to put forward the motion, and it is not out of order.
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raises one of the most interesting questions for constitutionalists and I cannot help answering the invitation put to me by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and give my advice as a lawyer on the constitutionality of the bill and on the implications the amendment would have on Canadian legislation if it were adopted as moved by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
But before dealing with the contents of the amendment itself, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion this amendment is inadmissible at this stage of the discussion. As a matter of fact, the amendment refers to one of the conditions for the coming into force of the bill in its present form, and these conditions are clearly defined in clause 31 of the bill. Now, the amendment as moved by the hon. member for York-Simcoe refers rather to clause 12 of the bill.
Consequently, if one refers to authors of doctrines, to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 406, it is clearly established that an amendment which is not directly linked to the conditions governing the coming into force of a bill as stated in the bill is out of order. This opinion is brought forward again by May, on page 510, who says that an amendment must be declared out of order if it is not properly related to the clauses it is meant to amend. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment should be declared out of order.
However, in the wording of the amendment there is an extremely important principle which is the right to refer to the Supreme Court. This right goes back very far in history. In the Middle Ages, when parliaments were meeting, they did not enjoy the privilege of drafting legislation.
They would petition the sovereign for their rights-he would consult judges and magistrates-and ask him to draft the bills. It was only much later that parliaments took upon themselves the right to phrase the bills themselves before submitting them to the approval of the sovereign who could only either accept or reject them but not alter them.
The contents of the amendment which the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has proposed would result in delaying the enactment of this legislation until the Supreme Court would rule upon the constitutionality of clause 31.1 of Part IV of the bill.
Evidently the hon. member is referring to section 55 of the Supreme Court Act of Canada, which was introduced for the first time when the Supreme Court was created in 1875, and to a section which was amended in 1891 when the act which set up the Supreme Court in Canada was rewritten.
Section 55 of the Act clearly states that any significant question of law or facts concerning the interpretation of the British North America Acts or the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation may be referred by the Governor in Council to the Supreme Court for hearing and consideration.

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
Under the terms of the present legislation, I do not think it is essential for the government to go through that process of referring the bill to the Supreme Court should any doubt arise with respect to its constitutionality.
As a matter of fact, it has happened several times in the past that bills dealing with combines, for instance the Board of Commerce Act of 1919 as well as the Combines Act of 1928 were referred to the Supreme Court for consideration of questions of fact and law relating to those bills. In either case the Supreme Court did recognize the constitutionality of the bills and held that they fitted perfectly well within the prerogatives of Parliament.
The proposed amendment as it stands would give rise to a doubt with respect to the constitutionality of the bill as we are debating it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know for a fact that any bill introduced in the House of Commons is presumed to be constitutional; in other words, when a bill is referred to a court, it is considered as having been adopted pursuant to the powers of Parliament, and as coming within the jurisdiction of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly which have adopted it.
The proposed amendment would have the effect of casting a doubt on the constitutionality of the bill, and therefore of the powers of Parliament to legislate with respect to combines.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need at this time to refer that bill to the Supreme Court.
As a matter of fact, the government has, I believe three good reasons for rejecting the amendment. First, experience has shown that any abstract question put to the courts of justice leads to an abstract answer, which is very often of little use in solving practical cases.
Second, the reference procedure historically stemmed from the lack of any right of appeal on the part of the private individual. Now, it is clearly provided in this bill that any individual or corporation that might be affected by any of the provisions has a right to appeal to the board, and may exercise that right and the board is required to give him an opportunity to be heard. The right of appeal is therefore explicitly recognized in the legislation, and no individual is now deprived of his right of appeal before an impartial court.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must mention that traditionally the reference procedure has been used in cases where individuals could not afford to defend their rights, or where there were conflicts between the provinces and the federal government.
The hon. minister who appeared before the parliamentary committee made it quite clear that contacts and exchanges had taken place between his department and the departments of the main provinces interested in the bill and that there was no disagreement which would warrant the government at this stage to question the constitutionality of the bill and refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, for reasons of law, for reasons of the amendment as worded now being out of order when it should have been tagged to clause 31 and not to clause 12, and also for reasons of policy where 
the government at this stage has no reason to question the constitutionality of the bill I say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion this amendment should be ruled out of order and turned down in its present form.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member actually questioned the position of the amendment, could he enlighten us on the matter? Under clause 12 of Bill C-2 we have paragraph 31 of the Combines Investigation Act, and it is precisely at the end of clause 12 of Bill C-2 that my colleague puts his amendment relating to clause 31. So I wonder where else one would put such an amendment because clauses 12 and 31 refer to two different statutes.


Serge Joyal: I think, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, that there is some confusion in the wording of the amendment. Indeed it is right to argue, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggests, that the amendment relates to clause 31 of the combines bill, a clause being amended under clause 12. But if the very content of the amendment of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is to be the coming into force of the bill to one condition, namely the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the bill, that condition should rather be tagged to clause 31 which ties the coming into force of the bill to certain conditions which are defined under that clause 31. I think the amendment as worded now, should be turned down on a simple matter of procedure within a formulation and not as such within the content of the constitutionality of the bill.
My first argument, Mr. Speaker, is purely a procedural one, and is not a legal argument as such. It is a purely procedural argument. According to our administrative procedure, and Beauchesne and May have made it clear, if an amendment is not directly related to the clause of the bill that defines its contents, it must be declared out of order. Yet, in this case, the content of clause 31.1 of the Combines Bill is included in clause 12 while the content of the clauses concerning the coming into force of the bill is also included in clause 31 of the bill. This is why I think there is some confusion as concerns the texts, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other hon. members who are anxious to participate in this very interesting discussion the Chair is left very much with the conclusion it had come to at the beginning of the discussion.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) for his very interesting and well-prepared speech.

I also thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for his very spirited intervention on behalf of his colleague and the procedural regularity of this motion.
The fact is, and this seems inescapable, that the motion would exceed the scope of the bill in several relevant particulars, not the least of which is that it does indeed appear to use the words, "notwithstanding section 31 of the act" whereas in fact the statute before us does not propose to amend section 31. Further, the proposed motion
October 16, 1975

uses the words "notwithstanding section 55 of the Supreme Court Act," which again is not before us. In any case, in its intent it puts within this very statute a section which refers to a section of the act which is before us for interpretation by the Supreme Court before this section can come into force. It further adds, in paragraph (b), what could very well be a purely hypothetical condition, and then in paragraph (c) goes on to attach a condition that the attorney general of each province shall be notified of a hearing under this subsection in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit. The fact of the matter is that it seems to add an indefinite condition, again in paragraph (c).
Basically, however, the major difficulty remains the same. That is to say, it is suggested that the statute, or this particular section of the act before the House of Commons, be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an interpretation, and thereafter, depending upon what the interpretation of that Court might be, this part of the act might come into force.
It would seem to the Chair that even if the clause were to be proposed in respect of a substantive measure before the House rather than simply an amending statute, it would still be offensive, and would go beyond the scope of any bill which this House might enact.
It seems to me to be repulsive to any act to parliament that it should contain within it a condition that the act must be referred in any part, or in any particular, to any other body for interpretation before it comes into force. Indeed, power already rests in the hands of any citizen who wants to attack any bill on its constitutionality to take it before the Supreme Court of Canada. But to put such a clause in a statute indicating that an act of parliament, or any clause of an act of parliament, would not come into force until that was done, seems to me to go beyond the scope of any statute which comes before parliament. Certainly it goes beyond the scope of the bill before us which seeks only to amend certain clauses of another act. Therefore the Chair has come to the conclusion that the motion is procedurally unacceptable.
We will proceed to Motion No. 24. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reasoning behind this amendment stems from the fact that we have expressed grave concern about Bill C-2 which amends Part V of the Combines Investigation Act, which is in the Criminal Code and which is the part of that particular act which deals with offences in relation to trade, and not only makes amendments there but also extends the offences in relation to trade. We were very concerned that there was no provision whatsoever for reimbursement to be made to those consumers who may have been taken advantage of for a long period of time. There ought to be some recompense to those consumers who had been ripped off. It was this motivation which prompted us to try first of all, a class action amendment to the bill, and then a restitution clause, which this clause is.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we presented this to the Committee on Finance when the bill was still being debated, and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who was chairing that committee, a gentleman well versed in the law and a hard-working member of parliament who was recently promoted for his hard work,
Combines Investigation Act
ruled that the amendment was in order. So you see, Mr. Speaker, I received no direction at that time that it was misplaced, and certainly if it had been indicated in the ruling given at that time we could have worded it in such a way as to be acceptable to Your Honour. Such an indication, however, was not given to my party or myself, and as a result it was debated in committee and negatived in committee.
I looked at Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, 1958, citation 406, to see under what conditions amendments are out of order. I note that in that citation amendments are out of order under the following conditions, and I quote:
(a)	irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived;
(b)	inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the Committee;
(c)	inconsistent with a decision which the Committee has given upon a former amendment;
(d)	offered at the wrong place in the bill;
(e)	tendered to the Committee in a spirit of mockery, vague or trifling.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at that citation and I would say it is very relevant to Part V of the Combines Investigation Act, and certainly Bill C-2 opened up that part of the act to amendment. All our amendment does is give logic to that part of the act. Without our amendment it seems to me that this section is short. The amendment was put forward in that light and accepted by the committee, and I hope Your Honour will consider this when making your ruling.


Mr. Martin:: In rising to speak on the acceptability of this particular amendment I think it is very important that we should recognize we are dealing here with one of the most complex pieces of legislation which has come before this parliament, and probably the most complex to have been introduced since the time of the new Income Tax Act which became effective in January, 1972.
It seems to me that this legislation, having come before three parliaments in the past, and having resulted in considerable debate in this parliament alone with some 25 sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, we must accept that it is a very complex bill. This point is important when we consider the amendment before us.
The other point I should like to make is that the amendment which has been suggested is basically the thin edge of the wedge in the area of class action. I think it is one that the Canadian people will have to look at in future, one that this parliament must examine. Whether or not this is the appropriate time is really the issue that we are talking about when we consider this point. By class actions, I mean the kind of situation where a simple citizen has the right to sue over a particular issue on behalf not only of himself or herself but on behalf of several other citizens.
It is important to realize when making this judgment that the hon. member's amendment is in the area of class actions. The words of the motion are:
8290

October 16, 1975
Combines Investigation Act -to refund to the persons from whom he-
Meaning the guilty party. Those are my words.
-derived the excess revenue if those persons are reasonably identifiable or, in any other case, generally to persons thereafter acquiring the product from him-
It is really a question whether it is appropriate at this time to consider class actions as we consider the particular amendment now before the House. It is my opinion that this particular amendment dealing with class actions would give greater power to a judge than was intended by the bill. I refer to power in the area of making refunds. This is one of the reasons why I feel this particular amendment is probably inappropriate under the circumstances.
The second point I want to make is that I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have been attempting to discern whether the hon. member is addressing himself to the appropriateness of the substance of the amendment or the procedural irregularity, which is all that we are dealing with at the present time. I have the impression that the hon. member is engaged in asking the House to consider whether or not the amendment is appropriate. The question we are dealing with at the moment is whether the Chair ought to accept the amendment from a procedural point of view. If I am correct that the hon. member's remarks are addressed to the substance of the amendment, then perhaps he would hold them for a moment until I make a decision on the procedural acceptability.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to you my contention that in the matter of the procedural irregularity I would argue in the same vein as my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), that this amendment is irregular in the sense that it would be improperly placed in the statute. It is an amendment to clause 22, which basically deals with collection of statistics and the enforcement of the collection of statistics. It is essentially a penal amendment, namely, one that seeks to grant additional powers to the court relative to the refunding of any excesses collected. It has a penal quality and should have been included in clause 18 or some other clause of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There apparently being no other hon. members who wish to contribute to this interesting point, may I say that the text of motion No. 24 propose- to amend clause 22 of the bill. The fact is that clause 22 of the bill deals with the collection of statistics and with various aspects of reporting facts and figures. It does not in any way deal with penalties. This motion introduces not only a penalty, which does not belong or is any way germane to clause 22, but furthermore introduces a new concept into the penalty provisions as well.
In view of the fact that the amendment proposes to amend clause 22 and is beyond the scope of that clause, I have to hold that the amendment is procedurally unacceptable.
I just want to add that when this matter was first raised months ago I made the following remark. I am not going to quote it in detail, but I referred to the procedural difficulty facing motions 6 and 24 in a general way. The language I used with respect to motion 24 may have been confusing in that I obviously made a cross reference to some aspects of motion No. 6. However, I went on to say this. I do not have the date of my remarks before me but it was some time ago, certainly long before the recess when the report stage of the bill was first considered. At that time I

indicated that motion 24 proposed penalties which, in the opinion of the Chair, were not in any way germane to clause 22 of the bill which it sought to amend.
Having made that reference at that time I thought it might have been ample forewarning, so that if it was simply a readjustment of the location of the motion, it might have been adjusted in the interval. In any event the matter is before the Chair at the present time. The motion proposes to amend clause 22. It is obviously well beyond the scope of clause 22; therefore with regret I have to rule that it is unacceptable.
That brings to a conclusion all of the report stage motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word on something that perhaps you were going to raise. We are now at the point where 14 divisions have been deferred. I know the Clerk of the House is looking forward to calling 14 divisions tonight and we would not like to deprive him of that experience, but it is the fact that nine of those deferred divisions are practically the same in that they deal with the same aspect of the matter.
We would therefore be prepared to make arrangements to have one recorded vote to cover the amendments of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to motions 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25, but we would like to have separate votes on motions 10, 11, 18, 20 and 21.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was about to make a similar suggestion. The matter has been clearly put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25 all deal with the aspect of penalties, and a pronouncement of the House on one might therefore be deemed to be a pronouncement on all of them. Technically it might be best to have a recorded division on motion No. 8 and thereafter ask the House whether it will resolve the others in the same way without further division, and then proceed to motion 10. The question must be resolved on each, and we could not take more than one vote at a time.
Therefore, we will take a division on motion No. 8, and having resolved that I will ask the House whether it is content that a similar result be recorded on the others. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Thereafter separate recorded divisions will be taken on motions 10, 11, 18, 20 and 21. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having pronounced itself on motion No. 8, as amended, does it agree to pronounce itself similarly on motions Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be recorded that these motions shall carry on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions No. 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25 (Mr. Ouellet), as amended, agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 10.
The House divided on motion No. 10 (Mr. Rodriguez), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 68)
++YEAS
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Broadbent
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Messrs.
Firth Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lambert
(Bellechasse)
(Roberval) Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis) Guilbault Haidasz
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Broadbent
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Marshall
Martin
Masniuk
Mazankowski
++NAYS
Messrs.
Firth Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Leggatt
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tessier
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Wagner Watson Whittaker Wise Yewchuk Young-183.
Ny strom Peters Rodriguez Symes-12.
i (2110)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion No. 8 (Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)) agreed
to.
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Beaudoin
Bechard
Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Bussieres
Caccia
Cadieu
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-femard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chretien
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Cyr
Danson
Darling
Daudlin
Dupras Duquet Elzinga Fairweather Faulkner Fleming Foster Fox Francis Fraser Friesen Gauthier (Roberval) Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Leggatt Ny strom Peters Rodriguez Symes-13.
Douglas	LeBlanc	Roberts	NAYS	(Bruce-Grey)	(Westmorland-Kent)	Robinson	Dupont	Lee	Roche	Dupras	Lefebvre	Rompkey	Messrs.	Duquet	Lessard	Roy	Abbott	Demers	HowieElzinga	Loiselle	(Timmins)	Alexander	Dick	HuntingtonFairweather	(Saint-Henri)	Roy	Allard	Dinsdale	IsabelleFaulkner	MacDonald	(Laval)	Anderson	Dionne	JarvisFleming	(Cardigan)	Scott	Andras	(Kamouraska)	JelinekFoster	MacDonald	Sharp	(Port Arthur)	Dionne	JohnstonFox	(Egmont)	Skoreyko	Andres	(Northumberland-	JoyalFrancis	Macdonald	Smith	(Lincoln)	Miramichi)	KaplanFraser	(Rosedale)	(Saint-Jean)	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Douglas	KemplingFriesen	MacDonald (Miss)	Stanfield	Baker	(Bruce-Grey)	KnowlesGauthier	(Kingston and the	Stewart	(Grenville-Carleton)	Dupont	(Norfolk-?
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Langlois Laniel Lapointe Laprise La Salle Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLean
29669-4 iy2

Division
Messrs.
Macquarrie	Oberle
Maine	O'Connell
Malone	Olivier
Marceau	Ouellet
Marchand	Paproski
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Parent
Marshall	Patterson
Martin	Pearsall
Masniuk	Pelletier
Mazankowski	Penner
McCain	Philbrook
McGrath	Pinard
Mclsaac	Portelance
McKenzie	Prud'homme
McKinley	Railton
McKinnon	Raines
McRae	Reid
Mitges	Reynolds
Morin (Mrs.)	Richardson
Muir	Ritchie
Munro	Roberts
(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Robinson
Murta	Roche
Neil	Rompkey
Nicholson (Miss)	Roy
Nowlan	(Timmins)
Hoy
(Laval)
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tessier
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Wagner Watson Whittaker Wise Yewchuk Young-182.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 11.
The House divided on motion No. 11 (Mr. Rodriguez), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 69)
++YEAS
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Howie
Huntington
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Langlois Laniel Lapointe Laprise La Salle Lawrence Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Messrs.
Messrs.
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo) Marshall Martin Masniuk Mazankowski McCain McGrath Mclsaac McKenzie McKinley McKinnon McRae Milne Mitges Morin (Mrs.)
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson (Miss) Nowlan Oberle O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pearsall
Pelletier
Penner
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tessier
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Wagner Watson Whittaker Wise Yewchuk Young-183.
Benjamin	Firth	Nystrom	Blackburn	Knowles	Peters	Brewin Broadbent	(Winnipeg North Centre)	Rodriguez Symes-12.	Mr. Speaker: I	declare the motion lost.	Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Leggatt	Motion No. 11 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.	The Islands)	Mr. Speaker: The question is on motion No. 18.	NAYS	The House divided on motion No.	18 (Mr. Rodriguez),Messrs.	which was negatived on the following division:	Abbott	Cadieu	Dionne	Alexander Allard	Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)	(Northumberland- Miramichi)	(Division No. 70)	Anderson	(South Western Nova)	Douglas	YEAS	Andras	Campbell	(Bruce-Grey)	(Port Arthur)	(LaSalle-fimard-Cote	Dupont	Messrs.	Andres	Saint-Paul)	Dupras	(Lincoln) Appolloni (Mrs.) Baker	Caron Chretien Clarke	Duquet Elzinga Fairweather	Benjamin Blackburn	Firth Knowles	Nystrom Peters(Grenville-Carleton) Baldwin	(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont	Faulkner Fleming	Brewin Broadbent	(Winnipeg North Centre)	Rodriguez Symes-12.Balfour	Coates	Foster	Douglas	Leggatt	Basford	Collenette	Fox	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Beatty	Comtois	Francis	The Islands)	Beaudoin	Condon	Fraser	NAYS	Bechard	Corbin	Friesen	Begin (Miss)	Cyr	Gauthier	Messrs.	Blais	Danson	(Roberval)	Blaker	Darling	Gauthier	Abbott	Andres	BasfordBlouin	Daudlin	(Ottawa-Vanier)	Alexander	(Lincoln)	BeattyBoulanger	Demers	Gendron	Allard	Appolloni (Mrs.)	BeaudoinBreau	Dick	Gillespie	Anderson	Baker	BechardBuchanan	Dinsdale	Goodale	Andras	(Grenville-Carleton)	Begin (Miss)Bussieres	Dionne	Goyer	(Port Arthur)	Baldwin	BlaisCaccia	(Kamouraska)	Grafftey	Balfour	Blaker
[Mr. Speaker.
October 16, 1975

Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Bussieres
Caccia
Cadieu
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-fimard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chretien
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Cyr
Danson
Darling
Daudlin
Demers
Dick
Dinsdale
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Elzinga
Fairweather
Faulkner
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Halliday
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Howie
Huntington
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norf olk-Haldimand) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Langlois Laniel Lapointe Laprise La Salle Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Maine
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Marshall
Martin
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McCain
McGrath
Mclsaac
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Mitges
Morin (Mrs.)
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murta Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pearsall
Pelletier
Penner
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tessier
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Wagner Watson Whittaker Wise Yewchuk Young-183.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 20 in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 21 in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.
The House divided on motion No. 21 (Mr. Rodriguez), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 72)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Broadbent
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Firth Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Leggatt
Ny strom Peters Rodriguez Symes-12.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Abbott
Alexander
Allard
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton) Baldwin Balfour Basford Beatty Beaudoin Beehard Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Bussieres
Caccia
Cadieu
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-femard-Cote Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chretien
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont
Coates
Collenette
Comtois
Condon
Corbin
Cyr
Danson
Darling
Daudlin
Demers
Dick
Dinsdale
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Elzinga
Fairweather
Faulkner
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu' Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Howie
Huntington
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers
Messrs.
Lang Langlois Laniel Lapointe Laprise La Salle Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent) Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Marshall
Martin
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McCain
McGrath
Mclsaac
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Milne
Mitges
Morin (Mrs.)
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murta Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pearsall
Pelletier
Penner
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tessier
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Wagner Watson Whittaker Wise Yewchuk Young-183.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the terms of the order it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of the bill.


André Ouellet: that the bill as reported be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Pursuant to the order, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 17, 1975