1973-01-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege about which I have given Your Honour notice. My question of privilege relates to the advertisement by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia in the January 3 special edition of the Canada Gazette, wherein was published the proposed boundaries for the electoral districts in the province of British Columbia as a result of the 1971 census.
The deadline for making known to the commission the desire of anyone to appear before it to make representations is January 26. The Canada Gazette for January 3, within which these proposals were contained and which I understand Information Canada distributes has not been sent to any Member of Parliament as far as I have been able to determine, nor has it been sent, at least as of yesterday, to the Parliamentary Library. Indeed, it has not been sent to anyone.
My question of privilege is that the failure to distribute the information contained in the January 3 edition of the Canada Gazette interferes with the duties and responsibilities of the members of this House in their attempts to represent their constituents should they wish to make submissions or presentations to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia. Accordingly, if Your Honour finds that there is a prima facie case of privilege involved, and so that the matter will not founder because of lack of a motion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House expresses the view that Information Canada should forthwith make available to members the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia, as advertised in the Canada Gazette for January 3, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has given the Chair the written notice required by the Standing Orders. I have given some thought to the matter he is now proposing for the consideration of the House. I would think that the hon. member may have a grievance. Certainly he has justification, I am sure, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He knows-and this was confirmed, I believe, in conversations we had before the opening of proceedings this afternoon-that the commission reports to the House through the Speaker, not through Information Canada or any other government agency. It may very well be that the Chair could be of
assistance to the hon. member and others interested in getting an early copy of this report and in ensuring that the report is circulated immediately to all interested members from British Columbia. I will undertake at this time to see that action is taken immediately.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House. I shall seek the concurrence of the House in this report on motions later today.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the lists which are the substance of the motion to be proposed to the House later this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council are rather lengthy. Normally they should be read by the Clerk at the table. Perhaps this could be dispensed with. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The report referred to above is as follows:]
Your committee recommends that the standing committees of this House be composed of the following Members:
Agriculture
Beaudoin
Caron
Corriveau
Cote
Danforth
Ethier
Fox
Gleave
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargraves Horner (Crowfoot)
Messrs.
Horner (Battleford-Kindersley) Hurlburt Knight Korchinski Lambert
(Bellechasse)
La Salle Lessard Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
McCain
McKinley Murta Nesdoly Peters Roy (Laval)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay) Whicher Whittaker Wise-(30).

January 18, 1973
Standing Committees
Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts	Justice and Legal Affairs
Alkenbrack Arrol Begin (Miss) Blaker Fleming Grafftey Guilbault	Messrs. Jarvis Marceau Matte Mitges Nowlan Paproski Rose	Roy (Timmins) Stewart (Cochrane) Stollery Symes Yewchuck- (19).	Atkey Bechard Blaker Boisvert Fairweather Gilbert	Messrs. Guay (L6vis) Jerome Lawrence Leggatt Morgan Morin	O'Connor O'Sullivan Poulin Prud'homme Wagner Woolliams Yanakis-(19).External	Affairs and National	Defence	Messrs.	Labour,	Manpower and Immigration	Balfour Brewin Corbin Cullen Cyr Danson De Ban6 Douglas Dupnas Fairweather Forrestall	Harney Hees Hopkins Hymmen Lachance Langlois Laprise Matte McKinnon Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)	Nesbitt Patterson Pelletier (Sherbrooke) Reilly Rowland Stackhouse Stewart (Marquette) Wagner Walker-(30).	Alexander Andre Beattie (Hamilton Mountain) Caccia Dionne Fleming	Messrs. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Loiselle MacGuigan McGrath Muir Neale (Vancouver East)	Olivier Portelance Reilly Skoreyko Stollery Turner (London East) Y ewchuk- (19).Finance,	Trade and Economic Affairs	Miscellaneous	Private Bills and Standing Orders	Baker Breau Buchanan Clermont Comtois Danforth	[DOT] Messrs. Danson Dick Gillies Hellyer Herbert Lambert (Edmonton West)	Orlikow Ritchie Rondeau Saltsman Stevens Trudel Whicher-(19).	Baker Campbell Clermont Coates	Messrs. Duquet Fortin Lambert (Edmonton West)	McKenzie Nelson Scott Stollery Yaniakis-(12).Fisheries and Forestry	National	Resources and Public Works	Messrs.	Messrs.	Allard Barnett Bechard Blenkarn Campbell Crouse Cyr Fraser	Guay (Levis) Haliburton Leblanc (Westmorland- Kent) Lundrigan MacLean	McCain Olaussen Romp key Rooney Smith (Northumber-land-Miramichi) Wise-(19).	Andre Bawden Blackburn Blais Dinsdale luthier Gendron	Haliburton Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Harding Higson Hymmen	Lajoie McRae Paproski Rompkey Rooney Stevens Tetrault-(19).Health,	Welfare and Social	Affairs	Privileges and Elections	Messrs.	Messrs. Howard Jerome Lachance Laflamme MacDonald (Miss) Macquarrie Matte	Begin (Miss) Gafik Corbin Gauthier (Ottawa East) Grafftey Holmes Hueglin	Isabelle Jelinek Lambert (Belle-chasse) Maclnnis (Mrs.) Macquarrie Nystrom	Railton Reynolds Roche Rynard Thomas (Maison-neuve-Rosemjont) Walker-(19).	Baker Benjamin Blais Caccia Clark (Rocky Mountain) Forrestall	McKinley McKinnon O'Connor Poulin [DOT] Reid Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay) - (19).Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Procedure and Organization	Messrs.	Buchanan Clark (Rocky Mountain) Cote Cyr Firth Gauthier (Roberval)	Hollands Howard Lajoie L'Heureux MacDonald (Miss) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)	McRae Neil (Moose Jaw) Nielsen Oberle Schellenberger Taylor Watson-(19).	Fortin Foster Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lambert (Edmonton West)	Messrs. Leblanc (Westmorland- Kent) Morgan Nielsen	Nowlan Penner Reid Walker Woolliams-(12).
January 18, 1973

Public Accounts
Caouette
(Charlevoix) Clarke (Vancouver Quadra)
Cossitt
Crouse
Cullen
Darling
Messrs.
Demers
Dupont
Dupras
Frank
Gauthier
(Ottawa East) Hales Knight
Leblanc
(Laurier)
Mather
Olivier
Schumacher
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont) Towers-(19).
Regional Development
Blais
Broadbent
Cossitt
Dick
Dupont
Epp
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Howie
Messrs.
Leblanc
(Westmorland-
Kent)
Lessard Lundrigan Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) MacKay
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke) Penner Prud'homme Rodriguez Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stewart,
(Marquette)-(19).
Transport and Communications
Beatty
(Wellington-
Grey-Dufferin-
Waterloo)
Benjamin
Blouin
Campbell
Carter
Messrs.
Duquet
Ellis
Godin
Grier
Guay (St. Boniface) Homer (Crowfoot) Kuntz Loiselle
Mazankowski McKenzie Railton Stewart (Cochrane) Thomas (Moncton) Trudel-(19).
Veterans Affairs
Allard
Beattie
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Cullen
Dupras
Foster
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Herbert Kempling
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk -Haldimand) Loiselle
Madill
Masniuk
Marshall
Peters
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) Thomas (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Turner (London East) -(19).
Your committee also recommends that the standing joint committees be composed of the following Members:
Library of Parliament
Bell
Blackburn
Boisvert
Cafik
Caron
Gauthier
(Ottawa East) Jelinek
Messrs.
L'Heureux
MacDonald
(Egmont)
MacGudgan
MacKay
Mitges
O'Sullivan
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke) Prud'homme Reid Ritchie Roche Rose-(19).
Standing Committees
Printing of Parliament
Barnett
Caouette
(Charlevoix)
Corbin
Dupont
Ellis
Ethier
Messrs.
Forrestall
Fox
Grafftey
Hopkins
Howie
Hymmen
Marshall
Masniuk
McRae
Morin (Mrs.) Patterson Rowland Stackhouse-(19)
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
Atkey
Balfour
Bechard
Brewin
Messrs.
Clark	Fox
(Rocky Mountain) Marceau Fairweather	Morin	(Mrs.)
Fortin	Poulin
Ritchie-(12).
And that the provisions of Standing Order 65(3) in relation to the number of members on the Joint Committees on the Library of Parliament and on Printing be suspended.
Your committee recommends that the members to serve on the Joint Committee on the direction of the Parliamentary Restaurant be as follows:
Allard
Begin (Miss)
Bell
Crouse
Danson
Foster
Gleave
Restaurant of Parliament Messrs.
Guay
(St. Boniface) Hales Harding Langlois
Leblanc (Laurier) Muinro (Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil (Moose Jaw)
Nesbitt
Paproski
Portelance
Roy (Laval)
Schumacher
Thomas
(Moncton) -(20)
And that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the formation of the Joint Committees on Printing, the Library of Parliament, Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, and the direction of the Parliamentary Restaurant.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*
* *

Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I would like to
422

January 18, 1973
Wardair Safety Standards
lay on the table the report of J. W. Swackhamer, the hearing officer under the Expropriation Act with reference to the proposed Pickering airport.

Mr. Speaker, this report is being translated and will be available in French at the beginning of next week.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on motions?


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the need to satisfy the public that working conditions for flight crews on Wardair charter flights are not so severe as to endanger the lives of passengers, and in view of the need to satisfy the public that the capacity to carry out emergency procedures properly is being maintained, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move the following motion:
That this House calls upon the Minister of Labour to establish an inquiry under the Labour Code into the working conditions of Wardair flight crews in order to ascertain whether safety standards are being maintained.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


Mr. Baldwin:: You never say yes.


TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES ACT
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-126, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in explaining the bill I should like to thank Your Honour for the advice you gave me yesterday and try to comply with it. The purpose of the bill is to establish as fishing zones an area off the coasts of Canada to the point where the depth of the ocean is 1,000 fathoms, in other words, to extend the zones to the edge of what I believe is referred to as the continental slope. I think it would be most appropriate that this be accomplished this year when we are to raise such matters at the conference on the law of the sea.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of a possible agreement between Canada and the United States on the security of oil supplies for the eastern part of Canada. At the initiative of which government are these discussions taking place and an agreement being sought, the government of Canada or the government of the United States?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it was at the initiative of both governments arising out of the 1970 ministerial meeting between Canada and the United States. The hon. gentleman will recall that a press release issued at that time indicated that these particular discussions would be carried on for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory agreement. I would confirm that at the moment there has been no agreement. There have been discussions for a lengthy period of time but at the present time I cannot predict when an agreement will be arrived at.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada in connection with this discussion is proposing that markets in eastern Canada be supplied by oil from western Canada, by oil from the United States or by both in the event our offshore supplies are cut off?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is rather more likely they will be supplied with oil from neither place. It depends very much on the nature of the international interruption. The most probable thing, for example, is that if there is a Middle East interruption there will be increased exports to Canada from Venezuela and Africa. It will depend on the international contingency. I would have to confirm this, but I think United States production at this time would not be in a position to satisfy the eastern Canadian market. We have no proposal at this time to expand the eastern shipment of Canadian crude from western Canada beyond the present position west of the Ottawa Valley line.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is apparent the government of Canada is expecting oil supplies from the United States to meet at least part of the requirements, I should like to ask the minister what quid pro quo the government of Canada is offering the United States for this assurance of meeting at least part of the requirements of eastern Canada in the event of such a cut-off, and will the minister give the House the assurance

January 18, 1973

that he will report to the House the terms of any such agreement with the United States before entering into it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are not offering any quid pro quo. The United States position very naturally is to seek from Canada some assurance that Canadian supplies to the western United States would not be cut off in these particular circumstances. The negotiations will continue and I am certainly prepared to report to the House on their progress or otherwise from time to time.


SECURITY OIL SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA- NATURE OF PROPOSED SHARING BY UNITED STATES AND CANADA-EXTENSION OF PIPELINE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, since the deputy minister, Mr. Jack Austin, has spoken of these discussions as being related to sharing of oil supplies by Canada and the United States and in view of the fact our shipments of oil from western Canada are now at the maximum and fill the pipeline, is the Canadian government seeking to obtain United States supplies for the eastern market in the event that Middle East oil is cut off and, if so, what sharing would there be, what would Canada's share be? Does Canada propose to increase its supplies through the Rocky Mountain area or what would be the exchange for any additional supplies of oil from the United Staes for the eastern market in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might advise the House that the report in the Canadian Press attributed to the deputy minister is, I understand, a false report which since has been corrected by another Canadian Press story. With regard to the discussions in respect of the contingent interruption of overseas oil the United States of course, is seeking some assurance that in that eventuality the exports from western Canada to the central United States and the western United States markets would not be interrupted. This is the position they are seeking. We are seeking to protect our supply on the east coast. These are the two basic interests involved in what is still a negotiation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there is a strong feeling among the independent petroleum producers that the best way to secure Canadian supplies in eastern Canada is to extend the present pipeline at least as far as Montreal, and in view of the fact that the figures they have produced indicate this would be economically feasible, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is making any study of the possibility of extending the pipeline, whether or not that study is completed and whether or not on the basis of that study the government proposes to proceed or encourage proceeding with the extension of the pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, examination of an extension to Montreal is not active, the principal reason being that there is some hope everywhere in the House and particularly in eastern Canada that the current explorations on the Canadian east coast will yield a sig-
25714-28J
Oral Questions
nificant field. Very naturally we are reluctant to commit ourselves to a heavy expenditure on a pipeline continuing on to Montreal when, with eastern offshore discoveries, it might become obsolete.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for a further supplementary, but I should like to ask the minister whether he proposes to take any action at all to overcome what appears to be the present situation, namely, that in the event offshore supplies to eastern Canada are cut off, eastern Canada would in fact be without anything like an adequate supply of oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of the discussion.


POST OFFICE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct some questions to the Postmaster General with regard to the situation in the Post Office. I understood him to say yesterday that the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board had requested the chairman of the conciliation board to clarify the conciliation board's recommendation in respect of grieving on classifications. May I ask the minister whether the chairman of the conciliation board is making such a clarification or has made it yet, or how long he expects it will be before he can present his clarification?
[Translation]	,


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the request has already been made. In fact, Mr. Shime is presently considering this case and he should have an answer in the near future.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the employees of the Post Office are becoming pretty restive as a result of the delays-and may I say I cannot entirely blame them for that-is the minister making an appeal to Mr. Owen Shime-I believe that is the name of the chairman of the board-to give his clarification as soon as is humanly possible? It ought not to take him more than an hour or so to write what he meant by the words he used in the previous report. Is the minister making representation that this be done quickly?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I realize indeed that the employees may begin to grow impatient, and I agree that there should be some possibility to return to the bargaining table and secure from the union representatives their acceptance of the majority report. Let them give us proof that they are prepared to sign the contract. As for us, we are prepared to sign right now which, by the way, would lead to a considerable improvement of the climate.

January 18, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for York South might ask a further supplementary question, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understood the minister to say yesterday that the government was agreeable to making objection to a classification matter a subject under the grievance procedure but that it is not agreeable to this going beyond internal discussion, that the government objects to it going to arbitration or adjudication, as it is called in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. May I ask the minister what procedures the employer has suggested to settle such a grievance if the parties remain apart? If the matter is not going to adjudication under the law for final and binding settlement, what alternative suggestion is the government making for a final and binding settlement of such a grievance?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as recommended in the conciliator's report, the government is prepared to accept amendment of clause 9.03 of the contract, allowing any grievance concerning classification to be discussed within the department. We said we were prepared to accept the recommendation made in the conciliation board's report.
As for clause 9.04, dealing with grievances which can be submitted to arbitration, it has already been signed by both parties and there is no change, so that the exception relative to classification still stands.
I want to tell the hon. member that the matter can be discussed within the manpower committee, according to the suggestion made in the report, which we are prepared to accept.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-INQUIRY AS TO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BY GOVERNMENT IN DRAFT AGREEMENT FROM CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General whether the draft agreement proposed by the government contains any additions to or any substantive omissions from the majority report of the conciliation board?


André Ouellet: I would tell the hon. member what I already stated here yesterday, namely that we have in no way altered the substance of the majority report. We are prepared to accept the report in its entirety, as recommended.
Furthermore, I would remind the hon. member that he would do far better if he encouraged the representatives of the employees to sign a contract, instead of making certain allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister used the word "substantial" today. May I ask him what changes have been made, or what departures did he make from the majority report of

the conciliation board in the government's proposal which was placed before the unions' negotiating team?


André Ouellet: At the request of the employee representatives, we have submitted in a contractual form the recommendations of the majority report. We have submitted these recommendations in contractual language which means that if the union does not agree on certain words, the matter can certainly be discussed at the bargaining table without the service having to be interrupted, as workers do in certain cases.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to lay the government's memorandum of settlement, which is the basis of the government's position, on the table of the House so that members will have an opportunity to compare it with the majority report of the conciliation board, which the government claims it has accepted?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, Mr. Shime has been asked to clarify the matter. Until it is done, I see no advantage for both parties to make our contractual representations public. I am willing, if the hon. member so wishes, to table the majority conciliation report and I can assure him that the recommendations contained in that report are fully endorsed by the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. Before I recognize the hon. member I might refer to the fact that there are a number of other hon. members who want to ask further supplementary questions. They will be given an opportunity to do so, but after hearing the question of privilege I will recognize first the hon. member for Temiscamingue. For the moment the hon. member for St. John's East rises on a question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is based on the replies given by the minister today, and the replies given by the minister and by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday which can be found at page 391 of Hansard. At that time the President of the Treasury Board said the government was prepared to accept the majority report of the conciliation board provided it was also accepted by the unions. Well, Mr. Speaker, the unions have accepted the majority report. The issue is that the government has not accepted it.
The Postmaster General the same day indicated it was clear that the government had made no changes in the report. Today, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister, in order to clarify the matter because it would appear the minister is misleading the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -which in itself would be a very serious matter, to table the government's memorandum of settle-

ment so that hon. members would have an opportunity to compare that document with the majority report of the conciliation board and the House could satisfy itself if in fact changes were made. The minister has refused to do so. Therefore I move, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17-this is the first and only opportunity I have had to raise the matter-that the substantive matter contained in my question of privilege, whereby the House would have an opportunity to compare the government's position with the conciliation board report-be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege and proposes that a motion be debated by the House at this time relating to a dispute between himself, possibly other members, and the minister as to the facts. There are many authorities as the hon. member and hon. members generally well know, to the effect that a dispute as to facts or statements made in the House cannot form the basis of a question of privilege. I would think that the motion proposed by the hon. member is a substantive motion and cannot be debated at this time under the heading of privilege. I would hope that the question as to what was or was not said, or what the facts were, could be pursued by the hon. member for St. John's East or by other hon. members in some way other than a debate under the heading of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the unanimous consent of the House so that I can table the two documents and the House can then make its own judgment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
With regard to the LIP projects submitted to the officials of his department since December 5 last, is it normal that it should take so long to reach a decision? Can the minister tell us why it is taking so long to give an answer?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the hon. member but I think that by any past standards-and there is only one previous year of experience-we are dealing with these projects and approvals faster than previously. We have had some 14,000 projects from which to select those we can honour or approve, and a budget of $165 million versus appeals for something like $473 million. As of this date we have approved $128 million in projects, and we are pressing to get final approval through for the rest of the projects so they can come under the remainder of the allocation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us how many projects have been accepted out of the 17,000 submitted to date?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, the best information I have right now is 4,195.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two difficulties here. One of them, of course, is that by the rules of the House and the practice of the House there is no provision for private members to table documents as is suggested by the hon. member. Even if this were done by asking for unanimous consent, the hon. member has heard, as I have, that there was not unanimous consent, so that second aspect in hypothetical.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member can ascertain that. As far as I am concerned I go by my ears and I heard that there was not unanimous consent. Therefore, obviously the motion cannot be put.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader prepared, with the consent of the House, to table under the provisions of Standing Order 41 the government's memorandum of settlement so that the House may make a judgment on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, an answer to that question has already been given by the Postmaster General.


An hon. Member:: What are you hiding?


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO NUMBER OF PROJECTS APPROVED IN EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary?
Can the minister explain why, compared with last year, less than half the projects in the Eastern Townships of the province of Quebec alone have been approved so far?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, nationally I think the ratio of 4,195 approved to 14,000 received indicates that if the hon. member has had half his projects approved he is in pretty good shape.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister again why in the region I represent only half the number of the projects have been approved in comparison with last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-order, please.

January 18, 1973
Oral Questions

I shall recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue in a moment. I think we should allow the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to state his question and allow the minister to reply in peace, silence and order. The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has just said that half the projects were accepted.


William Heward Grafftey: No, this is not what I said.


David Réal Caouette: Half those of last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We could proceed faster if we allowed the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to ask his question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat my question.
The citizens of my constituency want to know whether the local initiative program is a political project or an actual project to reduce unemployment during the winter months. This is a serious question at the present time.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it would be my desire to approve every project that merits it, but that is impossible in view of the number of applications we have received for which money is available. I am very sympathetic with the hon. member and if he will send me the details of the situation I shall do my best to reply. However, I rather doubt that we can hold out any hope that any member is going to get all his projects approved.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that of the 10,000 projects, many of which will have to be rejected, many are identical with those that have been accepted and will be rejected because of the shortage of funds, can the minister tell the House whether he has approached his cabinet colleagues for an increase in funding for this program, whether a decision will be made shortly, and when we can expect an announcement?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not formally
approached my cabinet colleagues on this matter but I think any further announcement of that order would probably be forthcoming when the Minister of Finance announces his budget.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact we are almost at the end of January in terms of decision-making under this program, can the minister give any indication when we can expect that kind of decision by the Minister of Finance?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I would leave the announcement of the date of the budget to the Minister of Finance.
While I am on my feet I should like to make an appeal to all hon. members about a program I think is important but which is not receiving the attention we would like. I refer to the on-the-job training program. Subscriptions to this are not moving as quickly as I would like to see; yet it is recognized as one of the best that we have-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS AND ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since a very small number of projects had been accepted more than a month ago and that, in respect of some of them the government has not yet paid a cent, can the minister tell us if it is a directive from his department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would really need the details of the specific cases to which the hon. member is referring. If he would be kind enough to send them to me I shall do my best to render the necessary service.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-DEADLINE FOR PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that in the House last week or the week before the minister said that the deadline for processing applications was January 19, tomorrow, and that there are many applications still in his office, is there a new deadline or is tomorrow still the date?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am holding my breath and hoping that by tomorrow we will have the applications processed. It may be that I shall have to seek the indulgence of the House to extend it by a day or two but I do not know yet.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As the minister has indicated that the deadline is tomorrow, may I ask him if he will discontinue the practice of consulting with his colleagues with respect to approval as this smells of political patronage?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in a moment for a supplementary. I had given an undertaking that we would return to the original question as I believe

January 18, 1973

both the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Winnipeg North have supplementaries. We will first hear from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and then the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED NEW LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ASSITANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated to me last week that he had another program called LEAP that would supplement the local initiatives program. In view of the fact he has agreed that he would like to see approval of many of the projects that were not approved, would he make a more definitive announcement about this new program or make a statement on motions as soon as possible?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to take the leap from LIP to LEAP yet. Although we are examining it, the hon. member for Trinity the other day suggested we should not be in too much of a hurry. However, I think it is a good program from what I have seen of it so far and we will be examining it shortly.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It would appear that he has now taken over responsibility for negotiations with the employees from the President of the Treasury Board. Can the hon. gentleman confirm this and at the same time indicate what steps he has taken to ensure that, notwithstanding rain, sleet, strikes, etc., the mails will go through?


Mr. Paproski:: If necessary, by pony express. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I assume all my responsibilities. In dealing actively with this matter, I hope I can assure the Canadian people of a better and greatly improved postal service while taking the interest of all postal employees who are anxious to see their union leaders sign this contract with us very soon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Am I to take it from the Postmaster General's remarks that one of the measures he is taking is to ensure an early settlement of this long, drawn-out negotiation process?
Oral Questions


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OF CLARIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY CONCILIATION BOARD CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As both the government and the unions have indicated that they accept the recommendations of the conciliation board and are willing to sign an agreement on that basis, as there seems to be some difference of opinion as to what precisely the conciliation board meant in some of its recommendations, and as the chairman has now been asked to reinterpret some clauses, can the minister assure the House that if the chairman in his explanation indicates that he believes that other sections, such as section 904 of the agreement, should be rewritten along the lines he recommended in section 903, the government would agree to such a proposal?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member take., it for granted that the union have already clearly indicated their willingness to accept the majority report. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) stated earlier that he also believed that the union have indicated their willingness to sign a contract. Unfortunately, this has not been clearly indicated to us as yet.
If the employees' representatives are truly prepared to accept the majority report, if they are willing to sign a contract as recommended by the majority report, I think we shall have made a very great step forward, that the language issue will be settled quickly and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. minister but I think I should now recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE-DISCUSSION WITH ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the fact that the Olympics organization committee will present their budget on February 3 and in view of the fact that $400 million are absolutely essential to avoid increasing Montrealers' financial burden, could the minister inform us whether the government has reviewed its position and is now prepared to grant financial assistance to ensure the success of those games?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government's position has not changed. We have had some requests of a non-financial nature from the organizing committee which I have indicated are being considered by the government.

January 18, 1973
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the hon. minister tell us whether federal government officials intend to meet the Olympic games representatives before February 3 and perhaps negotiate financial assistance with them?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the question, the government's position has not changed. There have already been and I would anticipate there would be further communications with the organizing committee.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-REQUEST BY CITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question.
Did the authorities of the city of Montreal and the people responsible for the Olympic games request grants one way or another from the federal government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, they have asked for leave to issue some coins and stamps and things of that sort which I described as non-financial requests.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State have a request from the CBC for additional financing of between $40 million and $50 million so the CBC can handle coverage of the Olympic games?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the minister take it upon himself to discuss this matter with the president of the CBC so that a consortium of the CBC and the CTV, using the best of both networks and thus keeping the cost down, can provide the sort of service for which there was a precedent at Munich in the last Olympic games?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I have already had some discussions with the president of the CBC on this and other matters.


WHEAT-FORM OF POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PAYMENT UNDER TWO-PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister considering changes at
present in the pay-out under the two-price wheat system to western farmers. If so, what form would the changes take?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have received some representations from farm organizations in connection with this matter and we are giving consideration to those representations.


Jack Burnett Murta: As the minister is giving consideration to those requests, can he inform us when the decision will be made? Also, if it is to be made, will it be made in such a way that the distribution will be more acceptable to wheat producers and not strictly as a political gimmick to entice western farmers to vote a certain way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


PROVISION OF INCENTIVE TO FEED GRAIN AND OILSEED GROWERS TO MAINTAIN MARKETS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will also give consideration to providing some incentive to growers of feed grains and oilseed so that the markets for those commodities that have already been established will not be lost in the coming year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the various farm organizations have also made comments on this subject. We are earnestly examining the question to make sure that farmers in the prairie region continue to produce rapeseed and feed grains in adequate volumes so that we can sustain the very important export markets that we have developed. We are not at all sure at this stage what form the action to try to assure this will take. Certainly, action in bringing information to the attention of farmers will form an important part of what is done. We do anticipate, prior to March 1, making information available to the farmers of western Canada on initial prices and on expected sales prospects.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At least 25 hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject. That could keep us busy all day. There are five minutes left before the end of the question period. I am prepared to recognize supplementaries on this matter and then call orders of the day. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, has the minister made a firm resolve to discuss this matter with the Minister of Agriculture who apparently is advocating the growing of more wheat? Is the minister responsible for the Wheat Board advocating the growing of coarse grains? Has this question been resolved, or will this kind of decision be forthcoming before spring?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Agriculture and I agree that there are tremendous opportunities for exports of wheat at the present time. We are also determined to try to make sure that adequate volumes of

January 18, 1973

feed grain and rapeseed are produced. I share with the Minister of Agriculture the view that the fullest use should be made of fertilizers and sprays and the best possible techniques should be employed so that, now that we have the grain system operating well, the farmers will be in a position to produce grain at the lowest possible cost.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN SUBSIDIZED PRICE OF WHEAT FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the two-price system. In view of the fact the international wheat price is at least 50 cents above the domestic price paid by the millers of $1.95 i a bushel, can the minister inform the House whether the subsidized price of $3 a bushel will be increased by at least 50 cents in comparison with what was paid last year?
Oral Questions
ity of having a new Post Office calendar published for 1973 in order to redress that injustice?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I specified to the hon. member that there was no injustice in that, that it was not a real calendar and that next year we could check again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to suggest that this question, as I said a few days ago, could be placed on the order paper. I really do not see any urgency in that. Perhaps the hon. member could ask a supplementary question-

And after that I will recognize the hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. minister whether he can inform the House of the criteria used to consider Hallowe'en and St. Patrick's as rush periods for the mail in Canada-


Otto Emil Lang: The $3 price ensures, of course, that the farmer in the prairie region obtains that price for the wheat consumed in Canada, and that price is still well above the international price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia for a last supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Richmond.


William George Knight: In view of the fact the pay-out is made on the basis of all six grains and that wheat producers could lose up to $30 million on the basis of what the millers are paying and the international price, can the minister inform the House whether the system will be revised so that payment can be made on the basis of bushels?


Otto Emil Lang: The matter of the difference in pay-out procedures was, of course, the subject of the original question which I answered. I should like to correct the hon. member though: payment was not made on the basis of six grains but rather on an acreage basis to the farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously this difficulty will not be resolved this afternoon or during the question period.
* *
*


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Richmond.
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Since on January 10 the minister told the House that he would willingly take appropriate action concerning my request if he were given the proof that French Canadians send greeting cards for the St. John the Baptist day, could the hon. minister tell us whether he considers the possibil-
*
*


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a whale of a question for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the scientific data on sustainable yield concerning whales and the minister's press release of July 4, 1972, advocating adherence to the optimum sustainable yield principle, is it the minister's intention to rescind his announced ban on Canadian whaling of December 22 in the hope that the whaling industry located at Blandford in Nova Scotia may continue its operations under a government controlled quota?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member is aware, the catch last year was three times the sustainable yield.
* *
*


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the continuing long delays being experienced by claimants for unemployment insurance benefits, can the minister advise whether consideration is being given to in person service at unemployment insurance offices to expedite claims?


Robert Knight Andras: That program was inaugurated about a month ago. If it has not yet reached the hon. member's constituency, perhaps he would be good enough to give me the details and I will see what can be done.

January 18, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply. In light of the hardship suffered by claimants and their families as a result of delays in receiving their cheques, such delays ranging from two weeks to 12 to 14 weeks, would the minister consider making it mandatory for these claims to be put into manual pay as soon as a delay of two weeks exists?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: I really would appreciate from all hon. members exact details of these incidents so that I can have my office look into them. We had a session today with the chairman of the commission and I am satisfied he is exerting every effort to speed up these payments. But I should like to be given specific instances which might help me to assist him.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo have a supplementary?


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: It is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but I do have an important question to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House will permit the hon. member to ask his question before we call orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Communications. In light of the increased profit arising from last year's operations by Bell Canada, has the minister decided to make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission concerning their application for increases in rates?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member asked me this question which had already been asked. We have completed our consideration of this issue. Our consideration led us to a negative conclusion; under the National Transportation Act the governor general in council has the power to change or cancel any decision made by the commission, either unilaterally or following a petition. Although this power has been rarely exercised the fact still remains that its use could place the government, considering it has already intervened at the tariff hearings, in the incompatible role of both judge and plaintiff.
However, the necessity of making representations from time to time being very important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. I think he will agree with me that a statement such as the one he wishes to make at this time in the House should normally be made on motions. It seems to me that his answer to the hon. member although interest-

ing and important goes somewhat beyond the normal time allotted to answer a question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which might be dealt with by the House now. In view of the interest shown by hon. members in taking part in this debate, the suggestion has been made that following the initial statements subsequent speakers ought to limit their remarks to 20 minutes. I am not pressing this point, but I am raising it so that it might be settled now, rather than later, and in order that we may seek out some understanding.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would agree with that. The urgency of the situation, the high cost of food, makes it imperative that as many members as possible participate in the debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I believe this was our proposal. We are glad it is being accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I still maintain my support for this motion, as I did at the meeting of the House leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Aifairs) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends;
That 20 Members of the House of Commons to be designated by House at a later date be the members of the Special Joint Committee and that Standing Order 65(5) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select if the
January 18, 1973

Senate deems it advisable, some of its Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, because of the interest which is being taken in this notice of motion, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at any undue length in support of it. I want to begin by pointing out that in the Speech from the Throne the government confirmed the high priority it assigns to the economic policy of the area-to reduce unemployment, contain inflation and strengthen our economy generally.
The government's position with respect to rising food prices is reflected by the statement in the Speech from the Throne that, and I quote,
. .. the government is determined to contain inflation in Canada, to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar in the hands of the Canadian people and to protect Canada's position in world trade.
I think it is important to bear in mind the fact that this matter is a world wide problem to which no country has yet found a complete and final solution. This is indicated by the behaviour of consumer price indexes for the major western countries. Between September 1971 and September 1972, the over-all consumer price index for Canada increased by 5.3 per cent. Performance in the United States and Japan, where consumer prices increased over the period by little more than 3 per cent, was better than in Canada. But in France, Germany and Italy, consumer prices rose by over 6 per cent, and in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands they rose by 7 per cent or more in the year ending last September-the latest dates for which comparable figures were available.
The recent tendency for food prices to rise more than prices of non-food items is also world wide. As of last September, the Canadian food price index was up over the year by 8.3 per cent, a figure matched in the other countries I have mentioned only in France. The increases for other countries amounted to 8.1 per cent for the United Kingdom, 7.5 per cent for West Germany, 7.2 per cent for Italy, 5.6 per cent for the Netherlands, and 4.8 per cent for the United States.
The government is watching closely the trends in food prices here and abroad, as well as steps being taken by other countries to meet these problems. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned in the House the other day, the advisability of instituting controls is constantly under review and work has been going on with respect to contingency planning in this area.
In considering the food price problem we should remember that the United States authorities, for example, have at no time during their experiments with price and income controls considered it practicable to impose controls on raw agricultural products. They have had controls only on processors' and producers' margins. There are indications also that a price war among food retailers in the United States has been another factor. In any case, the United States performance in the food sector does not match what it has achieved in other areas.
The upsurge in food prices in Canada is of fairly recent origin. On a long term basis, food prices at retail in Canada have risen at rates comparable to consumer prices in general, as measured by the consumer price index. Over the last year, on the other hand, food prices
Food Prices Committee
have risen more than twice as much as the average of prices for non-food items in the consumer price index. In statistical terms the increase in food prices from December 1971 to December 1972 was 8.6 per cent. Over the same period, the rise for all items other than food in the consumer price index was 3.8 per cent.
The government is concerned about trends in increases in food prices. After all, these affect every Canadian consumer. While I am informed that the proportions of incomes that Canadians spent on food have been declining, they do remain high relative to proportions spent in other main areas. Moreover, the lower income groups have no choice but to lay out a proportion of their income on food that is larger than the proportion that the rest of the population devotes to these commodities.
The House will recall that a joint committee of this House and the Senate conducted a very useful inquiry some years ago and food prices occupied a major part of its work. This committee, however, concluded its deliberations some six years ago. I submit, therefore, it is timely for the creation of another parliamentary inquiry of the kind proposed in the Speech from the Throne. I am, therefore, pleased to urge the adoption of the motion now before the House to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to inquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada, and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends. I look to such a committee being able to make a thorough inquiry and finding itself in a position, in a relatively short period of time, to make recommendations which can help lead to useful policy initiatives.
In assessing the causes of the current rapid rate of food price increase, the committee will no doubt wish to consider the world wide as well as purely domestic aspects of the problem. From the global standpoint, I am informed, for example, that poor crop yields have been a major factor. The most important crop failures have been in the eastern hemisphere and have affected yields of grains and other staples. Canadian consumers have been protected in part from the effects of the major increases in world grain prices because this has not been allowed to affect the price of wheat sold for human consumption in Canada. However, the world grain shortages are contributing to increases in the prices of meats and dairy products.
Grains are by no means the only farm products in short supply because of partial crop failures abroad. The large increase in sugar prices is partly the result of deficiences in the sugar beet crop in the Soviet Union and of the cane crop in Cuba, normally the principal source of Russian sugar imports. Demand from China has also been a factor.
Closer to home, bad weather in some vegetable producing areas in Canada and the United States has led to shortages that are clearly evident to the housewife. Poor crop conditions have been experienced in some parts of the western as well as the eastern hemisphere. For example, the frost experienced in Brazil in July of last year was followed immediately by a rise of almost 20 per cent in world prices of raw coffee. The information of an international cartel by coffee producing countries earlier last year has also contributed to the rise in coffee prices.

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Again, closer to home, there have been weather problems in wide areas in Canada and also in the United States. The effects of these difficulties become clearly evident to the housewife when she comes to buy vegetables and fruits, as well as to the farmers whose crops have been affected.
I have described some of the more dramatic developments on the farm front of the very recent past. These have contributed to the rise of 8.7 per cent in the wholesale price index for Canadian farm products that occurred between November 1971 and November 1972. But it must be remembered that, while farm incomes have increased substantially in the last year, they have not kept up with increases in incomes in other sectors of the community over the last decade or more.
Farm prices are only one factor in food prices, and the proposed committee will, I am sure, devote much and perhaps more of its attention to processors' and retailers' margins. In considering processed foods, we have to keep in mind not only the increases in the prices that manufacturers pay for raw agricultural products, but also changes in prices of the other materials they use. Labour costs are also a factor. I am sure that the committee will also want to look into the question of profit margins.
Those of us who look at food prices primarily as consumers should recall that many of us nowadays want to buy potatoes, for example, peeled, sliced and fried ready for serving. Obviously, the more convenience foods that are bought, the higher the cost of the consumers' grocery order. This brings up the important question of the expense to which expenditures on packaging, advertising and promotion are sufficiently to the benefit of consumers and to what extent further action, if any, should be taken to see that their interests are more fully taken into account in operations in the food industries.
These have been some of the relevant factors which will likely be of interest to the committee and which they may therefore want to look into. In summary, the factors include such matters as to what extent poor yields both at home and abroad have affected the price of agricultural products; the cost elements affecting margins of producers, processors, distributors and retailers of food, and their profit margins. I have also mentioned the implications of the growing use of convenience foods, and the question of the effects of expenditures on packaging and promotion. I am sure, therefore, that the committee will be interested in looking generally into the cost elements and profit margins affecting prices to producers, processors, distributors and retailers, all those making up the food system chain.
If this motion has the support of the House, the committee thus created will have wide authority to examine witnesses, to obtain the assistance of expert staff and finally to inquire into and make recommendations with regard to trends in food prices and the factors which account for them.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I will look forward to having an opportunity of appearing before the committee to provide it with further information on the matters referred to it once it begins its work. I will also
look forward to hearing with interest the points to be made by hon. members during the course of this debate, and I will attempt to respond to them when I speak at its closing. I am sure the recommendations of the proposed committee can be most useful in dealing with the serious issue of current trends in food prices, a matter of concern to the government and to the Canadian people generally. I, therefore, urge the speedy adoption of this motion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would make available to the committee, when and if this motion is passed and it is established, all the memoranda, documents, reports and studies which may have been prepared by or on behalf of the Prices and Incomes Commission on food price increases, or indeed any related matter on which the committee may request information?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, a number of studies by the commission have already been released. I will be pleased to examine the extent to which further information based on the work of the commission can be provided or presented to the committee when it is established, as I hope it will be.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time it will take the committee to hear the evidence and make either an interim or a full report, I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to take any immediate steps, either legislative or otherwise, to curb the high cost of foods?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if such steps are to be taken they will be announced once a decision is made. Any other course of action would not be to the advantage of the Canadian consumer. I do hope the House will pass the motion before it as soon as possible, so the committee can make a prompt report and its recommendations can be taken under active consideration by the government.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. minister, I will certainly not take up my full allotment of 40 minutes. I hope to be brief and I hope to be a lot sharper than he was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In the answer to the question by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) I hope you noted the very small word with the very big meaning at the beginning of the answer. He said that "if" any action was to be taken by the government it would be announced in the House in due course. In light of what the minister has said, and in light of this being the only action the government has proposed, indisputably the government is mentally totally barren of any solution to the inflationary crisis in which we find ourselves today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There have been no worthwhile and no specific measures laid before this House, Sir. There have

January 18, 1973

been no policy initiatives announced in the throne speech. There have been absolutely no changes or thrusts in new trends at all in respect of ministerial announcements or in speeches inside or outside this House by members of the Cabinet. The only idea put forward, and this is a timeworn crutch known to all governments, federal or provincial, is the appointment of a committee. This is a timeworn crutch which is used when the only answer you can come up with is the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee. For this group on this side of the House, I say to you that we do not believe this is either the answer or even an answer to the inflationary crisis we are in right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We had an election campaign, Sir, during which the policies of the parties were advocated. Certainly, this idea of a joint parliamentary committee was not what my leader advocated in that election campaign. It is not what we would have done had we been elected to power on October 30. For myself and my colleagues, I say that we are highly skeptical that anything worthwhile or any action fast enough to make any difference this winter will come out of this parliamentary committee. In spite of the lack of ideas and the lack of initiatives coming from the Cabinet or the ministerial benches, I can say to you that as a party we are willing to support it grudgingly, quizzically and doubtfully. We are willing to go along with this charade of setting up the committee in the hope that perhaps somehow, sometime and somewhere this Liberal delaying manoeuvre will produce something constructive, something worth while and something immediate to help the inflation trend in which we are now, certainly in respect of the cost of living.
There are conditions which we feel we must attach to our support and our co-operation in passing the motion to appoint a committee. Obviously, if the government had the time, and it does not, we should have liked to see the committee terms of reference wider. We think that focusing attention on food prices alone is only a meagre nibbling at the total problem of the cost of living. If the government had the backbone and had the time it could have taken a giant bite not only at food prices, but at housing and shelter costs, at clothing prices, at transportation, at health and personal care costs and even at recreational costs, all of which showed an increase in the indices published a week ago and which, as stated in the government's own press release "exceeded all other November to December increases of recent years".
The cost of living at the end of 1972, just last month, was 5.1 per cent above a year ago. The cost of food alone was up 8.6 per cent from a year ago. Housing costs were 5 per cent above a year ago and, indeed, in the long haul housing, shelter and accommodation have shown an even greater increase than food alone. Now, we are faced with the government's panacea to this crisis, and that is the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee. Perhaps this is indicative of the government's concern. Perhaps the government feels that those on fixed incomes, those on pensions and the hundreds of thousands of neglected citizens in Canada, referred to now sometimes contemptuously by Cabinet ministers as "the working poor", are not feeling any economic squeeze at the
Food Prices Committee
moment and perhaps the parliamentary inquiry will somehow satisfy their plight. I doubt it.
As a matter of fact, I think the government is 100 per cent wrong on this and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was wrong the other day when he indicated to the House that economic matters were taking a subservient place in the government's attention. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was wrong yesterday in Halifax when he said that consumers were getting a bargain in food prices and that they did not complain about the high prices of other goods in the economy today. I do not know where he has been. I have heard complaints concerning all items on the cost of living index, believe me, and not just food. I should certainly like to hear the Minister of Agriculture repeat his comment that food is a bargain before some of my constituents, some of whom are food producers.
If the opinions of the Minister of Agriculture are shared by his colleagues in the two front rows, I wonder why we are even considering the setting up of a committee on food prices. Why go through the exercise? The answer is simple: he is wrong and his colleagues are wrong. Food prices, like all prices, are simply running out of control today. Our whole economy is out of kilter. The government's answer to this crisis is to set up another committee. Just let me add this warning on food prices. If you want to consider it as a threat that is all right. However, I consider it to be a warning. Already this month the retail price of milk has gone up. Already this month the retail price of beef has continued to climb. Already this month, vegetable prices have increased. If the government is not panicky it should be. Next month's statistical release from the government will show these increases and others. Oil and fuel prices have already increased.
I think the publicity surrounding the formation of this committee is at best a weak-kneed effort, a heartless smokescreen to the people of this country. It is an attempt to suggest that the government is doing something about this crisis. At its very worst, it is an attempt by the government to shift its responsibility to some sort of allparty group, with the result that some of those detrimentally affected by what has happened and is now happening in respect of food costs will expect immediate, constructive action to take place. Obviously, this committee or any parliamentary committee will not be able to take action. Only the government can take action. But there will be people in this country who will believe from now on that these current and continuing price rises will be the fault of the committee, not the government.
I give the House fair warning that some of us intend to do our utmost, until some concrete, specific constructive measures are taken by this government, to lay the blame exactly where it belongs-on hon. members opposite, and particularly the ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In spite of our doubts and our scepticism I am willing to admit, but only after a great deal of soul and heart searching, that we are willing to go along with the committee proposal. We will bring a constructive and

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
co-operative attitude to the deliberations of the committee in the hope, vain though it may prove to be, that some glimmer of policy change might become so apparent to the public that even this government may move in a direct, quick and efficient way. But we do have conditions. First, we believe the committee should be exclusively a House of Commons committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I shall be moving an amendment to strike out all reference to membership on the committee from the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Our purpose, unlike that of my NDP friends, is not to slander the involvement of individual members of the Senate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -but rather to give that body the opportunity to perform a responsibility in this current crisis for which it is better suited at the moment. A House of Commons committee under current conditions must stay in Ottawa. A House of Commons committee should work toward immediate and perhaps even short-term solutions. A House of Commons committee should reflect exclusively the party membership ratio of the present House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This still leaves the Senate free-and indeed I urge it to do so-to set up its own inquiry, drawing on the wisdom, experience and connections which so many of the members of that body appear to have-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Some connection!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -in order to look into the more longterm, permanent answers to this chronic and constant problem of inflation. That committee could travel around the country. We could not. The Senate committee could undertake a more in-depth study and take a more leisurely pace which is perhaps more suited to its method of work than that of this parliament and that which the country would expect from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We also feel that the past history of joint parliamentary committees is not something of which to be particularly proud. The past history I have been able to ascertain shows that most joint parliamentary committees have been neither as productive nor as fast in respect of their recommendations as both the nature of the problem and the time element require in this case.
None of the five joint parliamentary committees appointed by the Twenty-seventh Parliament completed their meetings within half a year; in fact, most took longer. The average time consumed in meetings of these committees was eleven months. The major joint parlia-

mentary committee of the Twenty-eighth Parliament held meetings over a period of two years before it completed its deliberations. The Joint Committee on Consumer Credit and Food Prices, which sat during 1966 and 1967, took three months before submitting even an interim report. I say that these time periods are too long. The 1967 Royal Commission on the Rise of Food Prices took a year to publish its findings. Indeed, the subject has been so well researched, investigated, commissioned, inquired into and so committeed to death that apart from the argument about whether or not we should even have the committee, it is apparent that a time limit should be imposed on our committee forcing it to report within three months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In addition, we feel very definitely that our committee should not cover old ground which previous committees have ploughed. Its historical research inquiry should date back only to the point at which the previous joint committee left off in 1966. My colleagues on this side of the House will be presenting in due course amendments to cover these points as the debate progresses. We feel that the current party representation on the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee properly reflects the partisan make-up of this House and should be a precedent for this committee. Therefore, an amendment will be moved later to the effect that the total number of members on the committee be 19, not 20. As a result, we would have eight members from the government benches, eight from the official opposition, two members from the party to my left, and one member from the Creditiste party. This is in accordance with the present make-up of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and, we think, more properly represents the party membership in the House.
Finally, an amendment restricting the choice of staff and counsel will be made by one of my colleagues in the belief that everything possible should be done to get this committee working as quickly as feasible. If this is the government's only answer to inflation-and it seems to be-we think much more could and should be done, but we do want to be co-operative and we do want to get cracking on it. Certain restrictions on the choice of staff will, therefore, be suggested later in an amendment from our side.
The sooner the debate is over, the sooner the committee will get to work. While we do have these amendments, we are quite willing to limit ourselves, providing the other parties do so, to one speaker per amendment in respect of this debate and this motion. Of course, if any of the other parties put up more than one speaker per amendment, we have many speakers, believe me, who are burning with desire to get into the discussion and we will have these members speak in the debate.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the motion be amended by striking out
January 18, 1973

(a)	the words "Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons" in the first paragraph and substituting therefor the words "Special Committee of this House",
(b)	the word "Joint" on the second paragraph, and
(c)	the fourth paragraph.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. It is difficult at the moment to compare the hon. member's motion with the main motion before us. I am not sure whether any hon. members would like to advise the Chair regarding the procedural aspect of the motion. If not, it will be put to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the more important matters to come before the House and I am glad that it is being considered at an early stage. I am not saying that the committee will do what we want it to do or will go as far as we want it to go, but I do feel that a discussion of food prices and a move for action at this time is essential. After all, this is one of the measures which, more than most others, affects every one of us in our capacity as consumers. It affects us in varying degrees, it is true, but it affects us all.
I was glad that the minister laid down the terms of reference of the committee in the government resolution briefly and clearly, but when it comes to the official opposition there are a few things I want to say. The previous speaker urged the government to take a giant bite by including everything related to the cost of living in this motion. When he kept adding in all the expenses that go into the cost of living he reminded me of those old preachers who wanted paradise in one bite or else no paradise-you were condemned to go down below. I think we must take things step by step, and I feel sure that by decrying the suggestion that we start first with the most urgent matter, namely the price of food, the official opposition are actually making an excuse for not getting started on anything at all. For this reason, I am glad that we started with food prices.
The hon. member spoke of the lack of concrete measures in the government's program and said that the purpose of this committee must be to lay the blame on the government. But the people of this country cannot heap blame on the government, and to my way of thinking the official opposition so far has failed to give any notion in a concrete way of what they would have done or what they want to see come out of this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, whatever were their motives, we welcome their conversion in regard to the Senate as contained in their amendment. This was the only concrete proposal in the previous speech. A number of us have been busy lately speaking over the radio and television making no secret of the fact that we intended to move that members of the Senate be not included in this committee. So, I am very glad that at least one idea of a fruitful character has been picked out and used in the debate this afternoon by a member of the official opposition.
Food Prices Committee
I should like to point out something else to members of the official opposition, and I wish the previous speaker would stay long enough to listen to the consequences of what he suggested. If the official opposition follows through with their suggestion, the net result will be to remove a comfortable majority of the Liberal members on the committee. If we eliminate members of the other place, we will be eliminating a very comfortable wedge of Liberal majority support for the government on this prices committee. This is surely a curious move for the official opposition to make.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That never occurred to me.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I suppose that is true, because the whole matter of the control of food prices is quite foreign to the official opposition. They have not taken any concrete action in the past. Certainly, they have voiced objections, but they have not said what results they expect the committee to achieve.
Before I go further in my remarks I do not wish to neglect to say that if this committee is to amount to anything in the view of members of our party there must result from it the establishment of a prices review board or a similar monitoring agency which will continue to look after the price of food after the committee has made its recommendations. When those recommendations are before the government, we want the immediate implementation of the one requesting the establishment of a prices review board which will have the responsibility of looking at the proposed price increases and demanding that those who made the proposals justify the need for an increase or else that increase will not be granted. Such an agency must also have the power to roll back those price increases which are unjustified. Let members of the official opposition not tell me that they have been urging this, because they have not. It is we in this group who have been urging this, and this is a definite recommendation that we shall seek from this prices committee.


Mr. Hellyer:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question at the end of my remarks I can promise him that there will be an end.
I also say that the type of speech that I would like to hear from the official opposition is one which would include some of the things which they hope this committee could accomplish, or information on such accomplishments in other places, because what we get out of this committee will depend on what goes into it. If it is just a matter of one party in this House getting publicity for itself, then I do not think the committee will be worth while. But I believe that out of the committee can come the beginning of a pattern for controlling prices in Canada in such a way that possibly on a selective basis rising food prices can be kept in check, and people will be sure of getting the ingredients of a healthy diet to insure nutrition and energy at prices they can afford.
It is not important that this debate be rushed here with just one speaker from each party. The important thing is that a reasonable amount of time be taken by the commit-

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
tee of inquiry to get at the facts, to ascertain what each sector of the food industry contributes to rising prices. The committee must take time to come up with concrete recommendations to place some control on the movement of food prices. That is what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker.
The direction of the trend in food prices is upward. During the past two years the food component of the consumer price index has risen by over 17 per cent. The organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, at the end of 1972 in its assessment of trends for 1973, warned that in Canada the outlook for prices is a matter of concern. It warned that prices which have already gone up could be the forerunner of price inflation all along the line. I believe we should heed the words of the OECD in the work that we are setting out to do.
Although we were all pleased the other day to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) announce that we could expect "a substantial increase" in pensions, I would ask him what is the use of increasing old age pensions, or any other pensions, if we do not take steps to insure that the pension increases are not immediately gobbled up by other increases, of which the price of food is the greatest menace? We have to protect the living standards of our people, otherwise the business of raising pensions is merely a farce, an exercise like pouring water through a sieve, and an exercise in futility. What most people across the country want is a measure of stability in their living costs, and this at a level they can afford.
The minister pointed out that it is six years since the end of the previous prices inquiry. Actually, it is nearly seven years since that committee started its investigation of food prices. What happened as a result of the investigation at that time?


Frank Howard: Basford got into the cabinet.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, there were various little side effects, but the main thing was the establishment of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, even though I still regret that the corporate part was added to the consumer section. Also, Mr. Speaker, some safety measures were enacted, and I do not decry them. These were necessary in respect of clothing, drugs, and hazardous substances of various kinds. We also did something along the line of packaging, labelling, and the handling of consumer complaints. But we took no action on food prices, in spite of the final recommendation made by that committee of which I had the honour to be a member. It was that the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit Prices continue its investigations of concentration in the food industry. No action has been taken on that recommendation ever since the day in April, 1967, when we tabled our report. In my view this is unfinished business. This is where we come in now. This is where we must start the new inquiry afresh.
Over the years some of us tried to get that recommendation implemented. Last June, as more senior members of the House will recall, in the very limited time at our disposal the NDP tried to get the government to establish a special committee of the House to look into the matter of food prices. Because of the shortage of time, the investigation could not have been a thorough one. Even so, it could

have had some particular effects. However, the government would have nothing to do with it. The government put forward all kinds of excuses. It said that rising food prices were a worldwide phenomenon and we could do nothing about them. The then minister of consumer and corporate affairs said that increasing food prices had only been the trend for a month or two, and that we should not do anything drastic because things might settle down. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) contended that higher prices were due to poorer crops. Undoubtedly, these things are all factors, but they are not the whole answer to the question of why food prices have been rising so drastically.
Now, we have the consumers again demanding that something be done about food prices, and we have the government saying, as it has done in respect of other matters lately that it is in a receptive mood and is listening. I hope it is, because the proposed committee will test the receptiveness, ingenuity and ability of members on all sides of the House. There are cynics in the House who think that the committee will do nothing but a whitewash job. There are others who say, "You cannot control food prices; it is nonsense to think you can." There are others who think the farmers will be picked out and pilloried in the same way as the Prices and Incomes Commission picked out the wage earners and tried to pillory them. In passing I would point out that later its chairman declared that wage settlements had had very little effect on the over-all picture.
There are other members of the House who are afraid the taxpayers will be hurt. Over all this there is the honeyed propaganda of various firms in the food industry, saying the consumers are living in the best of all possible worlds, crying that those in the food industry are on the point of going out of business, claiming their profits are very low, and pleading that we should leave them alone. The other day a media representative asked me, "What makes you think you can hope for something better this time as a result of the proposed food inquiry than we had in 1967?" There are one or two answers to that, Mr. Speaker. The first is that we are now six years closer to monopoly control and dictatorship by the conglomerates that run the food industry in Canada. A second is that a number of countries have started experimenting with their own patterns, to try to control food and other prices. It is no longer possible to say that this cannot be done, that nobody else is doing it.
I refer to the efforts of three countries well known to us-Sweden, the United States and Great Britain. Sweden began its control measures in 1970, the United States began its in 1971, and Great Britain just last November. There are variations in the ways they have been trying to undertake this. They have all had their faults and their failures. There has been a great deal of criticism of these plans from outside and inside. Not one of those countries is completely happy with what is happening as a result of the measures it has taken, but I would like to point out to hon. members of this House that not one of those countries is letting go. Having started on this road they know they must continue. Although they have had to change, modify and switch their tactics and control machinery, not one of those countries now hopes to go along without a precise piece of monitoring machinery such as a prices
January 18, 1973

and incomes authority which we are proposing for this country, and which we in this group have proposed for the past three, four or five years when most ears were deaf to us. Those ears are now beginning to open and turn a little bit in our direction, as the logic of circumstances is making it necessary and desirable for them to listen.
We in Canada have to make our own start as well; we cannot be a carbon copy of any of these countries. We have not found the answers yet, but we have to make our own patterns and feel our way. We have our own problems, such as constitutional difficulties and our export trade difficulties as well as our relations with the provinces. In brief, to put it in a way with which we are so familiar, "Le Canada n'est pas un pays comme les autres."
We are not a country like those others and cannot pretend that we are. All I am saying this afternoon is that although we do not know the answers, we know that we must grapple with this problem of prices. We must begin with food prices and we must begin now. The longer we put it off the tougher it will be and the more human suffering there will be. This is a problem which affects us all, though it does not affect us all equally. That is the danger, the mischief of the talk of averages because people are not averages, they are flesh and blood. It is obvious that the woman with a brood of children and a tiny income is not in the same position as members of this House or people with a $40,000 or $60,000 income for whom the rising cost of food is at best a slight irritation. For people on pensions and fixed incomes, any rise can be catastrophic because it is an invitation to the gougers to move in on any increase in the pension or allowance.
I should like to return again to the experience of Sweden, which was the first country to set up this system and it is the most advanced. The other two countries that I mentioned are gaining experience with controls, but Sweden began in 1970 with specific, selective controls on specific products. About 50 per cent of food consumption in Sweden was affected-certain kinds of fish, vegetables, dairy products, flour and a few other things. This was later extended to a much wider range of foods. The result was that prices were held almost steady for the first year, 1970-71. In the fall of that year it was discovered that farm income needed to be strengthened. This sort of thing is done in Sweden; when a sector of the community needs strengthening, they do it. Food controls were relaxed to the extent that farmers were allowed to build up to the standard of the other sectors of the community. The result was an increase in the cost of living of 0.5 per cent. In the meantime, this was supplemented in various other ways where the need was demonstrated.
It was then discovered that a round of collective bargaining with trade unions had still to take place. Collective bargaining in Sweden operates within the framework of the increase in the gross national product in the previous year. The trade union membership decided that wage increases for 1971 were to go to the low wage earners. This resulted in an increase of 2.5 per cent in the cost of living. Between the increase to farmers and the increase to wage earners, there was approximately a 3 per cent increase in the cost of living.
Food Prices Committee
In Sweden the system has been set up to monitor the cost of living, and wages and food prices are dealt with as I have indicated. We had news at the beginning of this year that compulsory controls were being abandoned in the United States, except in the areas of food prices, health prices and construction costs. In that country, the Cost of Living Council monitors price increases to see that they are held in line.
There is no easy answer, Mr. Speaker. I do not recommend that we should follow the United States model of compulsory wage controls while leaving other sectors free. I know that we will not do that in this country. Through the Prices and Incomes Commission, we have already learned that it cannot be done much as some people would like to do it. But we must make our own pattern, suitable to our country. As a result of what the United States did, their monthly food index during 1972 varied between 3.2 per cent and 5.4 per cent above that of 1971; in Canada during the first nine months of 1972 the monthly food index was 7.2 per cent higher than in the same period in 1971. In other words, unsatisfactory as the American model was, at least it had some effect in keeping the cost of living below our rate.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to the motion before us concerning the composition of the committee. We cheerfully support the amendment to eliminate members from the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: We have given notice that this is what we want. Later, we will give our reasons and I trust they will be better than those given by the speaker ahead of me. The terms of reference should be much more specific than those we have in the government's motion. I have a motion on the order paper which reads, in part:
That the committee be empowered to call witnesses from the various sectors involved, including the consumer;
That it be given authority to examine financial records and to investigate the profit on equity investment at each stage of the food industry;
Equity investment is all-important. The sales dollar is what the food industry wants as a measure of profit, but there is no mention of the real problem.
That it be empowered to examine the corporate structure underlying the food industry, and inquire into agrobusiness, transportation, processing and packaging, distribution, advertising and promotion, retailing and any other aspects relevant to food prices;
That is the wording of the terms of reference, in part as we would like to see it. We want to see this investigation become a probe with a purpose, Mr. Speaker. We want to see a monitoring authority come out of it.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: You do not have a monopoly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and that the motion be further amended by adding the following paragraph at the end thereof:

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
'And further that the committee make an interim report, including recommendations for action, within two months of its first meeting, and a final report upon the completion of its investigation."


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. lady would be willing to answer the question now that I referred to earlier. If she is successful in obtaining the prices review board that she referred to in her remarks, would she be willing to accept at the same time the establishment of a wage review board in order to achieve the purpose that she mentioned, that of controlling prices?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we believe there must be a relationship between prices and income. We have said that incomes are not exclusively made up of wages. Incomes include wages, salaries, rents, interest, profits, dividends and all other forms of income. If we include those things as well, then we will be prepared to accept an incomes board along with the prices review board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some difficulty with the subamendment proposed by the hon. lady. Offhand, I am inclined to think that it is clearly not in order, because it is not directed towards the amendment offered by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) but is, rather, directed towards the main motion. I am prepared to entertain argument before making any final ruling with regard to the validity of this subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are suggesting that you have thrown a real challenge to me, and I shall be the first to admit it. There is of course a rule, and no doubt this is what Your Honour had in mind, to the effect that a subamendment must be relevant to the amendment. Now, let me make my pitch.
The pith and substance of the amendment is that it changes the main motion. The hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) admitted that there are three or four respects in which he and his colleagues wish to change the main motion; so do we. If there had been no amendment before the House when my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) rose to speak, she would have been in a position, we feel, to move an amendment that would change the motion in two or three respects. Since the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham changes it in one respect only, we submit it is not completely illogical to try to change it in two respects at the same time. I hope my reputation in the field of procedure will not hang completely on this effort of mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it seemed to us that we ought to bring both these propositions before the House in one amendment, if that were possible. If Mr. Deputy Speaker, since his reputation is also before the House, should decide that what we are doing is out of

order, we will not be offended. It simply means that at a later stage in the proceedings, if we can get the floor ahead of the Conservatives, we shall move an amendment calling for an interim report. We shall have one or two other amendments as well.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there are reasons for supporting the validity of this motion in addition to the fact that it is being supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That, of course, is a very sound reason most of the time. Although in our new roles I am not accustomed to supporting my friends to my left, we may at least begin doing so, since we may be called on to do that more often from time to time. Since the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has indicated that we would be moving other amendments if given the opportunity, we would not object to including both in one motion. I realize this is not sufficient reason for the Chair to accept them. I must say the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has presented such an exhaustive argument that he has left little room for anything to be added. I would point out, if I may borrow from his language, that the pith and substance of his motion is to inquire into and make recommendations upon trends in food prices, but which group does it is not relevant but collateral; how it is done is not relevant but collateral.
I suggest that it is competent for us to propose variations with respect to the collateral aspects of the motion, so long as they do not interfere with the pith and substance of it. If we were to make recommendations in addition to trends in food prices, in shelter, in wages and in excessive costs of government, then, of course, Your Honour might very well say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was arguing on slim grounds. But we are leaving untouched the kernel, the root-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What about the pith?


Gerald William Baldwin: My hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre has developed the pith.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is now considering the kernel and root.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what we are doing is limiting the means by which we can bring about this inquiry and that, of course, is a collateral issue. It is, therefore, competent for the Chair to rule that the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) can be taken at the same time as that moved by my hon. friend for Northumberland-Durham. We might combine two votes in one and thus do our best in facilitating and accelerating the passage of this measure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I followed the reasoning put forward by the hon. members who preceded me. It may be easier for Your Honour to deal with this subject in view of the position taken by the opposition parties in agreeing unanimously to have the subamendment put. Your Honour is not required to reason tortuously in order to justify a conclusion favourable to these arguments. I have no objection to the subamendment being put, with the consent of the House or otherwise, if Your Honour wishes to rule in that direction.
January 18, 1973

However, I would not accept the view of the hon. member for Peace River that the proposition can be put to the House in one package. These must be put to the House as separate propositions, in my opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is comforting for the Chair, embarking on the maiden voyage in ruling on a matter like this, to have had the assistance of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). One might be over-awed, at some other time, by the advice coming from such quarters. However, it seems to me that nobody presented a good argument for the subamendment to be merged with the motion and voted on in the House, and nobody seemed to feel that great damage would be done if the Chair were to rule that the subamendment could not be accepted now, as hon. members will have an opportunity to move the same amendment at a future time. That is not to say that the Chair would necessarily accept such subamendment then, either. In any event, having given these short reasons and being thankful for the participation of experts on the rules of procedure, I must regretfully declare that the subamendment as proffered is, at this time at least, out or order.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the motion now before us has been discussed for a good many years. As a matter of fact, intermediary or even government bodies have often studied the problem which we are considering today. There are two alternatives: either the government, in view of all the information which has been provided about this issue, does not now dare introduce the appropriate legislation, or all commissions and special committees which have already inquired into the problem have made recommendations which do not correspond with the government's intentions.
Now that everything is clear, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we should set up a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons to review the problem of increasing prices. Surely we will approve new measures, but on the understanding that instead of doing nothing the government introduces in the very near future some measures based on studies which have already been made or which will be. In fact, I suggest that studies which have been made to date have provided enough information to justify the passage of legislation in the very near future.
To substantiate my allegations, I have here the 4th report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Consumer Credit (Prices) tabled during the first two weeks of September, 1966, a committee which made very specific recommendations, but which remained in limbo. Will this new joint committee lead to the same results? If so it is a loss of time for Parliament to proceed with the setting up of this committee, and all the more so since regularly every year and every month in newspapers and journals we read articles in that connection.
If we only keep turning in a circle, Mr. Speaker, no doubt it is because we forgot all about the fundamental principles which should govern consumption. And one of
Food Prices Committee
these is simply that consumer goods should be paid at the real price of production, and if we do not try to find solutions with this fundamental principle in mind we shall never solve the problem. It is useless to talk about price control if we do not base our future legislation in this regard on essential principles.
What is causing prices to rise, Mr. Speaker? What is the reason for these increases which are often if not always exorbitant? What are the factors responsible for such a rise in prices?
People are willing to make studies; some have been made. All sorts of reasons are given but, unfortunately, the real ones are evaded. Mr. Speaker, do prices increase because food products are scarce?
By virtue of the law of supply and demand, if they were it might be justifiable to consider some increase but can one logically believe in a scarcity of goods in a country like ours where all resources, and in particular, food products exist in abundance? Indeed, we have so much that our problem often is that of knowing how to dispose of them. It cannot therefore be a problem of scarcity. We have here all we need for a balanced diet. Except for bananas, oranges and lemons, I believe we have all we need in Canada to feed our people well. The increase in prices is therefore not the result of a scarcity of food products.
In the last few years, legislation has been passed, rules have been adopted, like those that apply to the Canadian Dairy Commission, forcing milk producers to reduce their production. When small farmers and small milk producers were forced to give up their businesses, was there a shortage of goods? No, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, there is no shortage of goods in Canada. Food products exist in abundance; we even try to export them, and that is one of the main problems of the government and especially that of the department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which tries to find markets for our produce.
In addition, can it be said that price increases are due to a scarcity of goods, when we know that over 500,000 workers, ready to promote greater production in the country, are unemployed?
Mr. Speaker, those people, should a scarcity of goods, develop, would be quite willing to take an active part in production. The problem does not lie there. What are the real reasons, unfortunately overlooked, which result in price increases? There are in the first place direct and indirect taxes which push prices up because all are ultimately included in the price of goods and are finally paid by consumers. This is one of the reasons. Consequently, if we want to find a solution to the problem, we must consider tax reductions.
As governments at the federal, provincial or municipal level are digging as much as they can in the taxpayers's pockets to levy funds, one can be sure that those tax increases involve price increases especially in the case of food. That is the first important factor to be considered. If we do not intend to reduce taxes, it will be very hard for us to solve this problem.

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
The second factor to be considered is rising wages. Even though they may be justified at times, they are automatically reflected in prices as wages are part of the cost of products and costs are reflected in prices.
Again we agree that salaries should be adequate. But we know very well the mad run on wage increases in many fields which lead to price increases. In such conditions, whenever the consumer buys products, he must pay a price that bears no relation to the production price and there are many reasons for that.
Mr. Speaker, there is another important reason for such increases. It might be said that the Creditistes have been harping on the same subject for many years, but that is where the trouble is. Why is it that in spite of all inquiries and the creation of a royal commission on prices and incomes a few years ago there has been no solution yet? This is because people prefer to ignore the true solutions. One really effective way to solve this problem would be to eliminate this debt money from our financial system. This debt money naturally bears interest and directly promotes price increases. Let me give an example: If a food dealer or producer is forced to borrow $10,000 from the bank and must pay back 10 per cent more at the end of one year, where will he take the $1,000 needed to pay the interest? He will certainly get it from the consumer's pockets by raising his prices. Considering that this happens in all fields of production, one realizes that by not applying the essential monetary reforms proposed by Social Credit, we shall go round in a circle forever and will never find a solution.
We are not content with criticizing. In looking for real solutions, we note the ill effects of the system in which we now dabble but we have alternative solutions and we should like them to be examined seriously.
To lower production costs, it must be realized that any production must be financed through new money. If we follow the principle that new money must be created for any new production, we shall avoid disorderly increases in prices resulting from fantastic interest rates. We should also recognize that public capital must be financed through interest-free loans, which would make it possible to reduce taxes.
Surely if we do not have to pay two, three or four times the real cost of labor, we will have more credit to give the consumers. If there is more money for the consumers, Mr. Speaker, we will reach an intelligent control of prices.
Finally, it happens that in spite of all our goodwill, in spite of the excellence of the producers with regards to the production of a particular product, it is very difficult to establish a suitable price for the consumers.
I say it again: there are solutions to this problem. The solution in the case involved would be as follows: prices should be reduced by giving discounts to the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, nobody can deny that compensated discount is economically justifiable. Not only is it justifiable but it is also necessary if we want to avoid bankruptcies caused by the existing unbalance between prices and purchasing power. The lack of a compensated discount is

what forcibly causes disorganized discounts which precede or come with commercial failures.
Mr. Speaker, if we stopped to seriously study this problem, I am sure that the solutions we are promoting would be considered justly and we could thus help the consumer, that is the whole population.
And as we must consume food products, this means we are studying a problem which involves 23 million Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, compensated discount would make this dilemma disappear. And if we considered it without partisanship, if we really tried to give it serious consideration, we could find that it is possible in Canada to grant everyone economic security-the purchasing power needed by each consumer to purchase all the essential products he needs.
Since we are sitting over unparalleled riches in this country, it is unthinkable that some families should lack money to obtain the food they need. This is a disgraceful situation.
Therefore, considering that other studies have already been made on the subject, I think that any additional inquiries should be short since the problem is urgent. In fact, it foils down to the purchasing power available to individuals. Such purchasing power can be increased- and we know that it could be increased-but we should avoid, as I said a moment ago, hiding behind a screen in order to shun the solutions I have just put forward.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of listening most attentively to the other members who have spoken in this debate. I should like to pay my compliments to the minister, who I thought put the cards on the table indicating where we stand in connection with setting up a committee to study this very important problem-and problem it is in Canada.
I also listened to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). As far as that hon. member is concerned, no one can deny the great sincerity with which she speaks. This sincerity did not manifest itself just today; this problem has been close to her heart for many years, and I think all hon. members of the House owe her a pat on the back for the very effective way in which she presented this very serious problem to the House of Commons, and thus to the people of Canada. To the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), I also pay my compliments; he had some very good points that should be brought forth to the people of Canada.
It was my privilege to sit in the Ontario legislature with the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham for many years and I must say he has lost none of the fire he used to have in those days. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this hon. member is a very important man. He gave us some points this afternoon that certainly need to be read carefully in order to see what meat they contain. One of the things he suggested was that the committee would not be effective but, speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, he reluctantly agreed that such a committee should be set up. Let me suggest that the hon. member has changed his mind in the last several months. Let me tell
January 18, 1973

him something he well knows. No legislative body in the whole of Canada has as many committees as the Ontario legislature of which the hon. gentleman was a member. I hope that this committee will be more effective than some of the ones in that legislature.
The hon. member might be interested in knowing that one of those committees left the day after Christmas to visit Florida, where it remained until the day before New Year's, December 31, investigating the drainage problems of that State of Florida. Of course, the hon. member was not a member of that august body at Christmas of 1972, but he was a member for many years before. That is the absolute fact, and these committee members were paid at the rate of $50 a day, plus expenses in the best hotel in the whole state. I suggest to the hon. member that he must certainly have changed his mind in the last few months.


An hon. Member:: He wishes he were back there.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: There are other ways in which the hon. gentleman has changed his mind. His whole speech contained criticism. I do not mind criticism as I feel opposition members have a duty to criticize. I had the privilege of being in the opposition for many years and a member of the so-called rump. I will likely be in that area again after the next election. In any event, I do not mind criticism from opposition members. The difficulty is that they say everything is wrong here in Canada, including the price of food, lower profits and so on. I must say I have never seen such a change as has taken place since October 1972.
In October 1972, the big blue machine from the province of Ontario with its chief lieutenant, the hon. gentleman now sitting in the front benches of the opposition, spent $5 million to $6 million on an advertisement which simply said that Ontario is a wonderful place to live. If I am wrong I am sure the hon. member will correct me, particularly if the amount was greater. Millions of dollars were spent in selling this theme throughout the province of Ontario and that party was successful. I cannot understand how, since my hon. friend left the legislature of the great province of Ontario, things have deteriorated so badly. Let me put this rhetorical question. What did the hon. member do when he was the chief lieutenant of the Premier of Ontario to assist in solving the food prices situation in this province which has one-third of the population of the whole of Canada?
I was very disappointed in one regard. The hon. member posed all the questions and said this was a horrible place in which to live, yet he did not provide any answers. I have yet to meet a single citizen in the whole of Canada who does not proudly say that Canada is the finest place in the whole world in which to live. The hon. member told us what was wrong, but he did not give us any solutions. We on this side of the House, and I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) will agree, hope that when this committee is set up to investigate the price of food it will provide an educational forum for all the people of Canada. If in so doing it can help bring down the price of food, which is the most
Food Prices Committee
important commodity since every citizen of the world uses it, so much the better.
There are four main areas of inquiry for this committee. I think it has to investigate the price paid to farmers. It must investigate service costs, such as the price of labour in supermarkets and in related fields. It must investigate the profits of supermarkets, if there are any. Lastly, the members of that committee must immediately realize that the consumer is of importance and that he must have some say about the price of food.
Let us look at my first point, the price paid to farmers. I quite frankly doubt that there is a world shortage of food or that there is a shortage here in Canada. If there is a shortage here, then I say this is the fault of this House of Commons, the legislative bodies all across Canada and in fact the people of Canada, because the farmers of this great nation have not had a square deal since 1945. There is no question about this at all, and if you want to be convinced all you have to do is consider the number of farmers who have gone out of business.
Costs to farmers have increased substantially. This is the only area in our economy where cost bears no relationship to the amount paid to the producer. The farmer gets as much or as little as he can, depending on what the market will pay. There are no unions in the agricultural field and as a result the farmer has been caught in this squeeze. The agriculture industry is very important to Canada. Let me read from a brochure under the heading "Farming and Food Costs-Some Facts and Figures". This gives figures to the end of 1972 and after the questions "What is the Importance of Agriculture to Canada? What does it Contribute to our Economy?" states:
-it is the most important primary industry in Canada
-has assets valued at more than $24 billion and is growing every
year
-about one-third of our labor force is directly and indirectly tied to our food and agricultural industry -agriculture directly employs about 523,000 people -220,000 people are involved in food processing and the manufacturing of tobacco, leather products, and farm implements -about one-sixth of the gross value of our manufacturing industry output is processed products of farm origin -one-third of the freight moved through the St. Lawrence Seaway is agricultural
-one-fifth of all freight moved by our railways comes from farms -farmers spend $3.7 billion each year on goods and services -in 1971, Canadian farmers spent $178 million in property taxes -in 1971, agricultural exports pumped $2 billion into the Canadian economy; these exports accounted for about 11% of Canada's trade surplus in 1971
-output per agricultural worker has increased 100% in the last 20 years while the area farmed in Canada has remained essentially constant; output per worker in other commercial industries increased 60%
I mention these facts to hon. members of this Chamber, although I am sure they are familiar with them, in an attempt to get this knowledge to our city friends who constantly feel that farmers are the people making the money in this great land of ours. Let me say to you that none of us, and I include myself because I have been in legislatures since 1955 and here since 1968, should hold his head up high in respect of what we have done for the agriculture industry of Canada. That industry deserves

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
more, and one of the first things the committee must do is prove to the people of Canada that those engaged in primary agriculture in Canada are certainly not over-paid.
The second matter to which I should like to refer is the price of services. All of us know that labour and transportation costs have increased substantially in the past number of years. They have increased at an even more rapid rate in the last year or two. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Gazette of January 18, in Saskatoon. Mr. Runciman, president of the United Grain Growers suggested the following:
The answer to increased food prices lies not in excess profits to farmers, processors or distributors but in inflationary trends in service and labour costs.
The article continues:
He said Statistics Canada figures show prices received by the farmer rose an average of only 15 per cent between 1961 and 1971 while food prices increased 36 per cent, the same rate as the cost of machinery and other materials used in farm production.
In the same period, Mr. Runicman said in an address to a farm and home week gathering at the University of Saskatoon, service costs-which range from transportation down to the wages of a supermarket counter clerk-jumped 50 per cent.
That is a substantially greater increase than that received by our farmers. Third, I should like to speak for a moment about a famous bugbear of many people in Canada, something which must be investigated by this committee, namely, the profits or lack of profits received by our supermarkets in Canada. My hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that these supermarkets were conglomerates and that they had a monopoly in respect of the selling of food in Canada. I respectfully say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the hon. lady, that I do not believe there is a monopoly in respect of the selling of food in Canada. I believe this is one of our most competitive businesses. I am glad in this instance that our friends do not suggest that the high prices are caused because these supermarkets are foreign controlled. To my knowledge there is only one large food chain in Canada controlled in the United States. Therefore, we must accept the responsibility ourselves.


An hon. Member:: There are two.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: There may be two. I shall not deny that. In any event, there is one very large one. So, I would have to disagree with my hon. friend who suggests that supermarkets gain exorbitant profits. I think she should be fair about these things. The other day a question was addressed by the leader of the New Democratic Party to, I believe, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). In his question he suggested that the profits of supermarkets were too large. He said they make a profit of one and one-half cents on a dollar's worth of sales, but 11 per cent on the capital investment. I do not think that has anything to do with it. A lawyer could very well have an office worth $25,000 and earn $50,000 a year. Would this mean there is a 200 per cent profit on the money invested? Supermarkets have a tendency not to own the property in which they operate. They may finance the building, but they sell the property and lease it back

because the money they have is required for their inventory.
My hon. friend from York South suggested that 11 per cent is too high a figure. The words used by my friends in the New Democratic Party are "gouging the public". I really am not too much concerned about supermarkets. I do not place them on a pedestal. However, I say that the competition in the food business among the supermarkets and the efficient way in which they operate is something which could be copied by many other industries in Canada. For this reason, I respectfully suggest that "gouging the public by supermarkets" is an unfortunate phrase which should not be used more than is absolutely necessary.
The final point in respect of this committee is one which should be looked into and one which is of great interest to the consumers in Canada. All of us are consumers. The farmer, the factory worker and every person in Canada or in the world are all consumers of some type of food product. Of course, our study must be approached with full knowledge of this. If we can do anything to bring down the price of food, then of course it must be done.
On the other hand, I want to point out that things really are not as bad in Canada so far as food prices are concerned as has been suggested. If such a committee as is being proposed can accomplish anything in respect of briging down the prices of food, certainly it will have my support and I am sure the support of every member of this House. However, the fact is that Canadians spend now a smaller proportion of their pay cheque on food than ever before. I do not have the latest figures but I have them for the period up to the year 1971. These were the latest figures I could obtain. Between 1961 and 1971, the general price increase was 33.4 per cent. But in the same period, the retail food price index increased by only 27.4 per cent. Here is what an hour's work in a factory bought in 1971 and ten years earlier. In 1971 it bought 2.4 pounds of sirloin steak and in 1961 only 1.9 pounds. In 1971 it bought 3.7 pounds of pork chops and in 1961 2.5 pounds. In 1971 an hour's work would buy 15.8 pounds of bread while in 1961 it would buy only 11.5 pounds of bread.
So, while food prices have increased, and certainly we hope they may be lowered, in general the situation is not as bad as my hon. friends across the way suggest. Actually, in respect of world markets we really are holding up our heads because there is only one country in the world in which the proportion of a person's earnings spent on food is less than in Canada. That country, of course, is the United States. I suggest one reason for this is the fact that it is much easier to grow oranges in California and Florida than anywhere in Canada, as well as other citrus fruits. The weather plays an important part in this regard. In addition, the population in the United States is 210 million as against 22 million in Canada. Because of the population in the United States, products can be produced in very large quantity which has a tendency to reduce the price. For the benefit of the hon. member I might say the average person in the United States spends 18.3 per cent of his earnings on food while in Canada this figure is 19.3 per cent.
January 18, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but under the terms of the special order passed earlier this afternoon the 20 minute period allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Bill larvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) suggested to this House that our party at least would agree to have one speaker only in respect of each amendment because we feel this is an emergency measure. There has been some indication that the New Democratic Party reject this suggestion. If not, I will be happy to resume my seat and allow the question to be put.
In addressing the House for the first time, I realize my limitations, particularly my inability to express to you the congratulations you deserve on being selected as Speaker. May I simply be content to say that the position you occupy is deserved, the dignity you and your associates bring to the position is a credit to you and to all members of the House, and may I say finally that your patience and your guidance, particularly to those of us who are new members, makes us your debtors.
I am not happy to find myself speaking to the unhappy situation explicit in this motion. I would have much preferred the opportunity of sharing with this House my pride in such things in my constituency as the Stratford Shakespearean festival, but how can I do so with any integrity while my senior citizen constituents are faced with the impossible task of feeding themselves satisfactorily until their January cheques arrive sometime next week, hopefully? Could I be comfortable in telling you of the hopes, aspirations and accomplishments of Perth-Wil-mot's townsmen and villagers, while at this very moment the housewives in these communities face the hopeless task of preparing their shopping lists? How can I tell this House of the contributions that have been made by the Perth-Wilmot rural areas, while the mothers of Perth-Wilmot are desperately attempting to plan a balanced diet with one hand and holding in the other their food dollar which is shrinking before their eyes?
I join with the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in suggesting that we be brief because of this emergency, and I intend to heed his advice. Over the last few days I have listened to those in the Liberal party explain to the House and the country the results of last October 30.1 make no comment on these explanations other than to express my surprise that not one of these hon. gentleman has had either the honesty or political wisdom to point out to us the one single factor that has permitted them to retain power. That one factor is luck, pure and simple good fortune. I submit to the House that had legislation dictated that our election be held on a Friday or Saturday, after the families of this nation had somehow once again survived the weekly crisis of purchasing their food supplies, the Liberal Party would be fortunate indeed to require the space occupied in this House by the New Democratic Party to my left. Indeed, if the election had fallen on the first or second day of any month after the families of this nation had met their monthly crisis of paying for shelter, the Liberals
Food Prices Committee
would find adequate room on the benches now occupied by the Social Credit Party.
One fairly trembles to think of the election results if polling date had been on a Friday or Saturday which coincided with the first or second day of the month, and we could only assume that the chairs of the independent members would provide more than adequate space for my friends opposite. I hope therefore that I might be permitted to congratulate my friends opposite on their good fortune. One cannot help but admire successful gamblers, but I have observed that once an intelligent gambler has succeeded in drawing to an inside straight, he does not pursue that course too often. I am astonished to see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) now intends to seek a royal flush by saying to Canadian housewives: "fear not, your troubles are over for we will have a committee examine the trends of food prices". Is one to believe that the minister does not know the trends of food prices? I claim to be no expert and therefore I do not pretend to advise him, but may I invite him to repair to the nearest grocery store or supermarket where the real experts, the housewives of Canada, will tell him the trends in terms that will leave no doubt in his mind.
To be charitable, the word "trend" in this motion may be simply poor draftsmanship and the key word may be "factors". In this case, I may be of assistance to the minister by introducing him to the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), now the Minister of Agriculture, who will assure him of one thing, that it is not the Canadian farmer who is profiting from this uncontrolled inflation. Indeed each week the farmer's wife waits with alarm in the grocery line for the inevitable moment when the cashier pushes that fatal total button. She is the most expert of the vast array of talent available to the government because she knows best of all that the prices her husband receives for his farm products do not account for the erosion of the food dollar.
We have heard in recent days that the government, in repentance, intends now to listen to the Canadian citizen. What a day of enlightenment. I, for one, hasten to congratulate those opposite me on this transformation. As evidence of my good faith, and realizing the minister and his colleagues are hard pressed to be everywhere at once, I rush to their aid by way of being a courier of information from my constituents in Perth-Wilmot.
The people of Stratford, and of the towns, villages and rural areas of my riding have several messages for this government. Incidentally, they are disappointed that the message they sent to this government on October 30 was either misplaced, misunderstood or ignored, but they are quite willing to have me report it today, and it is as follows. You have permitted inflation to be uncontrolled and your only answer was to spend $2 billion on unemployment insurance costs. You have permitted the quality of life for those on fixed income to deteriorate to the point where prices have stripped them of dignity, let alone any ordinary comforts. You have now responded to your political crisis by suggesting yet another special committee, paid for by us, to inquire and make recommendations. This is not a response; you are still turning a deaf ear to our plight.

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
A special joint committee suggested in this motion may have some semblance of merit in relation to long-term planning. A joint committee is no answer to a short term crisis. The housewives of Perth-Wilmot who are waiting with apprehension this very moment in our grocery stores are not able to form their joint committee. Those on fixed incomes, particularly our senior citizens, who must salvage what is left of December's cheques to humbly feed themselves for at least another week are not able to form a joint committee. The mothers of large families who dedicate a large part of their lives to attempting to supply their children with a reasonable diet cannot form a joint committee.
The minister moves that this House rescue him from the indefensible position of his government which has done nothing about a crisis situation for over four years. If there is a glimmer of hope for any short-term relief for the housewife, the pensioner, the mother in this nation, then I believe the minister will find the support he seeks. But I respectfully request him to look for hope and not to hide behind this motion in unrealistic expectation that it will bail this government out of the deep hole into which they have dug themselves.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Local Initiative Programs-Request for statement on progress in approving projects; the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney)-Canadian National Railways-Terms of Loan from Pension Fund to Fidinam (Ontario) Limited-Inquiry as to leasing by railway of part of Upper Canada Place; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Air Transport-Northern Canada-Inquiry as to program for installation of improved navigational aids.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, private bills, public bills. As there are no notices of motions (papers) or private bills, the House will proceed directly to private members' public bills.
Hon. members will recall that when 120 private members public bills were introduced last Monday in accordance with long standing practice, since it was not possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each and every one to determine their procedural acceptability, it was agreed that they should be deemed to be introduced, given first reading, and ordered to be printed subject to subsequent examination.
I have now had an opportunity to examine most of these bills and should like to enumerate a number of them
which, in my view at least, appear to be money bills. Initially, there is the second item on the list of public bills, Bill C-6, an act to amend the National Housing Act, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and number 24, introduced by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). There is No. 26, Bill No. C-30, introduced by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart); No. 29, an act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry; and a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), an act respecting rate fares for disabled persons on federal modes of transport, which is No. 41 on the list.
I am afraid that not too many of those further down the list will be reached, but there is also No. 88, an act to establish a Newfoundland Crossing Authority, standing in the name of the hon. member for Humbert-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). These items will, of course, be allowed to remain on the list. I am not making a final ruling on them now, but if hon. members will look closely at the bills I have enumerated they will see that in many instances, if not in all instances, they appear to be money bills or encroach upon the financial initiative of the Crown.
What I propose to do is leave them on the order paper at the present time, and when they are called, starting with the one when we next have private members' public bills, in the name of hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), I will hear argument as to whether that bill is a money bill, and because of that whether it should be accepted for debate in the House. I am not making a ruling now, but I would be delighted to hear the arguments of hon. members who perhaps might be able to convince the Chair that the original judgment made at this time is not correct. We will now proceed with the first item under private bills.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, I will not take up too much of your time, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to express my appreciation of your permission to develop argument in respect of the bill which stands in my name. In order to assist you, I wish to advise that I shall be proceeding on the principle that I am not talking on a money bill, but seeking forgiveness from the Crown. I think this should make an interesting argument.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West) moved: that Bill C-5 to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act (information to employees) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

January 18, 1973

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this session of parliament. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity to participate in private members' hour. I feel I owe a great deal to private members' hour since I participated fully in this particular hour with my colleagues from Skeena and Timiskaming during my first two sessions in parliament.
My bill, No. C-5, concerns private pension plans. It probably will come as no surprise to hon. members that my party has been concerned, and deeply concerned over the years, with pensions. Our record from the time the King government was forced to introduce the old age pension, down through the years until today as illustrated by the speeches of members like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others, indicates a continuing interest in this vital matter of security.
Our party has often been derided by our critics for what is considered to be the CCF-NDP pension paranoia. Criticism of us has been made on the grounds that our excessive pre-occupation with security somehow indicates or admits to our own basic insecurity as people, and that we lack initiative and incentive to compete in the great commercial and industrial world out there. Mr. Speaker, if my party in the past has been too concerned with pensions, other parties are now beginning to learn that the average voter is security conscious as well. It is not too unfair to say that both the Liberal and Conservative governments, past and the present, have never been too interested in pensions, either private or public, but if a choice had to be made by those old parties I believe it would be for the private kind, because then their friends in the financial institutions would at least have a fighting chance to get a piece of the action. Nevertheless, things are now changing.
Canadians are insecure. Because of the nature of the economy there is a change in outlook among people generally, and I suppose a change in values. Only last week this House witnessed a ludicrous if not hypocritical attempt by the Tories to exploit this insecurity. What the Tories were hoping to do was defeat the government and get power themselves on, of all issues, pensions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get on with your own bill.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I recall that he was in the House one night when we were debating an increase in the minimum wage. There was an amendment before the House dealing with such an increase. It was put forward in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that when we are dealing with private members' hour it would be most important that all of us, particularly the hon. member who is speaking now, should refer to his bill, No. C-5, which all of us thought had some merit. I would think that when he starts to digress, as he is now doing, he is moving away from the intent and purpose of private members' hour. He is now talking about the minimum wage. I do not see that mentioned in his bill. I would hope he would restrict his remarks to Bill No. C-5.
Pension Benefits Standards Act


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I regret this deflection. I was deflected from my topic by the hon. member for Hamilton West, and I think he is attempting to consume some of my debating time. To carry on I was about to say that he opposed raising the minimum wage at that time-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: For a good reason.


Mark Willson Rose: -and at that point I accused him of supporting an Alexander's Ragtime Plan. Nevertheless today, and this is specifically for the hon. member, I do not intend to talk about either the CPP, the OAS or the supplement, but about private pension plans to which employees and corporations jointly contribute. It is not that I am not interested in the others. On the contrary, I am vitally interested in them, and I believe it should be a priority of all parties not only to increase the benefits of public plans but to gradually lower the retirement age, perhaps to 55 years. In this way we could get out of this ludicrous position where we have 200,000 young people unemployed, subsisting on hand-outs such as the OFY and LIP, in effect pensioning off these kids at 21 years, and keeping the old man on the treadmill until he is 65. We have to do something about that, and we recognize this, but that is not what I want to concentrate on today.
I realize that I have learned a great deal from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), and from other hon. members, on how to be out of order and in order at the same time, Mr. Speaker, but now to deal specifically with Bill C-5.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: To repudiate all the Liberal comments, may I say that all companies with federal incorporation, and that includes railways, airlines, and liquor interests such as Seagrams, come under a federal statute known as the Pension Benefits Standards Act. There is equivalent legislation regulating provincial companies, particularly in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. My bill seeks to amend the federal statute in one specific instance. In this regard and only in this regard, my bill seeks an additional clause calling for an open book policy to reveal to employees all pertinent aspects of the contributory plan including investment policies of the plan, the return of employer contributions to the fund, vesting privileges, benefits and so on.
The present act fails to call for complete disclosure and because of this limitation many employees in the thousands of private plans across the country are frustrated and resentful. They believe that the enforced blindness of pension plan details have cheated them out of their democratic rights as contributors; even worse it has cheated them out of financial and economic returns which should have accrued to them as workers rather than to the benefit of the companies by whom they are employed.
The classic example of this of course is with the railway workers and their resentment about the parsimonious pensions has led them almost to the point of revolution, not only against the company but against their own unions. I should like to paraphrase an article which appeared in the Financial Times on October 2, saying that

January 18, 1973
Pension Benefits Standards Act
the demand of the non-op railway unions for more say in the administration of their pension plans is the first stage of a move to get more control over the investment policies of $1.5 billion worth of funds. This gives us some idea of the tremendous pool of capital in these pension plans; capital which rightfully belongs to employees and which is being managed in a great number of cases, and in some cases entirely, by companies. Other examples which have come to my attention are cases like the Seagram workers in British Columbia, who have again and again been refused any details of the interest paid on their contributions or where their money is invested. Under the present federal statute the employer has no legal obligation to make that information available to employees. My bill would overcome this response from management.
In my opinion, companies historically have yielded to the demand for pension plans only when convinced that the control of the fund would be to corporate benefit, and not because companies wish to contribute to the workers interests or security. For far too long control of the administration of the plans has been considered the sole prerogative of management. I do not agree with this nor does John G. Doherty, writing in the Financial Times on November 13, 1972 under the headline "Crunch coming in pensions", when he said:
Some planners (pensions) feel that if pensions are really a form of deferred income, then the employee should have rights to his company's contributions, regardless of how long his tenure is.
He then refers briefly to the "locked in" situation in regulations in many company plans in which the vesting remains with the company. Thus, an employee who decides to leave the company leaves his benefits to the benefit of the company. He says further that:
This causes problems because the employer's share of the annual funding is usually much smaller than a young employee's share.
Statistics Canada, in a special study of this subject, indicates that nearly 40 per cent of our labour force is covered by private plans, so the pool of capital under the direct control of management is far from insignificant. The immensity of the pool reveals, I think, why management is so determined to have complete control over this $11 billion fund and why the corporate interests of this country will probably not be too enamoured of my proposed amendment.
I should point out that under the United States law revelation of the trust agreement is demanded. We have not directed our legal energies toward such an open book policy but my bill attempts to overcome this. The United Transportation Union News states frankly that this union is out for more power over their workers' pension rights, and is demanding equal representation on the board. If we agree that pensions are really deferred income, a fringe of the wage package, then both contributions, the employer's and the employee's belong not to the company but to the workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Why should the employee's priorities in spending his own money not be borne in mind? Why should the employee not decide on the investment practices of his fund so that if he thought it desirable, for

example, that increased benefits be paid and the plan could afford it, it could be done. If he thought the fund should be used for public housing or worker's housing, this also could be accomplished. This is not the case today and it is for this reason I ask that the workers be given the right to control their own money, a right effectively denied by the limitations of the statute I am seeking to amend.
Why should any company be allowed to fudge on its contributions by limiting those contributions to some conservative actuarial projection? If the worker's income is projected to be lower, then it follows the company's portion is lower and less money is required for the fund. But the pensions also become lower. Why should a company have the right to have its workers subsidize its own pool of private capital, thus allowing it to expand by this regular supply of cheap capital?
I know that quotations are not particularly interesting and I would avoid them if I could. However, I think it is important that we consider the suggestion outlined by D. H. Fullerton writing in the Vancouver Province on March 19, 1969. He called the column "A bill of rights for pension fund contributors" and made several extremely important points. He said:
When an employee contributes to a fund, however, he has every right to demand full participation in its management, and full protection of his interests.
How on earth can any employee do this if he does not even have a copy of the agreement or is denied it? Mr. Fullerton goes on to suggest, in his bill of rights:
All employer and employee contributions to the fund and income and capital gains earned by it, must be regarded as accruing to the sole benefit of the pensioners. As things stand now, in most funds the employer is the residual beneficiary.
This practice is blatantly unfair and discriminatory and I think should end. It is because I have great faith in the fairness of members I have great faith that hon. members will support my bill when it comes to a vote.
Mr. Fullerton states further:
Employers as well as employees must have representation in the management of a fund.
He later goes on to criticize the actuarial assumptions on which deductions and benefits are based and he concludes by saying:
Such a bill of rights should eliminate many of the abuses which arise from employer domination of pension fund policy and management.
I think I have made whatever case I can of this relatively technical matter, one which is perhaps not apparent to many young workers. Like most young people, young workers think they are going to live forever. Of course, they will find as they grow older that they will become intensely interested in pensions-like certain parliamentarians are interested in pensions-especially their own.
I realize that my amendment will not remove all possibilities of abuse in private pension schemes, and I use the word "schemes" advisedly. However, I believe my bill will go a long way towards bringing to light some of the previously furtive managerial practices in pension plans which have definitely not, I repeat, not been in the interest of workers in general. I think my amendment will allow workers, through the collective bargaining process, to
January 18, 1973

become masters of their own pension house. I hope I can depend on hon. members of this House to support the bill standing in my name, Bill C-5.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to on this bill, one is tempted to make many observations pertaining to CNR and CPR railroad pensions.


Mr. Benjamin:: Go ahead.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: However, I want to say a few words about certain questions to which Bill C-5 makes reference and explain how I feel. I wish to make it known that I have attended three meetings of railroad pensioners' meetings which were held in Winnipeg this year. I want to go on record as saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the railroad pensioners' requests. They say that, the CNR being a Crown corporation, their pension should be on a basis of parity with those available to employees of Air Canada, which is also a Crown corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, these people are not asking for air passes; they are asking only for equally good pensions. They are also requesting that the voluntary retirement age be set at 60. I would agree with Mr. Picket, of Edmonton, the chairman of the association, that this would create additional jobs in this country. I, personally, have made representations to the national caucus of the Liberal party. I know, also, that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) and the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) have made representations, along with mine, to the minister. I wish it to be known that our representations have certainly been taken into consideration and that the minister is aware of what the railroad pensioners would like to see. I hope that in the near future active consideration will be given to that end.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You sound like a minister, Joe. I am flattering you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, any amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act require the most careful consideration by reason of the relationship between this legislation and similar legislation in a number of the provinces, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. The first legislation in this field was passed by Ontario following an extensive study by a special committee of the legislature. Similar legislation was adopted in Quebec and the federal legislation was designed to follow as closely as possible the legislation adopted by the provinces. Uniformity of legislation in this field is most important in order that employers and their employees who are subject to the federal legislation, will not be at an advantage or disadvantage as compared with employers and employees who are subject to the provincial legislation. As a consequence, any amendments in the federal legislation or the provincial legislation are usually discussed in considerable detail among the various jurisdictions, to ensure so far as possible that the legislation will remain uniform.
25714-29j
Pension Benefits Standards Act
It is of interest in this connection to note that Ontario has recently published a Green Paper outlining possible amendments to the Ontario legislation having to do with a change in the vesting requirements. The present act requires that all benefits accruing in respect of service after the introduction of the legislation be fully invested in employees after they reach the age of 45 and have achieved ten years of service. Consideration is also being given to a change in this requirement, to make vesting effective at the age of 40 after five years of service. The paper published by Ontario was for the purpose of raising this possibility for discussion, and many representations have been made. The information thus gathered will be of much interest to other jurisdictions having similar legislation or considerations to meet.
The question of information to be provided to employees is dealt with in all of this legislation on a uniform basis. The present requirement is spelled out in section 11, particularly in paragraph (c) of that section.


Mark Willson Rose: I beg to differ.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In accordance with this paragraph, a pension plan is required, if it is to be eligible for registration, to provide for an explanation to be given to each member of the plan of the terms and conditions of the plan and any amendments thereto that are applicable to him. This is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. He is also required to have an explanation of his rights and duties with respect to the benefits available to him under the plan. The section also includes the authority to adopt regulations with respect to the provision of other information for the employee.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for St. Boniface to suggest to the House where in section 11, paragraph (c), there is reference to financial matters affecting the plan?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I do not think that is a point of order. It is a question for debate.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would stay in the House and listen to what I am saying. He would understand me better. I will repeat those remarks having to do with information to be provided to employees. As I said near the beginning of my remarks, the question of information to be provided to employees is dealt with in all the legislation on a uniform basis and the present requirement is spelled out in section 11, particularly in paragraph (c) of that section. I will repeat also what I said after that. In accordance with this paragraph, a pension plan is required, if it is to be eligible for registration, to provide for an explanation to be given to each member of the plan of the terms and conditions of the plan and any amendments thereto that are applicable to him. He is also required to have an explanation of his rights and duties with respect to benefits available to him under the plan. The section also includes authority to adopt regulations with regard to the provision of other information for the employee.
It is certainly reasonable and desirable that each employee should have full information concerning the

January 18, 1973
Pension Benefits Standards Act terms of the pension plan, since this appears of major importance to him in planning his financial affairs. There may be some argument, too, that he should receive information year-by-year concerning his accrued benefits. Great care would have to be taken, however, in legislating in this respect. Some employers now provide this information to their employees on a regular basis. Where the records of the pension plan are on computers, it may be fairly simple to compute the accrued benefit for each employee and provide an annual statement to him. However, in some cases the calculation of such information would be extremely difficult and costly. One could probably feel that such information would be valuable to each employee, but it would be better to leave this matter to the particular employer and employee to work out between them having regard to its complexity and the administrative costs involved. It is to be kept in mind that any such calculation would have to be accurate, otherwise employees might be led to rely on incorrect information in their pension planning. This would give rise to much controversy and difficulty later on.
The amendment proposed by this bill seems to concentrate on the financial position of the fund rather than on the terms of the plan and the position of each individual as regards his own benefits. The Pension Benefits Standards Act as it now stands contains considerable material concerning the financial position of the plan. In fact, the main purpose of the act is to require that pension plans be put on a sound financial basis. Periodic actuarial reports are required to be made and these have to be submitted to the Department of Insurance which administers the act. Annual returns are also required to be made in respect of each plan in order that its financial position may be known. The act and the regulations control the investments of funds of the pension plan. The act contains requirements concerning the liquidation of any deficits which may be revealed as a consequence of the actuarial valuations.
It would appear, therefore, that the legislation goes as far as is reasonably possible to ensure that the promises made in the pension plan are adequately funded. Where there is a deficit, that is, where the assets in the pension fund are not sufficient to cover the liabilities represented by the benefits accrued to the valuation date, the law requires that this deficit be liquidated over a period of years. It is generally desirable to have such deficits liquidated as soon as possible, but some balance is always needed between a rapid liquidation of existing deficits, on the one hand, and appropriate modifications to the pension plan, on the other, to try to maintain benefits at an adequate rate.
The principal purpose of the Pension Benefits Standards Act is to require adequate financing of pension plans and thereby to increase the confidence employees have in the payment of their pensions when they reach retirement age. One cannot, of course, object to the provision of more information to employees and to their associations concerning the financial position of the plan, but it is not clear that the provision of such information would of itself serve to increase employee confidence. The existing
[Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).)
legislation dealing with the requirements of funding is better designed for this purpose.
Some of the difficulties in legislating in this respect are illustrated by the terms of Bill C-5 itself. It refers to the trust deed or to pertinent financial information. Usually, the trust deed will be the terms of the arrangement between the employer and a trustee. The trustee will usually be the custodian of the assets of the pension plan fund, but his responsibilities will vary widely from one plan to another. In some cases he will be the custodian of the assets only and will be required to pay them out on direction from the pension committee or the employer. Thus, the trust deed would spell out the responsibilities of the trustee but would not contain any particular financial information. It is not likely that the terms of the trust deed would be helpful in ascertaining the current financial position of a pension fund.
The reference to pertinent financial information seems to be very imprecise. It might refer to the assets of the fund, to the interest rate earned on the assets, to contributions received from employees and from the employer, to special contributions in respect of unliquidated deficits, or to estimated liabilities under the plan. Uncertainty exists, also, as to the frequency with which such information would have to be provided. It is to be noted, also, that in many cases there would be no employees' association or employees' union. It would be uncertain, then, whether any information should be provided or not. One might note, also, that there are a number of plans to whose funds employees do not make any contribution. There is, thus, such a variety of cases that it is difficult to legislate the provision of information of this type. In many cases there are pension administration boards which include representation from employees as well as from the employer. Such a board would receive all financial information concerning the plan, and since there are representatives of the employees on it one would suppose that this would be an adequate disclosure of information for employee purposes.
I referred a while ago to the CNR pension plan, and I am sure that I got a smile from some hon. members on the other side when I did so. But I wish to end by saying I was pleased to hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who the other day also made representations on the subject during the debate on the address. He attended the meetings to which I referred a while ago; I believe he has been doing so for a number of years. I am not associating myself directly with him but indirectly I may say that in this instance, as in so many others, I wholeheartedly agree with him.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill now before us is an excellent one and it is supported, I am sure, by all members of this House. The confidence of employees in contributory pension programs would be enhanced if more information were made available to employee contributors. The whole area of private pension plans has been attracting growing public concern. Their viability, and in some cases their integrity, has been questioned. While I believe they have been and can continue to be useful institutions, this area has not been reviewed for a long time and should be reviewed now. It is understandable that questions are
January 18, 1973

being asked about their administration and their value. However, I regret that I cannot support this proposal as either a reasonable or practical measure.
We can easily support the suggestion of providing a copy of the trust agreement to the employees, but we cannot responsibly support the additional proposition which is worded "other pertinent financial information." It could end up requiring the disclosure of everything in a company's books, or almost nothing at all. To be effective and acceptable, there would need to be a definition of "pertinent" which could reliably be applied.
[DOT] <1740)
Turning to the general intent of the bill, that of confidence between employees and employers, I should like to make the following suggestions. First, a formal and extensive re-examination of the administration and value of private pension plans is long overdue. Such an inquiry is essential to maintain rational support for these institutions.
Second, the general challenge of confidence between employees and employers requires a fundamental change in economic policy. It is a change that I look forward to. I think, though, that we should be laying down a new economic policy, consistent with the logic of business and technology, that would coincide with the historic values of the Canadian people. The time has come for us to formulate a plan to accelerate the growth of the economy while simultaneously broadening the ownership of its production capital, so as to build the working population's future income increases on capital incomes-which, incidentally, do not raise prices-rather than upon increased pay for the same or less work input, the very essence of cost-push inflation.
Within the logic of our economy and within the logic of our morality, full employment in the production of goods and services relevant to the needs of the poor can only be based upon raising the legitimate incomes of consumers. There is no way to achieve this except by making the ownership of capital accessible to the approximately 95 per cent of the population who do not own it today on the same terms that have always been regarded as minimal by business: access to investments that normally will pay for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to use any more of the time allotted to me. I am sure that other members would like to speak, and I am anxious to hear what they have to say. I simply repeat that while we cannot support this proposal before us, we look forward to this parliament making meaningful progress in this area.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to those delivered by my colleague. I think he put his finger on the problem in the hon. member's bill when he indicated that he was quite content with the purpose and principle of the bill but drew the line when it got to the question of pertinent financial information. When I see members to the left of my party move amendments dealing with corporations, I certainly become a little nervous and get a little excited since I know their love for corporations and the financial structures of same.
Pension Benefits Standards Act
I am all in favour of the free enterprise system and what it means in terms of reward for initiative, and this is why the hon. member's bill makes me a little nervous. I was pleased to hear the speaker from the government benches elaborate on the problem he saw in the hon. member's bill, and I should like to tell the hon. member, with respect, that I do not think he did any research into whether this sort of bill should be introduced following discussions with the provinces.
If I may touch lightly on the remark that the hon. member was forced to make regarding "Alexander's Ragtime Plan", it is in this area that I find it necessary not to go along with the New Democratic Party which wants to increase holus-bolus the minimum wage without having any kind of consultation or deliberation with the provinces.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out to Your Honour that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) objected, on a point of order, to lack of relevancy in certain of the remarks I made. I think he now is guilty of the same charge.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member has heard the point of order. I give the floor back to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). He is quite right. But I did want just two or three seconds to make some rebuttal of his remarks. Surely we are all concerned about pensions and trust agreements on which pension plans are set up. I think we would all want to see employees in such a plan receive a copy of the trust agreement. Obviously, this would be to their benefit, and as I understand it, it would also be to the benefit of the employer.
The parliamentary secretary rambled on and on but never got to the meat of the matter sufficiently to say that he did not think the employees should have a copy of the trust agreement. He said that they could get this information, and in fact he read subsection (c) of the act, which I should like to reread in order to clarify the situation. To the best of my knowledge, all that an employee can obtain under the provisions of the present act is that which is contained in the legislation. Section (ll)(c) provides as follows:
(c) for a written explanation to be given to each member of the plan of the terms and conditions of the plan and any amendments thereto applicable to him, together with an explanation of the rights and duties of the member with reference to the benefits available to him under the terms of the plan and such other information as may be prescribed by the regulations.
That does not include the trust agreement, which is what the hon. member forcefully pointed out this evening. Employees who have every right to have a copy of the trust agreement placed in their hands are being denied

January 18, 1973
Pension Benefits Standards Act that right, and certainly I believe the hon. member has made a valid point for our consideration. I am not saying that it is true of all, but some companies have a very high rate of investment compared to the pensions paid to their employees. Why should this be? Why do the employees not know this? Apparently they do not know because that sort of thing is not disclosed.
With regard to vesting, I understood the hon. member to say that vesting takes place at age 45 after ten years of service. This is an important step. I hoped the parliamentary secretary would indicate to his minister or to the department responsible that this is the kind of legislation in which the federal government should become involved. Although my knowledge of the meaning of vesting is somewhat limited, I think employees should be given more opportunity to know what is happening to their money.
I understand that something like $11 billion which is presently tied up in this country in various pension schemes could be redirected into housing, and I think here we have lost a great impetus. Perhaps those who are guiding our fortunes do not place very much importance on the provision of shelter, but I suggest each and every member of the House believes that this money could be redirected into housing, thus producing some very significant results in terms of increased housing starts, particularly for those on low incomes.
I think the hon. member's motion is excellent, but I make this one point. The hon. member is asking that the following be added:
-for a copy of the trust agreement or other pertinent financial information to the employee's organization or union.
I do not question the hon. member's motive in this regard, but knowing what he thinks of companies and financial structures I may feel that this is a devious way in which the hon. member can go into a company's books holus-bolus. Along with other hon. members, I would take a dim view of such a move on the part of an hon. member. Incidentally, I had a confidential conversation with the hon. member which I will now tell all hon. members about. In that conversation he explained that he did not mean what he appears to state. For us to support such a motion, the hon. member would have to be more explicit.
Knowing the expertise of hon. members on the other side in respect of drafting resolutions, I am quite shocked that they let the hon. member bring this one before the House. It is about as bad as my trying to obtain an amendment to the National Housing Act; although it was ruled out of order, the door was not closed in respect of forgiveness on loans for sewage systems. I do not have the expertise of those in the hon. member's party, but even though the bill does have some merit we must be continually concerned about movement in areas which call for consultation, deliberation and co-operation with the provinces. In this area alone I think the hon. member should have done a little more research.


An hon. Member:: A private member?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Whether it is a private member or a government member, one should not bring in a bill until

he has attempted to research it. I think the hon. member has failed in this regard. The principle which has been brought before us deserves consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whom I have a great deal of respect, has called for the question. I will sit down, even though I know someone on the other side is always prepared to kill a private member's bill. This is very unfortunate because I think that in order to make this place more meaningful we should have the opportunity of the government accepting private members' bills. In this way we could truly be part of the democratic process. As matters stand now, this is an exercise in frustration for hon. members because they know that someone on the other side will stand and talk out the bill. I see that one hon. member is ready to stand now, or just as soon as I sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is going far beyond the principle of the bill before us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but at least the latter part of my remarks was serious. There has to be more consideration of private members' bills or this hour becomes a farce, because they will never become legislation but will only give members an opportunity to be reported by the press so that people back home will know their member is trying to advance the type of program they deserve.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think first I should congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) on his good fortune in having his bill drawn first for discussion in private members' hour.
Before I heard the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) speak, I thought that this was a particularly good bill and one we might proceed with; but having heard the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton West I have come to the conclusion that there are definite defects in the bill. Perhaps the hon. member will want to reconsider his bill and reintroduce it in the next parliament which, hopefully, will not be for some time.
The hon. member for Hamilton West made some comments on the question of provincial co-operation with the federal government in the adjudication and supervision of pension plans. On the basis of that I obtained a copy of the report of the Superintendent of Insurance on the administration of the Pension Benefits Standards Act for the year ended March 31, 1972.
This is a very important area in federal-provincial relations. As hon. members to my right will understand, a great deal of the history of Canada has resulted from an attempt to deal adequately with conflicting claims of the provincial and federal governments regarding areas of jurisdiction. Here is an example where the provinces and the federal government have been able to work out an equitable relationship where in some cases pension plans which normally fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government are administered and supervised by the
January 18, 1973

requisite provincial authority. Also, there have been provincial authorities which have attempted to provide for federal jurisdiction over matters of purely provincial interest.
I am sure hon. members will be delighted to know what the Superintendent of Insurance said in his report for the year ending March 31, 1972.
On December 17, 1970, the Minister of Finance and the appropriate authorities of the provinces having pension benefits legislation agreed to extend respective agreements indefinitely subject to the proviso that each party to the agreement can terminate the agreement by giving the other party three months' notice in writing.
This means that relationships between the federal government and provincial governments in this particular area are in very good hands indeed and that, for a change, instead of having to place all matters of jurisdiction under constant strain, with attack and counter-attack from each side, we have been able to work out a measure of co-operation and co-ordination.
In terms of the point raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the parliamentary secretary, concerning CNR and CPR pensions, a standing Committee of the House of Commons received a reference from the House last year and conducted a fairly extensive investigation into the status of CNR and CPR plans in this respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: CN only.


John Mercer Reid: I thank the hon. member. In the course of its hearing, the committee heard representations from Canadian Pacific which came before them to discuss investment policy followed by the CPR pension fund in order to compare and contrast it with that of the CNR pension fund.
I feel that the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, that individuals who must subscribe to these pension plans do not have sufficient information, is certainly true. In my opinion, and that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), if there is one constant gripe of employees of the CNR and CPR it is that they do not have enough information about their pension plans. Their particular grievance is not about the trust agreement; it is twofold-it is on the question of how that money is invested, and exactly what their pension rights are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Their particular grievance now is that you have talked-out this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I might say, this being my first experience in private members' hour this year, that, like some of the new members, it is perhaps good to listen to hon. members at this time because sometimes they are the best speakers in the House.
tTranslation]
The hour provided for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Food Prices Committee
(English]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to enquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends;
That 20 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members of the special joint committee and that Standing Order 65(5) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock, along with others in the House, I was attempting to find some hope for those who need it most in the words of the motion placed before this House by the minister. If there is any glimmer of hope for any short-term relief for the housewife, the pensioner or the mothers of this nation, then I believe the minister will find the support he seeks. I seriously request him to look for that hope and not to hide behind this motion in the expectation that it will take the government out of the deep hole they have dug for themselves.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I welcome the motion before the House. I wish to remind hon. members that our party was in the forefront last session in attempting to get the government to do something about the increase in the cost of food. We wanted something done at that time because food prices were going up quite drastically. The government at that time did not listen to us. It was not until after the election of October 30 that the government decided to take the preliminary measure of establishing a committee to study the trend of increasing food prices in this country.
At the outset I wish to make it clear that I hope the committee will do more than study the increase in the price of food and will, indeed, make recommendations to the government upon which the government will act immediately. Our experience in the past has been that we

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
have had commissions and committees of this House and of both Houses which have made very elaborate recommendations which have not been acted upon. The people of the country will no longer tolerate such action by this place or by the government of Canada.
During the last six years there have been two major studies carried out in respect of food prices in this country. One such study was carried out by a House of Commons and Senate committee in the mid-1960s, a committee on which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) served. There was also the Batten commission established by the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the mid-1960s. Both these bodies made elaborate studies and investigations of food prices in this country. They also made serious recommendations. Some of those recommendations have been acted upon, and many others have been shoved aside or tossed into the wastepaper basket.
At the outset I wish to encourage this House to see to it that the committee takes up the work where the others left off and investigates the conglomerate structure involved in our food industry and the many other factors which go into the prices of food in this country. Also at the outset I should like to make it very clear that the farmer is not the person at whom the finger of blame should be pointed. The farmer has spent his fair share of the food dollar per year during the past 20 or 25 years. Very often there is no relationship between the price he receives for his commodity and the price the consumer, or the farmer's wife must pay for the commodities she buys.
When I was a young person living on a farm in Saskatchewan I was very often puzzled when I saw my family sell livestock or grain and then go to the grocery store and buy these commodities highly priced when processed at the other end of the chain. When we have this study we should not blame the farmer, because his share of the food dollar is going down every year. In 1949 the farmer received 57 per cent of every food dollar spent in this country. In 1972 he received 38 per cent of every food dollar spent in this country. The farmer's share had slumped to 37 per cent or 38 per cent. That is quite a drop in that particular period. As we have seen, the processors, marketers and middlemen are gobbling up more and more of the consumer food dollar each year, and the farmer is receiving less. This is true in respect of almost every food commodity one might take a look at.
I should like to refer to some figures taken from the "Saskatchewan Economic Review," based on Statistics Canada data for 1972. Here I compare the years 1961 and 1970. We find, in 1961, for wheat turned into bread the farmer's share was 12.9 per cent of the consumer dollar. In 1970 it was 9 per cent of the consumer dollar, a drop of 3.9 per cent in respect of what the farmer previously received. The same is true in respect of potatoes. In 1961 he received 37 per cent, and in 1970 he received 34 per cent of the consumer dollar. In respect of canned peas, in 1961 he received 18.4 per cent of the consumer dollar, and in 1970 he received 13 per cent.
So we see that the share of the consumer dollar the farmer is receiving has been going down during the past decade despite the increased cost of food to the consumer. It is very clear that when this committee commences its

work it must look at the middlemen and not the primary producer in this country, because it is not at the doorstep of the farmer that the fault lies for the increase in food prices.
Over the past ten years in many communities farm income has declined; the farmer has not had a fair deal in respect of the pricing of commodities in this country. We all know that in the last few months the price of beef, and so on, has been increasing but that has not been the trend in general over the past few years. Indeed, the farmer has been receiving the short end of the stick.
Once again I wish to refer to the statistics for 1972 reported in the "Saskatchewan Economic Review". There are some figures here which show 1961 as the base year with an index of 100. We find, ten years later in 1971, that the index in respect of farm prices for Saskatchewan farmers had fallen to 89.7 per cent of what it was in 1961.1 realize that in the past year this figure has risen and that perhaps now it is as high as it was in 1961.
Farm costs have been increasing very rapidly. The Barber commission report on the price of farm machinery, tabled in this House a year or so ago, stated that farm machinery prices increased by 85 per cent between 1949 and 1971. The price of farm machinery has increased more than that during the past few years, as also has the price of farm machinery parts which the farmer must buy in order to maintain his farm equipment.
Once again I want to refer to the statistics provided by the "Saskatchewan Economic Review" to show that the cost of farm equipment, and so on, has been increasing in the last few years. Taking the year 1961 as the base year with an index of 100, we find that by 1971 the index for farmland and farm buildings had increased to 155.5 and that farm machinery had increased to 127.4.
It is very obvious that the cost to the farmer of producing food in the last ten years has increased drastically while his income has not followed suit. In fact, the increase in farm income has been, in general, far behind the increase in the income of almost every major economic sector in this country, and that is one of the things the committee will have to keep in mind when investigating food prices and recommending action.
All the committee has to do is look at the population trends in this country to know that farmers have been receiving the short end of the stick. Between 1949 and 1969 the rural population in Canada dropped from three million to two million people. Between 1966 and 1971, 15 per cent of Canada's farms disappeared, all of this despite the fact that the productivity of the farmer has risen very rapidly. In fact, in the last few years his productivity has risen at twice the pace of the non-agricultural sector of our population, namely, our nation's industrial population. So when we commence the study of food prices in this country we must begin, not with the farmer but with the real culprit, namely, the middleman in the food industry.
The farmer has been shafted, the consumer is paying a very high price for food and in many cases the man working in the store as a clerk is not getting a sufficiently high wage. Indeed, there are people in other areas whom
January 18, 1973

we must investigate very thoroughly in studying the price of food to the consumer. Some of these areas include the processing and the packaging of food, which has become very elaborate and expensive in the past few years. We must investigate in depth the distribution of food in this country, its transportation and freight rate costs. For some of us on the Prairies this is a very important factor because we feel we are often discriminated against, in terms of freight rates, to the benefit of some industries in central Canada.
We must investigate very thoroughly the advertising and promotional costs which go into the food industry today and look at much of the advertising gimmicks in the advertising of food. We must take a very close look at the conglomerate structure of the food industry in this country, at chain stores, at the profit these chain stores are making, at the proliferation of many supermarkets in the suburbs where you have on one street a supermarket and on the next corner another supermarket. Often the space in the supermarkets is not utilized to its fullest capacity; this means an additional cost to the consumer who shops for his groceries. These are just a few of the things the committee should investigate if we are to get to the crux of the problem regarding food prices in this country.
We must look, as well, at the lack of competition, at some of the huge near-monopolies such as the Garfield-Weston Company that has a controlling interest in about 60 companies in this country which are producing food. While we are doing this, we must make very clear that what we are looking at is the profits on equity investment rather than the profit on sales. I know that the leader of my party, when speaking in the House last week, referred to the example of Dominion Stores who say they make a profit of only .6 per cent on sales. When we look at the equity investment, we find that their profit is really some 11 per cent-and that is what counts when we look at the cost of food to the consumer in this country.
I believe it was either the Batten report or the report of another study which said that the profits reaped by food wholesalers and retailers are often above the profits reaped by wholesalers and retailers in other industries. In 1968 food retailers had a profit of 17.5 per cent. Food wholesalers had a profit of 19.5 per cent in the same year. These are the areas which we should study when we consider the price of food in this country.
I now want to urge upon hon. members, especially those who will be members of the committee, that one of the recommendations which we surely must make if we are to achieve anything in this area is one calling for the establishment of a prices review board, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway earlier this afternoon. This prices review board must, when there is a huge jump in the price of food, have the power to demand that the company justify the increase and if it is not justified the board must have the power to control the price or, indeed, at times to roll it back. When I talk about justifying the price of food I am talking, first of all, about giving the farmer a fair deal as well as giving a fair deal to those who work in the food industry. I refer primarily to the close scrutiny which we should give to the middleman in the food industry.
Food Prices Committee
I now want to say a word or two about the amendment that was moved in the House earlier by the spokesman for the Conservative Party regarding the exclusion of members of the Senate from the membership of this committee. I wonder how sincere the Conservative party is in wishing to abolish the Senate in this country, and whether it is just a move at this time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rises on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I know the hon. member does not mean it, but I do not think it is allowable for an hon. member to reflect on the motives of other hon. members. Of course, our motives are always well known and they are always perfectly honourable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Read your own speech about us.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member cannot comment on the motives which prompted the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) to move his motion. They are there and they speak for themselves.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might speak on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and say to him that it is not necessary to comment on the motives of the Conservative party; we know that they are-they are ulterior and selfish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the points that have been raised and the language that has been used are not outside the realm of debate in this chamber. However, I do not think a point or order was raised.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who has certainly departed from parliamentary practice. I must say that a party which, at least in the number of years that I have been here, has continually moved motions which have no chance of succeeding has no business to make this kind of statement. The hon. member is entirely out of order. His statements should not have been made; they are improper and I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member should be cautioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think perhaps hon. members on both sides have made their point. I now call on the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the conscience of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is bothering him since he interjected in this debate. It struck me, when the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) was speaking earlier in this debate, that he started off by saying the committee must be established quickly and must begin its study immediately; that for that reason Senators should not be members of the committee; they can set up their own group and go into the
454

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
matter at a more leisurely pace; they may take their time in proceeding with the study because they have all kinds of time and connections. I wonder whether those two statements are not somewhat contradictory.
Our party has other reasons for being suspicious and for not wanting members of the Senate to be on the committee. First and foremost, members of the other place are not democratically elected by the people of this country. I believe that is a very important point which we should make. I hope that the members of the Conservative party, when others of us in this House move for abolition of the other place, will support us with the same enthusiasm as that with which they apparently moved this amendment. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is fully expecting their support when his motion comes up for debate later this session.
In the next two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to two or three matters which I think will throw a little light upon some of the members of the other place and why it might be preferable not to have them on this committee. I quote a short paragraph from the December issue of Saturday Night magazine as follows:
Among themselves they share 180 corporation directorships and 53 senior executive positions. Eight of them are bank directors.
Many of them are also interested in the food industry. Many of them sit on the boards of directors of some of the food companies, or have interests in industries associated with food. We have Senator Beaubien, who is involved in the Dominion Sugar Company. Senator Desruisseaux is involved in Melchers Distilleries Ltd., Lucky One Beverages Inc., Standard Brands Ltd., and Canadian Cocoa and Chocolate Co. Senator Gelinas is involved in John Labatt Ltd., Montreal Refrigerating and Storage Ltd., the Canadian Salt Co. Ltd., the Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd., Distillers Corporation and Seagram Ltd. Then we have Senator Hayden, who is involved in Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co. Ltd., Acadia-Atlantic Sugar Co., Canadian Tuna Co. Ltd., Atlantic Fish Processors Ltd., and Scott's Restaurants Co. Ltd. Then there is Senator McLean, who is involved in Seal Cove Canning Ltd., Quoddy Seafoods Ltd., and Craft Canning Co. Ltd. There is Senator Molson, who I understand has some interest in Molson Industries Ltd., and Senator Robichaud who is involved in National Sea Products Ltd. These people do have an interest in food prices but they do not have the same interests as the average constituent, the farmers and consumers who live in my riding.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to this House to get on with its work, to study the increase in the cost of food, and to remember that the farmer is not responsible for that increase any more than the average worker employed in the industry who is not reaping the cream of the crop in terms of the increase in food prices. I hope we soon get down to work and study the conglomerate structure of the food industry, food transportation costs and promotion, advertising and packaging costs. It is in the middleman that I am sure the House and anyone interested in studying the increase in the cost of food will find the culprit.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate and, it being my first opportunity to speak in this parliament, I would like to congratulate you on your unanimous re-election. Those who previously served in this House gained the greatest respect for you, Sir; and I may warn new members that behind that velvet exterior lies a mailed fist.
I should also like to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate parliament on the precedent it set, not only in drawing the Deputy Speaker from the official opposition but on the quality of the individual selected. He is a man I have been privileged to serve with. He knows I am not put down easily and I may tell him that from previous experience he should know that, like the bishop's wife, I will try harder each time. That is a local joke between the Deputy Speaker and myself. We were once seated with a bishop of a diocese that will remain unnamed. His wife was with him and she mentioned that she was his second wife. I told her that being number two, she would have to try harder.
I appreciate the introductory remarks of the minister who put the problem and the reasons for setting up the committee in their proper context. I also appreciate the comments of my colleague from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who was most forceful and interesting in his remarks regarding the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Incidentally, I wish to congratulate the latter, (a) for being in order and (b) for keeping us alert. I have heard of the cut and thrust of debate in the provincial house and I am pleased to see that it is being brought here.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham stated the problems. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any great trick to stating the problems. We all know what the problems are. Then he demanded action, but I never heard from him what his party's suggestions were. This is the quality of the opposition which wants to take over government simply because it wants to form a government. It is a highly commendable ambition. That is why we are here-we want to form a government too, but I would suggest that we do it with constructive suggestions.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham wanted action. He criticized the government and then he said he would support the establishment of the committee, with certain conditions. At that stage he began to get interesting. I thought he was going to come up with some intelligent suggestions. But what were these great conditions, Mr. Speaker? They were procedural. They had nothing to do with the cost of food. Of all things, they were procedural. He was disturbed because it was to be a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons-a joint committee because it was to be made up of members of this joint and members of the other joint.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think that is a commendable thing. We are dealing with a very fundamental problem, but I do not believe this is the way to face it. We should not be debating the role of the Senate in this connection. Incidentally, it is a role with which they themselves continually struggle. I think it would be extremely valuable to have the contribution of Senators, because we want to know the
January 18, 1973

response to rising food costs of people who are already living on a guaranteed annual income.
One thing that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) suggested was that Senators should not contribute to the committee because of their experience. That is something that disturbs me as a businessman who came here to do what I can. Is he suggesting that I should hide whatever experience I have simply because I am a businessman? Farmers come here and speak on behalf of the interests of farmers, and I think that is legitimate. I do not think there is anything wrong with having people who are well motivated and trusted by their colleagues speaking on a matter of which they have experience. They would lend balance to such a committee.
Some of the things happening in this House, Mr. Speaker, are quite remarkable. I have never been in a minority government, yet some of the things we are able to do now in a spirit of co-operation and, incidentally, of survival on both sides are amazing to me. As a supporter of the government, I am delighted at the haste with which we are getting some things done, things that we could not get done when we were in a majority position. In fact, there is an advantage to being in a minority House.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) spoke earlier in the debate. I am always delighted to speak after her, Mr. Speaker, because she makes a unique contribution to this House. Up until this time she was the lone representative of the so-called weaker sex and I am delighted that we are now joined by other women who have a great contribution to make to this House. I always thought that it was a great weakness in the last parliament that it had only one, even though a very capable spokesman for the women's point of view, because in a debate of this nature when we are speaking about food costs, that point of view is most important. As is the case when speaking on abortion, it is very difficult for a man to go through it.
The hon. member's suggestion was a constructive one- it was repeated by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville-having to do with a prices review board. This is the sort of thing that will get to the guts of the problem. I think this is a progressive, though not a Progressive Conservative, suggestion. It is the type of thing we must do and to which the committee will bend its efforts.
If we look at the beginning of the Manitoba experience when they published the producer price and the retail price, we will recognize the gap between them. A lot of questions will be asked about that. As well motivated as farmers and businessmen are, it does not help to have someone looking over our shoulders all the time. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway overlooked the fact' that pension increases are and will be tied to the rising cost of living. I think the committee should investigate the Swedish experience which the hon. member mentioned, as well as the United States experience. This is something which we all must consider.
We have avoided wage and price controls in this country. We have a good record in containing inflation relative to other nations, but still I think we must watch the American experience in this respect. It is true that con-
Food Prices Committee
trols have all but been lifted, but they have had an interesting impact on rising inflation. If prices start to rise now, it will indicate that controls are really not very effective. This is a situation which we might watch carefully.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Perth-Wil-mot (Mr. Jarvis) make his distinguished speech. He appears to be a distinguished Member of Parliament following a member who had a distinguished career on this side of the House. I wish the new member for Perth-Wil-mot a distinguished and short career as well.
There is nothing magic in this situation, Mr. Speaker. In the last parliament the finance committee studied interest rates, but this time we really want to study the full question of inflation. We know that there are no magic solutions. We could say that this is a sort of motherhood operation, but no one except the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has offered suggestions as to what might be done. I think we have a responsibility in this House to look at those suggestions. Even if it were only educational, I think we would all want to know the answers and know that the right questions are being asked of the right people in the committee.
One cannot isolate food costs from all the other factors which create inflation-the psychology, the effect of wages, the effect of dividends and the return on investment. Things we do not have time to deal with in this House can be dealt with in detail in committee. We gentlemen in this House are not as familiar with this subject as are our wives. Just about 50 per cent of the married people in this country are women!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would like to keep it that way, Mr. Speaker. Food prices are highly visible and are reflected every day in the household budget. Women spend the highest percentage of our incomes and it is very important that they be given an opportunity to sit on this committee and to appear before it. In that sense it is a motherhood resolution because they are the people most deeply concerned.
There are many cost factors that we will have to consider in the committee. There is the question of consumer selection-"shopping" is the old-fashioned word. It will be my thirtieth wedding anniversary in a week or two, Mr. Speaker. We have raised four sons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: That is on February 6, Mr. Speaker; and I believe it is the money anniversary, if any hon. members are sending gifts. I do not mean to get syrupy about it, but it has not been an easy thing to raise a young family. It was easier for me than for my wife. When she is shopping and lamb chops are expensive, she buys pork chops; and when they are too expensive, then she might buy cut-up chicken. It is not so terrible-


An hon. Member:: What about boloney?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Boloney is not too bad. Its price will go down; with so many new members on the Conservative benches it should be in oversupply.
456

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
The other night I watched a television program called Viewpoint which comes on after the eleven o'clock news. Ruth Fremes spoke about consumer selection. She pointed out the options open to the shopper, and this is something we should bring out very strongly in the committee hearings. Perhaps we could have at the committee someone such as this lady, who was articulate and a home economist, someone who speaks to women in women's language and does not turn men off. Such a person could tell the committee about the choices we have.
If we need a certain amount of vitamins, we can get them in frozen orange juice at four cents an ounce, say, or in half a grapefruit at five cents. There is nothing wrong in sending out for pizza or Kentucky fried chicken, but it is not shopping. The choice is yours, as a consumer, and if you want frozen everything you can have it; but then do not say that you do not understand why food costs so much. The cost is rising because we want things prepared in different ways and in easier packages.
In the middle of the election campaign I remember one day going into the Ponderosa steakhouse when a mother came in with a family to buy inexpensive steaks-inexpensive by restaurant standards. She might have had good reason, of course, but I was shocked. It is easy for men to talk, because they do not have to stand over the stove, but still we must put these things in some sort of perspective.
Mr. Speaker, we have to see to it in this House that senior citizens have a fair chance in these periods of spiralling inflation. The rest of society can roll with it- can eat something else or go somewhere else. If everything were easy, fresh frozen and ready to go, life would be dull for us. But senior citizens do not have that flexibility; they cannot raise their income or go somewhere else, and they have to contend with rising food and drug costs. Sometimes the big question for them is whether to get proper medication or proper food. We have a special obligation to these people and we can discharge part of it by looking after the pension increase. But part of it we will have to deal with in the committee. Consideration of these obligations will help the whole of society and will help us get our priorities straight.
If each time we think of this problem, we think of senior citizens and those on fixed income who have to make a trade off between medication and nutrition, we will admit, if we are honest with ourselves, that we must examine this problem. That is why the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville were most interesting. He began to articulate, in an eloquent manner, the problems of the farmer. We have heard such speeches before. Certainly the hon. member has mentioned these problems many times, as have other hon. members such as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and other distinguished members of the House who have spoken on behalf of farmers.


An hon. Member:: They have not spoken well, but they have spoken.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, they have not spoken well, but they have spoken. I do not think you will see farmers getting

rich because of high food costs. I remember last year we debated, with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the entire question of food distribution and retail costs and costs associated with chain stores. There was some confusion in the minds of hon. members over the question of profits. There was a price war which didn't make for logical comparison. In some instances it actually lowered prices but raised the profits of an individual chain because its sales increased immensely. However, profits over-all have not increased at the same rate. We have not looked at the middleman, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said, or the processor and distributor. Studies have been made in this area and it would be worth our while taking another look at it. I was surprised at the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, an NDP member, referring to the middleman. I think we ought to call him the middle-person. I think that is male chauvinism at its worst.
The hon. member for Bruce mentioned one major United States-based food chain. He did not mention the one that is coming to the east from the west. May I say, without using any trade names, that this great chain that is coming to eastern Canada from western Canada is bringing a breath of fresh air with it. We are seeing our eastern chains being challenged by people who treat their customers as human beings. They care about them and appreciate them as customers. Perhaps we ought to talk about that also.
The other problem we must consider is the multiplicity of sizes and shapes with which we must contend. At one time, small sizes of anything were called sample sizes. Now they start as giant sizes; then there are the supergiant and magnificent-giant sizes. On the store shelves we find Whiz and Wham and Woof and Bam, each in ten different sizes. The poor retailer needs a mile-long shelf to handle all these sizes. That does not seem sensible in this modern day and age. Then, as well, we must consider increases in commodity prices. The price of coffee in Brazil might go up by two cents a pound, but back here in the supermarket the clerks immediately rush around to mark coffee prices up by ten cents a pound at the retail level before the coffee beans have even been taken off the bushes in Brazil.


An hon. Member:: Include plastics, too.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I include plastics. Of course, there may be reasons for these sharp increases in costs; the chain may have lost money through decreases in prices of other foods. Nevertheless, let us find out how valid those arguments are, I suggest because prices are raised with indecent haste. We cannot look at this sort of thing in isolation, because it is part of a total, specific and visible problem. We want answers. We do not want to use this committee for playing games to see who is to be in government and who is not. Those sorts of games will be played soon enough. The committee must seek to serve the purposes of our senior citizens and others who are caught in the squeeze where they must make a trade-off-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him, as provided by order made earlier today, has expired unless he has unanimous consent to continue.
January 18, 1973


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a riding which is suffering from the evil dealt with in the motion before us, it is my duty to tell the House my way of thinking about the terrible problem called inflation. The failure in our industrial production system in the field of pricing is reflected in constant inflation to be curbed solely through deliberate limitation of production and incomes by means of monetary restrictions, which bring about generalized unemployment, innumerable bankruptcies and complete disruption of our economy.
Prices are at the heart of the problem of inflation. Incidentally, logic does not seem to have been the strong point of past or present governments. Every inquiry on the causes of inflation began by thorough research into the machinery of prices in relation to the monetary system. Instead of considering the normal machinery and concentrating efforts on the various contributing factors, such a study should include a thorough review of the operation of our monetary system through which a small number of rich people get richer and a greater number of poor people get poorer, thus creating such a gap that, tomorrow perhaps, it will be too late to fill it.
During the month of July 1969, more exactly July 2, 1969, a federal Prices and Incomes Commission was created under the chairmanship of Mr. John H. Young, dean of the Arts faculty of the University of British Columbia. The commissioners' terms of reference were to find the causes of inflation in our country. The present Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) had then stated that, in view of their training and experience, these commissioners would be able, after their investigation, to make recommendations in order to cope with the acute problems resulting from inflation.
Four years have already gone by since that famous commission was established and I am still wondering about its findings. Has the government shelved the report or decided to ignore it? Anyway, these last four years inflation has been running its devastating course at the expense of the citizens of our country.
Today, we are asked by the government to set up another committee to study that virus. People, Mr. Speaker, are tired of studies and are asking for action. In the present circumstances, are we in a position to do better than Mr. Young and his commissioners? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. As the same effects result from the same causes, we are in the same impasse as in 1969 as no measure has been taken following prior research. It seems that no solution has yet been found by the older parties.
To a great extent, inflation is caused by the usurious rates of interest the government and the citizens have to pay.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out the following facts to the House: In 1968, Canada's debt was $32,924 million and the interest $1,301 million. In 1972, the national debt
Food Prices Committee
amounted to $44,975 million and cost $2,080 million in interest. Bearing in mind the interest of $1,301 million paid on the debt of $32,924 million, we have to pay $959 million more in interest; this represents additional debts of $12 billion and therefore twice as much interest. Even if that is one of the causes of inflation, I should like to have additional information in view of the situation.
We Creditistes advocate an efficient solution, that of the compensated discount of 5 to 10 per cent on purchases so that prices might not increase, merchants might make the same profits and prices and salaries might remain the same. This would contain inflation.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
"That the amendment be amended by replacing the period by a comma and adding the following:
'and that the said Committee be also appointed to inquire into
the possibility of reducing the interest rates paid by consumers
in order to increase their purchasing power for consumer
goods.'


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member proposes as a subamendment the motion that he has just read. The Chair has serious doubts as to the acceptability of this amendment and would be happy to hear comments from hon. members who would like to help the Chair on this point. If there are no comments, I am ready to render my decision.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as I seconded the subamendment, I should like to draw the following fact to the Chair's attention. The main motion is to establish a committee to investigate this very serious problem and, as stated by an hon. member who spoke a moment ago, mothers are deeply concerned with this problem. Thus I consider that the proposed amendment would only clarify further the terms of reference of the committee allowing it to consider every aspect of the problem and to make recommendations to the House on ways to correct a situation that is deplored by everyone.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I think the amendment should be received, should this be your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for his comments to enlighten the Chair. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rimouski is obviously interesting but, as I said, I have serious doubts about its admissibility mainly because it tends to amend the main motion rather than the amendment.
In other words, what the hon. member proposes to the House is a new amendment rather than a subamendment. The hon. member tries, in other words, to amend the main motion before the House rather than the amendment which seeks to eliminate referral to the Senate. The subamendment should necessarily be connected with the subject covered by the amendment now before the House.
The hon. member could perhaps put a motion, such as the one he has just suggested, as amendment to the main motion.
However, I must warn the hon. member I do not say that even that motion would be in order, especially in view of citation 291 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition.

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Anyhow, this is hypothetical and we have before us a quite specific amendment which, in my opinion, cannot be considered as an amendment to an amendment.
I must therefore regretfully make that decision which is moreover the one made a moment ago by the Deputy Speaker of the House in connection with an amendment put by an NDP representative.
It is therefore with regret that I advise the hon. member that his motion cannot be put to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if the House wishes the question to be put, I will gladly give way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been recognized. If an hon. member wishes to rise on a point of order, he may do so for that purpose. However, I believe that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) wishes to speak, if the hon. member for Crowfoot does not wish to do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do, Mr. Speaker. In rising to address the House on this subject, I should like to tell hon. members that I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that farm prices will continue to rise. This is good news for the farmers in Canada. The bad news is that in spite of the setting up of this committee, and even if the committee accepts the socialist idea of controlled prices and a price review board, consumer prices will still rise.
Why should this be the case? I shall try to convince the House that prices will rise. The first reason is that we are at the beginning of a rapid inflationary cycle. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has not brought down a budget, but anyone who looks at the economic indices will realize that we are now moving into a fast inflationary cycle. When there is a high rate of inflation, food prices rise along with everything else. In my view there is no question that this high inflation rate will continue to undermine the economy of the country.
Why is this inquiry being set up? I suggest it is because the government really has no solution; it is setting up a committee because it is afraid of an election soon and members opposite want to say they tried to do something about high food prices. This will merely be a road show, with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) coming before her committee with her tin cans and her loaves of bread suggesting that someone is making a huge profit.
If the committee has to study this question, I hope it will make full use of the terms of reference before us which allow counsel and accountants to be engaged. As I interpret the paragraph, counsel and accountants can travel across the country and delve fully into the question of the cost of transporting food. I believe much of the problem lies in high transportation costs-monopolistic, maybe.
Why should the food bill be the one which the consumer hates to pay? One explanation is that nowadays practically everything else can be bought on credit-a car, a televi-

sion, even theatre tickets. The result is that at the end of the month the pay cheque is already spent. In many cases, the wife makes the monthly payments to which the family is committed. After those payments have been made, the food bill has still to be paid; and it has to be paid in cash. Then she realizes that not enough cash has been saved to meet the food bill.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said that the food bill accounted for about 19 per cent of the take-home pay. Why do I believe that food prices will rise? I do so because we operate in the North American market, indeed, in a world market, and because there is a food shortage throughout the world. This will naturally be reflected here. I would point out that domestic production has been discouraged by the government for the past four years. Members opposite supported policies designed to get the small farmer off the land rather than helping him get into production most suitable to his holding. They paid him, for instance, to get rid of his chickens. The government did away with the subsidy because it did not want farmers to produce lambs in Canada. We are now importing 90 per cent of the lamb and about 12 per cent of the beef consumed in this country.
How did a world shortage of food come about? I have before me the "United States News and World Report" dated December 11, 1972, which refers to the fact that world food production has suddenly shrunk close to creating a global crisis. Food production in many of the poor countries did not improve enough this year even to keep pace with the rise in population in those countries. Russia has had its worst crop in 100 years. There has been government bungling, political disruption. The weather has caused a world food shortage. Russia is experiencing a difficult winter, with insufficient snow to cover the crop, and it is expected that there will be a very poor wheat crop.
What is the position in China? China has purchased
400,000	tons of wheat and 300,000 tons of corn from the United States, the first purchases by that country from the United States in 23 years. Russia also purchased 27 million tons of grain from the west over and above the purchases made by those two communist countries from this country.
India, it appears, is going to have a food shortage and will have to import food even from the United States, despite the fact that international relationships between those two countries are not good. So India looks as though it is headed for a food shortage too. The same can be said of other countries in Asia, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos and Burma. Burma used to export rice, but rice production is down all over the world. Rice production during the last ten years has increased very little, if at all.
In Chile there will be enough food for the population if they go on a spartan diet; that will save them from mass starvation. In Argentina people are being told they cannot eat beef on two days a week in order to conserve the nation's beef supplies. In Australia, one of the world's major wheat suppliers, drought has cut production by nearly one-third. And so on down the list. In the less developed nations of the world we have had an increase
January 18, 1973

of food production of 1 per cent, whereas population has increased by 4 per cent.
In some of the countries that are asking for more food we are seeing at the same time more wastage of food. A lot of food is wasted in this country. The food and agricultural organization of the United Nations has reported that the world's underdeveloped countries are falling behind in the race to match food output with growing populations. United Nations' experts estimate that roughly the same number of people remain undernourished today as ten years ago, namely, between 300 million and 500 million people. Yet we consumers in Canada think we should have lower food prices, having discouraged food production in this country and with most parts of the world being short of food.
No matter what this committee does we will not get cheaper food. The government thinks it can control inflation and thus lower food prices across the board. I say in this they have failed completely. As I started out to say, we are in the midst of a rapidly spiralling rate of inflation.
What will this proposed committee do, Mr. Speaker? I know it will concern itself mainly with the cost of meat. In view of the modern trends in meat production, meat processing and meat cutting, there will be some bad news for the Canadian consumer. Meat cutters are demanding $6 an hour to cut meat. A trend we will be seeing in the near future in slaughtering houses in the pre-cutting of meat in order to eliminate the $6 an hour meat-cutting that takes place in supermarkets and food chains. This will cause more wastage of beef, more spoilage and thus higher prices.. The simple fact is that this is the trend today, and this committee will not be able to do anything about it.
A prices review board has been recommended. I recall the Prices and Incomes Commission did not really solve any problems. Six years ago a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons brought in a report having studied this question for two years, and their suggestion was the creation of a consumer affairs department. The consumer affairs department has increased the cost of food to Canadian consumers. The only thing that the consumer affairs department has done is to set up what I call a quasi-ombudsman to whom people write letters of complaint. The government has thus used its friendly persuasion on some companies to live up to the paper guarantees they have been giving out. However, through its regulations and controls the department of consumer affairs has increased the cost of food.
The prices review board suggested by the socialist party will take more people out of production and put them into management control and regulation. These people have to be paid. The more people we take out of the production of food, the higher the price paid for that food. This socialist concept of a marketing board actually increases the number of middlemen between farmer and market and, as I say, these middlemen have to be paid. Many people think that the problems of egg marketing are now solved because we have a marketing board. The rising price of feed grain would have kept the situation in balance, but the government did not leave it alone. They paid the farmers to get out of chicken production or to reduce production, just as they paid farmers to get out of wool production and reduced the subsidy on lamb.
Food Prices Committee
We are not encouraging sufficient farmers to get into beef production. Nor are we encouraging sufficient farmers to get into hog production. We are afraid to encourage production of this sort. Under the small farms program, $3,000 will be given to farmers who get out of production and sell their land. Many of these small farms could produce any number of commodities, something that must be encouraged.
Another aspect of socialism in society today is that our city planners have devised a neat system for doing away with the corner-store through the erection of shopping centres. These shopping centres comprise malls in which you can spend all day. There is no snow to shovel and there are check-rooms for your coats. Who pays for all this? The consumer pays for this convenience, of course. I suggest the next time hon. members visit such a shopping centre they take a look at how the food is packaged. More and more pre-cut and pre-cooked food is on sale today, and more and more consumers are buying it. More and more people are eating out than ever before, and the trend is continuing.
This is part of the modern society we are living in. If a prices and review board places a freeze at the top, I suggest this will not change the trend. We cannot do away with large shopping centres and chain stores now supplying food. The cost will be there and the mark-up of 10 per cent or 20 per cent, whatever it is, for the distribution of food will still remain. If we put a ceiling on top, the farmer gets hurt. If he cannot make money by producing, and live the way other Canadians in other segments of our society are living, he will get out of the business. Farmers have been doing this because they have no encouragement to stay. What will happen when they get out of the business? We will depend more and more on world markets for food. We will not be importing 12 per cent of our beef; we will be importing 20 per cent. We will not be importing 90 per cent of our lamb; we will be importing 100 per cent. This will apply to hogs and everything else.
If we want to lower food prices in Canada, we must encourage production. If food is produced right here at home, the people of Canada can eat more cheaply than people in other parts of the world, because we will not have the transportation costs. If we discourage the production of food in Canada, we will encourage increased prices. If we allow inflation to run away and spiral upwards, that will result in increased food prices and the whole economy will be hurt.
If this committee is to do anything, let it hire experts to delve into the costs of distribution of food in this country. If the committee resorts to some kind of additional control, that will be wrong. What happened in Russia? They have experienced the worst crop in years because of controls. China has not done well, and other countries have had problems in respect of food supplies. The United States has not faced this difficulty, and Canada has not yet; but if we move along the socialist line we will have trouble.	[DOT]
The great province of Saskatchewan produces wheat but I suggest it has not intensified its agricultural industry enough, because of socialism. I was pleased to hear the

January 18, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) state recently that the province of Saskatchewan is intensifying its production. I hope it does. But I suggest that socialism, regulations and controls are not the answer. We must encourage more production in the country. If we then keep a check on distribution costs, we might have lower prices.
Let me end where I began. It will be a sad thing for the Canadian consumer, with food shortage and world hunger as it is today, if this committee cannot bring about a lowering of food prices in this country within the next six months or a year, because the world shortage of food will not disappear that quickly.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the tone of the comments of my friend to the right, it seems that this committee on food prices is off to a very bad start. It does not look as though any one of those members has any idea what to do about the rising cost of food, nor do they appear to have any faith in an investigation which might be of help.
I remember all the brave talk during the election campaign about how awful the Liberals were, and how the Conservatives would do something about bringing a downward trend in the cost of food. We are now starting off with a tough job before the committee, but even before it meets we are faced with all kinds of motions and speeches designed to frustrate its efforts. We hear all kinds of things about what we cannot do, about how hopeless the task is and how nothing will be done. I must conclude, sadly, that we are not to have a good start in this investigation.
When I first looked at the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) I was almost inclined to go along with it as a rather good joke. I should like to know what the Conservative party means when it says it will not go along with the establishment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place. I like a good joke and I would like to go along with it, but I must control myself. I think I must remind them of something they are always bringing to our attention and vote on the side of morality.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I certainly would not want to raise any question about other people's motives, because we should not do that. I hope he does not mind if I express a few suspicions. Perhaps I might be allowed to wonder aloud why they have moved this kind of motion. I ask them why they do not want members of the Senate to participate. They are not in favour of abolishing the Senate. Perhaps they think the Senate is overworked and they do not want to put these gentlemen to the difficulty of coming to the committee. With that in mind, perhaps they feel we should exclude members of the Senate out of solicitude for the other place.
My party takes the position that we do not need the Senate and we think it should be abolished. Therefore, when we have on occasion moved amendments excluding Senators from committees, we have been able to explain our position. I should like to know the reason which leads the Conservative Party to move a motion excluding members of the other place.

I hate to raise this question, but I do so only because my friends to the right have continually reminded us about the danger we get into when we associate with undesirables. I listened very carefully to hon. members to my right and took their remarks to heart because even at my age I do not want to be considered impure. I am not sure that some of my colleagues would not feel that by supporting an amendment of this kind they would become involved in some kind of incestuous relationship with our friends to the right. I do not know how they would look upon that lapse in purity.
I do not know how the Conservatives can explain a motion of this kind which sort of arouses the sympathy and support of members of the New Democratic Party, particularly considering the terrible socialists from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, now, British Columbia. The woods are full of them! I do not know how these members will go back to their constituencies and explain this consorting with terrible socialists. The next thing we know, they will be moving an amendment to incorporate the Regina manifesto. I must hasten to add that this would not work because there is a Winnipeg declaration which supersedes that manifesto. I want to prevent hon. members to my right getting into that position.


An hon. Member:: It is our motion. Put your vote where your mouth is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: You fellows are becoming such radicals that I do not wonder you want to exclude the other place from a committee of the House of Commons. I do not know what things are coming to.


Some hon. Members:: Let's vote.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are perpetuating this problem by your speech.


Max Saltsman: I am raising these questions only because I want you to help me out of the dilemma you have placed me in. You have placed before us a motion that kind of appeals to me, but I am wondering why you are changing your spots so quickly. I do not know why, and I have been asking myself why. You will have to excuse me if you think I have a suspicious mind, but the truth is that I have. I wonder whether we would have this amendment before us if the majority of the other place was Conservative rather than Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Max Saltsman: I would appreciate hearing from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, publicly or privately, as to whether his view would be changed if the circumstances were otherwise. My party has never been very fussy about the other place, but I happen to have been a member of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Consumer Food Prices. To tell the truth, I was far more worried about the intention of the Conservatives on that committee to shaft anything we were attempting to do, than the Senate-much to my surprise.
January 18, 1973

I think you will have to excuse me when I say that my colleagues and I in this party instinctively sympathize with the underdog. I realize it stretches the imagination to consider the Senate as an underdog, but when I look at this motion and think how ungrateful it is in respect of friends and colleagues, I feel I must say something in an effort to put the matter in perspective. It might be misunderstood if I were simply to abstain or did not vote. Therefore, I prefer to offer an explanation, as a new member of this House who is anxious to learn and avoid making errors.
In fact, those from the other place who served on that committee did a good job. Senator Croll, the chairman of the committee, was far more to the left and far more eager to get things going than, I regret to say, were members of the Conservative party. Maybe they were shocked by the situation and wished to redress the balance. But in the final analysis, the reason the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established was that the vote of one Senator swung it that way. I do not know whether that is a fair commentary on the Senate or on the Conservative party, but nevertheless that is the way it is.
The reasons advanced in explanation of the amendment are not totally satisfactory to me. I think perhaps my friends to the right have done a cute bit of grandstanding that everybody will see through. I ask those who point the finger at us and say, "Where are your CCF-ers, New Democrats and men of principle?" When they see an opportunity to provide a little embarrassment, "Where is the principle of the Conservative party?" I regret to say that these stalwarts to my right, these hon. gentlemen, have in fact placed statesmanship over principle.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks concerning the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The proposition placed before the House on behalf of the government was moved at about three o'clock by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), recommending that a joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate be established to inquire into food prices in Canada.
We proposed that proposition and made that recommendation to the House because we believe, on the basis of experience, that members of the other place could make a contribution to an inquiry of this kind. We were justified in that belief because of the results of the last joint committee inquiry into prices in which Senators, including Senator Croll, made a very important contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Probably no person in Canadian public life, other than possibly the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), has been more identified with the interests of the consumer than Senator Croll. It was because of this we recommended to the House that the
Food Prices Committee
other place join with us in this inquiry. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) justified that conclusion, because he admitted quite frankly that the members of the other place did make a contribution. Now simply because 20 minutes later the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham presented an amendment to this House to the effect that we do not want the Senate, we on this side see no reason, either because of his argument or any evidence adduced since, to depart from the proposition put to the House by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I attempted to anticipate what might happen in this House. I must say I was only partly correct in my prediction. I knew there was an amendment to come. I told myself there would be an amendment to delete the participation of the Senate. I expected that amendment to come from members of the New Democratic Party. Imagine my surprise when the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, attempting to cast himself in the raiment of a radical just fresh from his association with all the financial and industrial interests of Bay Street, asks us to believe him when he says he does not believe the Senate ought to participate in this inquiry.
When the leader of the New Democratic Party stated in Toronto that the Conservative party would vote for the communist manifesto, I thought he was going too far. But I think his criticism was moderate in light of the about-face that was presented to the House today by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham of the official opposition. We have been charged with accepting stolen goods. Well, this is a great act of theft on the part of the Conservative party from the members of the New Democratic Party. I do not want to go on further in that vein.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) made proposals to the constitutional conference in respect of the Constitution of Canada in which the government proposed that the Senate would continue as an integral part of the Canadian constitution and as part of our parliamentary system. A joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate studied the constitution and in its conclusions recommended the continuance of the Senate as part of the essential constitution of Canada. The members of the NDP have never accepted that proposition. Members of the official opposition, I understand, have accepted that proposition and it seems to me it is highly contradictory that in this move they should attempt to deny members of the other place the right to participate in a traditional role which they have performed under our system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We regard this for what it is, a cute little bit of grandstanding, an effort on the part of the official opposition to feel out the contours of the NDP bed. We do not deny them that pleasure for the weekend.
We cannot support this amendment. It is obvious from the speeches which have been made that probably the

January 18, 1973
Division
amendment will carry, and if it does carry we will accept the consequences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will accept the consequences and attempt to make a committee of the House work constructively in this inquiry. I believe, in view of the circumstances in which we operate in this House, that we must become accustomed to the kind of development that is facing us tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. 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.
Messrs.
Hees	MacDonald (Miss)	NystromHellyer	Maclnnis	OberleHigson	(Cape Breton-	O'ConnorHollands	East Richmond)	OlaussenHolmes	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	OrlikowHomer (Crowfoot)	MacKay	O'SullivanHorner	MacLean	Paproski(Battleford-	Macquarrie	PattersonKindersley)	Madill	ReillyHoward	Marshall	ReynoldsHowie	Mather	RocheHueglin	Matte	RoseHurlburt	Mazankowski	SaltsmanJarvis	McCain	SchellenbergerJelinek	McGrath	SchumacherKempling	McKenzie	ScottKnight	McKinley	SkoreykoKnowles (Winnipeg	McKinnon	StackhouseNorth Centre)	Mitges	StanfieldKnowles (Norfolk-	Morgan	StevensHaldimand)	Muir	Stewart (Marquette)Kuntz	Munro (Esquimalt-	SymesLambert	Saanich)	Taylor(Bellechasse)	Murta	TetraultLaprise	Neil (Moose Jaw)	TowersLawrence	Nelson	WagnerLeggatt	Nesbitt	WhittakerLewis	Nesdoly	WiseMacDonald	Nielsen	Woolliams(Egmont)	Nowlan	Yewchuk-128.
++NAYS
Messrs.


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 carried. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether with unanimous consent we might forgo the "late show" this evening, in view of the time.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not unanimous consent that is required, it is the consent of the three hon. members
Food Prices Committee
whose questions are listed on the adjournment proceedings. I believe there is agreement on the part of the hon. members in question to forgo the pleasure of the adjournment proceedings this evening.
It being long after ten o'clock, I do now leave the chair. This House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Friray, January 19, 1973