1975-10-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from the fact that there are now and then times when members on all sides of the House should join together in expressing deepest sympathy to a member of the House who has suffered a great and tragic personal loss. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House express its very deepest and sincere sympathy to the Prime Minister, to members of the cabinet and to all members of the Liberal family on the momentous occasion of the Progressive Conservative victory in Hochelaga.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF MERCURY POISONING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: 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.
Since Dr. Andre Barbeau, member of the study group responsible for controlling mercury poisoning hazards, has stated that "all the people from northwest Quebec have a very high rate of mercury in their system" and since it is urgent and necessary to take steps to cure the mercury poisoning victims and prevent in the future any poisoning hazard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs immediately undertake a thorough inquiry on mercury poisoning- especially in northwest Quebec-and report to the House on the steps to be taken to solve that problem endangering the health of the people.


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; the motion therefore cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope nothing unfortunate has happened to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I might direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the results of the Hochelaga by-election, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what the government has in mind regarding the Minister of Communications.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances I find it rather difficult to envisage the opposition looking so blue today.
In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister is attending some meetings with Dr. Kissinger. He will be in a little later. In the meantime I can say that there has not yet been a decision made as to the Minister of Communications.


Mr. Nowlan:: We want Simma.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House as to when we can expect an announcement on this matter and when we can expect the government to announce its second choice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the meantime could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House who is the Acting Minister of Communications?


Mitchell William Sharp: The question of whether there will be a replacement for the present Minister of Communications is a matter which has not yet been decided. The Leader of the Opposition, having been a prime minister, will understand that there is a procedure for dealing with these

October 15, 1975
Oral Questions
matters. There will be an announcement in due course. I understand that the Acting Minister of Communications is the Minister of Transport.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The country seems to be staggering from disaster to disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHAIRMAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if and when the government intends to appoint as chairman of the CRTC the vice-chairman, and to appoint a new vice-chairman?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
question of the replacement of the chairman is under consideration. A decision has not yet been made.
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would think that as far as he is concerned the results were a disaster.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the white paper published yesterday and the unemployment figures which also were revealed yesterday. Page 2 of the white paper makes reference to the fact that unemployment will rise in the months and years ahead if no decisive action is taken. Since that is the only reference in the whole of the white paper to unemployment, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, if, in addition to the goal the government has set with a view to reducing the rate of inflation over the next three years, he could inform the House whether some targets have been set by the government to reduce the levels of unemployment and if so, what those targets are?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have set no targets as such on the question of unemployment. I, of course, dealt with that subject in my speech yesterday.


POSSIBILITY OF PROPOSALS TO INCREASE HOUSING STARTS AND EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question with regard to the same issue and related to the question of housing and the shortage of housing. As the minister knows the expected starts, the goals, set by the government this year are not going to be achieved. I should like to ask the minister if he intends to bring to the House proposals that will lead to a major increase in

housing starts in the months ahead and so fill that need as well as the employment need?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the white paper and as announced in the House yesterday, my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will be bringing forward some proposals with regard to housing.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell the House when we could expect those proposals? Does the government plan to take any action with regard to mortgage rates and, specifically, does it intend to bring down mortgage rates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman, and as was indicated yesterday, we will be coming forward with some proposals with regard to housing and my colleague might like to specify in what time-frame-but it would certainly be important to do this as soon as we can.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that in his statement on prices and incomes control the Prime Minister said that the new regulations would become effective on the 14th at midnight; that the Minister of Finance repeated it yesterday and that in this morning's paper we read that the Postmaster General declared a postal strike could take place involving wage increases of the order of 71 per cent and that such a demand did not have anything to do with the new law; can the minister tell this House whether postal employees will be subject to the same restraints as others, and that from October 14, 1975, or whether they will be subject to it later on?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the hon. member's attention the paragraph on page 20 of the white paper which says that the Anti-Inflation Board will give special consideration to those cases where contracts have expired and negotiations are underway, where the expired contract was signed prior to the beginning of 1974. Therefore, the postal workers' contract is one of those that will be considered by the Board.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In the definite case of Bell Canada in northwestern Quebec whose employees have been on strike for the past three, four or five months; in the case of the pulp and paper industry where people are also on strike; in the case of the British Columbia forest workers, will the same regulations apply under these circumstances, and will the striking Bell Canada employees in northwestern Quebec be compelled to drop their demands and accept what the
October 15, 1975

government suggests, namely 8 or 10 per cent, or will their demands be cancelled ipso facto?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government and the mailmen or Bell Canada must first examine a proposition submitted by these workers. Then, this proposition must be submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board for approval and further suggestion. I cannot say for any of these contracts whether they will be approved or cancelled; it will be up to the board to decide.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary question.
Does that mean, for example, in the case where the employer offers a 25 or 26 per cent increase to his employees whereas they are asking for 30 per cent, that both parties will have to get together and negotiate again to fit into the context of the new regulation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a general principle, they will have to conform to the program's guidelines, which, however, recognize the justice of the situation whether there was a settled contract or new contracts with other employees. They will be entitled to a just settlement. It will be the board's responsibility to determine in each case what is right.


ALLEGED INEQUITIES RESULTING FROM WAGE GUIDELINES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since unions which closed negotiations and obtained contracts before the control program was announced will have a clear advantage for the next two years over other unions which did not complete new contracts, and'over unorganized labour, what steps does the government intend to take to try to correct this inequity, or is it the intention of the government to leave this problem entirely to the AntiInflation Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the guidelines are clear in this regard. It is not proposed to re-open contracts already concluded and in force. The proposal, and this is the point I was making to the hon. member for Temiscamingue, is that the AntiInflation Board will have to consider transitional situations in which, as indicated on page 20 of the guidelines, contracts entered into before 1974 have terminated in the past year and in which there have been negotiations. The government proposes that these situations should be referred to the Anti-Inflation Board, for determination in each case as to what would be the justice of the settlement.


WAGE GUIDELINES-ROLE OF CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obviously inequitable situation developing with respect to labour and wages, can the minister advise the House if the Canada Labour Relations Council will have any role to play in
Oral Questions
obtaining the co-operation of both labour and management for this control program? I ask this keeping in mind that Mr. Morris, head of the CLC, said he opposes the control program.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Relations Council I think would be a useful vehicle for achieving a better relationship between all factors in society in connection with the difficult question of collective bargaining in Canada. Touching on initial union reaction, I think it is important from the government's standpoint to have closer consultation not only with the leadership in Ottawa, but with leaders of unions across the country, with locals and with the membership, to make certain that they understand that in the long run their objective, of assisting those at the lowest end of the income scale, is also the objective of this government and is best achieved through this kind of program.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? In view of the minister's remarks, can he advise if the government intends to consult with the Canada Labour Relations Council and try to obtain the help of that council, bearing in mind that my party supported the formation of that council and that its duties connected with the control program should be clearly defined now?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say, in relation to the program, that the Minister of Labour and I met with the council last week, with the government's proposals very much in mind as we discussed outstanding issues. I agree with the hon. gentleman; the Canada Labour Relations Council is an excellent forum in which to try to arrive at a better appreciation of and consensus for this particular proposal as well as other problems on the labour relations scene.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since in the present circumstances the government will have to nominate a new Minister of Communications, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if the government will be tempted to choose a member already elected or if it will prefer to try again the sad experiment it has made in Hochelaga yesterday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the question asked by the hon. member that he believes there are many members on this side who are competent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 15, 1975
Oral Questions HEALTH


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO BILL C-68
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. In view of the proposals for controls announced by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, and in view of the intent of Bill C-68, which is to place limitations on expenditures as far as medicare is concerned, will the House leader clarify whether this bill will now be withdrawn in view of the fact it appears to be somewhat obsolete or does the government tend to proceed with it as previously planned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had this matter under discussion. Certainly it is the intention of the government to proceed in principle, but I cannot say whether it will make some amendments in light of the restraints with which we hope the provinces will agree. If we do decide that those changes have to be made, we than have the choice of amending the bill or introducing a new one. I can assure the hon. member that we intend to apply restraint in this area as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It relates to the announcement that Canadian National Railways will increase its class rates on October 21 by 20 per cent, which will be the third increase this year, amounting to a cumulative total increase of something like 87 per cent in its class rates. In light of that increase and others related to it, has the minister yet discussed this with the Canadian Transport Commission so that it can enforce its authority and limit these increases to one that are acceptable within the broad range of guidelines, both for government agencies and the public?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with the Canadian Transport Commission. Indeed, I do not think the guidelines will have any effect on the power of the CTC in this area. However, the guidelines may themselves have some bearing upon the situation but this, of course, is a legal interpretation of the act with which we will deal and pass. That will become more apparent tomorrow with the bill before us. Thereafter, hon. members can make appropriate comments and see what the power of the administrator will be in that context.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the minister has not studied the document his own government brought forward. It indicates very clearly that the prices and quality of service must conform with the new program that is administered under the regulatory authority. Will he take steps to ensure that these rates which will come into effect and have a very discriminatory effect, particularly against shippers in regionally disadvantaged areas of the country, will be rolled back or at least frozen at their present level?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be clear that my view is that guidelines can indeed apply notwithstanding what other legal situation exists. However, that obviously is a legal opinion. I am somewhat diffident about giving a legal opinion to the hon. member. I will, in due course, be glad to discuss it further with him. The point is very important. The guidelines, the statute and the power contained in that statute, is very pervasive and can have an effect in areas where otherwise the law does not allow for control of such things as rates on freight.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION THAT COMMISSION PORTS GIVE GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Mr. Benno Friesert (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and the Acting Minister of Communications. The previous Minister of Transport frequently assured the House that the Scott report dealing with the reorganization of port authorities would include a recommendation to the effect that the commission ports would give grants in lieu of taxes. Will the minister assure the House that these grants will begin in the fiscal year 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this point determine the exact timing of the changes which will be made. It obviously depends in part upon implementation of changes in the policy and in changes in law. I can say, however, that the policy of my predecessor is in the process of being implemented in this area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the preparatory meeting in Paris of the officials of the European community, Japan, the United States and the other nations has been completed, and there is to be a ministerial conference in a few weeks, will Canada be included amongst those invited to participate in that conference?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We think we will be on that list.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister smiles as though he got that information just recently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In the light of the important nature of this meeting, is the minister prepared some time prior to the meeting to discuss with the House the government's attitude and, if necessary, make arrangements for a debate so that those taking part in the meeting will carry to it some indication of the views of this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be a good idea to discuss this subject in the House of Commons some time
October 15, 1975

before the meeting takes place, and I will consult with the House leader with a view to determining whether an opportunity is likely to come forward or whether we shall have to arrange one.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE DR. HENRY KISSINGER
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure hon. members would wish me to take advantage of this most appropriate moment to call attention to the presence in our gallery of a most distinguished visitor. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Dr. Henry Kissinger.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Not only because Dr. Kissinger represents our most cherished friend and neighbour, the United States of America, but also because his work throughout the world has been such a driving force for world peace, all of us, I am sure, wish him well in every endeavour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of reports that in the past several days supermarkets in British Columbia have raised prices of items on the shelf in anticipation of cost increases-I refer, of course, to anticipated wage increases which are now unlikely to materialize because of the government's wage control program-will the government instruct the Anti-Inflation Board to investigate the situation immediately to ensure that prices in those supermarkets do not now exceed permissible levels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
obliged to the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. I, in turn, will bring it to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Can she tell the House whether her department has undertaken thorough and serious inquiry with a view to determining the rate of mercury contained in the fish
Oral Questions
caught in northern Abitibi? Can she also tell us what steps have been taken with the native population of that area to prevent the occurrence of another Minamata in our area?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are currently conducting inquiries into the level of mercury in our rivers. Recently, because of the problems pointed out in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, we set up a task force which reexamined the situation and tried to establish how best mercury could be measured in our rivers and how the companies using mercury in their industrial processes stock those substances which can be toxic. In order to acquaint people with the situation, we have met the Indians; we have explained the problem to them and we gave them all the information that can be of use to them so that they can convey it to other Indians.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary. Could the minister tell us whether investigations have been made to trace back the eight tons of mercury which disappeared mysteriously from the Domtar warehouses in Lebel-sur-Quevillon?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this was found out because the department asked the companies concerned to give us reports on the quantities of mercury they bought. Thanks to these inquiries, we have been able to discover that this extremely volatile metal had disappeared. We do not know yet how. It is thought it must have evaporated, that drops of mercury might have been absorbed in the soil. In any case, it is a question of tremendous importance that I will be able to examine better once I have the contaminant act passed. This act gives me the right to obtain all relevant information to examine this matter more in depth.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture if I may. Could he inform the House what effects the so-called program of restraint the government announced in the first part of the week will have on agriculture especially in the area of marketing boards, the processing industry, the machinery industry, the fertilizer industry and also the feed manufacturing industry? Would he be prepared to outline briefly the likely effects of the program on these various sectors of agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even if the minister were to attempt to answer that kind of question, I do not think the question period would be the time for him to go into such detail.
8226

October 15, 1975
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Was the Postmaster General expressing government policy when he stated that postal workers are not subject to the 10 per cent guideline limitation? If this is the case, does it not seriously jeopardize the possibility of any co-operation such as the government is seeking in this restraint program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: listened with great care to what the Postmaster General did say. He did not say what the hon. member has attributed to him. He indicated that the postal workers would be subject to the guidelines as others would be, but he also indicated that the exception noted and referred to previously in the question period with respect to transitional contracts and the historical relationship between bargaining units would be of relevance and that this matter, once a contract is achieved, would be referred to the Anti-Inflation Board for judgment having regard to those criteria.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the light of that answer I should like to ask the minister whether a further statement by the Postmaster General to the effect that he personally would make representations to the Anti-Inflation Board to get a higher percentage than 10 per cent does not seriously jeopardize the government's unanimity on the 10 per cent guideline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the House well knows, the Postmaster General is a great advocate of justice in all quarters and I would expect nothing less from him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is further to the controversial contract recently awarded for garbage collection by the City of Ottawa, one which calls for the successful tender to pick-up Government of Canada waste in the city-a very large job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Can the minister advise us whether his department will spend an additional $400,000 over a six-year period in order to have government waste picked up by Provincial Sanitation Services Limited, the successful tenderer, or whether he will consider entering into a separate contract between the Department of Public Works and one of the low bidders which would mean a saving of nearly half a million dollars over the next six years, a worthwhile and prudent undertaking, I submit, at this time?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definitive answer to that now but I am grateful for the interesting suggestion.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to unemployment insurance. In light of the fact that the pay out for the month of July this year is something like 60 per cent higher than at the same period last year, would the minister advise whether the amendments that he has brought before the House are satisfactory in terms of removing the disincentives which apparently the members of his cabinet believe exist; and in particular, is the minister seriously considering relating the time for collection of benefits to the time that a person is employed in the work force?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a bill before the House and we intend to proceed with its consideration by parliament very shortly as the session resumes. With regard to any further amendments, I would remind the hon. member, as I have said before, that we consider it a most significant program, both in terms of its social and economic implications and in terms of cost. There is an ongoing, comprehensive review taking place which may bring forth other suggestions, and when a decision is made I will place the information before the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding all that verbiage the minister failed to answer the question. I should like to ask the government House leader whether, in light of the fact that the cost of unemployment insurance is nearing the $4 billion mark- something that we should question-the government House leader can indicate to us if there is any priority being given to this bill in order that we can delve into the whole matter and put the truth before the Canada people? Is there any priority here?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is a very high priority. I hope to have the opportunity of talking to my hon. friends the House leaders of the other parties about an allocation of time to enable us to deal with the bill which will be before us tomorrow regarding the economic measures and to combine them with the unemployment insurance and other bills that are part of the same general approach to restraint. I hope I can do this with the co-operation of all hon. members.
October 15, 1975


IMMIGRATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which is based on a speech he made recently. Can the minister assure us that no decision will be made about requiring visitors to Canada to have visas until parliament has had an opportunity to express itself on what many of us feel would be a very restrictive policy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question because it is important to clarify any erroneous impressions. The suggestion concerning visas is an option that has been talked about in public and before the committee. I have looked at the suggestion but no decision will be made about such major issues of policy until after the parliamentary committee reports, which I anticipate will be very shortly, in fact toward the end of this month.


BROADCASTING
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the CRTC hearings will not be held in Vancouver until approximately February 3 regarding whether that city needs a French language television station, can the minister advise the House why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has already started to instal its transmitter for channel 26 on Mount Seymour?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into this question and give the hon. member a report.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the change in prices in supermarkets both in British Columbia and Ontario which apparently are anticipating wage increases that will not materialize as a result of the wage freeze. Provision is made in the white paper for refunds to purchasers who have been gouged. Can the minister advise the House whether we will see some mechanism for identifying those purchasers who have purchased goods which have been artificially inflated so that they can get a refund? In other words, how do you refund the price of a can of beans to people who have been gouged?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member identifies what will be a very considerable problem in that there are a great many articles of small value exchanging hands over a period of time. It may be very difficult, following a subsequent order by the administrator, to identify a particular person who is entitled to a refund, but certainly every effort will be made to do that. In that kind of situation, where the purchaser cannot be identified, the amount of over-charging will then be forfeited to the crown.


SUGGESTED REPORTING PROVISION TO ENABLE REVIEW OF PRICE INCREASES BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the white paper contains no proposals for telegraphing price increases-in other words, there is no provision that I can find for mandatory reporting or a review process of price increases-the situation that now exists in supermarkets will presumably continue to prevail after the legislation is passed. Is the minister now giving consideration to a mandatory reporting provision for all price increases so that the review mechanism can work prior to the increase occurring?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to examine the bill after it is given first reading. I would be glad to talk to him further about the procedures after he has had a chance of exploring the matter.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps I should start by offering my congratulations to him on his new portfolio. Was the minister correctly quoted in the press as saying that unless Pickering airport were built, Vancouver bound passengers out of Toronto would be forced to travel from Mirabel? Was the minister correctly reported as threatening that?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is even a correct version of what the press said I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I did indicate in an interview on this very important question that there was a serious dilemma as to how to handle Toronto area passengers on long distance flights in a very few years time because of overloading of Malton's capacity, and that as a result there was no easy way of dealing with long haul traffic. I was specifically pointing out that short range facilities, such as the new STOL or train or bus, were really only adequate for the 18 per cent of the traffic that travels a relatively short dis-
29669-371/2

October 15, 1975
Oral Questions
tance, a two hour place journey, and not for the long haul. That led to the possibility that I thought that Toronto and the province of Ontario ought to know how they intend Torontonians to be handled in terms of travel in two or three years' time, or take responsibility for the inconvenience that would be imposed upon them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the quotation of the Prime Minister at Mirabel to the effect that Mirabel airport would have Torontonians on their knees and the statements or threats made by the Minister of Transport against the people of southern Ontario have severely damaged relations between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -does the Minister of Transport intend to reopen negotiations with the government of Ontario at the earliest opportunity to try to get some sort of working relationship with that government to ensure that passengers from southern Ontario get fair and adequate treatment and are not subject to threats and blackmail from Ottawa?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read an article that quoted certain statements, he will know, and I will repeat for him now, that I said that I did not think the Prime Minister said those words. But the message in terms of the problem for the people of the Toronto area is very clear on the facts. The same article indicated that I would also be very happy indeed at an early date to meet with the new Minister of Transport for the province of Ontario so that he could show me what plans to solve this problem they have in mind, since they changed from what had been their previous position, namely that a second airport in this area was indeed needed.


PETRO-CANADA LOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS-EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ON DEVELOPMENT OF COMPANY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government advised Maurice Strong, the newly appointed head of Petro-Canada, that the headquarters of Petro-Can should be in Edmonton, which is a strategic location because it is both a government and an oil centre; and secondly, will the government's new restraint program have any further effect on the development of Petro-Can, the budget of which was cut last June?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the location of Petro-Canada, certain discussions have taken place between Mr. Strong, the minister for energy and myself. We will be interested in hearing if this is a representation by the opposition or just one by the hon. member to go to Edmonton, say, rather than to Calgary or some other city.


POSSIBILITY OF MR. STRONG MAKING REPRESENTATIONS TO OPEC COUNTRIES ON OIL PRICES
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will receive representations in due course on that subject, but I want to ask him now, will the terms of reference for Mr. Strong's new job provide him with the authority to make representations to the OPEC leadership to keep oil prices from further escalations which will bring even more disorder into the world economy and also worsen Canada's balance of payments on oil, which will become critical by the end of this decade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would refer to the debate in the House when the legislation was passed, he will see it is not in the nature of the legislation to have the president of Petro-Can make essentially political recommendations. The government and its ministers are particularly able to do that themselves.


HOUSING
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of housing and is related to a question posed yesterday regarding the possible extension of the $500 federal subsidy, the announcement of which I hope the minister will be making very shortly. In light of the fact that the Nova Scotia Power Corporation employees have been on strike for some time, as a result of which very few homeowners have been able to get service connections, and in view of the fact that all the other regulations probably will be eliminated from the $500 subsidy, can the minister give consideration to this very unique problem?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am giving consideration to that unique and rather unfortunate problem which exists in many areas across the country but as I said yesterday, I am concerned that the limited funds which are available are used to their maximum advantage. I am looking at such cases and I have to make up my mind very quickly on this. I will be making a statement shortly.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the apprehension across the country regarding the implementation of the second step of the bilingualism program within the civil service and within Crown agencies, would
October 15, 1975

he consider setting up an appeal tribunal so that civil servants seeking promotion or jobs within the civil service would have an independent board to which they could appeal from treatment by the present public service commission or the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the procedure set up under the law for the public service commission and the public servants themselves is one which we feel is adequate and fair. I do not know if the hon. member has cause to believe that the commission would act unfairly in any of these cases which have been provided for by the law. That is not our own opinion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Believing in the truism that justice must always appear to be done and must always appear to be just, the public service commission hires and places civil servants within the civil service but the resolution that this House passed in 1973 was not incorporated in the law, and those same civil servants have no appeal to any independant body which could assert a complete decision as to whether or not their application was considered fairly. What I am asking is that the Prime Minister, who at one time taught law, relatively quickly recognize the point that there should appear to be fair treatment to all civil servants. Whether or not there is, they should have that right to appeal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Mr. Speaker, the public service commission was set up by this parliament in order that it would be an independent body, independent of politics.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not now considered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says that it is not now considered. If he feels that the commission is breaking the law or if he feels that the commission is not independent, then he could make some proposals for amendment, but I do not think that every case of some dissatisfaction by a civil servant should be a cause to withdraw the independence or confidence from this commission or to set up a tribunal to judge its actions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just one quick-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On July 29, the minister indicated that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs regarding Canadians who were prisoners of war both in Hong Kong and in Northwestern Europe were being given active consideration. Can he say whether a
Oral Questions
bill implementing these recommendations will be introduced shortly?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to by the hon. member is presently under consideration by the government.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is a fear across the country that in view of the restraint program such a proposal by the committee or legislation covering prisoners of war might be delayed, can the minister assure the House that he has had consultation on this with the cabinet and that in due course we will see legislation to cover this very important subject.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the way the question is phrased it could be answered in many ways. I see the day when we will have legislation.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead. Just answer.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Do you want to answer the question or will I answer it.


An hon. Member:: What about the by-election?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I am not scared of a byelection. Mr. Speaker, to answer the question of the last hon. member, I would say that when this goes through the proper process, which is the case at the moment, and the legislation is recommended, prepared and before the House, you will all know in due course.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The former Minister of Transport on September 10 established a committee to recommend a realistic policy regarding air-to-ground communications in one language. The Canadian Airline Pilots Association is a member of that committee and the pilots are going on strike on Saturday. Does this mean that the committee has failed to produce a unanimous report, and what steps does the minister intend to take to overcome this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the committee did in the end decide that it could no longer make progress with the work it was doing and has therefore discontinued its operation. It had reached some form of agreement about certain procedures which would be acceptable but ended with quite different points of view about certain major issues. I have met separately with the pilots association and have assured them of our careful examination of the safety question involving the use of the French language in the five airports in the province of Quebec. I have assured them also that the

October 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions
question of safety is the foremost one in considering this question.
With that understanding I regret therefore that they are going ahead with the strike just simply as a symbol of their concern about safety. I can assure all hon. members that we are all concerned about safety and that that is the foremost requirement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to lay upon the table of the House a document, in both official languages, containing the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law which was appointed on September 26, 1975.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 2,532, 2,956, 2,957, 3,011, 3,030 and 3,071.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	For the year 1974, how much did one prisoner cost the government?
2.	How many prisoners were in our penal institutions?
3.	How many prisoners were (a) first (b) second (c) third (d) fourth offenders?
4.	What was the average term for (a) first (b) second (c) third (d) fourth offenders?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. $10,492- This figure is based on the average inmate population throughout the year and on the actual expenditures of the Canadian Penitentiary Service for the fiscal year 1973/74 increased by a depreciation of 2 per cent on buildings and 10 per cent on equipment.
2.	Nine thousand one hundred thirty-two as of January 1, 1974.
3.	(a) 6,284; (b) 2,287; (c) 499; (d) 62. These figures represent the number of terms an inmate was incarcerated within federal institutions since 1970 only (the date when the Inmate Statistical Information Section of the Canadi-

an Penitentiary Service started collecting data on inmates). Statistics on commitments prior to 1970 are not available except for cases of parole violators admitted that year (1970) which were captured as second offenders (term). Therefore a first offender may not reflect the first time ever in a federal institution but the first time within a period of approximately four years. This also applies to second, third and fourth offenders.
4.	(a) 2,041 days; (b) 1,939 days; (c) 1,695 days; (d) 1,307 days. In determining the average terms for the four categories above, it was necessary to exclude the number of inmates serving life sentences since the term of servitude is an unknown factor.


Mr. Gray: How many surplus eggs of a quality originally adequate for table use have been sold by (a) CEMA (b) provincial egg marketing agencies at CEMA's request to Canadian breakers in each week from and after April 1, 1974 to date?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: CEMA advises that all eggs removed by it since April 1, 1974 were of a quality adequate for table use. All eggs removed in the period were disposed of as set out in answer to question
2.954.	The volume sold to Canadian breakers between April 1, 1974 and July 15, 1975 inclusive would be the total removed in that period less the 1,023,730 boxes exported. CEMA policy requires it to promptly sell eggs removed. CEMA advises that currently removals in one province are from time to time moved to other provinces to meet demands of the table egg market. This usually occurs where eggs of a particular size are in active demand and in short supply in that province.


Mr. Gray: What were the number of eggs in storage in each province under the jurisdiction of (a) provincial egg marketing boards (b) CEMA during each week from and including April 1, 1974 to date?


Eugene Whelan: CEMA advises that the policy requires the selling of all eggs at time of purchase and any eggs in storage are held privately or to account of provincial board prior to arrangement with CEMA. CEMA does not have statistics on such storage programs but in terms of provincial boards removals are declared weekly as indicated in answer to question No.
2.954.


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Peter D. Curry, President 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: No.
October 15, 1975


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. John Henderson Moore, Director of Bell Canada 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: Director, Canada Development Corporation Appointment by Governor in Council (see sections 4 and 5, CDC Act).


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Was a recent visit made to South Africa by a coal technology mission in which members of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources participated and, if so (a) what was the purpose of the visit (b) how many persons made the trip (c) what are their names and what positions do they hold in or outside the Department?
2.	Did any private firms participate in the mission and, if so, what are their names?
3.	(a) How much did the visit cost (b) who paid the cost of the mission?
4.	How long was the mission in South Africa?
5.	Is there to be a reciprocal visit to Canada by a South African coal technology mission?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes. (a) To observe commercial scale conversion of coal to gaseous and liquid hydrocarbon products and, in particular, to learn details of South Africa's extended operational experience in manufacture of gasoline from coal, (b) Sixteen, (c) E. D. Jamieson, Senior Adviser-Coal, E. M. & R.; E. W. Humphrys, Senior Adviser-Electrical Energy, E. M. & R.; P. J. Read, Chief, Transportation and Marketing, Coal, E. M. & R. The remaining delegates represented provincial governments and private companies.
2.	Yes. British Columbia Hydro-Electric Corporation, British Columbia Research, Calgary Power Company, Fluor Canada, Monmax H & G Services, Montreal Engineering, Shawinigan Engineering, Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert, TransCanada PipeLines. Also the governments of British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia.
3.	(a) The cost of the Mission to E. M. & R. was $8,947.88. (b) Each member of the Mission was responsible for his own travel to South Africa and living expenses. The Federal Government provided group surface transport within South Africa.
4.	Eight working days.
5.	None has been arranged and there was no formal agreement to do so.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. J. J. Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3059 and 3061 could be passed as orders for returns, these papers would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What were the names and addresses of lawyers in Ontario given work by the Farm Credit Corporation in the fiscal year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75?
2.	For each lawyer, how many cases were handled?
3.	In each case, what was the total amount of money paid to each individual in each fiscal year?
Return tabled.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What are the names of all security directors of federal penitentiaries (b) what year did they begin working (c) what was their previous experience in fields of security?
2.	(a) How many persons under the Commissioner are responsible for security operations (b) what are their names and titles (c) when did they begin to work in the penitentiary system (d) what was their previous experience in penitentiary security?
3.	(a) What are the names of all directors in penitentiaries (b) what year did they begin to work for the penitentiary system (c) what were their previous assignments?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: What is the purpose?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The purpose is that the two questions, namely, questions Nos. 3059 and 3061, are very long and reading them would take an inordinate amount of the time of this House.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, on June 20 I placed a very simple question on the order paper, No. 2833, which deals with the number of consultants who have been hired by the Department of Environment and the Department of Fisheries. To date that question has not been answered. I wonder how long it takes this government to answer a simple question of that nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 15, 1975
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all requests made by provincial governments and producers' groups in connection with PC 1975-873 to establish an inquiry for the purpose of obtaining reliable cost and revenue data pertaining to the movement of grain.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 48 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Alexander:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, minutes and proceedings of meetings and terms of agreement between the federal and provincial governments attending the Federal-Provincial Health and Welfare Ministers Conference on April 30 and May 1, 1975.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, motion for the production of papers No. 50 is acceptable to the government only in so far as the documents which the Department of National Health and Welfare made public at the federal-provincial welfare ministers' conference on April 30 and May 1, 1975. Documents, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se, will not be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to those reservations or conditions, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 50 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 15, 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:: On the last day on which this bill was under consideration the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had the floor. There have been some preliminary discussions and arrangements about the scheduling of voting on these motions. A vote on motion No. 5 has already been deferred. The Chair has already indicated some misgivings about the procedural regularity of motions Nos. 6 and 24, and it was agreed that those two motions should be deferred until after all other motions have been debated.
This afternoon, in any event, the Chair has some misgivings about the building up of too many deferred votes. However, at this point perhaps the easiest procedure would be simply to return to the point where the hon. member for Edmonton West was addressing the House on motion No. 8. At the end of today's proceedings we might be able better to assess whether or not we are getting into a dangerous situation so far as the deferral of votes is concerned and whether this measure can come under the time allocation order when all questions must be put aside until tomorrow night.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment of this debate it was indicated that there would be some discussions with the minister. I might say that these discussions have taken place and have been fruitful. The minister, I and my colleagues are satisfied with regard to the subamendment. In case Your Honour is particularly concerned about this, let me say that there are nine such subamendments on which consensus has been reached and on which there is agreement. The minister has some amendments and I am amending his amendments, therefore mine are subamendments.
In motion No. 8 the minister put in the words: "and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years". I propose to strike out those words and insert: "and is liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both". Let me be very clear. I see that the minister has not removed the words "indictable offence". It is the effect of the word "indictable" that I question. Whether it is indictment or summary conviction, this is a decision that shall be taken by a public servant, a member of the Department of Justice or a member of the Department of the Attorney General as the case may be.
What I want to do is introduce discretion at the court level. As the minister indicated in his amendment, it was to be an indictable offence. That is fine; but the minister's amendment provided for a mandatory jail sentence. The indictable offence and the mandatory jail sentence are matters strictly for the consideration of an official: I object strenuously to this. It is my view that it is the court which must decide on the nature of the penalty. My subamendment to the minister's amendment, which he is prepared to accept, provides for a jail sentence as provided in his amendment, or provides for a fine, or provides for both a jail sentence and a fine. To that extent it is actually
October 15, 1975

a flexible expansion of the penalty. I am glad that the minister approves this subamendment, and I move:
That motion No. 8 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following: "liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both".

I am very sorry, but I have no French copy. It is unforgivable, but under the circumstances I have not had time to get one.


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


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I heard an hon. member say "Explain". I would say to the hon. member that the purpose of this amendment is to make clear in the legislation that when sentencing, the court has the discretion to impose a fine in lieu of or in addition to a jail sentence. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out, quite rightly, in the debate on this motion that the criminal court has the discretion, under the Criminal Code, to impose a fine in lieu of imposing a jail sentence. For the benefit of the House I will read section 646(1) of the Criminal Code as follows:

646. (1) An accused who is convicted of an indictable offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or less may be fined in addition to or in lieu of any other punishment that is authorized, but an accused shall not be fined in lieu of imprisonment where the offence of which he is convicted is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.

However, I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West that for greater certainty and to ensure that the court has guidance as to the intention of parliament, the bill should specify that a fine in an amount to be at the discretion of the court may be imposed in addition to or instead of a jail sentence. Therefore, I am prepared to accept such a motion and support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I recall that when the committee which dealt with this bill considered the clause dealing with punishment, there seemed to be general agreement that we wanted to stiffen the punishment upon conviction under the various clauses of the bill. One of the things we noted when we considered the precedent of fines or punishment upon conviction was that the courts have been extremely lenient in the past with corporate individuals who have broken the law.
In committee, the minister admitted that we wanted to give the courts an indication that the intention of parliament is that the courts take a sterner line with corporations or corporate individuals who break the law. The minister has introduced amendments, which are listed in the order paper, wherein he clearly indicates "liable upon conviction to imprisonment for five years." What is happening now, in the amendments which the minister had
Combines Investigation Act
placed on our desks today, is that he is giving the courts the discretion, on conviction, to impose a fine or imprisonment for five years, or both. In effect, we are back to the same old ball game: we have not indicated to the courts that we want them to take a very stern line with those who do things against the interests of consumers and in violation of the combines legislation passed by this House. I find that this is a watering-down process and it seems we are back where we were, with no changes.
I indicate at this time that I cannot support the amendment being proposed by the minister because I feel that it does nothing to indicate that parliament wants the courts to take a firm stand on these matters when passing sentence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 8 moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? Will all those in favour please say
yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, division on this question is deferred. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 75, division on motion No. 8 also stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-2, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and the repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in clause 15 by striking out lines 20 to 22 inclusive on page 28 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those situations where I think even the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will find this is a rather ridiculous proposition. This provision deals with a conspiracy relating to professional and amateur sport. The offences here are technical, and frankly are of very little import, yet the penalty which is being prescribed on conviction of an indictable offence is "liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years." I think this clause goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. On one hand, the hon. member for Nickel Belt and his associates are in the van of those people crying out about conditions in the prisons and the unnecessary sending of people to prison, yet in his argument a moment ago, where a corporate entity is being sentenced to jail, according to his reasoning this is possible.
If we look at any use of, for example, a C-form with
regard to amateur sport-and that is a very arguable
8234

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
point-there are more people who will argue in favour of the rules and regulations concerning professional and amateur sport, yet we are being asked to determine that this is an indictable offence and that the penalty shall be imprisonment for up to five years. Then everybody has to go to jail.


John R. Rodriguez: You put the blue collar workers in jail.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I see; it depends upon whether one has a white collar or a blue collar. I find extraordinary the preoccupation, the fixation and the phobia which the hon. member has for this so-called class distinction. He is the one who raises it. He is the one who persists in it. Other people are prepared to forget about it and bury it. It is only in that type of mentality that it exists.
I am much more interested in making it patently clear that the court, on conviction, shall have the option of fining the individual concerned or, if it is so flagrant that it merits it, imprisoning for up to five years, though I can conceive of practically no crime of that nature which would merit being sent to jail or being both sent to jail and fined.
The minister and others who are reasonable about these amendments have agreed that the combination of the amendment and the subamendment provides a clear indication to the court, within the terms of this act, what the penalties are, and so one does not have to go to an obscure section of the Criminal Code to find that the court would have power, in certain circumstances, to substitute a fine. I just wish to make the law that much simpler for everyone to understand so that we can have a little more certainty and clarification in it. I therefore move:
That motion No. 9 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both."


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, having followed this bill through the whole process I am amazed that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has taken so long to bring it before parliament, considering all the expertise it had on hand to prepare the bill. We had the bill in committee; it was amended there and came to the floor of the House, and we have had amendments here. Here is one example. Now we are getting amendments handed to us which are making a mockery of a bill which, according to the minister, is supposed to be so important for the consumers of Canada. One would think all the studies and proper research would have been done by now, but at this stage of the game we find we are getting amendments to amendments to amendments. There is no way that I can accept this amendment. It is just a watering-down. I prefer motion No. 9 which is on the order paper in the minister's name.
We in this party do not want to fill the jails, but of course we must have punishment which is proper and commensurate with the crime committed. In this whole area of consumer protection and what they call competition policy, if one looks at the record one is struck with the leniency and mercy which overflows the hearts of the

justices who pass sentence on those found guilty in the corporate sector. When we are dealing with the little woman who rips off the welfare department for $65 a week and may have obtained $700, we send her to jail. When a person rips off a few hundred dollars we put them in jail, but when we get the corporate sector limiting freedom of action and offering their services to the highest bidder, we find the Tories-and a perfect example is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-running to their defence.
We do not have to look very far in the history of anti-combines legislation in this parliament to see who has put up the biggest lobby against any kind of legislation that would cut down the power of the corporations, the monopolies, those who would destroy what both old-line parties in this House hold up as free enterprise, as the capitalist system. Who is it who always wanted to monopolize and destroy that freedom? It is those who want to become more powerful, the large conglomerates, the large monopolies. Who has been their biggest ally? Those in the other place. This bill originated in the Senate and it has gone through the other place which is filled with the corporate directors of this country. The boardrooms of the nation are amply represented in the other place. Their mouthpieces stand in this House saying we should have this clause when we are dealing with a certain class of people.
We in this party want the law to be just, to apply equally to the rich and the poor. If we can send a woman on welfare to jail, surely when this corporate elite commits infractions against the system that they hold so dear, the free enterprise system, they ought to be sent to jail directly. I said before that we should look at the kind of punishment we are meting out. In committee the minister said that we have to telegraph to the courts that we are serious about this legislation, obviously leaving it wide open to the discretion of the courts, knowing that is the condition under which the courts levy punishment now.
This government has just brought down wage controls and they are telling the people there will be price controls. If they mean what they say in the white paper tabled yesterday and the bill that is to come on Friday, that the small consumer will have some protection, we cannot leave it to the discretion of the courts: we have to give specific guidance that we, the parliamentarians of this country, are serious about the direction in which we want to move against those who infringe upon the rights of Canadians. I urge my colleagues in the House to defeat this amendment and to support the minister's original amendment, motion No. 9.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the rhetoric of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and I want to remind him that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) does not change anything at all in the legislation. It is a mere clarification. In other words, all he said applied under the previous amendment and still applies under this amendment. I did read earlier from the Criminal Code in relation to motion No. 8. Perhaps it might be useful to read it again because it is exactly the same thing as for motion
October 15, 1975

No. 9. Section 646.(1) of the Criminal Code states the following:
An accused who is convicted of an indictable offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or less may be fined in addition to or in lieu of any other punishment that is authorized-
So it is already quite clear in the legislation as introduced. The judge may either sentence the accused to a fine, or sentence him to jail, or sentence him to both. What the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West does is clarify the section in the Combines Investigation Act by specifying in a clear and explicit way what the Criminal Code says already. So I may listen to the words of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, he may shout even louder and debate that matter but it does not change anything in the substance as such, and I hope as he does that judges will understand that in the case of offences under the Combines Investigation Act parliament wants the courts to be harder. And already we have in that legislation enough indications to show that we are increasing the number of sentences and penalties and we want to indicate to the courts our hope that they will be harder. But it is merely a matter of wording, and that is why I have no objection to accepting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The minister suggested it changes nothing. I suggest that it defines the legislation more clearly and will lead to greater understanding. In communities like mine, businessmen and others involve themselves in amateur sports and with junior hockey clubs which at times may play in national leagues. They would be most perturbed to discover they are breaking the law, because that is what they could do if the bill were not amended.
Without the amendment they could find themselves in court and facing imprisonment for up to five years if found guilty of breaking the law. The penalties they would face for involving themselves in useful community activities would be severe indeed. Surely the five-year sentence should be reserved for the most flagrant breaches of the law. They might occur in connection with professional hockey, although I believe boxing is the sport to which these provisions might be most applicable. For these reasons I support the hon. member's amendment, as it is reasonable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to motion No. 9. All those in favour of the amendment 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.
Combines Investigation Act
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the amendment to motion No. 9 stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if the House is agreeable to it, could we dispose of this series of motions dealing exclusively with penalties, since it is obvious, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that motions 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25 are all about the same thing, namely including the distinction whether it should be a fine or imprisonment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not a question of contents but only of word change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to point out to the minister that when the debate started the Chair had already indicated it intended to group motions to which he has just referred into one comprehensive or continuous debate. I intended to proceed immediately to calling motion 12, and then motions: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25. If the minister agrees, we shall avail ourselves of the consent already granted by the House and go back to motion 12, from which we shall proceed as rapidly as possible. [English]
Is that agreed?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that is fine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 12 appearing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved:: 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 22 to 27 inclusive on page 32 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"imprisonment for five years; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to motion No. 12. The purpose of the amendment is precisely the same as that of the previous amendment. I need not repeat the arguments with regard to the purpose but would simply move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), that all the words in the minister's motion following the word "following" be struck out and that there be substituted the following: a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both.
I do not think that requires further clarification.
29669-38(4

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment 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, the recorded division on this amendment stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 13 appearing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 13.
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 21 to 26 inclusive on page 33 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"imprisonment for five years; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, what we hear this afternoon is reminiscent of certain scenes of "A Tale of Two Cities". In many chapters there is a description of the revolutionary scaffold in Paris, with Madame Defarge and her cronies alongside. The attitude of some hon. members to important clarifications of this bill strikes me as that of Madame Defarge, who sat there knitting and saying, "Off with their heads." That was the type of rough justice she felt should be dispensed to all and sundry.
This is, again, a straight clarification in the same terms as motions Nos. 11 and 12-a substitute for the minister's wording. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean):
That motion No. 13 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If hon. members do not say no, the Chair will accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment 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 the provisions of Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on this amendment to motion No. 13 stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-2, and 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 8 to 13 inclusive on page 35 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"imprisonment for five years; or
(b) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, for the same grounds that I have indicated concerning the previous three motions, I move:
[English]	'
That motion No. 14 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment 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, the recorded division on this amendment to motion No. 14 stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 14.
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 39 and 40 on page 35 and lines 1 to 4 inclusive on page 36 thereof and substituting therefor the following: "imprisonment for five years; or

October 15, 1975

(b) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as with the four preceding motions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), the following subamendment: That, in the English text, all the words following the word, "following" be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor:

That motion No. 15 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment 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 the recorded division on this motion and on the amendment thereto stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 16 appearing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


André Ouellet: 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 15 to 17 inclusive on page 37 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no amendment. I had made a number of suggestions in conformity with the minister's set of amendments. I am satisfied with the text of the amendment. There is therefore no need for us to move a clarifying subamendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense from reading the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	-
Combines Investigation Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 17 appearing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: 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 27 to 29 inclusive on page 37 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, again for the same reasons as for several preceding motions, I prepared a subamendment; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), that in the English text the following words be added after the word "following":


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will skip motion No. 18 and go to motion No. 19.


André Ouellet: 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 41 to 46 inclusive on page 38 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"imprisonment for five years; or
(b) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I move the same amendment:
That motion No. 19 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting therefor the following:
"a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment 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, the recorded division on this amendment to motion No. 19 stands deferred.

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act

The House will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 22 appearing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moves:
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 line 6 on page 42 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"to imprisonment for five".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I wish to propose the following amendment, seconded by my hon. friend from Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That motion No. 22 be amended by striking out all the words following the words "Clause 18" and by substituting therefor the following:
"by striking out lines 6 and 7 on page 42 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
'to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both.' "


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour of the amendment 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, the recorded division on the amendment to motion No. 22 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to motion No. 25, which is the last of the group.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-2 be amended in clause 24 by striking out lines 6 to 11 inclusive on page 48 thereof and substituting therefor the following: "imprisonment for five years; or
(b) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would propose an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). It is: That motion No. 25 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "following" and by substituting the following:
"a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for five years, or to both; or
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year, or to both."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour of the amendment 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, the recorded division on this amendment to motion No. 25 stands deferred.
This completes the grouping on these motions of a similar type. If the House agrees, we can now proceed in an orderly manner to the consideration, one by one, of motions 10, 11, 18, 20, and 21. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will call motion No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-2 be amended in clause 16 by
(a)	striking out lines 18 to 22 inclusive at page 29, and substituting therefor "him elsewhere in Canada",
(b)	striking out line 28 on page 29 and substituting therefor "to have such effect; or"
(c)	adding immediately after line 28 on page 29, the following subsection:
"(d) engages in a policy of selling products as loss leaders, that is to
say, not for the purpose of making a profit on that item, but for
purposes of advertising or of attracting customers to his place of
business in the hope of selling them other products,".


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the bill which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) introduced to the House permits a practice called loss leadering. He is prepared to accept this practice where, he says, it is not used to destroy competition in a particular marketplace.
What is loss leadering? It is the practice of selling a particular product at a loss. What possible reason could a corporation or a wholesaler or a retailer have for engaging in it? What loss leadering does, in effect, is to eliminate competition, thus creating monopolies. It deceives people into believing that somehow or other they are getting a bargain and that more than the price is right. Unsuspecting consumers believe that by going into a store and buying, say, cigarettes below cost they are getting a bargain. However, experience has shown that the loss which the company is prepared to take on the cigarettes is covered by the higher prices of other items in the store. Needless to say, that kind or practice makes non-smokers, for example, pay for the benefit smokers get in getting a better deal on cigarettes. The same argument can be extrapolated to other items.
October 15, 1975

This parliament has legislated that predatory pricing practices are illegal, yet we have here a predatory pricing practice that will be allowed to continue provided, as the bill says, that it does not lessen competition, whatever that means. The experience that I have had of seeing perfectly integrated trans-national conglomerates in operation leads me to think that the question is: somehow or other can they show us that they are not lessening competition? I hope that by the time I have finished I will have demonstrated that this kind of practice has indeed lessened competition, or contributed greatly toward lessening competition, and has destroyed the very concepts that the two old established parties in this House have always supported, namely, a free enterprise, capitalist system.
As I have said before, the practice of loss leadering has been an anti-competitive one and has been recognized as such by governments. As a matter of fact, in our present anti-combines legislation loss leadering is recognized as a defence to a charge of refusal to deal. In other words, if a supplier refuses to sell a product to a retailer or wholesaler, he can use loss leadering as a defence to such refusal. He can argue that his products will be sold at a cheaper price, and that somehow or other this brings down the value of the name of those products. This is why loss leadering is recognized as a legitimate defence to a charge of refusal to deal.
In this particular legislation the government is concerned that the products of large corporations might be subject to loss leadering, and hence permits loss leadering to be a defence. However, if the big corporations suffer from this practice, consumers suffer even more. In 1952 the MacQuarrie committee set up to study the combines act recognized this when it said:
... as to the "loss leader" device, the committee believes that it is a monopolistic practice which does not promote general welfare and therefore considers that it is not compatible with the public interest.
That was the comment of a committee, set up by the government to take a look at the combines legislation of this country, on the practice of loss leadering.
A study done on loss leadering in the 1950s by the combines act director of investigation and research concluded in 1955 that no action was necessary at that time to deal with loss leadering. But times have changed. We are not in the 1950s any more. The report of the director in 1955 had this to say:
It is very difficult if not impossible to obtain and hold a monopoly position in a given retail market.
In 1973, corporate chain stores had over 55 per cent of the grocery sales in Canada, with the percentage in some areas reaching 52 per cent from two chains alone. In 1972, the George Weston group of companies had sales of approximately $3.5 billion while total Canadian food sales were only $8 billion. This is the age of vertical integration. No longer are these companies prepared to be small, corner grocery stores. They have realized that to become large and monopolistic increases their profits. It does not necessarily increase their efficiency of operation, but it does a great deal to increase their profits.
The 1955 report said that it was difficult to believe that
any significant increase in the sales of private brands
Combines Investigation Act
could be made under such competitive conditions, let alone increases so large that they would constitute a monopoly situation. Chain stores are now so powerful that they can restrict shelf space to companies to the extent of economic ruin. In areas where a supermarket is the only store for miles there is no fear of comparative shopping, and these chain stores make use of this situation. On March 4, 1955, the IGA chain, for example, felt strong enough, when major Canadian bakeries raised their prices, to raise the price of the private brands they carried while maintaining the lower price on their private house brands, clearly giving themselves a competitive advantage with a market position strong enough that they feared no competition.
Talking of the bakery industry, it is rather interesting to note that the baked goods industry of Ontario has attempted to have passed legislation prohibiting the advertising of bread. This is not because they want to sell less bread but because bread is such an effective loss leader for supermarkets. The result has been more and more failures in the baking industry over the years. Incidentally, in Quebec there is already a law against advertising bread; but surely a law against loss leadering would be more to the point.
At the present time, one of the largest wholesale tobacco operations in Canada belongs to the same ownership group as The Bay, a chain store operator, opening the way for even more loss leadering. Loss leadering in the tobacco industry has become an accepted business practice. At the wholesale level recently in northern Ontario, the National Grocers Company Limited made a practice of selling cigarettes to its customers for less than it was costing an independent wholesaler to purchase them. The independent company, which relied heavily on tobacco sales for its business, had a choice of either cutting its prices and going bankrupt or directing its energy in other directions. The larger company was more diversified in its products and as such would have no trouble simply shifting any loss on cigarettes to other areas of our grocery bills.
I and many other non-smokers object strenuously to being forced to subsidize the cigarette addictions of others in this way. Other wholesalers make a practice of loss leadering such items as butter, and of making these special savings even more available to those who deal with them exclusively.
The 1955 commission also suggested that the practice of selling articles below their cost was not prevalent in any of the lines of trade for which information was obtained by the inquiry. But the commission ignored the subject at the wholesale level and in other areas. Thus, most of Canada's distribution sector was ignored. The practice today is widespread and is systematically indulged in by chain supermarkets who loss leader a range of items each week. They change the selection of items regularly and by geographic region in order to avoid a charge of making a practice of it.
What has been the result of loss leadering and other restrictive business practices in Canada? It is possible to look at almost any industry in Canada over the last 20 years and see the effect of concentration and monopoly as it slowly destroys the fabric of our so-called free enterprise system. Where competition once was the case, we see

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
the following events taking place, and they serve to illustrate we have come a long way since 1952. In 1957 there were 2,557 bakeries in Canada of which approximately 2,400, or 94 per cent, had the owner working in the enterprise. By 1971 there were only 1,824 bakeries and 1,414, or 78 per cent, working owners. The situation in the dairy industry is even more startling over this period, with the total number of dairies declining by over 60 per cent. Since 1969 the number of chain stores, as a percentage of the total number of stores, has increased in every area, be it grocery and combination stores, general merchandise stores, hardware stores or jewellery or drug stores.

So what we have in this period of the monopolies is the destruction of what has been held to be hallowed by every member of this House, the free enterprise system. It would seem strange that a socialist should be standing in this House arguing the case of the so-called free enterprise system. It is rather interesting to note that those who represent the corporate sector-the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is a perfect example-will always argue, when these companies become more monopolistic, that the punishment should be cut down in respect of those who breach the law. We have heard this in the committee and elsewhere. They want this sidetracked.
One argument that is put forward is that the matter should go to the Supreme Court for a constitutional judgment before it is proclaimed and put into practice. That is the same that is played. Here we have a predatory pricing practice, that of loss leaders. I challenge any member of the House to say that loss leaders are not a predatory practice and that this is a practice which encourages free enterprise. I question that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do you and your wife not buy any loss leaders at all?


John R. Rodriguez: By using loss leaders and other illegal practices, some companies have been able to drive others out of business or severely limit access to the market. In the 1950s, for example, when Lestoil came on the market, it did a booming business. The large soap companies replied with products of their own, with massive advertising budgets and sale prices which almost caused Lestoil to go bankrupt. As a result, according to David Ogilvy in his book "Confessions of an Advertising Man", a war chest of $10 million would now be required to launch a new brand in this area. At the wholesale level, in Canada in 1973, two major eastern Canadian integrated wholesaler-retailers engaged in a price war on tobacco products. The main result of this battle was the closure of two independent tobacco and confectionery distributors. While the case is apparently under investigation, nothing will ever replace the two lost wholesalers to the market.
But of all the areas in the economy, it is the chain food stores that have made the most effective and destructive use of loss leadering. The hon. member for Edmonton West talks about wage and price controls, yet they are prepared-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I said that you buy loss leaders every day.


John R. Rodriguez: -to accept the injustices which are permitted by the use of loss leaders in an area which is very essential to the large mass of the Canadian people, the food industry. The hon. member knows full well that loss leaders are used extensively in the food business, and I call upon any member of this House to prove that this is ethical.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You buy them every day because you get a bargain.


John R. Rodriguez: Where are the corner stores? Why is it necessary for one to drive 50 miles to a shopping centre where there is only one supermarket? Every time the corporate sector is challenged, you jump to their defence and hold their hands. It is in the area of the food stores that the greatest rip-off takes place and where there is the great predatory practice of loss leadering.
Today, corporate chains control 40 per cent of retail sales with only five firms controlling 40 per cent of the grocery sales. One corporate group in the food industry controls over 200 companies, while another owns 32 shopping centres where they are the only food store.
In the United States, a federal court has pointed out that if a chain store sets its prices below cost in one area, there is an almost irresistible conclusion that its prices in another area will be raised to compensate for the loss. The supreme court of California has held that the reason a large retailer offers merchandise at less than cost is for the purpose of deceiving its customers into believing that the seller is offering all his goods at low prices, when in fact the majority of his prices are at least as high as those prevailing generally in the trading area, and sometimes even higher. Prices may indeed be higher if we remember that supermarkets operate on a total gross margin for their store, irrespective of individual product prices. Thus, a customer saves nothing if he purchases at a store offering a loss leader, if any saving on that product is merely averaged over the rest of his food bill.
Consumers are urged to shop at several stores to obtain the best bargains in loss leaders at several stores, but supermarkets make sure that they are the only major food store in a particular shopping centre. Have you ever seen a shopping centre with two large supermarkets competing vigorously for the consumer's buck? I have not seen it in Sudbury, nor in any part of my riding. I am sure members of this House could not point out two competing supermarkets in the same plaza.
Supermarket chains get prime positions in shopping centres because they advertise most, make the most sales and thus can afford the most rent. Considering that often the parent companies of the supermarkets own the shopping centres anyway, even this ability to pay more rent may not be necessary to offer these chains their growing monopoly position. When a chain owns the only food store in a 70-store shopping centre, and when that chain has 20

October 15, 1975

per cent of Canadian grocery sales, it is doubtful that they need to sell any of their items below cost, while recovering their profits on other items, to get business.
As I mentioned before, in this whole matter of the plazas and the shopping centres we see only one supermarket. It is quite common to see two hardware stores, or perhaps two clothing stores. There may be several shoe stores. But the same kind of competition does not exist in respect of the supermarkets. What this has resulted in, and what the growth of these chains is based on, is not efficiency in the food industry but, rather, the elimination of independent competitors and suppliers and all middlemen. The George Weston empire is a perfect example. George Weston is integrated from top to bottom in respect of such things as transportation, wholesale outlets, retail outlets and even the bags in which to place the groceries. It is completely vertically integrated.
There are 13 brands of salmon on the market, all owned by George Weston. Can we imagine the competition that is going on among those brands for the consumer's buck? I will bet a dollar that the house brands at Loblaws are selling at the same level as those of a small, private entrepreneur who is producing salmon, if there is any left. I can understand that. Anyone who does not think we are into that kind of monopoly pricing must be living on the moon.
It seems to me that this results in a crisis for the Canadian consumer. One would think that the complete integration of a monopoly such as that of George Weston could result in some economy for the consumer. That is hardly the case, because once the chains have their monopoly positions guaranteed, they return to their first concern. Their first concern, of course, is to make profits. The Food Prices Review Board reported increases in net income for food processors and distributors of as much as 35 per cent for 1972-73. Is this the work of competition, or does it merely show the result of the destruction of smaller competitors through methods at best described as shoddy?
There are 38 states in the United States which have outlawed loss leadering, so I am not urging this House to embark upon any new or innovative kind of legislation. It is recognized in other jurisdictions that it is predatory pricing which ought to be outlawed. There are two victims of the practice of loss leadering: the first is the independent competitor, the small businessman who has been driven out of business, and the second is the consumer. It seems to me that I hear much talk from hon. members to my right about the importance of ensuring that the small businessman can continue to exist. But how can the small retailer in the food business exist side by side with George Weston? I suggest that that is impossible, especially when the large monopoly engages in predatory practices which are so common in Canada.
I have heard hon. members to my right point out that small business employs over 40 per cent of Canadians, holds over 7 per cent of all outstanding consumer credit, and sells over 50 per cent of all retail sales. They provide many services not offered by large chain stores, including such things as convenience, things on which it is hard to put a price or to feel a need for until they have been destroyed by the business practices of the large chains.
Much concern has been expressed about the predatory
Combines Investigation Act
practice of loss leadering and the fact that it destroys the fibre of this nation and also builds up the power base. It puts too much economic power in the hands of far too few. Every year, chain stores control a larger percentage of the retail market in spite of the fact that it is questionable whether such economies of scale are necessary or even efficient. Every year between 1960 and 1972 another 1,200 or more small wholesale or retail traders went out of business. Why is that? The reason is that some of them were unable to compete, but more often they went out of business because they fell victim to the greed and unfair practices of the avaricious commercial chains which use such practices as loss leadering, one of the most hazardous practices used by chains to destroy the small and independent businessmen.
Small businessmen today earn less than doctors and even salesmen, and it is not surprising in this free enterprise system in Canada where 626 corporations account for over half the assets and profits earned.


Mr. Nystrom:: Did you say "free enterprise"?


John R. Rodriguez: When I speak about free enterprise, it is understood that I refer to the appellation used by the established parties in this House. The corporations to which I refer account for 40 per cent of total sales and 58 per cent of profits earned, with only 46 per cent of taxes payable. This so-called free enterprise has resulted in greater and greater monopoly control of the economy, control which the government has allowed and which it is now encouraging through such clauses as they permit to stand in the bill before us.
This bill has been hailed as a step in the right direction. If the minister really wants to step in the right direction, why does he not indicate support for this amendment? Surely it is worthy of his support. This bill is called the competition bill, but what does it do to provide competition, and competition among whom? Obviously, it will not provide competition among the large chain food stores. What it is doing is entrenching an antagonistic relationship between those who are selling goods and those who are purchasing, the consumer and the wholesale retailer.
It seems to me that our amendment is a good one. We have urged the House to support the elimination of this predatory pricing practice called loss leadering. We have taken a very constructive approach to this bill. We put forward 42 amendments in committee to try to strengthen the bill and to make it into something which will offer protection to consumers who must go out into the marketplace, not a marketplace taken over by competition and which provides adequate prices to consumers but into a monopoly market where the prices are set not by competition but, rather, by profit-making.
We hear the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), speaking now as the great defender of the consumer, but when he was minister of consumer and corporate affairs he was as quiet as a mouse. Recently, he told a York University audience, when speaking on the competition policy in 1974, that a flexible approach similar to that used for other trade practices under Bill C-2 would be used for loss leadering to prevent the loss to consumers of a policy which might save them money. This policy will not save the consumer money. The clause which the minister has here permits loss leadering so long as it does not interfere with competition. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
The minister has indicated on several occasions that he wants competition in the marketplace and that this is what this bill is designed to do. The only way we can ensure competition is to support the kind of amendment we have put forward. It is also very interesting to note that the minister, in replying in the House to a question with respect to loss leadering, said that he was prepared to support an amendment. But this is the kind of clause he brings into Bill C-2. As a matter of fact, the subject was raised in the House on October 4, 1974, just over a year ago, when the minister said:
I think this is another example of the urgency to amend our competition act and I hope that the hon. member will persuade his colleagues on the other side to support my action.
This is the action he wants supported. He wants us to permit loss leadering so long as it does not endanger what he calls competition. I have tried to indicate to the House that we are permitting a monopolistic kind of approach by the large corporations and chain stores which are not interested in encouraging competition. In fact, what they are interested in is the monopoly of their particular sector. So long as this continues, loss leadering will be employed as a practice to obtain that end. The minister has only one course to follow, if he is really serious about ensuring competition and if he is really interested in providing protection for the consumer: he can support the amendment of this party with respect to loss leadering. It is a practice which should be outlawed in Canada. It does nothing for the efficiency of business and nothing to provide better prices for the consumer, even though it leads the consumer into thinking that he is getting a deal when in reality he is being shafted.
It seems to me that the remarks I have made this afternoon should have fully convinced hon. members that the amendment ought to be supported. I am reminded that I may have convinced reasonable members of this House, and of course all hon. members are reasonable, including the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am quite sure that when hon. members see the wisdom of this amendment, they will support it.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) dealt only with the second part of his proposed amendment, so to be logical I will discuss the second part first and then turn to the first part of his amendment.
The arguments of the hon. member for Nickel Belt have concentrated on the increased share of the market which has gone in the past several years to the food chain stores. He appears to attribute this shift in consumer buying to loss leaders. The standing committee studying Bill C-2 spent considerable time listening to representations with regard to loss leader selling. The questioning by the members of that committee was aimed at trying to find concrete evidence that the loss leader has eliminated or reduced competition. As many hon. members know, this has been a subject of discussion from time to time since at least the 1930s, and particularly since the publication of the report of the MacQuarrie committee to study combines legislation in 1951.
That committee decided not to recommend the prohibition of loss leader selling, but suggested that a special study of it be made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The very extensive study of the commission

which appeared in 1954 recommended against the introduction of such legislation. The Economic Council of Canada, in its interim report on competition policy in 1969, also found itself unwilling to recommend legislation against loss leader selling.
When Bill C-2 was first introduced, it proposed deletion of the so-called loss leader defence against a charge of resale price maintenance, which is to be found in section 38(5)(a) and (b) of the Combines Investigation Act. That defence has been reinstated in the amended version of Bill C-2 and is to be found in clause 38(9)(a) and (b). It is not believed that we should go further than that, at least for the present. It will be the subject of further consideration, however, in the context of phase two of the legislative revisions.
Whatever decision is finally made, the wording of the amendment before us brings out some of the problems in drafting legislation against loss leaders. For example, it is very difficult to design a statute which will enable the courts to judge how low a price must be in order to be a loss leader, and how to judge what the motives of the seller were. The courts have tended to interpret existing section 38(5) (a) to mean a price below direct acquisition cost to the seller. The difficulty is that those who call for prohibition of loss leader selling want a higher threshold price, but surely this is no time to adopt a general rule which would prohibit sellers from selling below some arbitrary price which more than covers their direct costs.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt did not deal with the first part of his motion. If I may, I will refer to it under paragraph (a) of motion No. 10. The effect of this part of the amendment would be to require every seller of a product in Canada to adopt a policy of selling his goods at a uniform price everywhere in Canada. It would have the effect of placing businesses in a strait-jacket in their effort to survive in a competitive market. Just to take one example, a manufacturer might decide to sell at a low price, which nevertheless made some contribution to overhead, on the west coast in order to meet intensive import competition from overseas in that area. He would be faced with the choice, under this proposal, of abandoning the western market or of lowering all his prices to a point at which he could not survive.
The two parts of this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt have some emotional impact. However, anyone who listened to the deliberations in committee and to the representations from all sectors surely concluded that the bill as it is now introduced adequately takes care of the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time, and we should not cloud the issue, particularly on this amendment, by a discussion of the increased share of the market which is presently being taken by the large food chains. I am sure this applies to members of the official opposition as well as to members of this party. Surely that is a subject for discussion in another place, and this particular amendment is not the way to handle that particular problem. On that basis, I suggest that this amendment should be defeated.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He always manages to become quite emotional
October 15, 1975

about his amendments. He rolls out words such as loss leadering, predatory pricing, trans-national corporations, multinational corporations, supermarkets, old-line parties, and small businessmen all under the same heading and does not come up with very much logic. I have listened to the hon. member for a number of years in this House and I have come to the conclusion that if he and his colleagues had their way they would strap the business community into an electric chair and ask them just one question, "Do you want AC or DC?" That is about the extent of the logic behind some of the amendments the hon. member proposes.
When we deal with the matter of loss leadering, as this amendment suggests, we are delving into a whole series of retail pricing practices, and we are on very dangerous ground when we get into that area. Considering the operation of small retailers, I am sure all of them, including the corner variety store, put on loss leaders at one time or another. The inference in the remarks of the hon. member is that large supermarkets, as he calls them, or large merchandises, as he calls them, buy certain products and decide to sell them at cost in order to attract other business into their stores. This may well be the case: they may make a decision along that line. But if we support this amendment, we put in jeopardy all the other retailing practices which retail stores and retail outlets use.
For instance, what can be done with Christmas cards left over after December 25? There is not a store in the country which does not sell them at a greatly reduced price. We could say that that is a loss leadering practice. We could say that that is making it difficult for small variety stores or gift shops which sell greeting cards. We could say the same thing at Hallowe'en with regard to candy which is left over and which is sold at give-away prices. We could say that is loss leadering and that it is working against anyone else in the candy business.
This line of reasoning can apply also to the haberdashery business where the haberdasher will buy a job lot of shirts or ties and in his retailing practise will calculate what his cost is and how many products he has to sell in order to recover his cost. Then from that point on, whatever he sells them for is profit. What does he do at this stage? He has a sale. If we accept this amendment, anybody who puts a sale on in a retail store, or any wholesaler who wants to clean out a line of merchandise in order to bring in a new line, could be brought in under the umbrella of loss leadering; somebody would accuse him of loss leadering.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the small retailer, Mr. Speaker, and I listened very carefully and read the briefs presented to us in the committee. Mainly they were talking about the sale of cigarettes and chocolate bars and were trying to cover the whole spectrum with those two lines. But the small corner store has many things working against it. It may be in a municipality where suddenly the street is made a one-way street and a lot of the traffic that would normally stop at the store goes the other way. Or a municipality may say there is to be no more parking on a particular street and the small retailer either has to buy a piece of property for a parking lot or move his store.
Combines Investigation Act
These are all hazards of the retailing business, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the people concerned. I think if we went along with this suggestion and accepted this amendment, however, we would be getting ourselves into a real mess. In order to police it, we would need three times the staff that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs already has. I understand that when we come to phase two of the legislation we will consider loss leadering again, and I suggest that the hon. member has not delved deeply enough into the subject. He has looked at it superficially and does not realize all the implications of trying to legislate loss leaders.
What is selling at a loss? Everybody has a different way of calculating overhead. There are few accountants who will agree with a hardnosed businessman on how to calculate overhead. I have had many discussions on this subject with accountants. They say that you take the square foot area of the store, figure out heat, taxes and all fixed expenses and divide them into the area, which gives you the cost per square foot, and each square foot has to produce so many units of profits-each square foot must bear its share of overhead.
This is the socialist way, the pure way of looking at things; but the fellow running the retail store is an entrepreneur. He has to pay taxes, heat and air conditioning in summer, but he accepts those things and does not want to get mixed up with square footage so he will come up with a different calculation of overhead. The method of calculating profit and loss is therefore going to be different from one retailer to another, and I think this is dangerous ground for us to move into.
I agree with many of the things we have done in this legislation. I think we have taken some constructive steps. I hope we can get this bill finished up by tomorrow night and get on with the next phase, so that at least this section can go into the marketplace to see how it works. If we find there are inequities, we can bring back the legislation and amend it.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to support an amendment of this type on the grounds that we are really doing something for the consumer. We are in a period of inflation, when consumers are calling for lower prices, yet here is a member of the socialist party telling us not to allow them to have lower prices. That type of reasoning does not get through to me at all.


An hon. Member:: We will send your speech out.


William James Kempling: Send my speech out if you like; I am sure your people will enjoy reading it. The last time I spoke following the hon. member for Nickel Belt I received six letters of congratulation saying, "You are the first one who has stood up and knocked some sense into these socialist heads."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They were from his mother, his father and his daughter.


William James Kempling: They were all from Sudbury. I do not believe I can support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I think my colleagues in this party agree with me. I think it best to leave the legislation as it is. We will look at it again

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
when phase two is introduced and when we have had a chance to work with phase one for a while. If there is any real inequity we can look at it then and see if we can deal with it.
After we have discussed a section of a bill in great detail, I hesitate to wipe out all that discussion, all the briefs and testimony and just accept an amendment of this type, holus-bolus. That makes a mockery of the hearings and the witnesses. So, Mr. Speaker, I will not support the amendment.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I could not resist rising after hearing my good friend, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), accuse us in this part of the House of somehow seeking higher prices for consumers by proposing a ban on loss leadering. That is a strange kind of logic.
If you follow the practice of loss leadering to its logical conclusion, the purpose is either to eliminate competition or to allocate a certain section of the market as a result of loss leadering, just as in the Lestoil case that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) referred to. There are many other cases of loss leadering where a major corporation has such large financial resources that they can stand a loss for years and thus dominate and control the market. Once they have dominated and controlled the market, then they control the price.
This party is proposing this amendment for the purpose of lowering prices for consumers, not increasing them. The logic is perfectly clear: loss leadering results, in the long run, in higher, rather than lower, prices for consumers. Let me deal a little further with another point that the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth raised. He suggested that the hon. member for Nickel Belt had not studied the bill carefully enough. I suggest he should look at the proposed amendment. It does not defend loss leadering. I will read that portion of the amendment that seems appropriate:
-engages in a policy of selling products as loss leaders, that is to say, not for the purpose of making a profit on that item, but for purposes of advertising or of attracting customers to his place of business in the hope of selling them other products.
That is a little different from dumping or simply getting rid of something on which you are obviously never going to make a profit. But when it is a conspiracy against the consumer, it becomes an iniquitous practice. Consider, for example, the two oil companies, which conspire to sell gasoline as a loss leader in order to drive the small guy out of business.
Someone in this House should stand up for the small businessman. That is why my party supports the motion before the House. We support real competition, not the phony competition of giant corporations which has resulted in many loss leader practices in this country. I hope that the good sense and good judgment of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth will prevail and that the House will show more good sense than it has up to now. We shall support this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 10 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:


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 proceed to consider motion No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Symes, moves:
Motion No. 11.
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
(a)	striking out line 45 on page 30
(b)	replacing the period (.) at line 14 on page 31 with a semi-colon (;); and
(c)	adding immediately after line 14 on page 31 the following subsections:
"(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;
(/) make a representation to the public that, either explicitly or implicitly, arouses or tends to arouse unwarranted expectations of product effectiveness;
(g)	make a representation to the public containing claims for product effectiveness that are not fully supported by substantial evidence;
(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;
(i)	make a representation to the public that uses the word 'new', or any comparable word, to describe a product, unless it is a new product or one that has had a qualitative change in one or more of its active ingredients or parts, in which case the use of the word 'new' shall be limited to a period not exceeding six months;
(j)	make a representation to the public that uses the word 'improved', or any comparable word, unless the change in an existing product is one that can be proven to be beneficial to the user, in which case the use of the word 'improved' shall be limited to a period not exceeding six months;
(k)	make a representation to the public that ignores, or fails to describe fully, any undesirable side-effects that may result from the use of the product;
(l)	and in all cases, products shall be sold on the basis of definable qualities and grades, where that is possible.".


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment we are considering is to expand areas of the bill covering false advertising. Time and again my party tried to move amendments in the committee: we proposed 42 amendments to strengthen the bill and make it effective. Ours was a constructive approach. People who criticize my party say that we tend to be critical but do not offer suggestions for improvement. We have tried to improve this bill. We want it to protect consumers as they

October 15, 1975

forage day after day in the marketplace. Our amendments seek to beef up the bill, as it were, to strengthen it and to put flesh on areas that we think are vague. One of those areas concerns false advertising.
Some of us have watched the warm relationship developing between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and corporations which are to be governed under Bill C-2. It seems to some of us that the minister has been acting more like a minister of corporate affairs than a minister of consumer affairs. But let me not deal in generalities; let me deal with a specific incident which involved a company operating in Sudbury. The corporation is not exactly poor and the particular incident I shall tell you about was brought to the minister's attention by the provincial member for Sudbury, Mr. Bud Germa, who has alluded to the incident as the Sudbury fine ham-sausage caper.
Apparently, a Woolworth's store in Sudbury advertised for sale at $1.44 per pound a product which it called fine ham. On analysis, it turned out that the product was not fine ham; it was sausage and did not contain any ham at all. But this was not discovered until a great many letters had been written by various people. Under the Food and Drugs Act, Woolworth's could have been fined $500, or the person responsible subjected to a penalty of three months in jail. After Bill C-2 is passed, section 36 of the Combines Investigation Act will provide for firmer, stiffer penalties. The proposed amendment, I suggest, will make the intent of the law clear and result in action in cases of this kind.
What bothers me is the relationship between the minister and those who engage in false advertising. I want to know if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is going to provide consumers with protection. After the provincial member of parliament brought the incident to the minister's attention, and after it was found that the ham advertised was not ham but sausage, the minister wrote Mr. Germa a letter which I think important enough to read into the record. He wrote:
Officials of my department have now completed their investigation of the advertisement which you brought to my attention, concerning a product described as "Fine Ham" which appeared in the Sudbury Star, Monday, August 19, 1974.
It has been confirmed that the product in question was actually pork sausage and not ham as described. Both manufacturer and retailer have been advised that the label and advertisement were in violation of section 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. Both have received official warnings.
This incident did not involve some small corner store; it involved Woolworth's, a powerful corporation. It had participated in false advertising. The false advertisement had run for many weeks and many customers had bought the so-called fine ham. But there was no talk of reimbursing them; nothing was said about compensating consumers who had bought under false pretences what they thought was fine ham but which turned to be nothing more than pork sausage. I use that example to illustrate the warm relationship between our minister of corporate affairs and the corporations this bill is supposed to regulate.
Other instances of false advertising could be alluded to. For example, how can we permit deodorant makers to run ads like the one run by Dial soap? It suggests that Dial anti-perspirant soap does two things for friendship. How does that help consumers who try to forage in the market-
Combines Investigation Act
place? How does that help them select the proper soap? I don't know. How can you claim that Dial soap does two things for friendship? Can you say that five-day deodorant pads are better than any spray? How can a company advertise that a particular product is better than any spray? My amendment would require them to justify their claims. The consumer would be fully aware of the proof verifying the claims made in the advertising. Does Right Guard, for example, have the best wetness fighter of any anti-perspirant spray? What is a wetness fighter? How can Right Guard justify that claim? When a company places an advertisement, it should provide the supporting evidence to prove their claim.
All sorts of products are being pushed. There is a toothpaste that will get you girlfriends, and hair creams that will make you more socially acceptable. Those claims are being made, yet there is not one piece of legislation to regulate the whole jungle of advertising. People are being pushed to purchase junk. They are led to expect certain things of the products they buy with their hard-earned money, but lo and behold, these products do not produce.
There is another prime example of false advertising which is in no way covered in this bill. For example, the Ford Motor Company made all sorts of representations to the public that implicitly or explicitly aroused unwarranted expectations with regard to product effectiveness. They claim that with a certain Ford car you can get 26 miles to the gallon. Obviously, those results were obtained in highway tests under conditions which no ordinary driver would encounter. However, people are led to believe that they will get 26 miles to the gallon only from that Ford product and not from any GM product. It is not made clear to the consumer that the tests were made in a controlled situation. The consumer spends his money with that expectation of performance, but it falls far short of that. As a matter of fact, the Ford Motor Company was taken to court in the United States under that country's false advertising legislation. They were found guilty of false advertising because they did not clearly point out that the 26 miles per gallon could only be obtained under controlled conditions.
Another area which falls far short with respect to consumer protection in relation to false advertising is the cosmetics industry. This party's amendment would demand that qualities not be claimed unless they can be proven. All sorts of claims are now being made for cosmetics. For example, certain companies advertise that their face creams will fight acne and make your skin smoother. There has been much investigation in this area. In fact, it has been proven that there is no difference between putting face creams or cooking oil on your face. Indeed, and this is very important, many face creams irritate acne or cause skin blemishes.
There are even cases where blindness has resulted from the use of cosmetics. A study made in Canada shows that 29 per cent of women over 18 years of age reported adverse or allergic reaction to cosmetics. If a certain side-effect may occur, that should be clearly indicated on the label and in any advertising. Any hazards should be clearly pointed out. For example, aspirin is a blood thinner. For people with certain kinds of heart ailments, that could be very harmful.

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act


An hon. Member:: We sell those to the Liberals.


John R. Rodriguez: I would not want to do anything like that. They suffered enough of a heart seizure last night after losing the Hochelaga constituency.
The whole area of cosmetics advertising is very serious. The advertisements claim that these products will make women more beautiful and appealing. Well, they do that; but they can also do other things. For example, certain lipsticks can cause very serious damage to the lips. When applying eye shadow, if the tip of the brush gets into the eye, it could cause serious infection. Our amendment would place a serious responsibility on the sellers of these products to not only conform to fair approaches to advertising but also to health standards.
It is interesting to look at the penalties imposed on companies found guilty of false advertising. Woolworth's were given a slap on the hand. As I pointed out before, if a woman should rip off welfare for $65 a week, she would be put in jail and her children looked after by Children's Aid. If a fellow rips off the unemployment insurance, he receives a heavy fine. However, Woolworth's was only given a stern warning, a slap on the wrist. This is characteristic of our approach to false advertising.
At this time, when the push to sell products is so great, we should pay careful attention to legislation that will control advertising so that the consumer will be aware of what he is purchasing and aware of any side-effects of a particular product. It is only fair that all definable qualities should be described in an advertisement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It should also apply to political advertising.


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad the hon. member raised that, because it is a very important area. Perhaps the jails about which the hon. member was so concerned would be filled with members of parliament. It might be a good chance to see what they are like. What the hon. member is talking about might be dealt with under misleading advertising.
The amendments being put forward by my party are extremely important to the consumer. Advertising methods are becoming highly technical and the consumer is not trained to deal with this kind of mass advertising. We have to ensure proper protection for the consumer when he steps into the marketplace.
I know that the good sense which prevails in this House will encourage hon. members to support the amendments we have put forward. Think of what happened the other night in terms of wage and price controls. We know how easy it is to control wages. There is no problem at all. Falconbridge says to its workers, "We cannot pay more than 10 per cent; the government says so." When we consider providing protection for the consumer, on the other hand, all possible arguments will be put up. The minister will argue that too many bureaucrats would be required to provide the kind of protection we have in mind.
It seems to me that if we are serious about protecting the consumer against practices which unfairly separate him from his hard-earned money in times of inflation, some protection should be provided through the legislative

process. The people who lost out as a result of the fine ham caper had no way of coming to grips with Woolworth's. Maybe a thousand people bought that fine ham and were ripped off. What is an individual to do? Can he take Woolworth's to court to get 60 cents back from them? I think our system has done much more than take 60 cents from that consumer: we have violated his trust. The company concerned has violated the trust of consumers, and that is a much more serious matter than taking 60 cents from a consumer.
The minister does not even allow class actions in this bill. He says we have to wait for the next bill, phase two. So the bill before us does not allow consumers to get together as a class in order to bring an action. I can only urge hon. members to use their good sense and the sense of fair play which I know they have, and support these amendments.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker, in rising to discuss the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on behalf of his party, let me say, first of all, that it is difficult to deal with the remarks he made. He spent most of his time under the cover of what I would call a misleading representation that he would deal with the subject of motion No. 11. Instead, he told us at considerable length about the fine ham caper, and that, along with the other nonsense he spoke, could I think fairly be described as mainly boloney.
The motion itself seeks to make specific a series of offences under the general heading of misleading advertising. The problem is not that the hon. member has perhaps plumbed the depths of his imagination and come up with as many specific instances of misleading advertising as he can; the question is whether the consumer can be better protected by criminal law prohibitions of very specific practices or by 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 specific enumeration of offences, such as those proposed, would be as important as the danger that these specific offences might be viewed as an exhaustive statement of the prohibited practices. The objective of dealing with misleading advertising might not be reached because the proposal would result in exempting other forms of false information from the purview of the act.
I do not think it should be forgotten, Madam Speaker, that the general prohibition of misleading advertising in the present Combines Investigation Act has produced very extensive jurisprudence which has applied a prohibition, stated in precise terms, to a very large number of specific representations. This process, however, has not restricted the application to new problem situations which may occur, and for the reasons I have advanced we oppose the amendment before us: we think it ill serves the objective set forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I was struck by the hon. member's remarks in an earlier lengthy speech which he made on loss leaders, in the course of which he suggested that stores in the food business were insufficiently competitive. He said there were not enough stores to provide adequate competition. It is interesting to note that the NDP government of Manitoba should have provided itself, at great expense, with a
October 15, 1975

study on food prices-I have forgotten the name of the author-which concluded that one of the causes of high food prices was excessive competition, the excessive number of large food stores in any given area.
These stores were found to be half full at any given time and provided too much floor space, too many people selling and too much merchandise, thereby necessitating a higher price for the products. I mention this point because I think it serves to illustrate that this, like most of the other remarks made by the hon. member to substantiate his amendments, is really unsubstantiated rubbish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: He comes before the House and at excessive, wearisome length belabours his points. He brings up instances of his personal shopping habits. He recalls numerous instances in which he has been treated offensively. He takes up the time of the House in this way, and then he asks us to show the good sense which he believes prevails here by taking him seriously when he puts forward amendments. I would simply say that whatever the inherent merit of some of the proposals put forward by the NDP, it is more than offset by the amount of time-consuming drivel offered by hon. members who support them.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to second the amendment in the name of my hon. friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) concerning false and misleading advertising. I was prompted to do so by the weakness of the existing clauses in the bill having to do with this serious problem.
I listened with interest to the observations of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). Like many Liberals, he continues to hide his head in the sand, deriding the idea that misleading advertising presents any particular problem in this country. He and his friends do not listen to what people are saying, nor do they listen to the industry itself. For the information of the hon. member for Mississauga, and others, I intend to quote from a manual issued by the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, an industry publication which reveals some rather surprising attitudes about advertising and also discloses a number of problems.
The first point I should make is that this industry body which is set up to regulate itself is not known to exist by consumers. Nevertheless, last year alone the Advertising Standards Council received over 1,826 complaints of all sorts about advertising, be it in newspapers, on television, etc., in this country. I was very much involved in the work of the broadcasting committee on the subject of misleading advertising and advertising directed toward children, and this House felt that it was a serious enough problem to pass a recommendation strengthening the broadcasting code on advertising directed at children. Yet the same problem, extended to a greater degree, exists for the adult population of this country.
There is a great deal of misleading and absolutely false advertising in Canada today. Anybody who takes the time to listen to commercials on television or on other media knows what I am talking about. But what is even more amazing is the attitude of many of the people in the
Combines Investigation Act
industry itself. I was struck by a remarkable survey conducted in 1972, which appeared in the Advertising Advisory Board's own publication, of 140 marketing executives. The survey revealed that 50 per cent of the advertising executives who responded to the questionnaire indicated no real concern for truth in advertising. What is even more interesting is that 60 per cent of the respondents believed that their advertising is always truthful, whereas only 18 per cent believed that their leading competitors' advertising is always truthful. So even those in the advertising industry, the people who make up these ads, admit that they do not believe their opponents' ads are telling the truth or are in any way not misleading.
We have put forward a series of amendments that will strengthen this bill, a bill that needs a lot of strengthening since it is proposed by a Liberal government that has not been known for its protection of consumers. I would ask those on the backbenches who are once more groaning to listen closely to the first amendment. We seek to prohibit all representations to the public that contain exaggerated price claims of a general nature unless such claims are fully supported by substantial evidence. As I say, the advertising industry itself admits that a lot of exaggeration regarding price has been going on. For example, we often hear of a product that it is 10 per cent faster or that it produces 10 per cent more power. But 10 per cent more than what? That is never stated.
We also have the same kind of advertising claim regarding price. A certain product has the lowest price in town; that is often claimed to be a truism. But how do we know that? What kind of surveys have been done to back that claim? Where is the proof that the product advertised at the lowest price in town is being sold at the lowest price? Or where do we get proof that the new brand "X" will give us 20 per cent more than some other brand? These are the kinds of examples the bill does not deal with, things that we know are taking place. This is why we are proposing that it be an offence to make exaggerated claims of a general nature.
We are not saying that a manufacturer cannot honestly advertise his products. What we are saying is that if he is going to claim that his product is 10 per cent better, or is the cheapest in town, then he has to prove it. What could be more reasonable or honest for advertisers to comply with than this? We are putting forward a simple, straightforward amendment to cover a situation the minister does not cover in his legislation. I ask, where has the minister been? Has he never watched a television commercial or a newspaper ad that carries this kind of misleading claim?
This is why we say that this bill is a cosmetic one. There are so many areas of weakness, areas containing loopholes, that this bill will fail absolutely to correct. One example of the kind of thing we want to see stopped is exaggerated claims of a general nature that do not give to the consumer any exact or correct information. We are also concerned in a general way about the product itself, what it means to the consumer in terms of price, and how advertising relates to price.
I was intrigued by a program produced by the CTV television network, a documentary on cosmetics and the cosmetics industry in Canada, entitled "The Big Put On". I should like to refer to part of the transcript because I

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
think it illustrates very graphically what is wrong with the advertising industry in this country and why we need the amendments before the House today. With regard to lipstick, which is the biggest product in the cosmetics industry, the documentary program through its research found that a lipstick made from any one of over 400 standard formulas for lipstick came out of the factory ready for market at a cost of between 10 cents and 30 cents, depending on how fancy was the container. Then on its way to market it is taxed, distributed, advertised and then retailed, each handler taking another slice of the cost to the consumer. By the time it gets into a woman's purse, the price is seven to ten times the price at the factory pick-up door, and 100 times the cost of the material in the tube. This, of course, is a fad industry; we notice this from the kind of advertising that goes on in the cosmetics industry.
This advertising is, of course, done at great expense to the consumer. If, through advertising, the consumer has to pay more for the product, then the least he can expect is that it is honest and not misleading advertising. So far as product cost is concerned, there is 12 cents worth of processed cleansing cream in a standard four-ounce jar, and three cents of liquid make-up in a make-up container. The mascara in a tube of mascara runs from three cents to nine cents, depending on the formula; and there is about two cents worth of nail polish in the little bottle that can retail for about $2 or more.
What the advertising industry is doing for cosmetics in terms of making them more expensive to buy, products that are already overpriced, is another serious problem. The industry does not reveal how the companies are spending the money, or the side-effects of some of the productions they have produced. For example, it is almost impossible to estimate how much the industry spends to promote or advertise its products. One company spent 30 per cent of its sales dollars on advertising, and another spent nearly three-quarters of a million dollars last year to push a single anti-wrinkle cream. Canadian radio and television networks alone last year carried $27.5 million in cosmetics advertising. The seduction process is all glamour, because if you are selling glamour you have, of course, to be glamorous. We are concerned about this kind of cost and about the misleading aspects of advertising which push up the cost of the product to the consumer.
We are very concerned about the type of advertising and the fact that advertising often may cause someone to buy an item under false impressions. We have covered this in our second amendment. We would prohibit the making of representations to the public which would explicitly or implicitly arouse or intend to arouse unwarranted expectations in respect of a product's effectiveness.
We all know about the type of toothpaste advertising which refers to sex appeal. Where is the proof of that? Where is the evidence that somehow one would become more sexually appealing? There are other products, such as perfume and deodorants, in respect of which it is stated that if one uses these products, somehow one will capture a man, or a woman, as the case may be. We say that this kind of false and really silly advertising which insults our intelligence should not be on the public airways or in the newsprint media. If it should be fair advertising, then in

some way perhaps we can reduce the tremendous cost of the advertising that is passed on to the consumer.
In our third amendment we want to avoid what has been going on in respect of all kinds of advertising today. Specifically, we wish to prohibit the kind of representations which make claims in respect of the effectiveness of a product which are not fully supported by substantial evidence. Again, when one looks at the kind of things we find in advertising today, one cannot help being struck by the claims that certain products will cleanse one's face better than any other, or that certain types of deodorant will protect one better than any other brand. Where are the tests to prove this? The advertiser does not produce the evidence in this regard and there is no government agency to see that these claims are in fact true.
We want to make sure that if a company states that its product will do such and such, that it has been proven to some responsible authority that this is the case. I cannot understand why any member on the other side of the House would suggest that such legislation should not be placed on the statute books of Canada. Are we serious about doing something to control such misleading advertising, or are we merely engaging in a public campaign to pass this bill, suggesting that something effective is being done when we know there are loopholes?
We also have a motion which would make it illegal to make a representation to the public containing suggestions either implicit or explicit about the effectiveness of a product in areas other than those in which the product is intended primarily to have an effect. Again, I need not go into great detail concerning the kind of products on the market today and the type of advertising which takes place. We have to pop a pill, now, for every little ache and pain. If we feel a little depressed, we take a tablet which fizzes in water, and somehow or other we are supposed to be better because of this. Again, we would like to see the proof in respect of the effectiveness of these products.
I was amazed, during the question period a few months ago, by a reply from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the effect that there are many new medical products or drugs on the market which have not been tested by his department, and his department only carries out random sampling. There are many instances of drugs being on the market which have potential hazardous side-effects. We rely solely on the companies to do the testing.
It seems to me it is time we had a more responsible agency, such as a government department, which would carry out the testing in order to ensure that the advertising contains the proof. We have also moved an amendment to the effect that any advertising which uses the word "new" or any comparable word would be illegal unless it is, in fact, a new product with a qualitative change or a change in respect of its active ingredients or parts. We want the use of the word "new" to be limited to a period of six months in respect of such advertising.
Many times I have watched commercials on television where statements have been made to the effect that Sanka coffee is new, or Maxwell House coffee is new. It seems that every few months there is something new about coffee. I should like to know what chemical, qualitative or substantive changes have taken place in respect of that
October 15, 1975

coffee, or in respect of soap products such as New Fab, or Duz, or Tide, that makes them new. Is a bit of dye or colouring added to make the coffee browner? The consumer has the right to know these things.


Mr. Saltsman:: The price is new.


Reginald Cyril Symes: As my colleague says, the price is new: that is about all. If we are serious about having tough consumer laws in respect of misleading advertising, it seems to me that we must adopt these amendments. Unless we do this, the kind of misleading advertising we have will continue, to the detriment of the consumers in this country.
We are also concerned about advertisements which use the word "improved". We notice claims to the effect that the product somehow is improved. Has there been an improvement in the box so that the product pours more easily? Does the soap pour more easily? Is that what "improved" means? Or does it wash clothes better? Let us have a definition of words such as "new" and "improved". These are important things. The advertising industry obviously believe they are effective, because they continue to use them in their advertising. We say they should justify that it is "new" or "improved".
We also wish to make illegal, references to a product which ignore fully undesirable side-effects which may result from the use of the product. Again there are many instances of this. There are instances in which products have been used which people have found to have very damaging side-effects. My colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, referred to the lipstick industry, the cosmetics industry, and some creams which compounds the problem rather than solve it. We say if a product has a side-effect such as that in respect of Noxzema, where the product sometimes aggravates an acne condition, this should be made clear on the package. It must be shown that the product may have such a dangerous side-effect. Again, the consumer needs this kind of protection in society when the corporate giants are flooding the market with products of this kind.
In our amendment we also say that in all cases products must be sold on the basis of definable qualities and grades applicable to these products, so we would know what are the ingredients and would be in a position to compare, as purchasers, one product against another, not only in terms of what is being said in the advertisement but also in terms of what is placed on the store shelf.
I think these amendments are sensible and straightforward. The industry itself admits there is a problem. In its own publications, the industry recommends some of the very things that my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, has recommended in his amendment. The industry has recommended voluntary guidelines many of which are along the lines that my colleague has proposed. That is why I say it is important that the House adopt these measures.


Max Saltsman: Madam Speaker, in looking at the amendments placed before the House by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I find it very difficult to understand why
Combines Investigation Act
there is so much opposition to accepting them and I am particularly appalled by the rather childish display of temper by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). Because he could not come up with an adequate critique of the amendment before the House, he resorted to the worst of all possible approaches, that is, a personal attack which had no relevance to what is going on in this debate.
In a case before a court, whether a civil or a criminal case, these amendments would be considered to be the most mild criteria. Could anyone go into a court of law and make a case on behalf of something, using the arguments which advertisers use? If any one did so, he would be thrown out of court and told it was not evidence and surely no one would believe that. We insist that evidence presented in a court of law be hard evidence. Why should we insist less that it be hard evidence when we are talking to consumers?
Are consumers not entitled to some kind of protection? Do they not count? Are they simply to be patsies for the commercial interests of this country to use them as they see fit, as people were before we developed rules of evidence in courts of law? Before that time people could arbitrarily say, "That is what I say. Take it or leave it. I do not want to have to present evidence. I have the power and authority, and therefore that is my evidence". That is really what is going on in our society, with advertising today.
I want to make this point before I go on. Not all advertising is bad advertising; there is some advertising which is very useful to the consumer. Advertising that gives the consumer a chance to compare prices, a chance to compare values, or that provides him with useful information about a product, information which can be defined, is good advertising. If we are selling gasoline, advertising that talks about the actual quality of the gasoline is of some use, rather than advertising that tells the consumer that she has a tiger in her tank. That is the kind of thing we are talking about.
When you look at most of the advertising we have in our society, you find that it is not designed to enlighten the consumer; it is designed to confuse the consumer. Every trick in the advertising book is used to obscure what is really of value or to obscure the information which the consumer requires about the product he is being asked to buy. I can understand, perhaps not in logic, why a capitalist government committed to the principles of capitalism- the ideological hang-up-does not want to touch this kind of section because it cuts right at the heart of the system to which we are objecting, the kind of phoniness, the kind of commercialism that is foisted on society, a phoniness which depends on advertising not being touched, because the minute you start to say that advertisers have to tell the truth about products, the whole commercial practice starts to break down and people will be forced to bring products to the market that have real relevance to the lives of ordinary people.
Therefore, to touch advertising is to touch the system itself and what it operates on, which is strictly B.S. That is what the system operates on and that is why we cannot bring in any rules. If you can define things as complicated as the things we have in civil and criminal law, surely you can define things about commercial practice and behavi-

October 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
our-it is not that difficult. It is not that we cannot define it; it is just that we do not want to. Surely it is not too much to ask that the advertiser present proof of what the ad says. People will say, "You are really being silly; you are asking too much. Advertising is not supposed to be true. We all know it is puffery. It has some relevance to the truth; it has a passing acquaintance with what they are talking about." Everybody admits and knows that it is a great big game, and the game is to sit in the boardrooms and pay fantastic salaries to these guys who come up with incredible schemes for misleading and confusing the public, or with cutsie ideas.
If somebody, 200 years from now, comes back and takes a look at the clips on television, he will think we have a race of women who are all ninnies; who are all either washing, smelling each other, or having their hair flying in the breeze, or else their heads stuck in an oven, crying because the oven is dirty. That is the kind of impression he will have of women in the twentieth century, because that is the way the advertiser treats women. If women have a grievance, then the one sector they should detest the most is the advertising industry for what it has done to them. Did you ever see a woman on television getting a man because she talks about Schopenhauer, poetry or George Bernard Shaw, or because she is kind, or intelligent, or pleasant, or artistic, or considerate, or politically involved? No; she must have nice teeth, because that is all you need, she must smell nice, and her hair must look great in the breeze when she is running through the fields talking to herself about something.
The other night on television the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was speaking about the kind of malaise that afflicts our society, and that we have built up expectations in our society which cannot be matched. Who builds up those expectations and who has created expectations that nobody can match because they are not real? That is really what we are talking about, and that is why this eminently sensible and intelligent amendment is not being accepted by the government. The reason is that is it subversive. My friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, is a real subversive; he undermines the phony system in which we live. They know this is what the amendment does. If you have to make the advertiser speak the truth, there goes the capitalist system-and they do not like it. They recognize that my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, is a dangerous radical who wants to change society, who wants a better society than we have now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What makes you think so?


Max Saltsman: The advertisers play a great game. Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. If we have an open representative of the advertising industry here, let him tell us what he would say. I suggest he would say, "Do you want us to be like Russia, where all you can buy is black shoes or green shoes and you have to take them or leave them, and where the only size you can buy is five sizes too large? Don't you want a free society? Don't you want everyone to be able to make a judgment on their own? Are you telling us, the advertisers, that everybody in this country is so stupid they cannot see through these things? Should the public not be entitled to make a free choice? Besides, even if what we say is not tangible but is

a psychic thing, such as perfume which does not do all the things it says but makes a woman or a man-because today everybody uses it-feel better, it gives them a psychic uplift, then surely it is their money which they should be able to spend freely in a free society."

To get back to this amendment, I think it is important for the government to do one of two things: either to deal with misleading advertising, and therefore everyone in society who is subsidizing advertising will at least have some assurance that their money is not being used to rip people off, or we should be given an assurance that if we put the legislation through without amendment the government will use whatever influence it has to see that advertising is removed as a deductible item for income tax purposes.
In that way we can have it one way or the other. We either try to make advertising moral, in which case we are prepared to subsidize it through income tax, or we say we cannot make advertising moral and it is the kind of thing the consumer will simply have to guard against. If the consumer is going to be foolish, at least it will be only the consumer who buys that product who is foolish; it will not be society which has to be foolish and stupid too. We cannot have it both ways, but it seems that this government wants to have it both ways when it does not accept this kind of amendment. What can the government possibly find objectionable in a statement of this kind, that goods shall be sold by definable qualities? No one is asking that goods which cannot be defined be sold by definable qualities, but there are all kinds of goods in our society which can be defined if someone wants to go to the trouble of defining them.
We used to say the same thing about medicines. The drug companies argued for years that they had some magic formula; that some little old lady with a pointed black hat and a cauldron was working in their modern factory putting something into their product. The product was not capable of analysis; it could not be put on the package; it would be altogether wrong to do that. We ran into such a disaster with the drug industry that the government was forced to make it define what it had put into its drugs. The
Combines Investigation Act
minute that was done we got generic drugs and we saw that sometimes there was no more than a little bit of soda added. Then there was real competition. People could see there was no magic and that they could go to the grocery store and buy a whole carton of it for a nickel, as against killing their pain for $5. That has been a very useful exercise. With regard to drugs, I suppose it was a question of life and death and there was some urgency on the part of the government to take measures. In addition, the government was spending more and more on health programs and it became urgent that it find some way of reducing costs in that area.
However, when it comes to the consumer the government feels that he or she does not cost them anything so there is no sense moving in that direction and doing something on behalf of the consumer. Besides, the government feels it would upset too many people in the system and change things too much. If the system has to depend on dishonesty, whether it is dishonesty in advertising or in commercial practices, then it is not worth keeping. That is why we have been opponents of that kind of system.
It is quite clear that the government should accept these amendments, which anyone can see are eminently practical and can be made to work. The government is saying that we cannot say something which cannot be proved. We are saying no more than a court of law would say. You cannot make a statement unless you have evidence to support that statement. That is not so much to ask. If this amendment is not accepted, the only conclusion we on this side can come to is that the government does not want honesty in advertising and that the legislation before us is not worth voting for.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 16, 1975