1972-06-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, in both official languages-Mr. Guay.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the Public Service Commission for 1971, which was tabled in the House as a routine matter yesterday, has this morning, received interpretation and comment in the press which is causing some concern, possibly based on misunderstanding. The basis of appointment to the public service, which is the question involved, is a matter of very real importance to the public and to this House. In all the circumstances, the government is of the opinion that the report should be referred to a committee of the House where the matter can be discussed with the chairman of the commission and where clarification can be secured.
It is not, I think, generally realized that the Public Service Commission is, by law, an independent agency responsible to Parliament, not to the government. It is independent by reason of the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act, as are some other public servants who are directly responsible to Parliament.
Since the press reports of this morning, I have looked at the relevant paragraphs of the annual report and I must say it appears to me that the report had been misinterpreted. Newspaper accounts refer to it as indicating that the merit system "is being abandoned" or is "on the way out". I have been able to find no statements of that kind in the report. What the report does is refer to what it says is a problem with regard to "equality of opportunity" for certain groups in the community to be fully represented in
the public service. It suggests that the answer to this problem "may be found in a dynamic concept of merit". As I read the report, it is not suggesting that merit be abandoned but rather that means be found of providing full and equal access for people in all groups to be considered for appointment on the basis of merit. In any event, it is apparent that there is some confusion and misunderstanding and it is important that this should be removed.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the explanation or interpretation of the report may be, there is no doubt about the position of this government. It has stood squarely for the merit principle for appointment to the public service and that is the principle for which it continues to stand.
If it can be arranged among House leaders to have the report sent to a committee of the House for discussion without delay, the government is prepared to provide the necessary reference.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Prime Minister's statement was hastily prepared as he has not followed his usual courteous practice of supplying the leaders of the opposition parties with copies before delivery. I must say that I welcome the statement which deals with an important subject. It is important to clarify the report of the Public Service Commission and to reassure the Canadian people as to the concepts the public service commissioners have in mind. I also welcome the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon that the government stands squarely behind the merit system in terms of appointments to and promotions within the public service. I believe that if confusion exists following the report of the Public Service Commission, and I believe it does, it was justified in view of the confusing rhetoric in the opening sections of the Public Service Commission report. For example-I will not take long-there is this statement:
Because the merit concept was originally designed to eliminate patronage, it has tended to develop a sacred cowishness of its own.
That statement of itself would tend to suggest to some people, at least, that the principle to some extent is being abandoned. Farther on the report says:
But the commission has been taking a longer look at the concept of merit in recent years.
It then talks about the excellent improvement in the public service that the application of the merit system has produced. The last statement I have quoted would also create the impression in the minds of many people that the concept of merit was in the process of substantial modification. Later the report says:
A growing feeling has been that the merit system in the past has been applied too narrowly and that equality of opportunity for these groups has been lacking.

June 1, 1972
Public Service Merit System
That is open to the interpretation the Prime Minister has placed on it, but it is also open to other interpretations.
Therefore I agree it is highly important that this whole subject be clarified and I support a reference to the committee where the Public Service Commission can be questioned and can clarify its position and make it very clear to the country exactly what it has in mind. I do not think there will be any question, if the Public Service Commission stays within the authority granted to it by statute of this Parliament, that it has no alternative but to support the merit system in the public service. Any possible doubts in that regard should be removed because it is very clear that the opening pages of the report in particular have caused great unease in this city and probably throughout the land.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I too regret, although I do not blame the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the fact that we were not able to see a copy of his statement before he made it.
I will not read the parts of the first page of the report which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) quoted. But I wonder whether the commission would have written that page if it did not have something in mind that suggests erosion of the merit system. I cannot understand or imagine the commissioners writing some of the sentences and paragraphs at the beginning of this report, some of which the Leader of the Opposition has quoted, without there being something in their minds having to do with the merit system and an intention to erode it. I do not understand how the Prime Minister can read these passages and say that the commission is still standing by the merit system. Obviously it is not. There may be useful and socially desirable ways in which the merit system may be applied somewhat differently than it has been in the past, but I have read the section very carefully and it is not what this section of the report says. The press is not to be blamed and nobody else is to be blamed for feeling uneasy that these statements have found their way into the report.
I think it is important to state now that what we are dealing with is not merely a matter of policy. We are dealing with a statutory requirement. I remind hon. members that section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act specifically states that appointments to the public service shall be made on merit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is not merely a matter of policy of the commission; it is a matter of a statutory requirement for the commission to act in a certain way.
I must also mention-I remember it very vividly-that during the discussions of the special committee on the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1966, of which I was a member, as was my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I argued with the then secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. George Davidson, against the provisions in those acts which retained in the Public Service Commission exclusive rights with regard to appointment, promotion, classification, reclassification and all

the other areas of job security. They took those areas out of the ordinary collective bargaining process. Your Honour will see in a moment why this is relevant. The reason they gave for taking those areas of job security out of the collective bargaining process was that they could not leave them to negotiation. Appointment promotions and classifications had to be done on the merit system. That was the reason they gave us for taking out of the collective bargaining process what is normally the most important area in it.
I am also pleased the Prime Minister agrees that this report, and particularly this part of it, should go to a committee for consideration. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has a motion precisely on this point, under Standing Order 43 which he intended to move and which, with Your Honour's permission, he will move. He has given the government House leader notice of his motion and I hope, therefore, that it will be unanimously accepted. We are ready to have it accepted without debate.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, let us call a spade a spade. The controversy over the merit system as applied in the public service is not new. In fact, we often hear that, at the present time, if a candidate does not speak one of the two official languages, he cannot get a job.
There is in the civil service as elswwhere prejudice with regard to hiring. I feel that the criterion of competence should have priority over all others with regard to employment in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is absolutely unfair to tell a unilingual civil servant of 50, for instance: If you fail to learn the other official language, you will lose your job within a year or two. This is not the way to correct the situation.
If we really wish to respect both official languages, I think that the best way to do it, as far as the government and civil service are concerned, is to encourage the provinces which have jurisdiction over education to teach in both official languages as early as grade 1. Thus, within five years, we could remove the misunderstandings and we could surely progress, through the qualifications of bilingual public servants.



COMMISSION COMMENTS CONCERNING MERIT SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, had the Prime Minister been able to give us notice of his intention to make the statement he has just made we might have saved a certain amount of time. Nevertheless, I rise to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. The matter concerns, as Your Honour might suspect, the declaration by the Public Service Commission in its annual report that the commission intends to interpret unilaterally the principle of appointment by merit contained in the Public Service Employment Act. I therefore
June 1, 1972

propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That this House, for the preservation of the morale of the public service and the rights of the bargaining agents and the employee organizations of the public service, and the supremacy of Parliament to interpret its own statutes, is of the opinion that the Prime Minister should forthwith publicly announce the government's policy relating to this matter and assure the House that the merit principle in the public service will be changed only by a law of this Parliament and not by any philosophy on the part of the Public Service Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has proposed this motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion can be put only with the consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



REFERENCE OF 1971 ANNUAL REPORT OF COMMISSION TO COMMITTEE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could make another try with respect to this matter. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indicated, I gave notice earlier to the government House leader of a motion that I should like to make under Standing Order 43.1 have left out of my motion any debate or argument; all I should like is to see this matter referred. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the annual report of the Public Service Commission of Canada for 1971, tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for a study of the changes in the application of the merit system referred to therein.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is the hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order to facilitate, if possible, what I believe we all want, which is to have the matter studied by a committee. Speaking for myself, I would agree that this motion be put and accepted without debate if the last part were deleted; it seems to me to prejudge slightly the issue that will be examined by the committee. I refer to that part that makes reference to "changes in the application of the merit system referred to therein". If that were removed I could accept the motion. *


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, while I would rather have the entire motion put, if the first part were put it would still include everything contained in the report and that covers the part about which we are concerned. For the sake of getting this matter dealt with today, I would agree to terminate the motion after the words "miscellaneous estimates".
Public Service Merit System


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton rising on a point of order?


Mr. Blair:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is extremely important at this time to be precise, clear and unambiguous in the instructions that we give the committee. I have a vivid recollection of what happened last year when important matters pertaining to the public service were referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee, matters involving, among other things, the question of appointments, promotions and the application of the merit system. My recollection is very vivid indeed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order and he will appreciate that a motion has now been proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It seems to me that essentially the hon. member is debating the terms of the motion. If he is not satisfied with the terms of the motion, I think his recourse is to vote against it, not debate it.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Then may I rephrase my point of order and ask for an assurance from the House that this committee will not in any way be inhibited, as was the committee last year, in reporting on the matters referred to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order.


Mr. Hees:: Who was it who inhibited the committee last time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the Standing Order provides for what the hon. member is suggesting. The motion now proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the following:
That the annual report of the Public Service Commission of Canada for 1971, tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
This motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, under Standing Order 43, to propose a motion on an urgent matter.

June 1, 1972
Pensions for Quebec Old People's Homes
The pensioners of my constituency living in old people's homes are asking the government to take specific steps, in order to cope with the decision of the Quebec government concerning the $15 per month increase of the old age security pension.
From July 1,1972 the cost of board will be raised to $110 per month, which means that they will really only get $9 out of the $15 raise, as mentioned in a letter which has been sent to me by Mr. Philippe Hinse, on behalf of all boarders at the Foyer Sainte-Anne-Marie, in Danville-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should move his motion immediately.


Léonel Beaudoin: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
I request the unanimous consent of the House so that this urgent matter be debated and so that the pensioners receive what the House has voted. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the government take appropriate steps to ensure that the Quebec pensioners actually draw the full amount granted by the government under Bill C-207.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion moved by the hon. member is not in order, because he moves it under the provisions of Standing Order 43, whereas this is actually a motion which should be moved under Standing Order 26. The hon. member requests the unanimous consent of the House to discuss this urgent matter, so that pensioners will actually draw the amount that the House has voted. In other words, he requests the holding of an emergency debate, and such a motion must be moved under the provisions of Standing Order 26.



ORDERS AND DECORATIONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table Orders in Council in both languages respecting protocol for wearing insignia for Canadian orders and Canadian decorations.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had intended at this stage of the proceedings to request permission to move a resolution for the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter raised by the Public Service Commission report, but in view of the agreement to refer this matter to a committee I should like to have permission to withdraw this proposal for the time being.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada are still maintaining a clean, free float of the Canadian dollar as the minister assured us recently had been maintained at least since the commencement of the year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government has intervened in the exchange fund only to maintain an orderly market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has had any consultations with his counterparts in other countries in order to ascertain what their reactions will be to this movement by the government of Canada to intervene from day to day in the exchange fund? Has the hon. gentleman consulted his counterparts and can he assure us that this will be acceptable to them?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the countries represented in OECD understand Canada's position. As a matter of fact, when I was in Paris last week I chatted with the managing director of the International Monetary Fund who also has an awareness of Canada's position and why we are floating our dollar. A special auditing team of the International Monetary Fund, as is customary, visited Ottawa two weeks ago and had interviews with the governor of the Bank of Canada and its senior officers and with senior officials of the Department of Finance, the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and myself, and expressed understanding of Canada's position in this respect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the minister that he did not answer my question. I should like to ask him how far the government of Canada would consider it appropriate to go in ironing out day to day fluctuations of the sort he has in mind? Would the minister indicate to what extent he would consider it appropriate for Canada to increase its holdings of foreign exchange within the doctrine he has announced in the House this afternoon?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in the doctrine in the terms in which I have replied to Leader of the Opposition. I would not want to speculate by way of an answer to him, except to say that the problems encountered by Canada in respect of the exchange rate are in no way unique. They are shared by other countries in the world as a result of the current weaker position of the U.S. dollar.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, at the time the Minister of Finance held his discussions with the manager of the International Monetary Fund, did he or officials of the Bank of Canada disclose to the manager that Canada intended to conduct these, shall we say, even-
June 1, 1972

ing-out operations, and what was the reaction of the manager of the International Monetary Fund to such information?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the manager of the International Monetary Fund and, indeed, all our trading partners in the world, are aware of the figures as they are published monthly, and no comment was made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that Canada's position was understood and approved. My question is, was the information disclosed to the manager of the International Monetary Fund that Canada would conduct these, shall we say, day to day evening-out operations to maintain a relatively grey float rather than a clean float?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the figures are published every month and we put those figures directly into the hands of the International Monetary Fund.



LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION

['Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has commented on this and answered questions on other occasions. If there is cause, I am sure he will be prepared to answer again a like question.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is he studying the high Canadian interest rates which undoubtedly are having the effect of attracting short-term foreign capital and thereby pushing up the price of the Canadian dollar? Is he looking into this question, and does the government propose to take any action in respect of the high interest rates in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if one were to look at the complete picture for an explanation of the current rate of the Canadian dollar as against other currencies, particularly the United States dollar, one would have to examine some of the underlying bases for the current weakness of the U.S. dollar, and also examine some of the counter factors that might be affecting the value of our dollar in the future, including the deficit on current account, both visible and invisible transactions, and the shortening of the capital account in terms of the influx of foreign investment in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for one last supplementary question on this subject and then return to the matter later if necessary. We must try to make better progress today than we made yesterday. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has the floor for a last supplementary question, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canadian interest rates are and have been for some time higher than interest rates in the United States, and therefore attractive to short-term United States capital, is the government doing anything about reducing Canadian interest rates as one means of keeping the Canadian dollar from going above the U.S. dollar?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canadian interest rates are responding in part to a very strong demand for credit against all the chartered banks and other financial institutions, which is a reflection of the active expansion in our economy compared with some of the economies in Europe and the United States.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would he consider making a statement in the House on motions expressing the horror of Canadians at the atrocious, carefully planned, indiscriminate acts of terror and massacre against innocent civilians which took place at the Tel Aviv airport on Tuesday last?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is presently attending meetings of NATO in Europe. I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister also consider looking into the question of tighter regulations in respect of more effective checking on the use of aeroplanes for the carriage of concealed arms? Perhaps that should be directed to the Minister of Transport but I direct it now to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has commented on this and answered questions on other occasions. If there is cause, I am sure he will be prepared to answer again a like question.



PENSIONS


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does he intend to make a statement on motions following the action taken recently by the Quebec government with regard to its intention of using part of the increase in the old age pensions which was granted through passage of Bill C-207?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: No, it was not my intention, Mr. Speaker.

June 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES-PLANS TO CONTROL INCREASE

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As housing mortgage rates have increased by half of one per cent since early March, give every indication of continuing to go up, and are considerably slowing down housing starts, has the government any plans to stop or slow down this dangerous rise or does it intend to let these rates continue to rise unchecked?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a good part of the question is hypothetical, but the government has introduced measures to increase the availability of funds in the residential mortgage market.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I still say to the Minister of Finance that what he is doing is obviously ineffective. Is he planning to take another look at this matter and take effective steps?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair indicated yesterday it would recognize certain hon. members early in the question period. The hon. member for Simcoe North.



SUGGESTED USE OF HEALTH RESOURCES FUND ALLOTMENTS AS INCENTIVE TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEDICAL STUDENTS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing shortage of general practitioners in Canada, is the minister considering taking steps to ensure that the funds allotted by the health resources fund to medical schools are used more specifically as incentives to increase the number of medical students and are not merely used at the discretion of the board?
Hon. }ohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the funds are not allocated at the discretion of the board. The act is quite specific about the manner in which these funds are allocated. However, I would say the idea behind the hon. member's question is certainly worthy of consideration.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Have negotiations broken down between the parks branch and the residents of Kouchibouguac where (Mr. Munro.]
a new national park is to be located? Is the government building there still being occupied, and what are the plans of the government to resolve the dispute.


John Napier Turner: I will take the question as notice on behalf of my seatmate, Mr. Speaker.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BLIND STUDENTS FROM HALIFAX

["Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from the RCMP Commissioner stating that in fact that person was in Ottawa during President Nixon's visit, that the subject arrived on April 13 and left on April 15, that he was registered at the Lord Elgin Hotel, that he was seen in front of the United States Embassy and also in front of the Peace Tower."]
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, before putting my question perhaps I might be permitted to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of over 40 blind students from Atlantic Canada from the Halifax School for the Blind. I do this because earlier today they used an expression I will always remember when they were in the chamber. They said they were looking in on us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Does he propose to make public any information on the reported stalking of President Nixon during his Ottawa visit?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from the RCMP Commissioner stating that in fact that person was in Ottawa during President Nixon's visit, that the subject arrived on April 13 and left on April 15, that he was registered at the Lord Elgin Hotel, that he was seen in front of the United States Embassy and also in front of the Peace Tower.



FINANCE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I return to questions which were asked of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the legislation announced with regard to some kind of a flow of mortgage money for housing does not necessarily guarantee a lowering of the mortgage rate, and in view of the fact that everybody expects mortgage rates to go up, would the minister be good enough to tell us whether the government is at all concerned about the increasing cost to home owners and
June 1, 1972

home renters and whether or not he will deal with the matter in some way?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government's concern was reflected in the legislation just introduced to which the hon. member referred.


David Lewis: I think the Minister of Finance ought to know better than to suggest that the legislation deals with the matter. May I ask the minister responsible for housing whether it is his intention to make certain, even though conventional mortgages in the private market may go up, that the mortgage rate under the National Housing Act through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be kept at least at its present high level and will not be permitted to go up?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate under the National Housing Act will be set in accordance with the law passed by Parliament.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, in view of the fact that his answer gives no assurance to anyone in the House or any home buyer or renter in the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that that is debate. He has sought and been granted the floor for a supplementary, not for debate.


David Lewis: Will the minister make certain that the law of Parliament will be so applied that the present high level of the mortgage interest rate under the National Housing Act will not go up further?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.



PENSIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has he been in touch with the Quebec government regarding the increase in the old age security pension of $15 a month? Recently, I told the minister that Quebec was getting ready to tamper with that increase, and the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I would like the minister to be well aware of the facts.
Has the minister been in touch with the Quebec authorities and is he well aware that this province is getting ready to use these amounts paid by the federal government?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must ask a question and not make allegations. In any case, I would say that the question has now been asked and the minister could try to reply to it.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Affairs in Quebec has made no representations to me directly concerning old age pensions. I have read in the press certain expressions alleged to have been made by him, and that is all.



OLD AGE SECURITY-INQUIRY RESPECTING PAYMENT OF INCREASE TO PENSIONERS OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Will these additional amounts paid in Quebec as well as everywhere else, be sent directly to the pensioners or to the provincial governments?


John Carr Munro: The amount is paid directly to the beneficiary.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Postmaster General but in his absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary or to an acting minister. Since postal services in the rural areas of Manitoba leave much to be desired in terms of efficiency, I should like to know whether any action has been taken on a letter I sent the department on May 5 in which I urged the government to look into rural postal services. If the government has done so, what steps is it prepared to take in order to speed up postal services to rural points in Manitoba?


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question may I say I will look into the matter. I have not been informed of the letter being received but I will check into it and report to the hon. member.


Jack Burnett Murta: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since it appears, at least to a great many people, that any efficiency that has been gained in city postal service has been gained at the expense of the rural areas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot make a statement; he can ask a question. All hon. members, I suggest, should look at the precedents and citations on the matter of questions. There are many things that cannot be

June 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
included in questions. One of them is allegations or statements of alleged fact. The hon. member should ask a supplementary question.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since it takes between six and eight days for letters to travel 40 or 50 miles, would the minister instruct his departmental officials in Winnipeg to look into this very important matter?	'


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question as asked is not in order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact the Minister of Veterans Affairs has undertaken to consider an upward revision of the basic rate of disability pensions, would the minister undertake to refer this study to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs forthwith with instructions to make recommendations to the House at the earliest possible moment?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to bring this question to the attention of the minister who will reply in due course.



USE TO BE MADE BY WHEAT BOARD OF HOPPER CARS TO BE PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT- POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASE OF OTHER TYPES OF FREIGHT CARS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the government's announcement that is going to purchase 2,000 hopper cars, is it the intention of the Wheat Board to use those cars mostly on unit trains from inland terminals or will they be used to carry grain from individual shipping points?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there will be no limitation upon the use which the Board, in consultation with the railroads may choose to make of these cars. I would expect them to be used more in the movement from individual shipping points than from inland terminals, but I do not exclude either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my next question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact there is a chronic shortage of railroad equipment not only to haul grain but other commodities, and in light of the government's announcement of its intention to purchase 2,000 hopper cars, is it considering the purchase of refrig-

erator cars for potato movement in the Maritimes and livestock cars for the movement of livestock in western Canada in view of the inability of the railways to meet their responsibilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Without conceding the premise of the question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister able to confirm the statement made by Mr. McCain, chairman of the board of McCain Foods Limited, Florenceville, Carle-ton County, New Brunswick, as published in the Hartland Observer in its issue of May 25?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the question. Unfortunately I could not find a copy of the newspaper. If I could have a copy of it maybe I could comment on it.


Hugh John Flemming: Will the minister assure the House that he will make a statement if I send him a copy of the article in question?



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As it would now appear that the Thorson case, the case launched by a former judge of the Exchequer Court, is going to get a hearing in reference to the constitutionality of the Official Languages Act, is the government of Canada considering its position and will counsel be appointed on the constitutional question so that the government's position will be put forward at that hearing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at the question of whether any further move on our part is required. I should think not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since the Minister of Justice said he plans to take a look at it, will he then make a further report to the House in reference thereto?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
June 1, 1972



NATIONAL HOLIDAYS


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognition of this great national party. I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will there be special celebrations in Ottawa on July 1 to celebrate our national holiday, sometimes known as Canada Day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the details of such celebrations, but I know that plans are well in hand to mark this day as befits such an important Canadian occasion.



ST. JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY-REQUEST THAT HOUSE NOT SIT ON MONDAY, JUNE 26

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since St. Jean-Baptiste Day falls on a Saturday this year, will the House of Commons take a holiday to celebrate that day as it does Canada Day?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a supplementary regarding another celebration. In view of the 100th anniversary of the RCMP can he say whether or not an invitation has been issued to the Queen or to any other member of the Royal Family to participate in these celebrations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a supplementary and the Prime Minister, of course, will have an opportunity to reply, but I take exception to hon. members asking supplementaries which I believe they themselves suspect are not true supplementaries. We have to try to recognize members in some order. One question could always be linked with another, and we could go through 35 supplementaries during a question period. That is not a proper way to proceed, but in this case the question has been asked and as it is important the Prime Minister may reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General held a press conference to indicate the arrangements that would be made to celebrate appropriately the 100th anniversary of the RCMP. I might add that as head of the government I frequently receive requests from provincial governments, municipal govern-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ments and other organizations to have the Queen present in Canada. Out of respect for her health the government cannot always accede to these demands, but each one is taken into consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government doing anything with respect to overseas allowances-Mr. Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary has now gone, but I will ask my question anyway. Is the government doing anything with respect to Canadian overseas allowances for Canadian forces personnel in view of the difficulties facing many forces personnel, particularly in Germany with respect to the exchange rate between the Deutschmark and the Canadian dollar?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of National Defence who should be here tomorrow.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Due to the fact that the longshoremen's strike has stopped every activity in Quebec harbours for several weeks now, could the minister inform us of the progress of the negotiations being carried out at present and when we can expect the end of this dispute since it is hurting trade as a whole in Quebec.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there are no additional facts that I can give the House at this time.



QUEBEC LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-TELEGRAM FROM QUEBEC TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Labour.
Is he aware of a telegram sent to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada yesterday or this morning by the Quebec Association of Teamsters, expressing concern over the situation which may jeopardize the 1,000 jobs of those involved with the trucking industry? If so, what reply does the hon. Prime Minister intend to give the

June 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
association, or what action does he intend to take to prevent such an eventuality?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet personally seen that telegram. I could reiterate that there is a procedure available to both parties, jointly or singly, to have this dispute between them settled. That procedure is laid out in the Labour Code and is provided for in the collective agreement which was signed six or eight weeks ago.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POLICY RESPECTING PREVENTIVE MEDIATION-SUGGESTED INTERVENTION BY MINISTER

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that the situation is reaching chronic proportions, in view of the fact that the public interest is now being adversely affected, and in view of the fact that the minister's predecessor started preventive mediation, is this still the present minister's policy, and can he assure the House that in view of the catastrophic disturbance now going on he will attend on the parties personally and use his personal influence in order to get these people back to the bargaining table?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure hon. members that it is our intention to continue and to reinforce and expand preventive mediation. I might point out that it was that very process which brought this model agreement into being which is now in such jeopardy. I want to reiterate that the procedure is there to be used, and that the two parties should make use of it. Mediation at this point simply takes them off the hook for failing to use the procedures they both agreed to use.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that the minister does not believe that the public interest is being adversely affected yet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot make that kind of statement. He was recognized again for the purpose of asking a supplementary question, but it seems to me that the preliminary statement is debate. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not procedurally correct. He can ask a supplementary question, of course.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in receipt of a telegram from the employers dated around May 15 seeking arbitration and also seeking permission to prosecute under the law for violation of the terms of the agreement? If so, what has he done about it?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a telegram but to the best of my memory it did not seek arbitration. Arbitration can be sought without asking the minister to provide it. The procedures are already there and both parties can agree to it. Arbitrators are designated in

the agreement, they are available and they ought to be used. With respect to the second question on consent to prosecute, we have looked into that and declined because procedures are available other than prosecution which would not do the job.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-TELEGRAM FROM QUEBEC TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
For further clarification, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he did in fact receive a telegram from the Quebec Association of Teamsters this morning or yesterday, and whether he has communicated the contents to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a telegram, signed by ... I do not have the text in hand but I remember receiving a telegram and in the normal course of events the text will be forwarded to the minister, if this has not already been done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to ask a last supplementary question for very soon we shall be running short of time, unless we let other hon. members ask their questions.


Georges-J. Valade: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a question-


Martin Patrick O'Connell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think that the minister is rising on a point of order. I shall recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie as soon as the minister has explained why he is rising on a point of order.

The hon. minister rises on a point of order.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I have found that telegram and I will give it the urgent consideration to which it is entitled.


An hon. Member:: Where was it?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer, could he not be more consistent with himself and tell us what will be the contents and nature of the answer he intends to give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question put in these terms is not acceptable.
June 1, 1972



POTENTIAL DANGER IN FRASER RIVER VALLEY-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the attention of the Minister of the Environment regarding press reports which appeared today on the rising flood potential in several British Columbia river areas. I have particular reference to the situation in the Fraser River Valley. Can the minister say what preventive steps are being taken at senior government level? I understand the river gauge at Mission rose by one foot in the past 24 hours.


Hon. lack Davis (Minister oi the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the situation is that while water levels are indeed high, they are not exceptionally high for this time of year. There is also a cooling trend which could moderate the flood threat. The hon. member asks what levels of government are in close contact. Our water management service is in hourly contact with the provincial department of water, lands and resources.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand. In view of the fact that the minister made a commitment in the House on May 5 that the whole question of basic rates of pension would be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and in view of the fact that the Dominion Command convention passed a priority resolution to this effect, would he remind the minister to take action to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs before the end of this session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that is a representation, a suggestion or a reminder. I would think the hon. member's representation must be deemed to have been noted. The hon. member for Meadow Lake.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister aware of the intention of the PFRA division to purchase salt from an American company in North Dakota, U.S.A. and, if so, is he going to take any action to rectify this situation so that Canadian salt producers can receive such valuable contracts?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and make a report to the hon. gentleman.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: In light of this recent situation, is the government going to review its purchasing policies generally and make a statement to the House on where potential Canadian suppliers stand?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I will answer this question after I have made an inquiry about the first one.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the low lobster catches in district No. 4 and the heavy investment of fishermen in that area in boats and equipment, has the minister given any consideration to requests forwarded to him by the fishermen to extend the season which closed on May 31 to a later date in the month of June?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly giving serious consideration to that submission, but I cannot personally guarantee at this moment that the season will be extended.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH DENMARK

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. On May 26 the minister indicated his willingness to make available to members the correspondence with Denmark on the Atlantic salmon issue. Can he now tell the House specifically when he will table that correspondence?


John (Jack) Davis: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I thought it had already been made available to the hon. member, but I will check it out.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of his statement today and the reference to a committee of the annual report of the Public Service Commission with its comments on the merit principle in employment, would the Prime Minister agree to table the correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission that deals with this question?

June 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the correspondence to which the hon. member refers. Perhaps he could let me know what he is referring to and I could consider the question.


David Orlikow: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will discuss the matter with his colleague? That would be much easier.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could advise how the Canadian delegation to the World Health Organization voted on the application for admission from the German Democratic Republic, and could he indicate the reason or reasons for the stand taken?


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. As a breath sample container for independent testing of suspected impaired drivers is now on the market, will the government be proclaiming the unproclaimed parts of the breathalyzer law and, if so, when?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the news report to which I am sure the hon. member is referring. There is work going on as a result of the department's interest in a breath container, and several possible containers are being examined. There have been some optimistic forecasts about this equipment being available. It is our intention, as soon as the equipment is available in a way which is practical and workable, to proclaim the section.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Following the statement made yesterday concerning deficiency payments to hog producers, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether a time limit has been set so that producers who have sold their hogs at public auctions may receive this grant?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the receipt of applications by the Stabilization Board, may I say we certainly would like to have them as quickly as possible and in fact encouraged them to be submitted by a date several weeks ago. If he is talking about the processing of the applications after they have been received, we cannot give a set date because we must audit those applications against the receipts by plants and auction markets, and I cannot predict how long that will take.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a supplementary.
Would the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether producers must forward their applications in a specific period of time, because his statement could prompt many producers to apply. So, are they going to be considered late-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question, and there are only a few minutes left before the end of the oral questions period.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we take the position that those applications should be in now, but the more precise answer is no, there has not been an official cut-off date for receipt of applications.



DOMINION DAY


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the government's intention to change Dominion Day to Canada Day. I wonder, for the edification of the people, if the Prime Minister can indicate how many letters he has received pro and con? If he does not have that information, would he make inquiries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously asking for statistical information. The question ought to be placed on the order paper. If the matter is urgent, it can be raised at the time of adjournment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me there is a sense of urgency about this matter in view of a question that was asked this afternoon and the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier. I believe that the Prime Minister could give some indication whether-
June 1, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. The hon. member is questioning the judgment of the Chair. I suggest that the hon. member's question should be placed on the order paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ask the question some other way.



ST. JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY-REQUEST THAT HOUSE NOT SIT ON MONDAY, JUNE 26

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council whether in the timetable of the business of the House, June 26 could not be considered a holiday to celebrate one of the two founding nations of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. McCutcheon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be tomorrow, and how far into the future a look into his crystal ball takes him as to the business for next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is another opposition day. Next week, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday will be opposition days. On Monday, we will resume the adjourned debate on the foreign takeover legislation, to be followed by the Wheat Board Act, the financial mechanisms legislation and the representation commissioner legislation. On Wednesday, we will begin with the election expenses bill and complete the uncompleted business of Monday.


Mr. Fortin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this point of order could perhaps take the form of a question to the President of the Privy Council on the statement he has just made.
Yesterday, agreement seemed to have been reached on the opposition day reserved for the Social Credit, namely next Thursday, but the minister has just said that the scheduled three days of opposition would be Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Am I wrong, and if yes, will someone correct me?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest there be consultations between the hon. member and the parliamentary leader of the government.
Business of the House

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on his own point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to rise on a point of order in a way which may clear matters. There has been agreement among the opposition parties that Tuesday will be allotted to the Progressive Conservatives, Thursday to the Credi-tiste party and Friday to the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I think Your Honour will find that there has been agreement among the four parties of this House to fix certain time limits on the speeches in today's debate. Since there is great interest in this debate and since so many speakers want to take part, we propose, on behalf of the four parties in this House, that the lead-off spokesman of each party shall be governed by Standing Order 58(13). This will provide 30 minutes for the mover and 30 minutes for the government spokesman, and 20 minutes each for the other two principal spokesmen. We propose, however, that all other speeches be limited to 15 minutes and that no one is to be granted overtime.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.

Does the House agree on the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards, or with the fact that supermarket profits have increased simultaneously at an unprecedented rate, and because these matters are of nation-wide concern they should be referred immediately to a Special Committee of this House for investigation and report by June 26, 1972.
She said: Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago Abraham Lincoln, the great liberator declared that the legitimate object of

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do for themselves. At that time, the community's need was for roads, railways, the links of trade and commerce and for the productive machinery of the country. And, the government provided these things, or saw that they were provided by offering incentives and assistance to those who could provide them. Today, our Canadian community of people needs new forms of help, and it is about one of these that our motion today is concerned.
During the second World War, the leaders of the western world promulgated the Atlantic Charter. There was much interest in that charter. It refers to the four freedoms, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from hunger and the freedom from fear. At that time we were somewhat complacent about freedom from hunger and freedom from fear. Particularly, freedom from hunger was far from our minds. We thought it concerned only those countries on the other side of the world which were undeveloped and not experiencing the benefits of the most abundant economy imaginable. Expressing this positively, let me say that the right to enough good food, which is necessary for proper health and energy, is a right which thousands and thousands of our Canadian people are still denied. So, they are denied the third freedom, the freedom from hunger, in the sense that they cannot afford a diet which will bring about proper health and energy. This freedom has still to be won for thousands of people in our country.
The government has now embarked on a survey of nutrition across Canada. That is an excellent idea. May I point out that the survey will not be completed until near the end of this year and will not be available until some time in 1973. I predict that the findings of this survey, when published, will be very similar to the findings of a similar, American survey. In this connection may I quote from the White House conference on Food, Nutrition and Health, Summary Report of January, 1971:
One of the basic causes of malnutrition and hunger in the United States is poverty. Millions of Americans of all ages and in all parts of the nation simply do not have enough money to buy what they need in order to live healthy, productive lives.
If you doubt whether that also applies to Canada on the scale which Canada bears to the United States, let me remind you of the 1970 submission to the Senate Committee on Poverty by the Quebec Corporation of Professional Workers which found infant mortality in the poverty stricken areas of Montreal 35.1 per 1,000, twice that of other areas. It found one third of grade one poor children undernourished and one half suffering from emotional problems. It found three times as many of them with intelligence quotients under 80. Low intelligence, as explained in another 1970 report, can be accounted for by undernourishment. A child who is undernourished in his first months of life or whose mother is undernourished during pregnancy has less than the normal rate of cell division and ends up with fewer brain cells.
As the Castonguay report of 1970 put it, and I quote:
A great lack of food during the first 18 months of a child's life prevents a normal cerebral development.

That, Mr. Speaker, means for life. Montreal is the largest city in Canada. The second largest is Toronto. A study in 1969-70 by Dr. Ursula Anderson of the Hospital for Sick Children disclosed that children in the poorest areas of Toronto were three times more likely to die in infancy than those in the richest areas. Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada. Last August the Vancouver Sun ran a series of articles on the welfare system in British Columbia. A reporter asked one mother and I quote:
How do you make do with four growing boys and a welfare cheque of $257 a month?
She replied:
Towards the end of the month we cut down on food. We eat mostly soup and potatoes-we eat a lot of potatoes. We eat meat- oh, sometimes once a week. It is hard to make the food budget stretch-especially when you have boys.
Her boys were aged 10, 13, 15 and 16. What that kind of diet will do to their health in future years does not bear thinking about. When we consider that the farmers of this country are today getting less than half of the consumer dollar for food, we begin to realize that there are forces at work, forces that would not have been at work in the old days when farmers grew the food and sold it directly to the stores. Nor are people in dire poverty and on social assistance the only ones to suffer now. Large sections of elderly people on low fixed incomes and handicapped people like the blind, thousands of ordinary families from the Atlantic to the Pacific, simply cannot stretch their budgets to provide enough good food for health and energy. The job is getting harder and harder.
The government recognized that budgets were not enough for a decent life when, in their own budget this year, they provided some stretching for the old age pensioners and full time students. They then went on with a separate measure to assist in some way the veterans of this country. They knew perfectly well that many people's budgets will not stretch to provide a proper standard of living in this country. They knew that when they gave those tiny bits of relief in the tax bill last fall. But they are not prepared to come to grips with what is really going on in the undermining of the food and living standards of the Canadian homes across this country.
Economists generally agree that prices should not rise more than 2 per cent a year in order to have relatively stable prices. However, from February, 1971 to February, 1972, they rose almost two and one half times that desirable figure. Food prices rose by nearly 7.5 per cent from April, 1971 to April 1972, more than twice as much as the cost of living generally. Why is that important? It is important because food is the rock-bottom element in the living standard for people.
When we realize that people do not have enough to buy the proper food they need for health, nourishment and proper nutrition, we see that there is something very rotten, not in the state of Denmark in this instance, but in Canada. This steady and stealthy advance in food costs represents a direct assault on the living standards of the Canadian people. We are not doing a thing about it in this House. I am not crying about the rising cost of caviar, pickled snails or truffles. People who like these things are well able to take care of them in their budgets. People who ordinarily buy these things have the money to cover
June 1, 1972_____________COMMONS DEBATES__________ 2761
their rising costs. What I am assailing is the attitude of comfortable, well-fed people in authority who simply do not realize what so many Canadian families are going through and could not care less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about the cake?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will get to the cake in a minute. On how many days in this House has the government introduced discussions on the Canadian family, the conditions of living for future Canadian citizens and how Canadians are getting on with regard to food, clothing, rent and other such things? In this day and age, such problems should be central to our work in the House of Commons. The wellbeing of the Canadian family ought to be the central core of the planning of this government, if indeed it is prepared to do any planning at all. We remember the story of Marie Antoinette. When she was told the people had no bread to eat, she said "Let them eat cake." People in authority now are saying, when told about people who cannot afford steak, "Let them eat hamburger." But what happens when the price of hamburger goes up as well as all the other precious proteins which are essential for body building? When food prices rise, as they have in recent months, they rise most rapidly and to the greatest heights for items such as meat, fish and fresh produce, that is, fruit and vegetables. These are the proteins, minerals, vitamins and body building foods. If they are neglected in early childhood, and during the critical periods of life, such as illness, people can never really fully recover from what has happened to them.
To quote Canada's official food rules at this point is to rub salt in wounds that are deep and sore. The food rules of Canada are in this very colourful chart which has been widely published. This is a good thing. These foods are good to eat. They should be eaten for the three meals every day for good health. It states the quantity of milk children should have each day, as well as adolescents, adults and expectant and nursing mothers. However, as one authority in Quebec said a few years ago, what is the use of telling an expectant mother how much milk she needs to provide calcium in her bones and teeth while carrying the child when she does not have enough milk for the children already here? Such a mother will give that milk to the children who are already living and take her chances on the future.
Two servings of fruit or juice make a satisfactory source of vitamin C, ascorbic acid, such as oranges, apples, vitaminized apple or tomato juice. I have seen mothers look at fresh produce, wonder which is the cheapest and how they can make a little orange juice stretch, sometimes reconstituted orange juice or orange drink, hoping there are some vitamins in it. They cannot afford the real thing. These people have to rely on the staff of life, bread, with some vegetables and cereals. When you see people in the poorer districts of town walking around grossly overweight, you know why. In most cases it is a combination of not enough of the protein foods and proper foods. They have to depend on the fattening foods. On top of that is the frustration and misery that sends them nibbling on whatever they can get to try and still the pangs of frustration as well as the 25316-51
Increasing Food Prices
pangs of appetite. Telling the Canadian people they should have meat and fish and fresh produce when they cannot possibly afford them is simply adding insult to injury and rubbing salt into wounds that are already very deep and very sore.
What hurts and angers people at this point is to learn that at this time, when the protective foods have been going up in price so steadily and so stealthily, at this very time the profits of the chain stores, the supermarkets, have been going up. When they learn and read in the papers, for it is no secret, that in the first quarter of this year the profits of Safeway went up by 40 per cent, those of George Weston by nearly 50 per cent, and those of Dominion Stores by 300 per cent-yes, 300 per cent, Mr. Speaker-they feel they are being betrayed not only by the supermarkets and the chains but by this government which has allowed that to happen without lifting a finger to help them.


An hon. Member:: The Department of Consumer Affairs.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The minister is evidently not sufficiently interested to be here. Under this government it has become fashionable to draw red herrings across the trail when such delicate matters as supermarket profits are mentioned. I suggest to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) that this is one species of fish we need have no worry about conserving. The supply of red herrings is abundant and they are being used with great frequency. Someone says the supply of suckers, too. Yes, but the suckers are beginning to learn.
For example, the other evening when I was urging an investigation into supermarket prices, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) drew quite a few of these red herrings across the trail for my benefit. Very delicately and courteously he drew them across, and I noticed these red herrings as they passed by slowly. First, he told me that there had been no violations of the Combines Investigation Act on the part of the supermarkets. He added that if I had proof of any such violations, or a deep suspicion that any were taking place, the Combines people would be pleased to hear about them. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the use of a Combines Investigation Act if it is not to investigate? Instead, it would seem, the investigation is being left to others, though Heaven knows what those administering the Act would do with such evidence once it was to hand. I believe it is the duty of those administering the Combines Investigation Act to investigate situations of the kind my hon. friends and I have been bringing to their notice. Administration of the Combines Investigation Act is the responsibility of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and if the department is not prepared to protect the living standards of consumers, what is the use of it? What is the use of concentrating on such things as packaging, labelling, and minor annoyances though I will, of course, give the minister credit for what he is doing in this direction. What is worrying consumers is that they are being gouged more and more deeply for the food they have to buy. This is what the department and those responsible for the

and basic, the industry works hard at keeping this aspect of its merchandising from the public.
The time has come when this aspect of chain store control should no longer be kept from the public. This government should make up its mind once and for all on which side of the fence it is. Is it on the side of the 95 corporations that have so far been trying to keep it in office? Or is it going henceforth to be on the side of the people who for five years have been pleading with the government to launch an investigation into the operations of food chains, with the hold that they have on food prices and on the lives of people across this country?
This is one of the major problems with which the government should be grappling, and it must launch such an investigation if it is to show any concern at all for families, elderly people, people who are sick as well as ordinary people on low and moderate incomes in this country. It is for this reason that we move this want of confidence motion today, at a time when it is still not too late for the government to act. Let me tell the government that if it is at all interested in coming back in any strength after the forthcoming election, and before it has managed to alienate the consumer who is still so completely influenced by chain store brainwashing, it had better pay heed to what we request in the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards, or with the fact that supermarket profits have increased simultaneously at an unprecedented rate, and because these matters are of nation-wide concern they should be referred immediately to a Special Committee of this House for investigation and report by June 26,1972.
My colleagues will follow up with other aspects of this control over our lives on the part of the supermarkets, but in closing may I make one final plea on behalf of those people of this country who are so defenceless, those who feel they are up against a faceless government that does not care and will do nothing to help them in their great need. I urge the government, if for no reason other than to show that they do have some humanity, to do what we request and send this question to a special committee that will hear witnesses, so that there can be full disclosure of the facts before Parliament adjourns.


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. john's East):: Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty supporting the motion before the House, though we do have some difficulty trying to reconcile the method employed by the hon. member to give effect to her motion. I shall have more to say about that later on.
I should like to express my concern at the outset at the absence from the House of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) and his Parliamentary Secretary. The minister was here during the course of the oral question period, and I assume that it must be business of a most urgent nature to cause him to be absent from the House during this debate, the subject matter of which goes right to the root of the minister's portfolio.


Mr. Dinsdale:: There is nothing more urgent that this.


James Aloysius McGrath: As my hon. friend has just said, we can imagine nothing more urgent that the subject matter of the motion that is now before the House. Having corn-25316- 51J
Increasing Food Prices
mented that the minister is absent and that he probably has an excuse for his absence, one wonders where his parliamentary secretary is since he, too, is absent today. Surely, his function should be to represent the minister in a debate of this nature if, in the course of pursuing his responsibilities, the minister himself must be absent.
I notice too that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, now Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), is also absent. I find this difficult to understand since I know of his great and continuing interest in the consumer and the subject before the House today. I understand that the Minister of State who speaks on financial matters will be replying on behalf of the government, so we shall listen to what he has to say with a great deal of interest. I do hope that the absence today from the debate of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has nothing to do with his new responsibility as co-chairman of the national Liberal campaign. One wonders just exactly where the interest of the present minister lies, whether in the cause of the consumer and the responsibilities that he has as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or whether in attending to the national campaign responsibilities of the Liberal party. We hope that the minister will honour us with his presence today and, perhaps will condescend to make a contribution to the debate on a matter that is of great concern to Canadians in all parts of the country.
The hon. member who introduced the motion referred to the report of the joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which was set up in 1966 and made its report in 1967. I am sure other hon. members will have more to say about that, but I think it is important to note that it was as a consequence of the report of that joint committee the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came into existence and some of the consumer legislation we now have on the books materialized. Reference has also been made to the report of the Batten royal commission on the cost of food in the three prairie provinces. This royal commission also took a considerable amount of time to arrive at its conclusions and recommendations. I think it took almost two years to conduct its study of food prices in the three prairie provinces.
It is in this regard that we have some difficulty with the motion now before the House, the spirit of which we are in total agreement. It calls for setting up a special committee of the House of Commons to examine into and report by June 26 upon the subject of increased food prices and increases in supermarket profits. Assuming this motion were to be accepted and the government agreed to set up such a committee of the House, the provisions of Standing Order 42(1) would have to come into effect, which would mean another delay of 48 hours or two full sitting days. Even at that, the motion would be a debatable one, so presumably there would be a full day's debate before setting up the committee. This would not leave much more than two weeks for the committee to examine into the whole subject of increases in the cost of food and an alleged corresponding increase in supermarket profits.
If this motion were accepted by the House, during those two weeks this special committee would have to hear witnesses from all across the country, because this prob-

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
lem is national in scope. Consequently, we find it a little difficult to understand how the hon. member hopes to achieve all this in the space of two weeks. We feel the matter is an important one, and that a case has been made for such a study. The hon. member has made a case quite well, and recent statistics underline the need for such a study. However, could this House, through the vehicle of a special committee, do justice to that kind of study in just two short weeks?
The motion before the House is two-pronged. On the one hand, we have the subject of increased food prices and, on the other, we have the subject of substantial increases in supermarket profits. I suggest that both subjects could be dealt with separately. Indeed, perhaps a case could be made for dealing with them in that way. There is no doubt about the fact that increases in supermarket profits represent a contributing factor, probably a substantial one, to the increase in the cost of food in Canada, but this is only one factor, although perhaps a substantial one. I believe there are other factors equally important which contribute to the increase in the cost of food in Canada, which is taking such a toll and exerting such hardship on Canadians, especially those in the lower and middle income groups.
One of these factors which contributes substantially to the cost of food is the over-all cost of distribution. Connected very closely with the cost of distribution is the cost of transportation. When we think in terms of transportation we immediately begin to think in terms of Canadians who live furthest from the major producing and manufacturing centres of Canada. In other words, we think of the people who live in the extremities of our country, and the people who come under programs administered by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), whom I am very pleased to see in the House today for this debate.
I submit this is one of the major factors, and to substantiate that it might be worthwhile putting on the record the statistics referred to in a brief way by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). Taking the comparison of food retail prices, using Winnipeg prices in May, 1971 as the comparison point, we find that as of May, 1972, St. John's, Newfoundland had an increase of 9 per cent; Charlottetown, an increase of 9 per cent; Halifax, Nova Scotia, an increase of 3 per cent and Saint John, New Brunswick, an increase of 5 per cent. We are now getting closer to the major producing and manufacturing points in the country and find that the rate goes down accordingly. In Montreal, there was a decrease of 1 per cent; in Ottawa, an increase of 1 per cent, in Toronto a decrease of 1 per cent; in Regina, Saskatchewan, an increase of 4 per cent and in Edmonton, Alberta, an increase of 3 per cent. As we go further west, the increases rise. When we get to the city of Vancouver we find an increase of 7 per cent. Here again we are using figures based on Winnipeg, Manitoba prices for May, 1971.
I maintain there is a direct relationship between increasing costs of transportation and distribution and the increase in the cost of food in Canada. For example, in my own part of the country, the Atlantic provinces, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in one of its recent reports stated:

For the eighth time in the past twenty-nine months, rail rates will increase on February 14, 1972. The increase announced by the Railway Association of Canada on behalf of the Canadian railways, will range from 4 to 8 per cent.
The latest increase is another in what has become a pattern of an increase every six months since the lifting of the rail freight rate freeze on September 23, 1969. This succession of rail rate increases now stands at a cumulative total of 35 to 68 per cent (depending upon the rate level) for non-competitive rail rates and 19 to 40 per cent on competitive rail rates.
According to these statistics, I have placed before the House the Atlantic provinces experienced the sharpest increase in the cost of food for the year beginning May, 1971, using Winnipeg figures as the base. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to continue quoting from this Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission report as follows:
While it may be argued that the railway rates were frozen for almost ten years prior to September 23, 1969, the accumulative increase enacted during the years immediately followed the lifting of the wartime prices and income freeze. In fact, for the lower rated traffic, the increase since September 23, 1969, exceeds the increase in any similar period since World War II.
Something must be done to curb this increase in freight rates. Not only is it contributing substantially to the cost of food prices in the Atlantic provinces and in western provinces, it is also substantially undermining the regional economic expansion policies for this government, because unfortunately these regional economic expansion policies are not programmed to government transportation policies. In regions such as the Atlantic provinces we find they are running at cross-purposes, one cancelling out the other. You cannot have a regional development policy without having a complementary national transportation policy. As I have just indicated, we do not have that by reason of the increases in freight rates in the Atlantic provinces since the freeze was lifted on September 23, 1969.
There is another factor which comes into play which I believe is very important. I refer to the direct influence the cost of living, particularly in increases in food prices, has on low-income families. The fact is that low-income families live in the areas on the periphery of Canada, such as the Atlantic provinces, eastern Quebec, northern Ontario, the western provinces and the northwest. It is really interesting to note that the latest figures I have indicate that the low-income families, the families with the largest number of children which are to be found in places like the Atlantic provinces and Quebec and whose earnings are in the $3,000 bracket, spend 27.9 per cent of the total family income on food. The percentage goes down as the income goes up. At the level between $9,000 and $10,000, the middle level, they spend 18.8 per cent of their income on food. Those at the level of $15,000 and over, the highest income bracket, spent only 13.4 per cent of their income on food.
Again there is a relationship between families living in the regions of Canada directly influenced by government transportation policies as a consequence of the increased freight rates. The people in these areas of the country have the largest families. This is the reason I find difficulty in agreeing with the methodology, if you like, adopted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway while at the
June 1, 1972

same time making very clear that we agree with and intend to support the motion put forward by the hon. lady. We feel, however, there is another vehicle which can be used quite effectively. I will grant, Mr. Speaker, that this has not been successful in the past. Its record, as a matter of fact, has not been very impressive and it is about to die a natural death. I refer to the Prices and Incomes Commission.
This commission was established in June 1969. Its terms of reference were to inquire into, and report upon the causes, processes and consequences of inflation and to inform those making current price and income decisions, the general public and the government, on how price stability may best be achieved. Clearly the responsibility lies with this commission which is still in existence, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated in a reply to a question that the Prices and Incomes Commission will go out of existence as of the end of June 1972. That answer may be found at page 1264 of Hansard for the present session. We have seen that the Prices and Incomes Commission, under its terms of reference, is in a position to give us the kind of national study a parliamentary committee would take at least a year or two to give us. A Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate spent a full year travelling across the country and making its recommendations. We have the report of the Batten royal commission in respect of three prairie provinces which is the result of almost two years of deliberations, hearing witnesses and making recommendations. We believe this is an urgent problem. Because of the urgency of the problem we believe the Prices and Incomes Commission could deal with the matter very quickly under its present structure and organizational set-up.
Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after 'standards' and substituting the following:
"and because the Prices and Incomes Commission has failed to inform the general public on how food price stability may best be achieved, should forthwith amend the terms of reference of the commission to require it to investigate and report thereon before September 1,1972."
The motion as amended would then read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards, and because the Prices and Incomes Commission has failed to inform the general public on how food price stability may best be achieved, should forthwith amend the terms of reference of the commission to require it to investigate and report thereon before September 1,1972.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has proposed an amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis). I have some reservations concerning the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I will hear hon. members if they wish to assist the Chair. I would invite them to direct their remarks particularly to what seems to me to be the situation. If the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East were accepted, it would seem we would in effect have a new question in that we would then be dealing with a reference to the Prices and Incomes Commission whereas the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway refers to a reference to
Increasing Food Prices
a special committee of the House. This concerns me from a procedural standpoint. I think it is a new question. However, I would like to hear hon. members if they wish to assist the Chair.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this matter. The point is that the amendment is relevant to the main motion and is actually on the same subject matter. It is merely the latter portion of the amendment which would provide a different remedy. I think this is perfectly consistent. The main part of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway remains in the motion. The amendment merely alters the general procedure in dealing with the problem. I believe it is certainly relevant to the original motion. I do not think I need refer to Beauchesne in too much detail. Citation 203, however, states:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
I think that is a clear and straightforward answer to the question which arises in Your Honour's mind. It is relevant. It is on the same subject matter as the original motion. That leaves it fairly broad. I believe that if one were restricted narrowly in respect of amendments, one would find difficulty in moving amendments. The hon. member who has just moved the amendment has not changed the subject matter of the original motion. His motion would merely alter the means by which the problem of the steadily rising food prices can be met. I think this is such a minor change in the nature of the motion, that it does not substantially affect it. I really cannot see any difficulty which would arise.
If the amendment were accepted and voted upon, it would merely mean that there would be concurrence in the motion has introduced and in her general statement. However the remedy would be slightly different. Instead of the subject matter being referred to a special committee for investigation, it would be referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. I cannot see any real difficulty here.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me fairly clear that your concern about the amendment is justified. I am a little at a loss to understand why the mover of the amendment-although perhaps I am not at such a loss-left out the reference to the excessive profits of the supermarkets, something which in our view is relevant to the question of food prices. Perhaps the hon. member is not concerned about those profits as they relate to food prices. That is his business, not mine. This amendment entirely changes the thrust of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). What she is seeking is an investigation by a committee of this parliament into the question of both steadily rising food prices and excessive supermarket profits. She is seeking to involve Parliament in the inquiry, and for Parliament to report before we rise for the summer recess, on the basis that no one can be certain we will be back next fall.
Because the matter of the rise in food prices is of such immense importance to the families of Canada, she wants the investigation to take place quickly, and the committee

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
to report back by June 26 in order that some action can be taken, if action is found to be necessary by the committee. Without taking up any more of your time, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was not right in saying that the amendment did not deal with the principle of the motion but merely the means. That is a brief and accurate way of saying the amendment does not do what he was arguing at all. The amendment changes the entire thrust of the motion which is for an inquiry by a committee of this parliament into rising prices and the profits of supermarkets, and not by some agency set up by the government somewhere. The two things are entirely different in principle, and I respectfully suggest that the doubts which you had were fully justified.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as I read the motion it says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices-
That seems to be the main thrust of the motion, the increase in the cost of food. One may blame it on the supermarkets or co-ops which handle food stuffs, or on anybody else, but the real thrust of the motion, as I see it, is to deal with rising food prices. What remedy have we got? The remedy the NDP recommend, and it has some merit, is that the matter be referred to a standing committee of this House. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has suggested that the matter be referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. It is just a case of which remedy to adopt. In other words, Mr. Speaker, let us put it on a legal basis. It is a question of whether to refer a matter to the district court or to the Supreme Court trial division. It is only a matter of remedies. I would therefore ask you to consider the amendment in order. It does not change the substance of the motion at all. It only deals with the remedy, with how to arrive at a solution of the problem which has been placed before the House today by the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the observations of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). With respect, as one says here, I think he has misinterpreted the essence of the motion. The motion is not, as he would suggest, simply intended to deal with the problem of steadily rising food prices, but rather makes the specific suggestion that this problem is directly connected in some way with the simultaneous rise in supermarket profits. In other words, in the judgment of the mover of the motion these are not two separate factors. The mover obviously intended that the subject matters be combined, the matter of rising food prices and the related fact of increased supermarket profits. it would be incorrect to suggest that the motion only accidentally combines these two ideas. The one is inextricably linked with the other.
The second suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is that it does not matter which body looks into the situation, the Prices and Incomes Commission or a special committee of the House of Commons. I suggest that there is a world of difference. For many months, members of the NDP have made it abundantly clear that we hold the operations of the Prices

and Incomes Commission to be of considerably low repute. We would not recommend to the House that that body look into food prices, or indeed into the prices of any other commodity. Therefore the mover of the motion decided that it would be much more appropriate to have a committee composed of the elected representatives of the people of Canada look at this question, and not the Prices and Incomes Commission. That is a fundamental difference which is overlooked by the hon. member for Calgary North.
There is a third area of difference between the original motion and the proposed amendment. The original motion calls for a report to the House, perhaps not a definitive, all inclusive report, but some kind of report, by the end of June. The amendment, completely contrary to that, calls for a report much later in the year. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the amendment should not be accepted.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments, and I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I can only conclude that he was not present in the House or, if he was present, that he was not listening when I made my speech, because I made it very clear that we were concerned with the rising profits of supermarkets. However, I said that was only a factor. It may be a substantial factor, but there are other factors as well which the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) excludes. We were merely trying to make this motion a serious one because, as it is now worded, it is a two-pronged motion attempting to do two different things. It is concerned with the rise in food prices, and it expresses concern at rising supermarket profits. They are two different things, although related, and probably one contributes to the other.
The key word in the motion is the word "or" where it says:
-in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards, or with the fact that supermarket profits have increased simultaneously-
I maintained in my argument that the increase in profits was a contributing factor to the rise in food prices but that there were other contributing factors also, such as those I stated in my speech, for example, transportation.
The other point I would respectfully draw to your attention is the argument I used in my speech that this matter has already been studied by a joint committee of the two houses of Parliament, which took a year in its deliberations, and it was studied by a royal commission, which took two years in its deliberations. We question the seriousness of what the hon. member hopes to achieve when she says that she hopes to have this study completed in two weeks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the hon. member was arguing the substance of the matter. Are there any other hon. members who would like to assist the Chair?
June 1, 1972


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order in respect of this motion, I might say that I suppose any motion is amendable. The point to keep in mind in respect of a motion on an opposition day is that such motions come from one opposition party on one day and on another day from another opposition party, they are divided equitably amongst parties. On a day when one party moves a motion and a member from another party proposes an amendment to it, the effect of a vote on the amendment would be that the original motion would be pre-empted by another party. The government ought not to be in a position of interfering in such motions by the casting of its vote, if a vote had to be brought on the amendment. I would conceive the position of the government to be that we are here to listen on the days on which-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are not many listening.


Grant Deachman: -to listen to propositions-


James Aloysius McGrath: Where is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras)?


Grant Deachman: -put forward by the member of the party that moved the motion. In the event that the amendment were brought to a vote at this time, the effect would be that the government would be able to choose the motion of one party or the motion as amended by another party, and thereby interfere in a debate essentially reserved for the purpose of the opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a non-confidence motion.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I just say what I think Your Honour has to decide. Having said that the NDP motion is in order, one must admit that there are two separate motions, food prices and supermarket profits. If it is in order to make two-pronged motions of this nature in the House, then we can put them forward with three, five, six, seven or eight prongs and we in the opposition are entitled to amend one of the those prongs. We were amending the second prong, the one on supermarket profits. It is that simple as far as I am concerned.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the Chair is ready to make a decision. I really feel that my first thoughts, from a procedural standpoint, were correct. With respect to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), I will hear her if she insists, but I think we are on the same side in the procedural argument. I have indicated the ruling I would make, but if the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) would like to persuade the Chair of his view in the matter I will hear him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to take part in this preliminary discussion until I heard the official whip of the government intervene a moment ago. He seemed to be suggesting that on an opposition day it would not be proper for any of the opposition parties, other than the one making the motion, to introduce amendments to it. I think that suggestion is completely off base. I want to reiterate what has already been said on this side of the House, that the amendment being moved
Increasing Food Prices
by the official opposition is precisely on the subject matter chosen by the NDP for today's debate which is to the effect:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards,
During the course of debate there will be all kinds of suggestions, other than the profits of the food chains, why this situation has occurred. We feel that the Prices and Incomes Commission has a major responsibility in this matter, and we feel that along with the main subject of the motion we should stress, in an amendment, the basic responsibility of the Prices and Incomes Commission in this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to thank hon. members who assisted the Chair on the procedural aspect. Initially, I indicated my doubts about whether the amendment could be accepted procedurally, and I have to confirm my original thoughts.
First of all, I want to deal briefly with the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) whose views were clarified and narrowed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Certainly, there are times and circumstances when a motion on an opposition day is amendable. Indeed, the Chair has allowed amendments, if not in this session, in the last session of this Parliament. On opposition days, however, we must look very carefully at amendments and the circumstances surrounding them, because if they change the direction or the impact of the motion, they are not acceptable. I think it would be unfair to opposition parties if such amendments were acceptable. This is, of course, in the interests of all opposition parties and the interests of fairness.
I think this amendment does change the substance of the motion on two points. In her motion the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has requested reference to a special committee of the House. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who proposed the amendment, would have the reference made to the Prices and Incomes Commission. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) argued fairly, and with some force, that the hon. member who moved the motion has a right to put her question before the House and have the matter determined by the forum or tribunal that she chooses. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has argued that it is really a case of one tribunal compared to another, as one would compare one court to another, but with respect I cannot agree that such is the case. I think we are talking about very different tribunals and that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the right to choose the one she would like to suggest to the chamber for its consideration.
Hon. members have referred to the fact that if the amendment were accepted the reference to the question of profits of supermarkets would be removed from the consideration of the House. I think that is important and is a substantive part of the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It seems to me that we would be changing it substantially, and much more than we are entitled to do if the amendment were allowed. The hon.

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) referred to citation 203 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition and I would like to refer to paragraph (3) of that, which reads:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
Some hon. members have argued that the motion and the amendment deal with the question of food prices, but where I feel the amendment is irrelevant and why I cannot accept it, is that the change of tribunal which I have referred to and the removal of the question of supermarket profits would both be substantive changes.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us refers to something everybody knows.
The problem of steadily rising food prices is seriously affecting the standard of living in Canada. We all regret the fact, but nobody will do anything, and especially not this government whose inconsistent policy makes the situation even more complicated.
Food is an essential need. Rich or poor, whether living in a city or in the country, we always have to eat in order to survive. Therefore, a so-called just society must make food products readily accessible to all people.
All individuals take part in some way or another in production. They are fully entitled to get food at reasonable prices. Systematic exploitation on the part of unscrupulous dealers cannot be tolerated in that field. In a country such as ours, where food resources are inexhaustible, it is inconceivable that thousands of citizens should find it so hard to eat adequately.
What is lacking? Meat, cereals, vegetables, fruit, in short all foodstuffs are in plentiful supply. Instead of letting taxpayers enjoy the generosity of Divine Providence, we think up all kinds of ways to give producers a bad time, allegedly to reduce production and maintain prices. Western grain producers as well as Quebec milk producers could say much about that. To pay the farmers of an area so that they will not grow wheat and penalize others for producing too much milk, that is a policy both wrong and stupid.
Before talking about real surplus, let us begin by providing all Canadians with good food in abundance. Then, should there be a surplus, let's share it with the have-not countries where thousands of human beings die from starvation every day.
We say again and again that the problem in this country is not one of production but rather of purchasing power. We could even state that the cost of food products would be immaterial if every family had the necessary income to buy them. In other words, the minute we understand that an adequate economic policy must be directed towards perfect balance between production and consumption, the problem will be settled.
In this intricate and artificial system to which we are now subjected, unfortunately there is room for all kinds of abuses. As pointed out in the motion introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), "supermarket profits have increased simultaneously at an
unprecedented rate". Everywhere swindlers are at work. Under any pretence, the prices will be boosted. And all that, mainly in order to boost profits.
Those are not gratuitous arguments. Just analyze the huge difference between the producer's cost and the consumer's price. For example, pork producers get about 30 cents a pound whereas consumers pay from $1 to $1.70. This difference is much too considerable: it means a gross profit of about 500 per cent to the middlemen. So no wonder pork producers are subsidized while corporations such as Canada Packers, for instance, are making net annual profits of $15-odd million.
I quite agree that these matters are of nation-wide concern and should be referred immediately to a special committee of this House for investigation and report by June 26, 1972, as suggested in the motion. But we will meet with very little success unless we define more precisely the actual reasons for current problems.
All kinds of reasons are used to oppose our suggestion of balancing production and consumption by increasing the purchasing power. Some horrified people even tell us: This would mean inflation! For goodness sake, let us agree on the meaning of words and let us know what we are talking about.
During a television program a dogmatic economist defined inflation as an immoderate increase in prices caused by disproportionate supply and demand, the former being unable to meet the latter. In other words, too much money chasing after too few goods.
Well, a representative of the Quebec Department of Industry and Commerce-the same thing could probably have been seen in the federal government-replied to the traditional economist that his definition did not correspond to reality. Tradesmen do all they can to try and sell; manufacturers have to curtail production; they devise programs to keep their employees, who are threatened with unemployment and who rely on their unions for protection through a guaranteed pay.
There is no inflation in Canada. The economist, who has both feet in business, proves it. However, effects similar to traditional inflation-rising prices-are partly imported from other countries and partly due to a pyramid of interest which citizens have been paying for 20, 30, and 50 years on public development, a pyramid made of taxes which are included in the price of goods. The result is a rise reflected in salary increases, and it is still a vicious circle.
On the other hand, the living-room economist, sitting with his feet up on his desk, doctus cum libro, reasons on the basis of principles developed centuries ago while the economy was one of deprivation, when everybody had to work for 10 or 12 hours a day. Every craftsman or professional had to get part of his food or his clothing out of the earth himself. In order to reduce inflation, such economists only create unemployment, which gradually forces people to go on welfare. An increase in taxes and salaries then follows, and the same vicious circle starts again.

June 1, 1972

The undue increase in food prices is a crime, especially as our society, by accepting the present economic system, tolerates poverty in the midst of affluence.
Let an investigation be made in order to eliminate exploiters, trusts, and finance sharks. This would certainly be a good thing, but as I have said before, it is absolutely necessary to go further and to find a permanent remedy.
The government alleges that there is sufficient purchasing power to buy any product at the market price and that if some people have not enough money, it is because others have too much of it and the problem is that of uneven distribution which should simply be straightened out.
That was the theme of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was speaking to us in 1968 about the just society. I will not dwell on the results achieved in 1972. We are well aware that the Canadian people is still awaiting the birth of that just society.
We of the Social Credit party do not accept that. There is a serious deficiency in the system of distribution of wealth which should be weeded out. We have already suggested a formula providing more benefits to the people from the abundant riches that are produced and available, without depriving anyone of anything.
We must at all costs remember some day to give the people, in addition to the legislative, executive and judiciary powers, the monetary power which has been described thus:
A monetary power vested in an agency similar to the judiciary apparatus. But it would include qualified accountants instead of judges. Accountants who, like judges, would be independent from politicians in power in the performance of their duties. Additions, subtractions or rules of three would be based on statistics that are not within their control; on production returns and on the consumption of the country resulting from free activities of free producers to meet the needs freely expressed by free consumers.
This means that money and credit would only be a reflection in numbers of economic realities. The act creating such a monetary power would assign that purpose to the body thus set up. The agency would have to supply the financial credit required to enable the people to order the goods they need on the basis of the national production capacity.
Mr. Speaker, when we have managed to solve the real causes of the problem, as I have just explained, we will have contributed to freeing the Canadian taxpayer, and we will no longer witness the type of situation we are now subjected to, that is having to face outrageous increases in prices when Canadians can hardly manage to make ends meet, and this, because of the negligence of our leaders.


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend the regrets of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras), at his inability to be present in the House this afternoon. Unfortunately, he is required to be elsewhere on an urgent matter of government business.
I rise to speak to probably one of the more cleverly worded motions that has been put to the House in a long time. This is almost like being asked whether you have quit beating your wife. Under the terms of Standing Order 58(9), we have, of course, a no-confidence motion.
Increasing Food Prices
The government must oppose it. Superficially, it would appear that this presents the sort of thing that members of Parliament, whatever their party, would have a great deal of difficulty in opposing. However, it actually has to be opposed because of its premises, as well as the fact that the conclusions it reaches do not stand up to factual examination.
Supermarket prices have not been rising steadily and chain store profits have not increased at an unprecedented rate. It is true that supermarket profits and food prices have recently been going up, but an analysis of the matter does not indicate that the supermarket chains are either profiteering or are solely responsible for the increase in food prices.
Let me first deal with profits. During late 1970 and continuing to about mid-1971, a supermarket price war was in progress in central Canada. That had severe effects on the profits realized by supermarket chains. Dominion stores, for example, had their net income per sales dollar for the year 1971 drop to four tenths of one per cent in 1971 from 1.4 per cent in 1970. It rose back to 1 per cent of sales in 1972. In 1967 and 1968, this figure was 1.7 per cent. It was obviously as the result of the price war that Dominion Stores profit margin dropped substantially. They have since recovered somewhat, but have not approached the profit margins of the pre-price war period.
Similar results are found in analysing the financial statements of other supermarket chains. Of course, if one compares, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) does, the difference between the better profits in 1972 and the very low profits in 1971 while the price war was in progress and expresses the increase as a percentage, it appears very substantial. In addition, this is contributed to by a very substantial increase in total sales. The present government holds no particular brief for supermarkets or their policies. On the other hand, it has no reason to believe that they are treating the consuming public unfairly in terms of prices. Until there is some reason to do so, the government is strongly opposed to singling out one particular sector of the business world and making it a scapegoat.
The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act has had a watching brief over the behaviour of the retail food industry for years, particularly in the years since the 1959 report of the Royal Commission on Price Spreads headed by Andrew Stewart. This report found that the outstanding development in food retailing during the period which was surveyed was the growth of the large voluntary chains. These voluntary chains are operations like IGA in which independents join together to get the advantages of mass buying. The royal commission reported that the growth of these voluntary chains had been greater proportionally than the growth of the corporate chains which threatened to put the independents out of business. Contrary to the impression left by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the voluntary chain movement has grown apace and constitutes a very strong competitive restraint upon the power of the corporate chains to raise prices unduly and, even more important, provides a positive impetus for competitive pricing in the industry.
2770

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
I should also note the valuable work done by the Batten commission which reported to the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba just a few years ago on the food industry in those provinces.
The Combines Director is required by the statute to commence an inquiry whenever he has reason to believe that the Combines Investigation Act has been, or is about to be, violated. Two types of offences under the act are particularly to be watched for in an industry of this kind: the companies might enter into agreements with their competitors to fix prices or otherwise to present or lessen competition unduly, or one or more of them might by acquiring competitors reach a dominant position in the industry so that competition would be lessened to the detriment of the public. The Director of Investigation and Research is aware of these possibilities and if he has reason to believe that any such offences have taken place, is required by law to commence an investigation.
Canadian policy toward prices in general, except during the second world war, has been to avoid any system of government control in the private sector, leaving competition itself to safeguard the interests of the public. Two royal commissions on prices and price spreads-the Curtis commission in 1949 and the Stewart commission in 1959-gave us no reason for departing from this policy. The Combines Investigation Act has been in existence throughout to ensure that any undue interference with the public interest in free competition could be dealt with by the courts after administrative investigation through the wide powers given to the Combines Director by Parliament.
In his last annual report, that for the year ended March 31, 1971, the Director reported at length upon a study made in his Research Branch into Concentration in the Canadian Food Retailing industry, and the changes which took place in the decade 1958 to 1968, that is the period covered by the Stewart Commission. Hon. members would do well to consult this thorough analysis, which is found at pages 16 to 20 of the report, and which includes a number of comprehensive statistical tables, made public for the first time. The conclusion of this study was that the structure of food retailing in 1968, the last year for which full statistics were available, was more conducive to competition than it had been ten years earlier. The corporate chains as a whole had somewhat improved their position in the market, but the largest ones had a slightly smaller share than they had enjoyed in 1958. Although unaffiliated independents had lost considerable ground, independents affiliated into voluntary chains as well as small corporate chains had markedly improved their positions during the 10-year period.
The structural conditions described in the study were considered to be consistent with the existence of the "price war" which was raging between the chains in late 1970 and the first five months of 1971. The study nevertheless concluded that the director should continue his vigilance because in some cities a few chains had a large share of the market. To give the leading examples, it was found that the three largest chain stores had 60 per cent of the total retail food sales in Edmonton, 49 per cent in Halifax, 37 per cent in Montreal, 26 per cent in Ottawa, 64

per cent in Saskatoon, 41 per cent in Toronto, 47 per cent in Vancouver and 44 per cent in Winnipeg. All chain stores combined did 63 per cent of the Edmonton business, 57 per cent in Halifax, 42 per cent in Montreal, 35 per cent in Ottawa, 59 per cent in each of Saskatoon and Toronto, 55 per cent in each of Vancouver and Winnipeg. For the whole Canadian retail food market, the three largest chains did only 21 per cent of the total business in 1968, and all chain stores accounted for less than 43 per cent. The largest 15 chains did 371 per cent of the total retail food store sales in Canada. I am sure these figures are much lower than many people have been led to believe and that many will be surprised to know how much competition there is in this industry outside of the corporate chains.
With a structural picture such as I have described, moreover, it is not surprising that there has been sharp competition among the food chains. On several occasions price competition has become so strong as to be labelled by the public and the press as "price wars". As I have already intimated, in the fall of 1970 and for the first five months of 1971, such a price war was under way. It was quite prolonged, and much discussed in the press and in the trade journals. Prices become so low that many of the retaining grocery independents were writing to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs complaining that the independents were in imminent danger of bankruptcy.
Many Members of Parliament, including prominent NDP members, were forwarding these complaints to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advancing in the strongest language the view that the food chains were engaged in a policy of selling groceries at prices unreasonably low. They represented this as a conspiracy to drive the independent grocers out of business. It was a very difficult period for the minister and the combines director, both of whom were deluged by these complaints yet had to turn them aside because there was no evidence of anything except sharp price competition in which individual chains were trying to increase their share of the market by outdoing each other in their low price appeal to the consumer. The minister was very sympathetic to the plight of the small retailer, but had to recognize that the greater efficiency of the chains made it possible for them to buy at lower prices, to minimize their costs, and this to provide needed food to the consumer at low competitive prices.
As I have already indicated, however, this prolonged price war cut sharply into the profits of the corporate chains. There was a large drop in the ratio of net profit to sales for the 1970-71 period, and even though the 1971-72 figures recently announced show considerable improvement, the ratio is still far below the average for the last several years.
Moreover, there is still more recent evidence that there has been a resumption of the price war. Early this year A & P test-ran a discounting program in Southwestern Ontario and by May of this year put it into effect in all major centres in Ontario and in Montreal. Since A & P began this program Dominion Stores, Steinberg's and Loblaws have indicated that we may be in for another supermarket price war similar to the one in late 1970 and early 1971. At the annual meeting of George Weston Limit-
June 1, 1972

ed on May 25, 1972, the Chairman predicted that food price wars and other fights between supermarket chains are going to last for some time. He is quoted as saying:
-these scrappy days in this particular industry are apt to last for a long time to come-
-I say to you and I say it with some thought that this fight in supermarket business is going to go on for a long, long time.
I would now like to take a close look at what has been happening to food prices. I feel it is important that I do this because there does seem to be a good deal of confusion about food price trends. Food prices in Canada are measured from month to month by Statistics Canada in assembling the Consumer Price Index. The most recent reading on our consumer price levels is for April, 1972. We have comparable data going back many years.
Looking at the most recent changes in the food component of the consumer price index in a suitable historical perspective one cannot help but notice the extreme volatility in the month to month movement of the food index. During 1971 we experienced monthly increases of as high as 2.2 per cent and monthly decreases of as much as 1.6 per cent. One cannot talk about food price trends on the basis of individual monthly movements.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about yearly?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I am coming to the annual figures. Our data are not unique in this respect. Food prices in the United States have also exhibited substantial volatility in their month-to-month movement.
Looking back over the record of food prices changes in Canada one cannot help but notice as well the regular seasonal patterns in the change in food prices. In the most recent month available, April, the index for food was up 0.9 per cent from March. This change was about the same as that recorded on average in the same month over the past four years. In the cycle of pricing of different food items it turns out that the food index in April typically rises and we should not be surprised by this. Last September the food price index dropped 1.6 per cent but that, too, was a seasonal change. Over the preceding four years it had declined in that month by an average of some 11 per cent. As a result of both the volatile month-to-month changes in food prices and also as a result of the regular seasonal pattern of food price change, one has to be extremely careful about inferring trends in food prices from data for individual months. One has to look at the food price index in a longer term perspective.
What is a suitable perspective for looking at food prices? Usually, the per cent change from the same month a year earlier provides an adequate perspective and avoids the problems I have just mentioned. But this is not so at this time. Between August and December of 1970, at the time of the supermarket price war, there was a precipitous drop in food prices in Canada: the food price index fell 4.8 per cent in only four months or at an annual rate of 15 per cent.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, could we have the author of this speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Increasing Food Prices


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: This brought food prices to an unsustainable low level by the end of 1970. But they did not rebound to their mid-1970 levels overnight. By April of 1971 the food price index was still well below its peak of the preceding year. The effects of non-sustainable special factors were still being felt and further increases were bound to come, and they have. Because of that situation a year ago, the year-to-year per cent changes in current food prices can be very misleading as an indicator of food price trends.
What are the facts? While food prices were up 7.1 per cent over the past 12 months, if we look back to April of 1970, the increase was 5.2 per cent-an average annual rate of increase over the past 24 months of only 2.6 per cent. This is a full percentage point below the average annual rate of increase in food prices in the last half of the decade of the sixties. Viewed in the right perspective, so as not to be confused by the volatile month-to-month movements in food prices, by the recurring seasonal patterns of food price change, or by the special temporary effects on food prices of the supermarket price war, we see that food price trends have in fact been better on average over the past two years than they had been for a number of years before that.
With food having such an important place in the spending pattern of consumers, lower average rates of food price increase over the past two years have benefitted all Canadians. After tax incomes of persons in Canada have increased by almost 9 per cent per year, on average, over the past two years. After allowing for the average increase in food prices of only 2.6 per cent over the past two years, it is quite clear that average living standards of Canadians have indeed improved markedly.
In conclusion, my submission is that the motion should not be supported. Opposition members who propose such motions keep vacillating between two untenable positions. When the price war is on and prices and profits are low, they are beseeching us to get prices up for the sake of small independent grocers whose livelihood is threatened. Then as soon as a period of stability causes some recovery in prices and profits, they call stridently for prices to be reduced in the interests of the consumer. Naturally, in their irresponsibility they listen to whoever is being hurt by current conditions and they call for the best of both worlds.
For our part the government earnestly requests all corporations and individuals concerned in the production and distribution of food for domestic consumption to do everything they can to make themselves more efficient, to cut costs, and to provide the necessities of life to the consumer at the lowest possible prices. We do not expect them to forgo their legitimate profits. If they do this, if they do it within the law, and especially if they do it in a spirit of enlightened competition, the structure of the industry will take care of itself. If the most efficient organization of the industry requires it, the chains will be able to continue and to flourish without government interference under our free enterprise system. We call upon them to do all in their power to keep their prices low. We do not want to see them harassed by unnecessary investigations, whether by parliamentary committees or other bodies.
2772

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
On the other hand, if persuasive information can be sent to the Combines Director to lead him to think there has been any violation of the Combines Investigation Act, he will immediately commence an investigation as required by the law. In any event, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will continue to be vigilant in maintaining the fullest information about the industry, so that if there should develop any detrimental trends they will be quickly identified and necessary corrective measures proposed to safeguard the public interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member sits down would he give us the author of the speech he has just delivered?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, one of the great weaknesses of this "just society" government that is temporarily in power today has been its failure to deal with the problem of the rising cost of living. In 1967 and 1968 inflation and the effect upon the consumers of Canada of its growing intensity was felt for the first time. Let me quote some figures as I begin my brief remarks this afternoon, which will demonstrate that the present government has completely failed to cope with this problem.
In the 1968-71 period, the increase in the cost of living was 3.9 per cent per year. In the most recent year, 1971-72, the consumer price index increased by 4.6 per cent. Just by way of comparison, I would point out to hon. gentlemen that in the period 1960-63 the increase in the consumer price index was 1.3 per cent-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1963 was the most disastrous year in the history of Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -which is a percentage that is possible under sound and stable administration. I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) referring to that period as the most disastrous period in the history of Canada for the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell him about the 1970 net figures.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would think that the record speaks for itself, and the farmers will answer that query in no uncertain terms when they have the opportunity at the polls in the not too distant future. The Minister of Agriculture was speaking for a different party in those days-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And he will be speaking later today, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and he was of much the same opinion then as we are at the present time. Admittedly, the government has tried to cope with this problem, as it is still trying to cope. It introduced a new Department of Consumer Affairs early in the present regime. It introduced the Prices and Incomes Commission in 1969. But we must conclude that both of these organizations have failed dismally to deal with the problem that we are debating this afternoon, which is the soaring cost of living particularly as it affects such basic commodities as food and housing.
We are especially concerned this afternoon with the rising cost of food, but by the by it appears that the cost of housing is going to increase significantly because it has

been indicated that the mortgage rate in the next few weeks will rise to the unprecedented height of 10 per cent. It is a strange paradox that while the cost of living has been increasing during the present regime, the cost of government has been going up enormously in proportion. Another part of the paradox is that while the cost of government has been going up with the addition of new departments, boards and so forth, the effectiveness and efficiency of government has gone down in proportion. The government has blown hot and cold in dealing with this issue.
I am going to deal briefly with the role the Prices and Incomes Commission has played in this matter; but first of all I want to point out that the first minister of this House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has spoken with an uncertain voice during the past four years of the rising cost of living. In 1969, we heard this from the right hon. gentleman:
The government has done beautifully in fighting inflation
On November 11, 1971, speaking in London on the question of inflation he said:
-we haven't licked it and we said we would.
On January 9, 1972 the Prime Minister said:
I think we tackled the problem of inflation in a serious way ... almost too much determination.
In December 1969, he said:
Inflation could destroy the Canadian middle class, which I regard as the basis of a lot of stability in our society.
The villain of the piece is not necessarily related to the increase in profits of chainstore markets, nor the increase in wages of the labour sector of the economy, although this has been the scapegoat selected by the Prices and Incomes Commission over the years. The villain is not necessarily the middleman involved in the food production process, although this is an area that could stand some scrutiny, as could others in the complex production process with which we are faced today. The villain is not the farmer, although he sometimes gets the blame for the increase in the cost of food. Under this administration, the farmers have been getting a lesser share of the food dollar. Farmers have had the worst bargaining position and the least support from this government. Instead of helping to improve the position of farmers in the food production chain, this government of the just society has completely neglected their position, and I think that could be demonstrated if I had the time this afternoon.
The most vulnerable is the commission set up by the government to deal with this matter, the Prices and Incomes Commission. As pointed out by my colleague, who endeavoured to introduce an amendment this afternoon, this commission was instructed to deal in a forthright manner with the problem of increasing cost of living brought about by runaway inflation. It was instructed to bring in reports from time to time which would make it possible for Members of Parliament and the people of Canada generally to determine who were the villains of the piece. Recently John Meyers, writing in his financial column, pointed out that there is such a report available but it is sitting on the desks of the ministers of the govern-

ment, and that every attempt to have a look at it has been refuted and turned back by this just society government. Let me give you a few of the facts contained in that report which indicate precisely where the villain is.
This afternoon the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), the Minister of State with some responsibility for financial affairs, took great pains to exonerate the chain stores, and well he might for this unpublished report of the Prices and Incomes Commission points out that the blame lies squarely on the government for its failure to come to grips with the increase in the cost of living. It says this increase is due to the rapid acceleration of government spending at an annual average rate of 14 per cent during the years 1965 to 1970. That is precisely the period of time when inflation has tended to get out of control. Let me present some further information from that unpublished report. It suggests there has been an increase in the weight of taxes over that period, an increase of an average 7.3 per cent per year per unit of real national output, reaching a peak of almost 10 per cent in 1969 when taxes accounted for more than the total inflation experienced during that year. The difference was made up by a sharp decline in corporate profits.
This report contains valuable information that should be made available to hon. members of the House. If we had that information before us this afternoon we would obviously have a much more realistic discussion. Under its terms of reference, the Prices and Incomes Commission has the responsibility of tabling that report, because that commission was not set up to protect the government from findings that are politically embarassing. Obviously, the words I have referred to this afternoon indicate that if the report become available it would be embarrassing to the government. Before the Prices and Incomes Commission completes its lack-lustre career, it is on the way out and has overstayed its welcome now by several months, and is due to expire at the end of June-it should be allowed to make the report available to the people of Canada in order that we might have a reasonable appreciation of the real villain in respect of rising costs to consumers of basic products such as food.
There is one other point I should like to bring before the House before concluding my remarks this afternoon, and that is the failure of the government to bring a competition act before Parliament which would be acceptable to the people of Canada. Bill C-256 has had a checkered career. It has not yet reappeared on the order paper during the current session of Parliament. If we could get a competition act which would deal with the villains behind the scenes, causing outrageous increases in the price of food, we would not have to call together a special committee of the House of Commons, as this motion suggests. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) has promised a competition act which would help to keep the economy of Canada on a stable basis. The sooner the government moves to deal with this problem, the sooner we will have the fires of inflation under control and the sooner the people of Canada will have an assurance that the value of their dollar will be maintained at a reasonable level for a reasonably long period of time.
With the addition of commissions and administrations designed to deal with rising costs, and the creation of the
Increasing Food Prices
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the government promised to take care of the interests of the consumer. This produced a psychological attitude towards buying on the part of the public of Canada, which I think has helped to aggravate the problem rather than resolve it. Private consumer groups in this country are doing a good job in attempting to protect the rights of consumers. I should like therefore to put before this House a few suggestions the government might consider in respect of this consumer philosophy. I think the adoption of these suggestions would prove effective.
The government should consult with all groups and associations interested in consumer affairs. It should assist the Consumer Council of Canada to become a truly effective advisory body to the government. It should publish reports of the Consumer Council and make them readily available to the public. The government should more clearly define the role of the Consumer Council to make it more active in establishing the rights of the consumer and in recommending specific ways the government could act to establish these rights. It should make more use of the mass media in making the Canadian consumer aware of consumer laws and regulations. It should establish national standards of safety and ensure that all products for sale in Canada meet these standards. If the government would use the Consumer Affairs Department, which it has established at such exorbitant expense, then perhaps we could come to grips with some of the problems which have been outlined here today.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, both as a producer and a consumer, I thought I should take part in the debate today. I believe one of the greatest misunderstandings Canadians have is that they spend too much of their earnings on food. Great emphasis is placed on this portion of their cost of living. Every time Statistics Canada releases figures, the news media are quick to point out how much the index has risen in respect of food prices. I have in my hand a recent United States publication. It is headed "What Farmers want you to know about" and explains the cost to the consuming public as well as how much the producers receive for producing tremendously high quality food. It reads:
Is your family eating meals that rate fair to poor by government nutritional standards? One out of two consumers does every day. And high-income families average less food value for their money than low-income families.
One of the greatest misconceptions people have is that the people who earn the most money have the most nutritious and healthy diet. It has been proven by studies that this is not true. The publication continues:
Half of the people in the U.S. are getting diets that are rated fair or poor by the National Research Council. A USDA survey shows the U.S. family diets aren't even as good as they were 15 years ago!
Why? There's a variety of reasons. It may be due to dieting; or snacking; or eating out more. But you can do any or all of these things and still have a nutritious diet by making a balanced selection from America's abundant supply of food.
Calcium, iron, thiamin, riboflavin and vitamin A are the nutrients which most often fall below the recommended level. Except possibly for iron, all are readily available in a balanced diet of meats, milk, vegetables, fruits, eggs and cereal products.

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
As producers of these foods, farmers, and the people who work with them in government, know a lot about food that they wish every consumer knew.
You've got 85 delicious ways of balancing your family's nutritional needs at the red meat counter. That's how many different cuts of beef, pork and lamb there are today in the typical food market.
And if you have enough spirit of adventure to ring or call the meat man and ask about cuts you've never tried-and how to fix them-you'll be surprised at how much enjoyment, variety and nutritive value you can add to your meals.
Actually meat is a better buy than it was 10 years ago. For example, beef prices have risen only 20 per cent since 1960, compared with around 30 per cent for all consumer items. Yet during that time, the proportion that gets an expensive grain finish has doubled. Practically all pork is grain fed; almost all lamb is milk fed or grain fed.
Also the price has not increased as much to the consumer as the price of other items. The publication further states:
Virtually every piece of meat you serve can be tender and tasty if you know its quality grade.
Then, it mentions the tremendous values one can get and the amount of nutrition that is in these products. There is another article which mentions our affluent society and the person who stops at a hotel on the way home for a few bottles of beer instead of having supper. There is a reference to fortifying beer to ensure that a person who consumes it will get the proper nourishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Perhaps this is a good idea. I do not know why members of the New Democratic Party applauded this. Their economists will tell them that people in organized labour have always been able to keep ahead of the cost of living. I might say that I am sure members of the New Democratic Party are aware that they receive most of their support from organized labour. I want to point out that the amount of money a person spends or earns does not necessarily mean that the nutrition he obtains from the food he buys or the beer he drinks will be such that he will be a healthy person. We hear much about what we should be doing and what is being done in some other countries.
Let me compare the cost of food in some of the other countries which have a standard of living similar to ours, and one or two with a standard of living much less than ours. In the United Kingdom, about 28 cents out of every dollar is spent on food. In the United States, about 19 cents out of every dollar is spent on food. The situation here is similar to the situation in the United States. I am told that at the present time the cost of food to the Canadian consumer is a little lower than it is to the consumer in the United States. In a country such as India, 60 cents out of every dollar is spent on food. Then, we might consider the situation in Sweden, a country to which many people like to refer as an example when suggesting how people should live and drink. They always point out that it is Utopia.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Whoever said that?


Eugene Whelan: It used to be quite popular for members of your party to point out that Sweden had the type of environment every man should have.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How does that make it a Utopia?


Eugene Whelan: Well, I did not know the hon. member would admit he was not speaking of a Utopia when he mentioned the philosophy of his party. Let us make a few comparisons with Sweden and the way of life in that country. Dealing first with food prices for their standard of living, they are among the highest in the world.


An hon. Member:: It must be the highest standard of living in the world.


Eugene Whelan: It is not any higher than ours. I quote from this article in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, May 25, as follows:
Food prices being the world's highest, it is all they can afford- especially since Swedes drink more hard liquor (at $12 a fifth for Scotch) than anyone else in the world.
The heading of the article is "Price of affluence is mental illness, Sweden told" and it has a subheading "Achievements in welfare, chilling aspects of 1984." It continues:
This is the reality of modern Sweden, Europe's most affluent country, where a recent psychiatric report commissioned by the government confirms the image of a harsh and ruthless society which asks its citizens to sacrifice their mental well being by working ever harder to pay for exorbitantly priced apartments, a car, television repairs and two weeks on a packaged holiday if they can afford it-and many can't.
The sombre study was prepared by Dr. Hans Lohman, one of Sweden's top experts in psychiatry. It was commissioned by parliament because of spiralling health costs as the number of inpatients admitted to mental hospitals spiralled from 73,000 in 1969 to 83,000 in 1970.
They could not stand the high cost of their high standard of living.
The report stated that the number of out-patients was considerably higher in a country with only 8,000,000 inhabitants.
In his effort to maintain Sweden's high living standards, the worker is called upon by the country's technocrats to be competitive; and feels ashamed if he cannot keep up and "do his duty," Dr. Lohman said.
More and more citizens in fact cannot keep up as the planners demand even higher economic growth to pay the cost of looking after those who faltered along the way. But as the dropouts increase, more growth is needed, which results in more dropouts- and so on, the report stated.
The role of the Swedish woman is far more difficult-
I am sure the hon. member who proposed the motion will be interested in this article.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am listening.


Eugene Whelan: It continues:
-is far more difficult than her husband's and probably impossible, the report continued. Many urban women have fulltime jobs in Sweden because their husbands' pay cannot meet prices in the world's second most expensive and heavily taxed country.
But at the same time she is expected to comfort cranky children when she comes home from work, provide tasty meals, clean the house and then be a good bedtime partner. Experts believe the typical young married couple make love as seldom as twice a month, if the statistics are to be believed. They think it is because the women are simply too tired, and perhaps the men, too.
June 1, 1972

I suggest it may be because they are eating food that does not have the proper nutrition to overcome their fatigue. Mr. Speaker, I will give a few more figures on the high standard of living in Sweden. Incidentally, considering the cost of Scotch there, I could easily become a prohibitionist if it cost that much in Canada. Another report reads:
The rising taxes to support all this, however, have most Swedes wobbling. For example, the value-added tax, which is piled on top of all other taxes, was recently increased by four percentage points to 17.65 per cent. Partly because of this cost prices of most goods and services are soaring. Some cigarettes cost $1.40 a pack, eggs $1.20 a dozen, hamburger $0.99 per pound and filet mignon $5 per pound. Increasingly Swedes are making do with items at the lowest end of the price scale: potatoes, carrots, cabbage and spaghetti.
I could read further from this article, but it seems clear that the price of affluence in Sweden is too expensive for many people. More and more of them are filling mental institutions.
Let us compare food costs in Canada with costs elsewhere. I have made comparisons with other countries. Many people say they would like the standard of living they have in Sweden, but just compare the prices quoted in that article, Mr. Speaker. You can see that Canadian consumers are the luckiest in the world, and I say this with full knowledge of the cost of food in the United States which is slightly below ours. But it must not be forgotten that the United States treasury in many cases contributes to producers over 25 per cent of what they receive for their produce. This comes out of the tax dollar. Add all that up and it is clear that consumers in the United States are not getting as good a break as consumers in Canada. Our producers are producing without as much aid.
Canadian producers are among the most efficient in the world; they are more efficient than any other part of our society no matter what kind of production they are involved in, be it government administration, automobile production or whatever else you want to mention. No group has become more efficient and productive than the group which is producing food for human and animal consumption in Canada.


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


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of Swedish ancestry it gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), the twice-a-month man who was concerned about sex and whisky in that country. I remind the House that the Swedes still have by far the highest standard of living for the working man of any country in the world.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In rising to participate in this debate I support wholeheartedly the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) dealing with the high cost of food and the excessive profits being made by chain stores. I note with a great deal of concern, but not surprise, the apologetic speech of the minister from Calgary. He apologized for the chain stores with crocodile
Increasing Food Prices
tears in his eyes, saying that their profits were by no means excessive, that they were indeed small, that we should not attack these people in our society but should leave them as they are.
I shall spend a few minutes speaking about the interests of other people. I will let government members talk about their friends, the corporations and the chain store people. I want to talk about the consumers and farmers because they are on the short end of the stick. I grew up on a farm. I remember wondering, as a small child, why the farmer received such a low price for his product, whether it was bacon, eggs or wheat, and why he had to pay such a high price when he bought the same product in a store. Despite the fact that food prices have been rising, it is not the farmer who has been getting more money. Indeed, over the last number of years the farmer has been receiving less while the price of food has increased.
I should like to put on the record some statistics to illustrate my point. According to the Department of Agriculture, in 1949 $1.5 billion was spent by consumers on food; of that the farmer received 57 per cent and the marketing share was 43 per cent. Twenty years later, in 1969, the consumer spent $6.2 billion on food and the farmers' share was 45 per cent. I am told by agricultural economists that in 1971 the farmers' share was probably closer to 40 per cent of the consumer dollar. So it is certainly not the farmer who is getting the money. It is obviously going to the middleman and the food companies for advertising, promotion and profit.
I should like to give a few specific examples of what the farmer receives for certain products. For the wheat that goes into bread, from 1950 to 1959 the farmer received 15 per cent and the marketing companies 85 per cent. From 1960 to 1969 the farmer received only 13 per cent. In other words, if the consumer paid 30 cents for a loaf of bread the farmer received 3.9 cents. For fluid milk, from 1950 to 1959 the farmer received 55 per cent of the consumer food dollar, and from 1960 to 1969 his share had decreased to 52 per cent. For potatoes, from 1950 to 1959 the farmer's share was 52 per cent and for 1960-69 it had decreased to 41 per cent. For canned tomatoes, for 1950-59 his share was 20 per cent and for 1960-69 it decreased to 19 per cent. In 1971 farmers received 25 per cent of the money spent on fruits and vegetables. For bakery and cereal goods his share was 21 per cent of what the consumer paid.
In the May, 1972, edition of Reader's Digest some figures were published which had been compiled from the consumer price index, the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union and farm marketing boards. They show that in 1971, if a customer paid 21 cents for a 16-ounce loaf of bread the farmer's share was two cents, the remaining 19 cents going to the food company, the food processors or manufacturers. For a pound of pork which sold in the supermarket for 59 cents to 65 cents, the farmer received 22 cents. For a dozen eggs sold at 47 cents a dozen, his share was 25 cents. On a 48-ounce can of apple juice selling for 40 cents, the farmer's share was seven cents. For a quart of milk sold at 35 cents, the farmer's share was 17 cents. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that it is certainly not the farmer who is benefiting from the sharp increase in the price of food.

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
This morning when I was doing some research I phoned one of my constituents who is in the poultry and egg business. I was told that grade A large eggs cost about 25 cents a dozen to produce on the farm. This farmer does the grading, etc., and receives only 17 cents a dozen for them, while in a shopping centre in Yorkton the price is 54 cents. If the farmer were to sell the eggs without grading he would receive about 12 cents a dozen, and that is an increase over last year when he got eight cents. This constituent told me that chickens, for which he receives 22 i cents per pound, are sold in the store at 89 cents a pound. This, again, points out who is making the money.
I would now like to deal with the income of the farmer and illustrate what has happened over the last few years. The price the farmer receives today for a bushel of wheat is less than he received in 1949, despite the fact that the cost of a loaf of bread has skyrocketed in the same period. According to statistics from the Department of Agriculture and Statistics Canada, in 1950-51 the farmer received $1.80 per bushel for corn and in 1971 he received $1.33. A bushel of turnips in 1950-51 brought him $1.75 and today he gets 35 cents, five times less than 20 years ago. For 75 pounds of potatoes he received $2.75 in 1950-1951 and today he receives $1.50. Twenty years ago he received 34 cents a pound for hogs and in 1971 he received 22 cents.
It can be seen that what the farmer receives for almost any commodity has decreased drastically over the last 20 years, though as all of us know the dollar today buys less than it did then. We find that total farm income in this country in 1970 was less than it was in 1968, when it was about $1,710 million. Three years later, in 1971, it was $1,573 million, this despite the fact that food prices increased by about 7.4 per cent last year alone.
When I telephoned the Department of Agriculture this afternoon I was told that according to a study made in Saskatchewan in 1966, which was a fairly good year for grain, the farmer cleared $8 an acre after expenses. Four years later, in 1970, he lost $4 an acre. Over five crop years this means that the farmer averaged 44 cents an acre despite the fact that food prices had skyrocketed.
While the farmer has been receiving less for his product, production costs have been increasing. According to the Barber commission report, the price of farm machinery increased by 85 per cent from 1949 to 1971 while the price received for the produce increased by only 3 per cent in the same period. As I said earlier, the price received for a bushel of wheat in 1971 was lower than in 1949. According to the Department of Agriculture, farm food production costs doubled between 1949 and 1969 while farm income from food in the same period increased by only 20 per cent. As a result, there has been a drastic drop in farm population from three million to two million people in 20 years. In the last five years the number of farms has decreased by 15 per cent in Canada.
Some hon. members from the cities might ask about productivity and suggest that the farmer is inefficient and deserves what is happening to him. That is not true. In this regard I should like to quote figures from Statistics Canada and other institutions to show that farm productivity is greater than in most other industries in this country. Using 1961 as the basic year with an index of 100, we find that in 1972 farm productivity had increased to 165.2.

In non-agricultural industries for the same period, productivity had only increased to 123.5. For farmers the rate has averaged 4.8 per cent per year, whereas for the nonagricultural industry it has averaged only 2.6 per cent per year. We must therefore contrast 4.8 per cent with 2.6 per cent.
The farmer is most efficient, yet his income from farm commodities is proportionately lower now than it was many years ago. For instance, we find that in the period 1960-62 one farmer supported 30 other people with the food he produced; in the period 1968-70 he supported 42 people. This represents an increase in efficiency; he supports 12 more people. Again, if I may refer to the Barber commission report to show that the farmer's productivity is greater now than it was a few years ago, it will be seen that in the period 1910-14 it took the farmer 15.2 hours to produce a bushel of wheat, in the period 1935-39 it took him only 8.8 hours and in the period 1963-67, 2.9 hours.
Clearly the productivity of the farmer has increased. He has become more efficient in food production. This is shown if one studies all other farm commodities. For example, with regard to milk, in the period 1935-39 it took the farmer 148 hours to produce the same amount of milk that in the period 1963-67 took only 84 hours. The farmer has become most productive. On the other hand, his costs have sky-rocketed and his returns have gone down. He receives a lesser proportion of the consumer food dollar now than he did a few years ago, yet food prices have gone up dramatically.
I say that the farmer has put in his work and the consumer must pay the bill. Yet it is the food conglomerates and chains which are reaping all the profit. The Garfield Weston Company controls or has interests in over 60 companies in this country. These are the people who make the decisions. There is not competition, Mr. Speaker; there is a near corporate monopoly in this field. The Weston company has interests in Dominion Food, Loblaws, Lucky Dollar stores, E.B. Eddy, Weston Foods, Westfield-Foods, and on and on it goes. One could hardly begin listing the companies with which the firm is involved.
I say on behalf of our farmers and consumers, let us investigate this state of affairs. If the minister suggests there is nothing to hide, why is he afraid of an investigation? I maintain he is sticking up for his friends, the corporate elite of this country and the Conservative party is shyly on the side, behind the curtains, approving and saying, "We, too, are more interested in the food company than in the consumer or the farmer."


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I find it a real pleasure this afternoon to take part in this crucial and important debate that touches two segments of our society in whom I believe the House is vitally interested. I am referring to the consuming public on the one hand and to the farmers, the producers of food, on the other.
I think this debate has fastened with the strength of a vice-grip, so to speak, on one of the most crucial problems of our culture, a problem to which the government and
June 1, 1972

other agencies are addressing themselves with a high degree of priority, namely, how to serve the best interests of Canadians by producing wholesome, properly balanced diets and crucial foods and at the same time keep a sizeable segment of our population in the primary business of food production so that we may retain our national independence and autonomy in the field of food production. I shall make a few general statements and go into more detail later.
First may I underscore a conviction I have voiced in this chamber on numerous occasions. The higher cost of food in Canada is not reflected directly in higher incomes for farmers. May I put some statistics on the record to demonstrate this. At present, 41 cents of every dollar spent on food in Canada finds its way into the pocket of the farmer. He gets 41 per cent of our food dollar; the other 59 per cent, or 59 cents, more than half the food dollar, goes into the pockets of other middlemen or "in between" individuals. The farmer's income is declining; that is the present trend. That is to say, the proportion of the food dollar entering his pocket is declining. In 1950, 22 years ago, approximately 58 cents of each food dollar went to the farmer. Today, 41 cents is paid to the farmer. There has been a decline in 22 years of 17 cents per dollar paid to the farmer.
Two causes, among others, must be considered when dealing with this fact. First, more and more Canadians are eating out, thus pushing up the retail price of food. That has been the significant trend in our culture. I will not give details of what I mean at present. Second, many Canadians buy what are known as convenience foods. So in a very real sense their ability to pay for services rendered in preparing the food so that it is ready for serving on the table or for placing in the oven results in food prices being increased without comparable increases finding their way into the pockets of the farmer.
In a real sense, the affluence of our society is driving up the price of prepared food, without helping the producers of food. That is one of the questions to which we must address ourselves. As more and more foods are sold in advantageous, pre-cooked and packaged forms, the selection of wholesome foods in the non-prepared state is diminished. Those in our culture who earn the lowest incomes can least afford the luxury of paying for their kitchen work to be done in a factory; they cannot afford to purchase prepared foods. Since they cannot pay for work done in factories in preparing the food, and since this work drives up food prices, the poorest strata of society is victimized by the affluence of our society. This has affected the eating habits of those who are poorest in our nation. So in a real sense, two seemingly disparate segments of our society are affected. The poorer consumer is being victimized by increasing prices, and the farmer is carrying on his shoulders an undue proportion of the burden of our cheap food policy, if one can call it that, a policy aimed at the economical production of food in Canada.
May I continue at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Increasing Food Prices AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was referring to the fact that several different trends have converged and all bear some influence on food prices. As Your Honour will recall, earlier in my speech I referred to the increased productivity of farmers. For example, in 1955 one farmer produced enough food to feed 33 people. If my figures are accurate, in 1971 one farmer produced enough food to feed 42 people.
For a long time there has been a remarkable trend toward greater efficiency in food production on the part of farmers and primary producers. At the same time and concurrent with that increase, income in Canada and the very modest price of food have resulted in another very interesting trend. For example, in 1948 it took 40 per cent of the average Canadian's budget to put food on the table. That has now dropped to 18 per cent. Less than half the proportion of money is needed out of the take-home pay of Canadian people to put food on the table today than was needed in 1948. This means that Canadians have an increasingly larger segment of their income to spend on other goods and services.
There is a real sense in which food is not a major cost to many Canadians-this is the point I was coming to when we rose at six o'clock-but if you happen to be a Canadian with a fairly low or very low income, food is an important budgetary item. Although it may only take 18 per cent of the budget of the average Canadian, there are a large number of Canadians for whom it takes a much larger slice. It is these other Canadians, not the affluent or the average but the lower income Canadians, about whom we must be most concerned when considering the motion before us today.
The report of the Senate Special Committee on Poverty has some interesting things to say. I want to quote a few sentences which bear directly on the point I am making. This passage deals with poorer Canadians.
Consumers today face a bewildering array of choices. Consumer-durable goods in particular have become complex, and many of the once-simple food products come now in various stages of processing, in different packages, flavours, and quality.
That is the point I was making earlier in my speech. I continue to quote from this report at page 106.
The poor are often handicapped with respect to purchasing power by lack of education, experience, information, training, and opportunity as well as by lack of ready cash. "Best-buy" decisions depend not only on information about quality and performance, but also on a comparison of prices in different kinds of stores in different locations. To get this information takes time, effort and money. Because of transportation expenses or credit difficulties, the poor cannot shop around. As a result, they shop in small neighbourhood stores where prices are higher, and selection is limited-but where delivery service and credit are available.
The elderly poor, unable to walk far or carry bundles or afford a bus would be an outstanding example of this group. They are truly trapped.
The report continues:
The elderly poor find it difficult even to buy small portions of food suitable for one or two persons. Alarming numbers of the elderly are poor, and their problems are special. Some have

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
always been poor, and advancing age magnifies their problems because they are less able to support themselves adequately. There is an increase in the need for such services as taxis, drugs, medical and dental care, and hospitalization or home nursing care. As consumers, the elderly are further crippled by these extra demands on their already inadequate incomes.
Buying food is the major difficulty faced by the poor. This is their largest and most regular outlay. The object should be to buy economical foods which will provide a reasonably balanced and nutritious diet. But, handicapped by the lack of information and mobility, the poor tend to concentrate too heavily on cheaper, starchy foods to the neglect of protein and vitamin-enriched foods; or they may buy the more easily accessible, expensively processed and packaged foods.
This, again, underscores the dilemma of our times. While we are putting a larger portion of the food dollar into the packaging and marketing of foods, the advantage goes to the better-to-do and those who wish to have more free time in which to enjoy the pleasures of our society and culture. It means there are fewer economically priced food products on the market.
Turning to another aspect, I think it should be pointed out that the low prices received by farmers in this whole food production and consumption cycle are sometimes, to a great extent, the fault of farmers themselves.
Egg producers, for example, have been getting an extremely low income lately and many of them, especially in Ontario, have suffered severe financial loss. However, the problem has arisen partly because the egg producers themselves have been unable to get together. Every other segment of our society organizes itself and is thereby able to lay claim to a larger slice of the economic pie. This has not been true of farmers; farmers have not organized themselves as well as they ought. I again make an appeal which I have made many times in this House before, for farmers to organize themselves and get the larger portion of the Canadian dollar which is their due.
The question which really ought to be before us this afternoon is: Should Canada have low-priced food? If the answer is yes, we must then ask ourselves on whose shoulders the effect of these low prices rest; should it be on the shoulders of the farmers only, or should it be spread more generally throughout the community?
I ask myself whether it would not be better to establish a minimum income level for all Canadians, thus avoiding the situation in which too many food producers are forced to accept a sub-minimal or mini-income. Many farmers speak to me in somewhat bitter tones. They feel governments are more interested in the large segments of voters who are located in the cities and towns-that they are not prepared to listen to farmers. Yet the record of legislation of governments, certainly the present one, would refute that contention.
I believe the government must avoid getting into the position of being either for the farmers or for the consumers. It is not a question of farmers versus consumers. Farmers must be in a position where they can expect a reasonable income from an occupation which is honourable and valuable. The government should be concerned that there are not two victims here-those who are poor and who suffer because of high food prices, and farmers who are not getting a proper return for their labour. It seems to me the best advice I could give, since food is already being produced very economically, would be that

farmers organize themselves to take a better place in the marketplace, thereby ensuring themselves of a fairer return.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this motion in the name of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has resulted in an interesting debate on an important subject; but the motion has been spoiled, for me, in at least two ways. I do not think it is really within the realm of practicality to expect that a special committee could report on this issue in a useful way by June 26. It is not in the nature of the study which would have to be made. In the second place, it is not the supermarkets which are responsible for this entire problem-I admit the resolution does not say they are- although they are, perhaps, a convenient whipping-boy.
In my opinion, the remarks of some of my colleagues who have taken part in the debate were spoiled, if I may say so, by a convenient and lazy resort to slogans. In a way, slogans spice the language of debate but they do not make for clarity of discussion. I really do get tired of hearing terms such as "corporate elite", "big business" and other hackneyed shibboleths which really throw no light on the difficulty we are facing.
The issue we are discussing here is, surely, the cost of food. Another area of concern is the small share of the price which accrues to the primary producer. We have heard some interesting comments from both sides of the House about the increase in productivity of the farmer. A further consideration is the disparity between food costs in various parts of Canada. I shall discuss this aspect in a minute or so. Then there is a subsidiary issue which is very much in the minds of some of us lately, the attempt on the part of the government to negotiate wage contracts on the basis of regional rather than national wage scales.
I should like to call attention to an interesting juxtaposition of articles which comment on this trend. In today's Globe and Mail appears a news story that has already been alluded to. A special survey has been conducted showing a wide spread in prices between the Atlantic area and Ontario. The Canadian Press report reads as follows:
Montreal and Toronto, Canada's largest urban centres, have the lowest retail food prices in the country-
The basis for this statement is the annual special survey of retail prices conducted by Statistics Canada. The article continues:
The survey found that food prices in Montreal and Toronto were one per cent less than in Winnipeg. But food prices in St. John's, Newfoundland and in Halifax were 9 per cent more, making for a 10 per cent spread over Montreal and Toronto prices.
Then follows some additional interesting data to be found in the special survey on retail prices. Curiously enough, in today's Ottawa Journal we find an article headed "Reversing an old trend; civil service moving toward regional salary rate system". The article reads in part:
More and more, the trend in public service pay is away from a flat national scale to regional rates.-
Then follows a report of a discussion with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in which he makes
June 1, 1972

what I think is an unpleasant reference to the difference in rates of pay between a postal worker in high-pay British Columbia and what he calls the "mailman in low-pay Buctouche, New Brunswick, doing the same job", and who was just about "the highest-paid guy in town". I have just quoted some figures relating to the highest paid guy in town, the town being Buctouche, New Brunswick, and I must say it is somewhat discouraging to hear these most disparaging remarks about those who for one reason or another choose to live in Atlantic Canada. The story in today's paper clearly points out that there is a 10 per cent differential in the rate of pay of that highest paid guy in Buctouche and his brother worker and fellow Canadian in Montreal or Toronto.
A most interesting paper on the subject of national rates of pay for employees of the government of Canada has been prepared by Mr. T. J. Dooling, a service officer of the Department of Public Works component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The paper is dated November 30, 1971. Although I do not have much time left, I should like to make a couple of references to it. On page 2 of the paper Mr. Dooling states:
According to "Interregional Disparities in Income" prepared by S. E. Cherniek for the Economic Council of Canada, time has had little or no effect on the actual increase or decrease in disparities. To quote from the conclusion of this study: "Taken as a whole, the analysis emphasizes the significant disparity in per capita income levels from the various regions and sub-regions in Canada. The disparity is somewhat greater in terms of real income comparison. While the degree of income disparity in relative terms has varied with changing levels of economic activity, the longer-run tendency, over a period of roughly 40 years, has been one of little or no change.
On page 6 appears a quotation from the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts):
After a century of growth, almost one quarter of our families in Canada are living at or under the poverty level. Our past programs have treated the symptoms of poverty rather than the disease.
Lastly, a quotation from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield):
Virtually every department in the federal government is involved in the problem of regional disparity.
The point, surely, is that virtually every department is engaged in tackling this problem, but one that is not is obviously Treasury Board which is busily negotiating staff salaries on the basis of institutionalizing by contract the disparity in wages that DREE and other departments of government are trying so hard to end.
It is a little unfair to get away from the main thrust of the hon. lady's motion, which relates to the high cost of food, but I did think it relevant at this stage to mention the continuing disparity not only in the cost of food but in incomes in the Atlantic provinces that are available to buy this food. I often think that we in this country are in danger of what one of my friends has called galloping provincialism, which is a subject perhaps for another debate. In view of the evidence presented by government departments, cabinet ministers and members of the House, I think it is wrong for one department of the government to try to ignore that evidence and build into contract negotiations a continuation of some of the very disparities that so many segments of the government are trying very hard to bring to an end.
Increasing Food Prices


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker,
I intervene in the debate only briefly this evening in view of what I think is really a hypocritical position that is taken by the New Democratic Party in the way it has put this motion together. This motion says nothing about other components in the cost of living index, and this in spite of the fact that since 1961, the year upon which the cost of living index is based, in some cases food has gone up by less than two-thirds as much as some other component parts of the cost of living index.
I believe that it is a disservice to Canadian farmers and other food producers to single out food as the major culprit in the increase in the cost of living. This is especially so when we are just coming through a period when for severals year the primary producers of food have been having far too low a return for their products.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nobody has said anything to contradict that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The motion alleges that the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) who spoke earlier today apparently set out the position of the Conservative party and exonerated everybody in the food processing and distribution chain. So what does it come down to? It must mean that that party believes the increase the primary producers have received during the last few months is the cause of this increase in the cost of living.


Mr. Fairweather:: You know that is not true.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member can read his argument tomorrow. He exonerated the retailer, he exonerated the processors and he exonerated a lot of other people. He said the increase was all because of taxes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not misquote him.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That was the major thrust of his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. So far I think we have had a very interesting debate.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The minister is not quoting accurately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. We have had a very good debate so far and I ask hon. members to allow the minister who has the floor to continue his speech.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I remind hon. gentlemen opposite that I sat very quietly while their speeches were being made, even though I disagreed with them. It might be interesting to point out that I was sitting in my seat when the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was making his speech. Neither of the hon. members opposite who are complaining now were in their seats, so how do they know what was in that speech? They were not in the House.
Food prices in retail stores have advanced about as much as the general average price increase to consumers for goods and services. Up to March, 1972, the food com-

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
ponent of the consumer price index was 137.1 based on 100 for 1961, as compared with 137.4 for all items in the index. In other words, the food component in the cost of living index was slightly less than the average of all components. So now the NDP single out food as the culprit when there were such things as that part of the index defined as services, which stood at 148.5. Why do they not mention the real culprits of the piece instead of singling out farmers every time?
We heard the same kind of unfair argument back in 1965 when food, based on 1949, showed the lowest increase of any major component in the cost of living index. Yet these members spend all their time singling out food as the culprit. It should also be drawn to their attention that the average for the year 1971 food price index was 131.4 on the basis of 100 in 1961, but the index for prices received by farmers in that year was 112.5. Now hon. members complain because farmers are getting a little better deal as a result of action taken by this government, and complaining about it since it is reflected in prices, when in the kind of economy we have it obviously has to finally find its way into the price of food.


An hon. Member:: You are building up straw men.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not building up straw men; I am destroying some, or at least that is what I am trying to do. I have not heard the hon. member for Saint John's East (Mr. McGrath) defend the fishermen, because since this government came to office, for the first time in history fishermen have had some justice in the returns for their products; and that is also included in the food component of the cost of living index. I should think the fishermen would want that position defended rather than have this kind of thing going on.
It has been well established by some hon. members on this side that the portion of the disposable income of Canadians spent on food is the lowest in the world. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) only a few minutes ago, it is down to around 17 per cent or 18 per cent in this ratio. What is more important is that it takes less time today for a Canadian, in terms of hours of work, to buy the weekly food basket than for anyone anywhere else in the world.
A comparison can be made as to the number of hours of work in the industrial sector required to buy a basket of mixed foods in various countries. This study has been made. A food basket that contains a wide range of commodities which go into the weekly shopping list can be bought in Canada, on the average, from the proceeds of five hours labour in the industrial sector. That is the lowest number of working hours of any country-and the study included Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany, the most advanced industrial countries in the world. In Canada it was five hours; in other countries it was much higher. Even in the United States it was 5.9 hours, and it went up to a high of 24 hours in Italy.
This is the kind of contribution the farmers and the food processing industry have made to Canadian society. In spite of all this, farmers are singled out as being the culprits in the situation we have today. This is dishonest and does a disservice to the farmers of this country, and I

believe this kind of hypocrisy ought to be exposed from time to time.
Let me point out what I mean by hypocrisy. I would not be surprised at all that if the opposition had an opportunity next week to move another motion they would say something to the effect that in the opinion of this House the government had failed to cope with the problem of farmers receiving adequate prices for what they produce. The opposition has already done that once or twice. To make things even more confusing, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris exonerated everybody in the processing and distribution chain. There are very expressive words for that kind of stand taken on both sides of the fence, right, left and in the middle all at the same time. The farmers of Canada will understand this because they now have received some justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They will love you.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In the last few months there have been increases in the price of some commodities to the farmers of this country. Pork is a good example, as are milk products and fish. If political parties opposite are going to draw public attention to this fact and complain because these people are getting a little more justice in the prices they receive, it is time we exposed this type of hypocrisy.
They complain because there are some people in Canada who have an inadequate diet. Studies have been made from time to time which indicate this is true. What hon. members fail to say is that the inadequacies of a balanced diet, according to experts on nutrition, has very little or nothing to do with the level of income. The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) pointed out that there are very serious inadequacies in the balanced nutritional diet of many people who can afford to buy all the food they need and, indeed, eat far more than they ought to in total.
That happens to be the fact, but hon. members opposite do not mention it. They weep alligator tears and argue that this is something which must be corrected. We know that hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not eat properly balanced diets, according to nutritional experts, but this is certainly not because the price of food is too high. There is good, wholesome food in Canada in adequate quantities for anybody who chooses to use his disposable income to buy that food.


An hon. Member:: What happens to the money?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Some of the money goes in some of these other cost of living factors which members across the way do not have the decency to mention. Some of these cost of living factors have gone up 150 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Such as government spending.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Members of this government recognized long ago that there were some people caught on fixed incomes and that any change in the cost of living had an adverse effect on them in that it lowered their standard of living. That is why in the budget which was brought down a few days ago some very important steps were taken to correct this situation for a large number of Canadians on fixed incomes. This was done by increasing pensions. Many things have been done for the farmer to increase the price
June 1, 1972

he receives and thus his income. I certainly hope this government will not take steps which will in fact reduce the return to our primary producers, namely, the farmers and fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) seeking the floor on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister entertain a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. There is not sufficient time. Our time is limited. However, if I have finished before my time is up, I will entertain a question by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Chicken.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, it is not chicken. These hon. members are not only interested in using their own time to spread this unfair kind of information they put forward; they want to pirate my time as well. Let us consider very briefly some of the commodities. What are they complaining about? Are they complaining about the price of pork? Are they complaining about the price of potatoes or the price of grain, fish, fruits and vegetables? If that is what they are complaining about I would remind them that all through 1971 the producers of pork in Canada received for it less than the cost of production. The government recognized this and made an offer of $24 million in deficiency payments to make up the difference. Now these producers are getting some justice from the marketplace. Some members try to downgrade the fact that they are entitled to this.
Are they talking about poultry? The poultry producers of this country in my opinion are still receiving far too low a price for the eggs, broilers and turkeys they produce. Within the next few days we will be assisting them to correct this situation. I hope no one will come into this House and complain about the fact that they are finally receiving some justice from the marketplace. For far too long the primary producers, both farmers and fishermen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has another 30 seconds or so before the expiration of his allowed time. The Chair, and perhaps some hon. members, would like the opportunity to hear what he is saying.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say that the primary producers, both farmers and fishermen, of this country for far too long have been receiving an income which is less than the national average. It is substantially less than that which other sectors of the economy have received. The government will continue its efforts to improve this situation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who has just told us that primary producers in Canada do not receive the income which they deserve. This is not the purpose of this motion at all, but I noticed in passing that the minister said farmers would remember
Increasing Food Prices
what the government had done. It is precisely because farmers remember that the government is afraid to call an election at this time.
Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that I support the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards-
It has been said before that the high cost of living was not due only to the rise in food prices.
I quote again:
-or with the fact that supermarket profits have increased simultaneously at an unprecedented rate-
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the profits of supermarkets have risen considerably. However, it is also true that ten years ago, the total sales of supermarkets came up to $100,000 per year, and that their profits were in the order of 10 per cent. In fact, it was rather millions of dollars, but let us only take as an example a figure of $100,000.
Today, the sales of supermarkets are more than five times as much. This means that the sales of supermarkets come to over $500,000, and even if the percentage of profits has diminished by about 3 per cent, they are nevertheless making higher profits, namely $35,000,-that is 7 per cent of $500,000-as compared with $10,000. It is clear that profits have gone up because sales have been larger.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway contends that food prices have drastically increased; they have not increased more than in other sectors, a fact that the New Democrats are presumably prepared to acknowledge. However, I would have liked to find a concrete proposal in the motion. What to do then? Control prices? Nationalize supermarkets, as the New Democrats seem to suggest in their platform? Many countries have proceeded with the nationalization not only of supermarkets but also of flourishing industries which took nothing away from anybody but which allowed everybody to get something.
When I went to Czechoslovakia, I had the opportunity of visiting ghost plants-


An hon. Member:: Here we go again!


David Réal Caouette: -the BATA plants, that used to manufacture footwear. I remember that in 1934, when BATA was a private enterprise, those plants could have supplied the whole world with shoes. But today those plants are closed down. The company no longer exists and the government was unable to keep up their production.
Mr. Speaker, there is an example of nationalization. Private enterprise was abolished and in so doing the wings of private personal initiative were clipped because, without ambition the individual dies-there is no doubt about that-and if hon. members of the New Democratic Party do not know that, let them look at what goes on in those countries they so often like to quote as examples; they will see exactly what happens.
However, are we going to suggest price controls? If we set up price controls, we might as well control wages-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Whose wages?

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices


David Réal Caouette: -and prevent all salary increases. Let's freeze all wages including those of hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, we have known price controls during the war when the government had frozen wages, retail prices, and so on. We even gave out ration coupons at the same time we set up price controls. With ration coupons you could get butter, coffee, jam, tires, cars, clothes and what have you. According to the value of the coupons you could get the commodities at prices set by the government, through the price board.
But, Mr. Speaker, while you could not get more than what your coupon allowed, at a controlled retail price, you could obtain anything on the black market, either sugar, coffee, or any other good item which was subject to restrictions. You could not get more goods than the number of coupons you had. Although sugar sold then for 8 cents a pound, you were able to get as much as you wanted at 20 cents a pound on the black market.
The same rule applied as regards cars and tires, as well as every item that was government-controlled. Should we go back to this price and trade control in peacetime? This would cause the black market to reappear, and the situation would be a hundred times worse than it is at the present time. An evil cannot be cured with a remedy which is worse than the evil itself.
Then, what do we say? It is quite easy to blame the giants, the supermarkets, as I said earlier. These supermarkets have increased their prices, just like in any other economic or business area. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) was saying earlier that in 1961, an average Canadian spent 41 per cent of his income on food, while in 1971, he spent only 18 per cent for the same purpose. By the way, the hon. Minister of Agriculture has just stated that perhaps it was only 17 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe at all in these statistics. If average Canadians really spend only 17 or 18 per cent of their income on food, this means that they only eat sausages or hamburgers all year long, because no one could, at the present time, buy enough food with 17 or 18 per cent of one's income.
Take the typical case of a citizen who earns $60 a week for instance and who has two or three children at home. In cities like Montreal and Quebec we still find people who earn starvation wages of $60 a week. But 18 per cent of $60 is $10.80 exactly. What five-member family can live on $10.80 a week? We should not mock people in their faces, and I think this is what the hon. Minister of Agriculture did-


Mr. L'Heureux:: We take the average.


David Réal Caouette: You take the average, yes, but some people must spend 50 per cent of their salary on food. You talk about the average, but some other people spend only 8 or 10 per cent of their income on food. These people cannot even buy the cloth around the bologna. These are facts. So, what are we going to propose?
It is all very well to submit notices of motions, with no solution. Let us carry out an inquiry, they say. I have no

objection to inquiries, but not to control prices, salaries, even incomes of farmers, retailers, wholesalers, of all citizens in short.
What we suggest is payment of a compensated discount on retail prices which would increase the purchasing power of the consumer without taking anything away from him or increasing prices.
For instance, the federal government should pay a general discount on retail prices of food, clothing and all other products.
Let us take food for an example, since that is what is being discussed, and suppose a payment of 30 per cent discount. A family spending $30 a week for food, with a 30 per cent discount would save $9, therefore paying only $21, and the federal government would pay $9 to the retailer, representing compensated discount on the retail price. At that time, Mr. speaker, it would work out much cheaper for the Canadian government to grant such a compensated discount than to set up sundry commissions throughout the country and to appoint other agencies for the marketing of products.
It would then cost much less for the federal government, and consumers would pay less than what they are now paying.
I repeat that the average Canadian family only spends 18 per cent of its income on food. The man who earns $100 a week, for instance,-a minimum salary the establishment of which the three labour leaders of the province of Quebec are calling for-and who must feed five persons, will spend $18. With $18 a week, to pay for milk, bread, in short, for all the food needed by a family of five, it is impossible for any hon. member or anybody else to eat decently.
The Minister of Agriculture knows it as the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton who quoted statistics a while ago. Statistics are more or less valid. They seldom are correctly interpreted.
Mr. Speaker, we have already suggested the payment of a discount on retail prices. It was done in wartime for milk. As the retail price of that product was then 14 cents a quart, the federal government granted a discount of 2 cents a quart, so that the consumer only paid 12 cents. The 2 cents were paid to the dairyman.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Social Credit party's proposal is relevant in any area, whether it be for instance, the clothing industry, the farm implement industry, the primary industry or the distribution industry. What we need is a compensated discount on retail prices which would permit the consumer to buy more and obtain better services. This would certainly encourage the primary producer who would increase his income by selling his goods more easily than at the present time.
This appears to me to be a logical solution; and, since it proved quite useful in time of war, I wonder why it could not also be used in time of peace as well.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway is willing to propose solutions, if ever a special committee of the House is established to investigate this situation, before June 26, 1972. It may seem somewhat early but, in any case, it is the most adequate solution
June 1, 1972

which is likely to help all at once the consumers, the producers, the distributors, the manufacturers and the people as a whole who contribute to the economy of our country.
If we could find this solution, I think we should have done a lot to help mankind.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) cannot in any way doubt the sincerity she has displayed on many occasions in this House in endeavouring to bring forth for solution problems which affect our less fortunate people. But I am disappointed in this motion and could not support it for the very reason that it cannot be supported by the facts. In other words, what is contained in the motion simply cannot be substantiated. The motion reads in part:
-in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices-
What about steadily rising costs? Has anybody ever mentioned steadily rising costs? We hear members of the NDP promoting steadily rising costs in many areas. Increases in costs which are not matched by productivity are inflationary. The money has to come from somewhere; the consumer is the only source and consequently we must have rising prices.
It is unfair to select food as a target, Mr. Speaker. I have been involved in the production of food most of my life and I know how tough it is to sell to the supermarkets which of course try to buy at the lowest possible price. I know the extent of their mark-up because I know what they have paid for the product. I carry no brief for the supermarkets, Mr. Speaker; indeed, I have bruises to show from my dealings with them over the years. But I think we should be fair.
A group supported by the NDP has published some vicious material attacking the Kraft Company in Ontario. It would be difficult to substantiate their allegations which could seriously affect the income of farmers in that area. The milk board is not an appointed body but is elected by the dairymen of Ontario to establish a price for their product which is sold to companies to make cheese. This group is supported by the NDP and-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) just referred to a document which he inferred was promoted or supported by the NDP. Would he please identify that document, who put it out and what it is?


M. Ervin Pringle: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. It is issued by "The men and women of the National Farmers Union" and it reads:
Increasing Food Prices
Boycott all Kraft products: Don't buy products sold under the Kraft brand name.
It begins with these words:
As members of the National Farmers Union, the largest direct-membership farm policy group in Canada-
That statement would be questioned in some areas, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a good idea if it were read at the next NDP caucus. We cannot help but become alarmed when we read statements in Hansard such as that made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on May 30. At page 2711 she is reported to have said:
For example, Safeway's profits rose by 40 per cent in the first three months of this year, the profits of George Weston rose by nearly 50 per cent and the profits of Dominion Stores by 300 per cent.
Three hundred per cent of what?


An hon. Member:: Over the previous year.


M. Ervin Pringle: This is an unfair and vicious manner in which to attack people who are doing their best to distribute wholesome food, not brown sugar kept in an open drawer as I used to keep it, or raisins, figs or dried fruits, but properly packaged wholesome food. They operate under strict regulations laid down by the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, in the first 12 weeks of this year the profit on the sales dollar in Canada Safeway Ltd. was 2.11 cents. Last year, which was a poor one because of price wars, the profit was 1.75 cents. This company has extended its operations to Europe and Australia. They do not say that their sales increased by $30 million, but anyone who knows about unit costs will realize that with an increase of $30 million the slightest increase in prices will realize more profit.
I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will be glad to hear that just this week the company introduced a computer system and now all items in their stores in Vancouver will be priced on a unit basis. They were asked last year to do this by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and they have complied. I refer to this particular chain because its name has been mentioned, but I am confident that what I say is true of all other chains.
These companies have been investigated again and again. I have been very glad to participate in the investigations at times because I have been unhappy about the price they paid for the products I sold them. However, after every investigation they have been given a clean sheet because the unit profit on food in Canada is so disgustingly low. Of course, when you get into millions and millions of dollars in sales it does not take very much unit profit to make what appears to be a considerable amount of money. But, Mr. Speaker, wavering of only half a cent or one cent in the other direction will mean that the same amount of money is lost. I know of chain stores which lost $100,000 when they opened a new store before they started to make a profit.
Another point is that supermarkets have to reserve a very large amount of money because when they contract with labour they often are faced with retroactive payments. But of course they never get a retroactive price

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
increase. I think this is very unfair and I wanted to clear it for the record.
I appreciate that many speakers today have come to the aid of the farmer. I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), but I think he was not quite correct. He kept saying, "This is all that the farmer has left" and seemed to neglect the fact that the farmer has to meet all his expenses from the money he receives. The margin is not money in his pocket.
I should like to examine a few more facts, Mr. Speaker, though I have had to throw away most of my statistics because they have already been used. The average disposable income in Canada almost tripled between 1949 and 1959. According to the food policy booklet issued by the Department of Agriculture, it rose from $884 to $1,416 per person in ten years and to $2,398 per person by 1969. In contrast to income, food prices increased only by slightly more than half during the same 20-year period. The cost of meat, vegetables, fruit, milk, bread and other foods needed to feed a family of four for one week was $20 in 1949 and $24 in 1959.
In 1949 a man worked, on the average, 20 hours to feed a family of four for one week. In 1969, according to the latest figures, he had to work only 11 hours for the same end. So he now has to work 11 hours as opposed to 20 to feed a family of four for one week.


An hon. Member:: How is the farmer benefiting?


M. Ervin Pringle: Like most consumers, our housewives have probably found that there is more income available to spend on food. One may assume that they buy more food, but this is not necessarily true since high income families usually buy more expensive foods such as tender steaks, greens and berries out of season, and so on. However, even though the housewife spends more on higher priced foods, the proportion of average disposable income spent on food in retail stores is smaller than ever. For example, in 1949 about 22 per cent of disposable income was spent on food and now only about 15 per cent is so spent.
Where does the money go? We know that some of it must go to the farmer who must be paid for growing food and raising livestock. We know that some of it goes to the man who sells the food, or to the chain store. What happens in between? Let us consider that labour costs have been increasing, and still are going up, up and up. They are not accelerating on a true percentage basis, since the latest increase is based on a percentage of the former wage which itself was based on a former increase. Also, transportation costs are increasing.
In addition to labour costs and other costs, raw material costs used for packaging are going up. The housewife today buys more so-called packaged foods or convenience foods. Hon. members can check this. More convenience foods than ever are being sold. I am talking of heat-and-eat items, TV dinners and prepared pies. The housewife at one time worked in the garden. She was the food processor in the home; she stayed at home and bottled and processed. Now she does other things. Now housewives eat lunch at the club and think of things to do in the afternoon. They do not process foods as they once did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would be in his place to listen to the very thoughtful speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) who I thought was fair in his summing up. Having listened to the debate today which involved members on all sides of the House, I think it can be said that nobody-I include the NDP particularly, my party and hon. members opposite-attacked the primary producer, the farmer, for what he is getting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are saying that food costs in Canada are high; that veterans, for example, whose benefits were recently increased by 3.6 per cent, are still struggling to make ends meet; that old age pensioners, whose pensions were increased by $2.88 a month, are still finding it difficult to pay food bills and live at standards we think are acceptable for Canadians; and that those on the guaranteed income supplement, whose maximum benefits increased from $137.70 to $150-about $13-still find it difficult to meet expenses. That is what we are saying.
I congratulate, at the outset, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for bringing this matter before the House, because the cost of food to consumers, particularly those on fixed incomes, is probably the most serious question facing Canadians today. We have heard much this week about foreign takeovers. Perhaps it is time to examine some chain stores. If the government is serious in its takeover policy and if it is not mere windowdressing, this would be a good area to examine. Perhaps a former Liberal, now a judge in Saskatchewan, Mary Batten, would conduct an investigation in this field. I think such an investigation would be worth while for Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Now tell us about increased legal fees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One of our difficulties in dealing with the situation is that the primary producer, the farmer, is not making enough income. Let us talk about the return he receives for his work.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about increased legal fees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish the hon. member would get off the pot. It seems that he has been on marijuana for so long that his head has gone funny.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Corbin:: That was a most responsible statement, I must say.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is always talking. Let us consider the price of beef. The price to the farmer is between 31 cents and 38 cents per pound in the stockyards. And what does the consumer pay for beef?


An hon. Member:: And for legal fees?
June 1, 1972


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The price of hamburger ranges between 65 and 75 cents a pound. Liver costs between 80 and 90 cents a pound; roasting beef costs $1.20 a pound and more; even beef for boiling costs between 90 cents and $1 per pound. That is what we are talking about. We are concerned about food costs which the consumer, the man on fixed income, must bear. We are not saying that the farmer, the primary producer, is getting enough. Although we pay 90 cents per pound or more for liver, the top price for steers in this country-I checked this today- ranges between 34 and 38 cents a pound. If you compare the price of the steer per pound with the price of liver, hamburger or steak, you will find that there is a large difference. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, many of our difficulties stem from the government's decision to allow our dollar to float. We export many agricultural commodities. The government, by allowing our dollar to float, has not diminished the difficulties faced by our agricultural producers. With the floating of our dollar the agricultural producer receives less in the export market for his commodity. He gets less for his grain and for his beef because of our floating dollar. Yet the government has done nothing.
We are also concerned about the health and welfare of our senior citizens, veterans and others. The government has been so preoccupied with curbing inflation that it has created unemployment; people have lost their jobs. The kind of inflation which began under this government is continuing. Our people must pay high taxes in addition to high costs occasioned by inflation. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East touched on this subject. Let us consider for a moment-


An hon. Member:: And legal fees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -how this government has been spending our money. For 1970-71 the government budgeted for expenditures of $13,182 million, compared with $11,921 million for 1969-70. The increase is in the order of $1,260 million. Estimates for the various departments increased by between 23 per cent and 38 per cent. So government spending has been increased. We know that the cabinet was warned by Mr. Young that the real cause of inflation, or a major cause, is overspending by the government. That spending is driving up costs, increasing living costs and affecting food costs which the consumer must meet. That is what we ought to examine at this time.
Let us see how our tax dollar is spent. Since this government took office, it has financed its operations with deficits. Today 14 cents of every tax dollar collected from the Canadian taxpayer goes to pay interest on the national debt; 13 cents of every tax dollar goes on defence; 7 cents on transportation and communications; and on health and welfare, the biggest single item, the government spends 25 cents out of every tax dollar. What really concerns Canadians is the high cost of government.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member speaks as a Conservative.
Increasing Food Prices


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, I don't know. Let us wait for the election. I think hon. members will find, when the election rolls around, that the people know that the number one enemy they must turn out of office is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) along with the puppets who follow him. That is what they will decide at the polls.


An hon. Member:: The people will not go for puppeteers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hon. members talk about the high cost of living and the high cost of food. Well, let us examine this government's dairy policy and see what has been the result of the kind of quotas it has imposed on the dairy industry in western Canada. Today there is a shortage of butter. We are importing butter fron New Zealand and Australia. These are some of the problems. Not only has the government driven people out of the dairy industry but it has increased the price of butter and other dairy products to the consumer. This affects the people I mentioned in opening my remarks. These are the facts.
The real enemy of the consumer is the increase in government expenditures. This government has spent itself right out of the Gallup poll. That is what worried the Minister of Agriculture this evening. It was not that he was upset about the debate, or got sunstroke when he went to Medicine Hat last week and found things operating well. The real reason is that the Gallup poll shows that the Liberals are slipping because they have not come to grips with any of our problems. Nothing has been done with regard to the high cost of food and the high cost of living.
I want to turn now to another subject. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East talked about transportation costs. Ever since the Railway Act was amended by the Liberal government and the new transportation commission was set up which enabled the railways, except for the Crows-nest Pass freight rates, to increase freight rates from eastern to western Canada, and from eastern Canada to the Maritimes and vice versa, the cost of living has spiralled in all areas.
A former minister of transport, Hon. Jack Pickersgill, has not done anything to stop the increase, nor has the federal Liberal cabinet stepped in to prevent this discrimination in freight rates for the west and the Maritimes. It has been said that Canada is held together by its transportation system. It is one of the cornerstones of confederation at which this government has chipped away until we can now see that the whole question of freight rates is in a chaotic state, even beyond the repair of Mr. Pickersgill who set himself up as the czar of transportation. Freight rates have increased on some commodities from the west to the east, and vice versa, between 40 and 60 per cent.
The government should be concerned about the control of inflation, but it has done nothing. The cabinet will not give leadership in this field and the transport commission has not done anything but allow freight rates to spiral. This has affected the cost of food and the cost of living of every Canadian.
I repeat that the real enemy, the cause of inflation and the real heel crushing down on the pensioner, the veteran and those on fixed income, is excessive government

June 1, 1972
Increasing Food Prices
spending. Therefore, it is my intention to move an amendment. I will read it now because I may make some remarks on it. I wish to move the following amendment to the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a):
Adding after the word rate, in the said motion:
"and/or with the fact that transportation costs have increased
substantially and at an uncontrolled, unprecedented rate,"
and the remainder of the motion shall remain the same.
The motion, therefore, would read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to cope with the problem of steadily rising food prices, which seriously affect Canadian living standards, or with the fact that supermarket profits have increased simultaneously at an unprecedented rate, and/or with the fact that transportation costs have increased substantially and at an uncontrolled, unprecedented rate, and because these matters are of nationwide concern they should be referred immediately to a special committee of this House for investigation and report by June 26,1972.
This afternoon the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) moved a motion. It was pointed out that there are two prongs to the main motion. It was set out in the ruling that another prong could be added to the motion, although it could not substantially change the wording from "the standing committee" to "the Prices and Incomes Commission". I listened to the ruling this afternoon. One of the ingredients which must be taken into consideration by anyone studying the high cost of food is the high cost of transportation. I now ask that this third prong be put into the motion. I trust that my friends in the New Democratic Party will see their way clear not only to support us on the procedure but on the specifics of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Reading the amendment, I have some reservation about accepting it. At first glance it seems to bring in a completely new matter. Because we have had already a procedural debate on a previous amendment, and because of the time element, without creating any precedent I will accept the amendment at this time. I could not make a decision to disallow the amendment without allowing hon. members to comment from a procedural point of view. This would deny an hon. member from the party which moved the motion the opportunity to close the debate, because there are only 15 minutes remaining. I will put the motion if the hon. member will inform the Chair who is the seconder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for St. John's East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for St. John's East, having spoken, cannot second the motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) will second the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), moves the following amendment:
Adding after the word rate, in the said motion:

"and/or with the fact that transportation costs have increased
substantially and at an uncontrolled, unprecedented rate,"
and the remainder of the motion shall remain the same.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to wind up the debate on this very important motion. After listening to government spokesmen today it would be almost impossible for someone who did not know the topic in advance to know what we were supposed to be debating. At different times they talked about labour costs and the nutritional habits of Canadians. Indeed, one member on the government side spent all his time talking about food costs in Sweden. This either illustrates the stupidity of the Liberal party of Canada or merely their incompetence to interpret a motion. I ask Your Honour to judge which is worse for a party that claims to have the right to govern this country. It was an incredible performance.
I have before me the final report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Consumer Credit, dated April 25, 1967, signed by the co-chairmen, Senator David A. Croll and the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Basford). In that report the hon. gentlemen have something to say about the food processing industry and the supermarkets which in our humble way we thought merited serious analysis today in terms of their effect on food prices in this country. In the concluding statement of the report the committee says:
The domination of a few large corporations in some sectors of the Canadian economy is clearly evident and gives rise to the question, "Is this in the public interest?" Your committee feels that the implications of this question must be fully examined.
This followed an analysis of the way in which relatively few companies in this country dominate the food industry. The report is an expression of concern by the committee, one dominated, I stress, by Liberals. The committee goes on to recommend a continuing investigation into the monopolistic practices of the food industry in Canada. Needless to say, this recommendation has not been adopted in the slightest way by the government. Indeed, the government never had any serious intention of dealing with the issue.
Reflect on the speeches we have heard today from the other side. Has one Liberal member risen and said he is seriously concerned about the market power of the supermarkets? They have managed to talk about everything but the subject before the House for debate. In the time available to me I should like to say something about the motion before us. First I should like to say something about supermarket profits. I shall name the companies and put on record their profits from 1968. Take Steinberg's. In 1968 its profits were $6.4 million; in 1969, $5 million; in 1970, $9.3 million and in 1971, $9.5 million.


Mr. Stafford:: How much did they have invested?


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal later with that question. The net income of this firm for a 24-week period ending January 15, 1971, was $3.7 million. One year later, for the same period ending January 15, 1972, net income amounted to
June 1, 1972

$7.6 million. There had been a 100 per cent increase in the profit picture.


An hon. Member:: Give the 1969 profits.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like, now, to deal with the George Weston corporation, that "tiny" concern which has some 120 enterprises under its control.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Tell us about their gross as well.


John Edward Broadbent: Wait a moment.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


John Edward Broadbent: In 1967 their profits were $13 million; in 1968, $13.6 million; in 1969, $15.4 million; in 1970, $14.4 million and in 1971, $15.1 million.


Harold Edwin Stafford: What were their gross sales each year?


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal with that later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Now look at the Dominion stores situation. The profit for the 39 weeks ending December 31, 1970, amounted to $1.9 million. The profit for the same period ending December 31, 1971, was $5.8 million. That is an increase of about 300 per cent in one year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) rises on a point of order.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I should like to ask the hon. member if he would permit a question.


John Edward Broadbent: No; I do not have the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members should not use points of order for the purpose of seeking to ask questions.


John Edward Broadbent: I thought it would be appropriate for one speaker today to deal with the subject, Mr. Speaker. Now I should like to come to the rate of return on the investment dollar. If the hon. member had done his research he would have found today on his desk a report from Statistics Canada on the subject of industrial corporations.


Harold Edwin Stafford: I have read it.


John Edward Broadbent: It was released today and it refers to the rate of return on the investment dollar for the past year in a variety of sectors of the economy, particularly in the industrial and corporate sectors. The figures are interesting. If you take all industry in Canada over the past year, the rate of return for the first quarter was 5.3 per cent, in the second quarter it was 5.93 per cent, in the third it was
Increasing Food Prices
6.35 per cent, and in the fourth quarter it was 6.44 per cent. If you take manufacturing, the return for the first quarter last year was 5.2 per cent, for the second quarter 6.54 per cent, for the third 6.97 per cent, and for the fourth 6.69 per cent.
Now let us look at the food industry. Look at what poor Steinberg's, Dominion stores, Westons and Loblaws did- those firms for which the Liberal party shows such sympathy as expressed today in the speeches we have heard. For the first quarter of last year the rate of return was 8.02 per cent compared with the over-all average of 5.36 per cent, in the second quarter 9.13 per cent compared with the average in industry as a whole of 5.93 per cent, in the third quarter 8.05 per cent compared with 6.35 per cent in industry as a whole, and in the last quarter 7.87 per cent compared with 6.44 per cent.
There is the answer to the hon. member's question. That is the rate of return per investment dollar. This, I suggest, constitutes a prima facie case for our motion. Remember our motion does not say that supermarkets are totally responsible for increasing costs. Conservative members have correctly pointed out that one has to take into account transportation costs and other factors. That is obvious. We are not denying it in any way. What we are saying is that the profits of supermarket companies have been rising at an astronomical rate in the past year and must be regarded by any impartial observer to be in large measure responsible for the high cost of food which the people of Canada have to bear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What are the pricing policies of these corporations? I refer supporters of the government to the same committee report of 1967. That committee, dominated by government members, pointed out that in many cases, if not in most, the firms set the prices. They dominate the market. They do not respond to market conditions. I quote from the report:
The five great corporate food chains and the voluntary chains control more than 75 per cent of the grocery business in urban areas and their percentage is increasing.
In one part of the food processing industry, one firm controls 100 per cent of the market in the Maritimes and western Canada and at least 80 per cent of the market in Ontario and Quebec.
I also have before me a report prepared this year in British Columbia by a professor at Simon Fraser University who examined food pricing policies of companies in the province as well as the structure of the industry as a whole. What does he conclude? He concludes what the special joint committee concluded in 1967, namely, that the big corporations do not respond to market conditions in the main but, rather, set those conditions because they control most of the factors which influence production of food products in the first instance.
What did he discover in addition to that? I suggest this must also be of concern to us. He discovered that in Vancouver one of the major chains charges higher prices in the poorer parts of the city than it does in the richer parts. This duplicates studies conducted in the United States where it was discovered that in the Negro ghettos

June 1, 1972
Division
the big food chains charge the unfortunate, poor people higher prices than they charge people who live in the more affluent parts of the city.
It appears the reason for this sort of conduct is that the poor people living in the heart of Vancouver, or in the heart of Toronto or Montreal, do not have automobiles, or many do not, and consequently cannot compare prices charged by the different chains. As a result, the local store downtown charges what the market will bear and all too frequently prices are higher than prices charged elsewhere by other firms. This is what the motion asks us to investigate by setting up a special committee.
In the time I have left I should like to suggest that one of the reasons firms like Weston, Loblaws, Dominion stores, Safeway and Steinberg's are in their present position is that they have branched out into all sectors of the food processing industry. These firms are in the picture right from the time the seed is planted in the soil until the product is sold in the stores. They are in no sense of the word in a state of competition but, rather, are in a position of being able to impose their own price on the Canadian consumer.
May I again refer hon. members to a document called "The Grocery Store Storybook," put out by Professor G. B. Rush in 1972, which I shall be only too pleased to pass to hon. members who wish to examine it. Professor Rush documents with great care the conglomerate power of these enterprises. In the minute remaining may I deal with but one of these, the Weston corporation. I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, but may I take another 30 seconds?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (9) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Before leaving the chair I think it is my duty to remind hon. members that it is long established practice for hon. members to come into the chamber wearing a jacket, shirt and tie. I am not prepared to encourage hon. members to depart from that practice. I would seek their co-operation in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Andras
Badanai
Barrett
Basford
Beaudoin
Bechard
++NAYS
Messrs:
Benson
Blair
Borrie
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan


Winona Grace MacInnis: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would think it appropriate to mention that all members on this side of the House are properly dressed, and the bad example is being set by government members.
At 10.19 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday. June 2, 1972