1973-01-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to table in the two official languages the text of the Canadian Embassy's note, dated January 19, 1973, to the United States government on the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on imports of Michelin tires from Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave of the House to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the accusations made by the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association that the government has not been properly enforcing in-flight safety standards on commercial flights, in particular hours of in-flight work, stewardess training and safety procedures. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport to undertake an immediate inquiry into the enforcement of Department of Transport in-flight safety regulations, and to report back this week to the House, in order to assure the public that efforts will be made to ensure that these standards are enforced.


Mr. Speaker:: This being a motion under Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.

1973 PRODUCTION PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The subject matter has to do with the two diverging positions taken on the one hand, by the Minister of Agriculture who has advised western farmers to plant 30 million acres of wheat and, on the other hand, by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who has advised western farmers to continue with a program of diversification and to plant substantial amounts of barley and rapeseed. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture meet forthwith and examine the recommendations of the federal agricultural conference of last November and the recommendations of the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and that the Standing Committee on Agriculture report to the House as soon as possible on production programs for the coming season.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


PILOTAGE ACT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-127, to amend the Pilotage Act.


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

Jean Marchand: for leave to introduce Bill C-128, to amend the Aeronautics Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 22, 1973
Order Paper Questions CHOP INSURANCE ACT

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-130, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-131, respecting wildlife in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many rejected ballots were there in the General Election of October 30,1972?
2.	What percentage of the total number of ballots cast on October 30, 1972, was the number of rejected ballots indicated in answer to Part 1 ?
3.	What was the corresponding percentage of rejected ballots in the General Elections of June 25,1968 and November 8,1965?
4.	Is consideration being given to altering the form of the ballot or to any other appropriate changes so that in future elections the number of rejected ballots might be reduced to a minimum?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. Preliminary total: 298,388.
2.	Preliminary percentage: 2.99 per cent.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier) .1
3.	June 25, 1968: 1.12 per cent; November 8, 1965: 1.06 per cent.
4.	Consideration is being given to increasing the size of the circular space where the ballot is to be marked as well as some alterations in the rectangular spaces containing the candidates names. Any change of the ballot in substance would require legislative action.
Note: The figures in Parts 1 and 2 of the answer are shown as "Preliminary" as it will be several weeks before all election statistics can be verified and balanced.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Commissioner of Official Languages on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


John Mercer Reid: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him privately.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): Has the Government of Canada entered into negotiations with the Government of Romania to achieve agreement whereby Canadian citizens, whether of Romanian origin or otherwise, would be compensated in some measure for assets or properties owned by them in Romania and confiscated by the Romanian state authorities and, if so (a) what is the state of such negotiations and has Romania in fact agreed to set aside a fund to compensate such claims by Canadians (b) is the Canadian Foreign Claims Commission examining such claims and, if so, what are the bases of consideration for determining "who is to get what" (c) in the absence of documents evidencing title to the assets or properties, as the case may be, what may serve as a satisfactory substitute therefor?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) An agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, concerning the settlement of outstanding financial problems, was signed on July 31, 1971 and was ratified on December 14, 1971. Under this Agreement, the government of Romania undertook to pay to the Government of Canada the lump sum of Canadian dollars 1,400,000 in full and final indemnification of all claims including those of Canadian natural and juridical persons against the Socialist Republic of Romania and Romanian natural and juridical persons, (b) The Foreign Claims (Romania) Settlement Regulations were promulgated in

Order in Council 1972-570 of March 28, 1972 to deal with those claims notice of which had been received on or before December 14th, 1971 for recommendation, as provided in the Regulations. The Canadian Foreign Claims Commission is examining such claims and has begun making recommendations with regard to them, (c) The recommendation in respect of each claim is based on the evidence submitted by claimants and/or received from other sources, including the Government of Romania. In regard to the various elements necessary to establish eligibility for an award under the Regulations, the Commissioners must be satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to support a decision of eligibility by the Ministers designated in the Order in Council.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How much money has been paid in legal fees to date for the prosecution of the Irving newspaper interest under the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	To whom was this money paid?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. $47,627.50
2.	William L. Hoyt, Hoyt, Mockler, Allen, Dixon & Godin, Fredericton, N.B.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Reverend Gervis Black employed by the government and, if so (a) what is the nature of his appointment (b) what was the date of the appointment (c) what is his salary?
2.	Is Ronald Huck employed by the government and, if so, (a) what is the nature of his appointment (b) what was the date of the appointment (c) what is his salary?


John Mercer Reid: 1. Yes. (a) Special Assistant to the Minister of Transport; (b) January 4, 1973; (c) Pay and classification of Administrative Officer 6.
2. No.
PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION Question-No. 269-Mr. Lawrence:
1.	What staff members previously associated with the Prices and Incomes Commission are presently employed with the government and what are their responsibilities?
2.	How many staff members including secretarial support staff have been hired or released since the publication of the final report of the Prices and Incomes Commission?
3.	Is there any support role envisioned for the support staff of PIC with regard to the proposed joint committee on prices and wages?
4.	Has the government sent any official to consult with the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom with regard to the price and wage controls used in those countries?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. One hundred and three staff members previously associated with the Prices and Incomes Commission are now employed with the government. Of these 79
Oral Questions
returned or moved to government departments or agencies prior to the termination of the Commission on August 31, 1972. In their present positions they are responsible for performing a wide variety of clerical, secretarial, administrative and professional work. Twenty-one other former staff members of the Commission are now employed with a working group in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The responsibilities of the group are to continue the contingency planning work of the Commission, to complete the editing, translating and publishing of the Commission's studies and to continue research on the role of prices and incomes policy in dealing with inflation.
2.	Since September 1, 1972, three former staff members of the Prices and Incomes Commission have been released from the working group to move to other government employment and one has resigned. One former staff member has been hired.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question arising out of a proposal he submitted to the provinces last week designed, among other things, to limit the risk of the federal government in respect of shared-cost programs in the health field. Can the minister tell the House whether any province has accepted the proposal?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that proposal was made to the provinces and it is, in our opinion, a substantial improvement over the proposal submitted a while ago. We have agreed with the provinces to meet again in about two months to discuss further the proposed formula and in the meantime, the federal officials will meet with their provincial counterparts to discuss that proposal more extensively.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that is a long way to go about saying "none". I should like to ask the minister precisely what the proposal is and whether the proposal is that the provinces accept what the minister placed before them last week? If this is not agreeable to the provinces, will the present shared-cost arrangements continue, or is the situation that the provinces must accept this proposal and nothing else?

January 22, 1973
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: The proposal submitted to the provinces, Mr. Speaker, will meet, we hope, with the approval of most if not of all the provinces and we are endeavouring at the present time to come to an agreement with the provinces in the next two months. As for the rest, I think it is hypothetical.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister had a more straightforward answer last week than I am getting today. I would like to ask him whether in view of the fact the proposal made by him restricts the financial responsibility of the federal government while providing no such security for the provinces, he expects any provincial treasurer or provincial premier in his right mind to accept that proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS-DATE OF BUDGET
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the reply given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and in view of the reply given last week by the Prime Minister-

May I now address a residual question, shall we say, to the Minister of Finance respecting the solutions to the problems. Will the Minister of Finance tell us whether he is prepared to make a statement indicating the nature of the discussions he held with the provincial ministers of finance relating to the financial aspects and also to matters of welfare, health and what have you? Will he also tell us when he proposes to deal with these matters in a budget, as referred to directly by the Prime Minister on Friday last?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally open, if it is the disposition of the House, to answer any direct questions that the hon. gentleman would like to put to me. As to the ulterior part of the question, there will be an opportunity to answer that in the near future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave us an indication on Friday that the Minister of Finance could be a little more precise today, particularly as to the date of the budget, and bearing in mind that the provincial ministers of finance have also been told that they must wait. Surely to goodness the situation in the country is such that the Minister of Finance must be honest with the people of Canada and say that the budget is going to be on such and such date. What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argument.


FEDERAL PROPOSAL RESPECTING SHARED-COST MEDICARE PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF PRESENT ARRANGEMENT PENDING DISCUSSIONS ON NEW FORMULA
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I start with a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Pending the discussions on the new formula he has presented, has the federal government agreed to extend the present shared-cost program for medicare for a time, for at least a year or more, while these discussions take place?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the proposals made are now being considered by the provinces. We are to meet in two months and we hope at that time we can establish whether there is sufficient consensus for an agreement. Failing such an agreement, of course, other means would have to be examined.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the minister that he is not meeting the urgency of the situation. Unless I am mistaken the five-year period terminates at the end of March, probably before the next meeting of the ministers involved. In view of that fact, and in view of the fact they may not be able to reach an agreement within two months and may require more time, is the government considering making a definite extension of the five-year period in order to meet these eventualities?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that matter was raised by none of the provinces, it was not discussed and has apparently not been the special concern of any province.
Again, we shall do our best to reach an agreement within the specified period.


CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM-AMOUNT OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES
David Lewis: May I then ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I may say that this is in another area, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will not mind. Has the amount in the capital works program announced several months ago, which was to be expanded this winter-his calculation was $65 million and mine is $50 million but the exact amount does not matter-already been spoken for by the provinces and municipalities? Has any part of that amount already been requested by the governments concerned and if the entire amount has not, what part of it has been?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair to the hon. gentleman and to the House I would like to get precise figures for him. I might say, however, that a number of provinces found themselves in a position to disburse their allocation of that amount very shortly and certainly within the cash flow anticipated this winter.
January 22, 1973


DELAYING OF THRUST FUND-USE TO DEVELOP IMPROVED SERVICES AT REDUCED COST ON BASIS OF PROVINCIAL NEEDS-DISCUSSION AT CONFERENCE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister indicate the reasons for delaying the thrust fund of $640 million from 1972-1973 to 1973-1974, and can he assure the House that the funds will be used to develop improved health services at reduced costs on the basis of provincial needs that are determined by the provincial health authorities?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, the reason for the delay is that the whole program has been delayed by one year; the base year was 1971-72 and now it is 1972-73; what had been proposed before now has been changed and postponed by a full year. That is the reason this thrust fund amount is taking effect only next year. On the second part of the question, the answer is yes.


John Robert Holmes: Could the minister indicate if new proposals for extended health coverage were discussed at the recent federal-provincial conference at which health ministers were in attendance and, if so, will these proposals be presented to the House at an early date?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I could not hear the first part of the question. Would the hon. member kindly repeat it?


John Robert Holmes: I shall be glad to, Mr. Speaker. At the recent federal-provincial conference where health ministers were in attendance, were new proposals for extended health service covered at that time and, if so, will the minister be good enough to present them to the House at an early date?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the only proposals that were made were in the nature of the amended formula that was put forward; there were no other schemes or proposals presented to the provinces-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, come on; what about Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: -in the field of health. If the Leader of the Opposition has heard of another formula I should be glad to hear of it, but what has been put forward has been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DOCTORS' INCOMES-DISCUSSION OF CONTROL AT HEALTH MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the professional earnings of active fee practice physicians across Canada have been going up enormously in the past few years and particularly in the province of Ontario between 1960 and 1970 when the earnings of practising physicians neatly doubled-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make a speech; he should ask a question. I think the observation I direct to the hon. member could very well be directed to others. Questions should be asked directly without prefacing them by statements of fact.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, as you were saying, I was merely prefacing my question. Were there any discussions at the conference between the minister and the provincial ministers of health on the matter of exercising some control over the ever-increasing incomes of fee practitioners across the country?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he tell us whether or not he intends to take a more active part in the negotiations between the department and the workers?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am already very active in the matter. I can tell the hon. members that negotiations were resumed last night and that they are continuing today.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the Postmaster General's observation that he is now in charge of the negotiations for the government, having taken over from the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Woolliams:: Thank God!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the in-flight safety standards of commercial air carriers and the application of the regulations thereto. It arises out of a specific request by the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association. Has the minister undertaken a special inquiry into whether commercial air carriers are following all in-flight safety standard requirements and, if not, is he going to undertake such an inquiry immediately?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I will take this question as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 22, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, last week the minister gave the House his assurance that the safety of passengers using Canada's commercial airlines would not be impaired in any way by the strikes, etc., which have been going on. In view of the allegations which were made over the weekend, could the minister advise the House whether he is reviewing the enforcement procedures to make sure that the carriers will follow the regulations as specified by the ministry of transport? Also, in order to reassure the public and the House, would the minister make a statement to this effect within the next week?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned in this House before-and I can repeat it-that we are following the application of safety rules very closely, especially in the case of Wardair, and that our inspectors make constant checks. So far, Wardair flights and maintenance services have been entirely in compliance with the department's standards.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the minister's reply, but in view of the allegations made over the week end which implied that commercial air carriers-
[Editor's note: At this point a baby began to cry in the gallery.]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I had not realized that I had that effect, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: That child wants candies.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the allegations made over the weekend, which affect all commercial carriers including Wardair and, specifically, Air Canada, would the minister undertake to review immediately the enforcement procedures undertaken by his department.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing the standard of security I am going to check on the facts which were reported.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say there is a stranger in the House. I wanted to ask a supplementary question but perhaps I can do so later.


PROVISION OF CARS BY RAILWAYS TO TRANSPORT WHEAT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport a serious situation on the Prairies where, [Mr. Marchand (Langelier) .1
although the quota has been opened up in many marketing areas, rail cars are not available to transport wheat. Will he have this looked into, because it is creating a very serious economic situation throughout western Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker, the railways are, as usual, working closely with the Canadian Wheat Board in providing cars for those delivery points which require them. Following the rapid opening up of quotas in the fall, some congestion certainly has resulted in some blocks. I am happy to report that at the meeting I had with the Canadian Wheat Board yesterday it was indicated to me that literally hundreds of cars are going into these blocks to relieve the congestion there in short order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Minister of Transport would answer. I thank the minister of all the departments for his answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: And master of none.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the minister whether he will secure a promise of co-operation so that hundreds of cars will move from block to block? In portions of Saskatchewan there have not been cars since the latter part of December and the situation is serious. Even in the minister's own constituency-


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to help out.


REPORTED ADVICE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE TO FARMERS ON AMOUNT OF WHEAT THAT SHOULD BE PLANTED
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In advising farmers to plant 30 million acres of wheat, did the minister take into account reports that the United States department of agriculture is going to release some 15 million acres for planting this year? Also, is the minister developing a storage program and, indeed, a transportation program to meet the increased production, which will be 50 per cent, and which the minister should be anticipating?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I advised the farmers of Canada, not just western Canada, to produce all kinds of grain. I did not put any acreage figure on it whatsoever. The records will show that. At every meeting that I held in western Canada with my provincial counterparts we discussed all grains, including rapeseed, those that are important not only for the feeding of livestock in this country but for the markets we have developed over the past four years. Anyone who says anything different is not stating the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Of course, that is up to the Minister of Agriculture. If he claims he did not say it, I do not know

where the newsmen got their information. Can the House assume that the minister's advice to the farmers is any more reliable than that which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In answer to a question I put to him several days ago, the hon. minister said that there would be a meeting with the Canadian Dairy Commission. My question is: in view of the fact that recently production costs have climbed substantially because feed grain prices increased, can the minister tell the House if he recommended to the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase the dairy product subsidies in order that a certain balance can be achieved?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met with the dairy commission. I understand the national advisory commission to the dairy commission is meeting today in Ottawa. We are hoping that some recommendations will come from that meeting.


HOGS-PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. My question also pertains to subsidies. In view of the fact some farmers raise hogs in a joint program with feed companies or the prairie pools, has the government decided who receives the hog subsidy payment, the farmer or the wheat pool?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the farmer owns the hogs he receives the subsidy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member a supplementary, although he will appreciate that his question was not entirely supplementary. I believe the hon. member for Richmond has a supplementary to the previous question. The hon. member may ask a supplementary and we will then return to the previous question.


Donald Craig Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any case where a pool or a feed company has received the payment, will the minister have the payment refunded and paid to the farmer concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly checking these submissions as they are made. There may have been errors or omissions in some of the applications. However, where there is just a straight contract to feed a hog for $2 until it is ready for market and you do not own the hog and you do not own the feed, you are a hired man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY RESPECTING INCREASE IN MILK PRODUCT PRICES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
In view of the minister's answer, can he tell us when he will announce to the House the departmental policies about a possible increase in milk prices paid to farmers?
Mr. Speaker, the minister has apparently not heard my question. When will he announce to the House the department's future policy regarding milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: I hope soon, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works. In view of the immediate hazard to navigation and safety caused by the attempted disposal by the government by sinking three derelict barges in beautiful Okanagan Lake, can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to remove these barges and especially to ensure that the air-filled 45 gallon drums still attached to the barges are removed before they break from their rope ties and shoot to the surface? Mr. Speaker, I am told some of these drums-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot tell us what he has been told. He can ask a question. The minister might reply to the question.


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the barges are not the property of the government arid that they were sunk in a place where there is no danger to navigation. If there should be a danger to navigation they would be removed. However, they are not a contaminant.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe does not object to it we could allow the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary to ask a supplementary question.


George H. Whittaker: Can the Minister of Public Works tell us whether the government is contemplating using dynamite to remove these barges?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

January 22, 1973
Oral Questions


COMMUNICATIONS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
Is the government aware of the two statements made by Senator Davey in Peterborough on November 19 and in Toronto on January 16, urging the government to act on the recommendations contained in the Davey report and arising out of a study on information media that took place in 1970?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain to this House why it has not to date acted on this report?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer was in the Speech from the Throne which announces a document on government intentions concerning communications to come during the first few weeks of this session.
* *
*


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO DEVELOPMENT-STUDY OF FEDERAL INTERESTS AFFECTED-AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Has the Department of the Environment caused a study entitled "An Analysis of Federal Interests Affected by the Proposed James Bay Hydro Development" to be made and, if so, when is it going to be made public?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is a series of joint studies under way, joint in the sense they are federal-provincial studies. They are the only ones of which I am aware.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This is a federal inquiry only. Will the minister check further with the department as there are a number of questions I wish to ask him about this study?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the federal government is involved at this stage. The provincial government may be asking for federal assistance in such an inquiry.


Mr. Korchinski:: Possibly the Minister of Indian Affairs may be able to assist the Minister of the Environment in answering this question. Is it a policy of the federal government to conduct separate inquiries with regard to the interests of the environmentalists and the Indian people, or will this be done jointly?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the interests of the native people and the fishery in the area will definitely be taken into account.
*
*


ASSISTANCE TO ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED IN
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister please indicate to the House whether or not the government is contemplating helping the Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited of Uranium City, Saskatchewan, to negotiate a contract for the export of uranium concentrate along the lines of the $29 million given to Denison Mines back in the 1970's?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take further note of that and respond to the hon. member at a later date.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Would the minister be good enough to explain to the House the reasons for subsidizing a private corporation while at the same time neglecting a Crown corporation in Uranium City which has been laying off workers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question such as this is debate. I would suggest to the hon. member for Meadow Lake and to other hon. members who put questions asking the government to make an explanation that they are inviting a statement that ought normally to be made on motions.


PROPOSED HYDRO DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN-PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN INVESTIGATION
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister also involved with the province of Saskatchewan in conducting an inquiry into the proposed hydro development project in the northern part of Saskatchewan in the Black Lake area? Is that a joint or a federal inquiry?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity of rephrasing the question I had hoped to put on Friday to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's answer to my question on that occasion about the force
January 22, 1973

being prepared for possible service in Viet Nam, would he assure the House that since that force, as the minister said in Hansard at page 474, will be a volunteer force those who do not volunteer will not be confronted with delays affecting their normal discharge or release?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister oi National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, all personnel in the Canadian armed forces are volunteers, but when there are specific duties to be performed they are selected for those duties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Wait till Mackenzie King hears that.


James Armstrong Richardson: To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, you only volunteer once and that is when you join up. You volunteer for service anywhere in the world. After that specific assignments are a matter of selection.


Donald W. Munro: For purposes of clarification, would the minister assure the House that those who have not been selected for this assignment-I am not sure whether they are going to volunteer or be selected for the assignment-will be exempt from any penalties respecting their discharge or retirement?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make it clear that personnel do not volunteer for specific assignments. They are selected for specific assignments.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister tell the House why Base Gagetown in New Brunswick was omitted from the 40 bases sharing the $13.3 million allotted for federal labourintensive projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, I suggest, ought normally be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. Would the government be willing to accept as its own motion motion No. 49 in my name on the order paper. I am referring to the notice of motion that a committee of the House be set up to look at all aspects of the aboriginal rights of the native peoples of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President oi the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to examine the motion and discuss it with my colleagues, especially the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and advise my hon. friend later.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has approved the advances to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in excess of the $800 million statutory limit set by act of parliament?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since this was done in accordance with the law, yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: If advances were made in excess of $800 million, did the minister give his authorization under section 137? If it was in writing, would he table it, and would he give the legal opinion under which he saw fit to exceed the provision of an act of parliament?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I disagree fundamentally with the premise on which the hon. member bases his question. The authorization was given under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act and was part of a general authorization involving my collective responsibility in the cabinet which was behind the order in council.


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member proceeds with his point of order I think I owe it to hon. members to remind the minister and the hon. member for Reace River that they are now engaging in a debate about a matter that has already been referred by the House to a committee. The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I asked the minister a simple, clear question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: It may not be clear to people who break the law, but it is clear to me. I asked him whether he made an authorization under section 137 of the act, and he can answer that yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River will appreciate that is hardly a point of order. He is asking for a second time the question he asked a moment ago.



PROJECTED COST FOR YEAR

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the minis-
510

January 22, 1973
Oral Questions
ter now has legislation on the order paper removing the statutory ceiling, and since I know he will have a projected cost figure if his intention is to get such legislation passed, can the minister advise whether he has any projected costs for the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the year 1972-73?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister oi Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission benefit pay-outs and administrative costs are based on the calendar year, not on the fiscal year, just as a matter of interest. When we have some indication of the kind of amendments that will be made to the act and their acceptability, as well as the kind of administrative changes to be made, I shall be glad to deal with them in detail before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister is debating my question; I asked a simple question. The minister must have some projected cost for the future regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is simply repeating his question. He has asked the question once and he knows that he can ask a question but the minister does not have to reply.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister undertake, if he cannot answer the question at this time, to table such projected costs before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order that the committee may be in a position to know whether or not the minister should receive a blank cheque in regard to this legislation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, whether or not I will be able to table such a forecast is something I cannot commit myself on now, but I have no doubt that this question will be extensively discussed when it comes before the committee.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, one that is close both to his and to my own heart. Would the right hon. gentleman tell the House which member of the cabinet has been designated to deal with those matters relating to women arising out of the royal commission report on the status of women?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a minister who is very close to my heart, the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplementary question

and I will then recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, now that we know who is in charge of women's affairs, may I ask the minister whether he plans to introduce legislation at this session to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on the status of women?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I hope soon to be in a position to state the government's policy in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might ask her supplementary question and I will then recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am afraid that afterwards I shall have to call orders of the day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would consider a statement very shortly on his priorities in introducing this legislation?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the government has not yet chosen to bring forward Bill C-124 for debate on second reading, will he advise the House how the government proposes to finance benefits after February 7 or February 8, referred to by the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think that question ought to be answered by way of a statement on motions. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that it is difficult for the Chair to allow that question to be answered now. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
That a Special Committee of this House be appointed to enquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in
January 22, 1973
[Stage Direction]
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 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 the amendment thereto of Mr. McGrath (page 477), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harney (Page 478).
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is with a little reluctance that we agreed to support the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), partly because we doubt very much that the government is serious about dealing with the question of food prices and partly because we doubt that the Conservative party is serious about tackling this problem. That is why we proposed the amendments we have proposed and the additional ones that I think will be proposed. We wanted to put some teeth in the structure of the committee so it will be able to examine the question of rising food prices and make some clear, definitive recommendations.
Perhaps I might mention very briefly that we have before us an amendment and our own sub-amendment. I think the amendment for the three-month time limit on the activities of the committee is designed with no other purpose in mind than to see the committee die at the end of the three month period having accomplished nothing. The contemplation of the Conservative party is that within three months the committee will terminate and that there will be nothing further to be examined. I expect that they have either a crystal ball, which is probably the case, or that they intend to destroy whatever effectiveness the committee might have. That is why we moved the amendment we are now considering.
We envisage the possibility of continuing operations of this committee with the hope that it can examine many aspects of food prices within a minimum time following the establishment of the committee. Every Conservative member who has spoken, as I listened to them in any event, attempted to discredit the potential of the committee. They tried to establish doubts in the minds of everyone who listened to them by suggesting that the committee structure would be of no value. I think that is the prelude to their concept of the committee and what it may or may not be able to accomplish.
I see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) is not in the House at the moment, but I am sure he will be listening somewhere or will read these remarks at some time. In closing his remarks, he said that he would be quite prepared to appear as a witness before the committee to give it whatever information he had in his possession or that was available to him.
I wonder seriously about the value of that. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has information which is of value, and which discloses what is taking place
Food Prices Committee
within the food processing industry, a more important course than presenting it to the committee would be for him to act on it. What would be more favourable would be for the minister and the government to say they know what is taking place and take some legislative action. If on the other hand the minister is not in possession of valuable information, then why should he appear before the committee with it? Why should he bother the committee by presenting something to it which does not appear to be of any value whatever? This is another reason I doubt the sincerity of the government in proposing this particular committee.
Let me consider some of the aspects of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I refer not to the corporate affairs section of the department, but the consumer affairs part. We all know that the purpose of the corporate affairs section of the department is to maintain an even flow of campaign funds into the treasury of the party to which the hon. minister belongs. The consumer affairs section has tipped its hand by indicating it is largely an apologist for rising prices, an explainer-away of exorbitant prices, and really is not serious about trying to deal with the problem. I want to make a brief reference to the same thing the minister mentioned when he spoke, namely coffee. In one of the publications of the minister's department, "Consumer Contact" of November, 1972, there is reference to coffee prices. Let me indicate what that reference is:
We had a letter the other day from a Member of Parliament complaining about the price Canadians pay for coffee. Our reply was enlightening but hardly satisfying. The truth is that we can't do much about it, because we don't grow coffee.
I suggest that exemplifies the response of the whole department. It just throws up its hands and says it is none of its business; it cannot do anything about it because coffee is grown outside the country. Therefore, it is powerless to take any action whatever in respect of it.
In the same publication on the front page, there is a paragraph devoted to the production of honey. Under the heading "Bees Do It", and I submit this is probably the most enlightening thing in the whole pamphlet as everybody knows that honey is produced in Canada, the article states:
You've probably noticed that domestic prices for honey have shot up in the last year.
It indicates that the price of No. 1 white honey increased by 24.4 per cent from July, 1971 to July 1972. Then, there is a long explanation of how bees do it and what happens. The article winds up by saying this:
Consumers are naturally annoyed at these price increases as it places an additional strain on the family budget.
What insight. I do not know how the minister or any of his colleagues could possible know that, but that is what it says. Probably the same man who said the department could not do anything about the price of coffee because we do not grow it here went on to say in respect of honey prices:
The best advice we can offer consumers is to shop wisely for less expensive products-
The taxpayer has to pay for this drivel that comes out of the consumer affairs section of the minister's department. I ask again in a rhetorical way, what possible value could

Food Prices Committee
there be in the minister appearing before the committee, unless it is to use this opportunity as a kind of grandstand on which to make some other simpering declarations about how concerned he is with food prices.
I think also that the Conservative party approach to the matter is suspect.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for horsefoot-I am sorry, Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) nods his head in agreement, that there is something suspect about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Perhaps I should point out that it is more than suspect, it is hypocritical. The hon. member for Crowfoot and all his buddies, most of them in the front benches, who were here when the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister, were confronted with the question of rising food prices. They took that time honoured Conservative way of dealing with the situation. They appointed a royal commission. In fact, that was the traditional way in which the Conservative party approached every problem. The only time they got into trouble was when they ran out of party hacks to appoint to royal commissions.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: We never appointed royal commissions.


Frank Howard: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, when he was Prime Minister, appointed a royal commission. Someone said he did not. The hon. member for Crowfoot obviously was not paying attention at that time because, as is the case now, he was not interested in the subject matter. Dr. Stewart was chairman of that commission. In any event, a royal commission was appointed in respect of the price spreads of food in 1959. The report was published in blue. That should be recognized by the hon. gentlemen from the Conservative party.
Before anyone says, "Oh, but that is old stuff; that is not like us new Tories", let me point out that this whole front bench comprises the same gang who were here in 1959 and who hid from that subject. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) who are looking at me now were in that cabinet. They knew, and they have read that report. Let me tell you what the report had to say about the situation. It recommended the establishment of a permanent council on prices, productivity and incomes which would involve a review of the whole area of the food industry and which would bring in an early report to the Governor in Council. What has happened to that recommendation? This was before the government was defeated. The Conservatives ran away from that recommendation like a cockroach shuttling out of the light, yet they have the audacity to stand up in this House-the same ones who in those years had the largest majority in the history of our country-and tell us they are concerned about food prices. I just do not believe them, Mr. Speaker.
Let me now talk about the Liberal and Conservative conspiracy. At that time the Minister of Justice was Davie

Fulton and the great leading Liberal light was Jack Pick-ersgill. The two of them, like long lost lovers who had not seen each other for years, embraced in the middle of this floor, put their arms around each other and gave the food industry in Canada the right to sit down and conspire to fix prices. They put that into the legislation. It is in the Combines Investigation Act at the present time. At that time in 1960 the Liberals and Conservatives conspired. Incidentally, the amendment which was accepted was introduced by Jack Pickersgill. The Combines Investigation Act provides that it is an offence to fix prices except that, I believe it is in subsection (4) of section 32, it provides:
... The court shall not convict the accused if the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relates only to the export of articles from Canada.
Does anyone mean to tell me that the fish-packing companies and food processing companies which are able to sit down and work out a price-fixing agreement for the export market forget all about that when they place goods on the shelves in Canada? They fix prices and this practice is sanctioned by the law. It is sanctioned by the Liberals and Conservatives. That is why I doubt the honesty and sincerity of the hon. gentlemen who belong to these parties and who have spoken in support of this measure.
One reason given by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) for moving his amendment in respect of the Senate was that the House of Commons committee must remain in Ottawa to examine these questions. I hope the committee does not remain in Ottawa. I hope it goes out into the country. I hope the members of the committee travel up north and into other such areas where they can see what it is like to spend a fortune on a can of beans, what it is like to live month after month on canned, processed or dried food. The only time people in such areas see fresh vegetables is when the carrots are like rubber and a head of lettuce looks like a dirty shirt which has been worn for a week. And these items are sold at exorbitant prices.
I ask the members of the committee and the government to consider this. I suggest they find out what it is like for the housewife and wage earner to have to attempt to make ends meet not only because we have a steady increase in food prices in the southern part of Canada but also because this situation exists in rural areas and in northern Canada. They should see what people have to put up with in those areas. I hope the Conservatives will retract the suggestion that members of the committee remain here in the comfort of the air conditioned committee rooms in these buildings and tell the consumers to come here instead of going out to see what the consumers have to endure. In that way the members of the committee would learn what the consumers have to put up with and would not be dealing with dry, impersonal statistics, cost items and figures in the comfort of the rooms of these buildings. I believe it is shameful to suggest to the consumers across this land that we are not prepared to go out and speak to them. It is shameful for the Conservative party to say to those people that they should travel great distances to see us.
January 22, 1973

There is no purpose in extolling again and again the importance of this question. Everybody knows the statistics in respect of food prices. There is no purpose in filling the records with additional statistics. This has been done before and probably will be done again. I believe that, more than anything else, we must think in terms of this committee coming up with an immediate answer in respect of staple items of food. I am not referring to chocolate-covered ants or butterfly wings or all these other rare, exotic foods which exist, or boiled cockroaches as my friend behind me suggests. I want to see some action in respect of bread, butter, meat, eggs, milk, fresh fruits and vegetables which are so necessary for a growing child and which many people are being denied. These are the things at which the committee must look. It should come up with some immediate recommendations and suggestions to deal with the price of those things, and then continue its deliberations into the more unusual aspects of food prices.
I suggest that the committee consider breaking into subcommittees so that those members who are afraid to go out and speak to the consumers may remain in Ottawa, look at the books, examine the corporate records and ascertain how the food industry is able, as the items proceed through the various segments of the chain to the retail shelves, to add an exorbitant percentage of markups, even within the same company. Let us examine that. Let us see what the middleman is extracting and why the farmer is receiving the least possible amount of the food dollar. Let us see why the fisherman does not get a fair share of the food dollar. Let us find out who the middle man is and inhibit his ability and his opportunity to cheat Canadian prime producers, farmers, fishermen as well as consumers.
Let us have another part of that committee, do as the committee on agriculture did a few years ago. Let them out into the country and see what it is like in these areas; let them feel in their guts what it is like to have to stand in a grocery store with a few dollars available to you and debate which is the cheapest type of carbohydrate food that you can buy. You do not have to debate about buying protein food or buying beef or steaks. I know families, as I am sure other members in the House do, who do not see a steak from one year's end to the next. The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) will confirm that there is what Indian people refer to as "Indian steak". Indian steak is baloney. That is about the limit of the meat purchases that many families can make. We all know that baloney is not a very nutritious food as compared with natural food products such as steaks, roasts and chops which are foreign to these people. Let the committee break up into sub-committees and go out into the country to see what the Canadian people have to endure. Perhaps we should even demand that members of the House try to live for a month on the income on which dozens and dozens of families in this country have to exist. Perhaps then they would come back into the comfort of the committee room and really try to write a report which would contain recommendations that were meaningful to the consumers of this nation.
Food Prices Committee
If the committee is going to follow the Tory line, sit here in Ottawa and have formal presentations made to it, they will not get the least understanding of what the situation is, and will not be able to make any worthwhile recommendations.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose because I am a new member I do not share the scepticism of some of my colleagues who told me that the Conservative party does not have a policy with respect to rising food prices. Perhaps I am more charitably disposed, but I have always felt that in fact they do have a policy but they have kept it secret very effectively.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ho, ho, ho!


Paul Edmund McRae: They have kept it secret throughout the last election campaign and through most of this debate. I must commend the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) for his very fine rhetorical effort and for the fact that he spoke for 20 or 30 minutes during which time he was able to keep this secret. But you can imagine my surprise when, on Friday afternoon, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) blew the secret, at least I believe he did. He said: We must regulate wages and prices. I believe that that is the secret policy of the Conservative party. The reason I believe this is that the policy commends itself to that party. It is basically simple. It is not encumbered by extraneous ideas about, for example, how you control profits. It is not encumbered by abstractions such as information on world food prices. It is not encumbered by concerns about nutrition, and so on. It is a simple policy to deal with a simple problem as if we were still in 1950. But this is 1973. There are no simple problems, and therefore there are no simple answers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The problems have been compounded by the government.


Paul Edmund McRae: I was much more impressed with the words of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and her suggestion for the establishment of a prices review board. She is well known in the field of food and consumer prices, and I think there is some merit in this solution. I do not know whether it should be adopted in exactly the way it is suggested, but there are some short-term problems which may be solved by the method she suggested.
There are other matters which I hope the committee will consider, such as the quantity of distribution outlets in this country. These are factors which bear on food prices. I believe the committee will have to give the hon. member's suggestion very serious consideration, and if it agrees with that suggestion, I will certainly support it.
As I mentioned earlier, we are living in a far more complex time than the 1950's to which I referred, and there are no basic and simple answers to this problem. I welcome the establishment of this committee, first, because I think it is time we put before the Canadian public and before members of the House the complexity of the problem of rising food prices in the world. I refer to world food prices because this is the crux of the whole problem. We are no longer dealing with a simple matter of shortages of food in Canada or rising prices in Canada.

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
We are dealing with global price increases. We have been told by such people as Brock Chisholm, by groups from the United Nations, by population experts and by a recent publication called "Limits to Growth" coming from M.I.T, that a growing population will create growing food problems. I contend that we are at a point where we will have to face these particular problems.
I think there are two aspects to world food problems that we must consider. First and foremost is the growing number of human beings on this earth. We are told that the world's population will double in 33 years, that it is growing at the rate of 2.1 per cent per year, and that that exponential growth rate will give us a population of around seven billion around the turn of the century, as opposed to 3.6 billion in 1970. We are told that the growth rate itself is rising. In the middle of the 17th century we had a growth rate of about .3 per cent; today it is 2.1 per cent. So, we have a massive problem. It is not such a great problem in areas of the world like Canada where the growth rate of the population is levelling off somewhat, but it is a great problem in many areas of the world where the population is still growing at an ever-increasing rate.
There is another problem in connection with the so-called affluent countries where the demand for food is growing at an excessive rate. This demand of the affluent nations on the food supply is serious. I hope the committee will take a real look at the food problem as a world problem, will take a look at the growing world population, and take a look at the excessive demands made by affluent nations on the supply of food.
I would make one or two suggestions to the committee as possible solutions. Canada, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and government, has developed a very fine reputation in international circles. Mr. Speaker, we are a major producer of food. I think it would be a fine thing if, as a nation, we took it upon ourselves to present this problem in international circles and call for a world conference on food shortages, similar to the conference on the environment held in Sweden last spring, which we supported. Second, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the committee take a good look at food supplies. I am convinced that there has been too much movement from the farms to the cities in Canada. I believe there are areas of the country which could still be farmed, and farmed in the future, thus helping to reverse that trend.
I am convinced also that as an affluent nation we have not done a good job in developing better food supplies in the non-affluent, non-industrialized parts of the world. Production of food in some of those areas has not grown as it should have, partly because the measures taken were too grandiose to suit the social patterns of the peoples living in those countries. More effective methods must be sought. In the non-industrialized nations of the world over the last ten years, per capita production of food has remained just about even. In Latin America and Asia the curve has remained almost unchanged, while I notice that in Africa in the last two years it has actually moved in a downward direction. We are not helping to increase supplies of food in those areas in any substantial way.

The third suggestion I make is that all the countries of the world, and this includes the affluent nations, need a great deal more information about the nutritional value of foods. There is much that can be done to substitute some foods that are cheap for other foods that are expensive. This is another area the committee could examine.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that I welcome the establishment of the proposed committee because I think it is time for us to put away simple answers to highly complex questions. This committee will give us an opportunity to start understanding the complexity of world food shortages. The committee should not recommend just one simple solution. I hope it will make attempts on several fronts to solve the problem.


Mr. Stan Shellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, being one of the younger members of the House of Commons it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak. I am still slightly idealistic, however, and I wish members would stop talking, as some of the NDP and other people have been doing, and get right down to work on some of these problems.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with other hon. members in congratulating you on your election to the high position you hold, and also in congratulating Mr. Deputy Speaker on his election to that post.
I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is proposing anything new in his food prices probe. Indeed, the administration of which he was a part in 1966 made a similar last ditch effort to control a situation of which they had clearly lost control. This, to my way of thinking, is an act of desperation, an admission that the government's fiscal and economic policies were a failure, a disaster to all Canadians, calamitous to small business, ruinous to the farmer, and inexplicable to the general public. The general public can only suffer in their bewilderment, and await an opportunity to state their opinion at the ballot box, an opinion which they already gave on October 30 last but the implementation of which has been slightly held back by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I state that that is a judgment which will be rendered again very soon.
So, admitting that the collective responsibility and genius of the cabinet have failed, the government seeks to extend the responsibility to a committee. The supposedly wise men can no longer handle the problem. I doubt very much if they ever could. It is a convenient situation, Mr. Speaker, but I have no doubt that the committee will acquit itself well, especially since the Liberals will not have a majority on it.
Controls of any sort on the economy are abhorrent to a free society, to a free market economy, to people who love freedom and are convinced that the system under which we live is the best in the world. We believe this because the free enterprise system is a natural one. It is based on natural law. But because it is natural, its operations can be affected by the unnatural-the perversities which lurk
January 22, 1973

in men, the machinations of the corporate agglomerations which control so much of our lives today. It is to eliminate these perversities that my leader has called for stern medicine to return Canada to the status quo.
Consumerism is a fashionable trend these days, and I think it is a pretty good one. The Canadian public, exposed to this movement and to its ideals, are fed up with the gimmickry and quasi-honest promotions that are now part of the advertising game. Here I must make reference to my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who stated that consumers are to blame for this to some degree. They demand coloured Kleenex and coloured boxes instead of white Kleenex. They want enclosed shopping centres so that they do not have to cope with the weather. In so doing the cost of these things to some extent must be paid by them. But consumers are now demanding standard packaging. Mr. Speaker, I understans that soon there will be a series of upwards of
15,000	different packages. I would hope the public will want a pound that is a pound, an orange that is an orange, and a box of corn flakes that is a box of corn flakes, not corn flakes and air, with a toy whistle, or a decal with which children can smear their faces.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) says that there are rising costs in the food processing industry. I hope he is not referring to some of the farm establishments, and specifically to the feed grain industry. I believe his remarks had a general application. For example, the demands by producers for higher dairy subsidies, because of the government's bungling of preferential treatment for Canada resulting from the expansion of the EEC, will result in more price increases. I have spoken about this a number of times, Mr. Speaker, but so far have not received any answers. The public, he says, must be conditioned to pay a more realistic price for food. Perhaps he is proclaiming that we should tell the consumer what a fine job we have done. Let him tell that to the people who now pay 19 per cent of their income dollar for food and an ever-increasing percentage of their gross national product into the government's ever-expanding pockets.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, 38 per cent of the gross national product went to taxes. If the consumer is going to be conditioned to pay more for food, then the government had better start leading the way by lowering taxes. I for one, Mr. Speaker, would rather spend a dollar or two on a sirloin steak than pay it to the federal bureucracy any day of the week. A chicken in every pot is better than dollars into the quicksand, as is the case with the absorption of citizen's money by the tax authorities.
I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not feel it is the farmer who is responsible for rising food costs but rather the processors, distributors and retail supermarket cartels. A day or two ago, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada informed me that while the consumer price index went up by 39 per cent in the last 12 years, wages in the meat industry went up by 71 per cent. Farm income continues to shrink, however. Prices received by farmers for farm products have advanced by only 13 per cent since 1967, while the general wholesale price index has increased by 22 per cent.
Food Prices Committee
We have been talking about solutions, Mr. Speaker, and I agree that they are not easy to find, especially solutions which guard our free enterprise system. However, it is time for the rights of the many to be considered as well as the rights of the few. It is far too late for the government to regain any popularity in the west by sending the Minister of Agriculture from Ontario to Halifax to reveal another phase of the government's deathbed repentence and discovery of the western farmer. The government already stands condemned because of its arrogance and ineptitude.
I believe that the provisions of Bill C-180 should be amended to take away the power now given to the Governor in Council to exempt certain products from the application of the act and give that power to parliament alone. The erosion of the powers of parliament and the assumption of quasi-presidential power by the cabinet is one of the most alarming trends in Canadian society. I shall refer to this question again at a later date, Mr. Speaker. Let us give the power back to parliament. We may be nobodies, Mr. Speaker, but I would rather leave the decision to 264 nobodies than 30 precious technocrats sitting in the front benches opposite.
Let us not forget that the farmer is a consumer, too, who must normally buy most of his food like anyone else. He is just as concerned as the rest of society with the rising costs of food-perhaps more so because as everyone knows, farming is generally not a high income occupation. Farm families are more likely to suffer diet deficiencies than non-farm families. They pay more of their limited income for the necessities of life; usually they live at a distance from the discount stores and volume dealers and so have less opportunity for comparison shopping.
One of the things I should like to add to this probe on food prices is an experience that I shared with some of the students at the University of Alberta. We conducted a research project covering approximately 40 stores in Edmonton. One of the food chains had approximately 60 per cent of the sales volume of the area and seemed to have most of the stores. We found that these stores were directly over-pricing in areas in which there were low income people and students. We gathered that this was because of the lack of mobility of these people. If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, I think we should ensure that there is price standardization in the provinces if not across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have made my remarks short because I have been suffering from a cold. As well, as I stated earlier, I am rather idealistic and I think we should get down to solving this problem as soon as possible.
Mr, B, Keith Penner (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, when Statistics Canada published its most recent consumer price index, it was obvious that the highly desirable goal of reasonable price stability in this country had not been achieved by a long shot, certainly not in all sectors of the economy. The over-all cost of living during 1972 rose by 5.1 per cent but some prices rose faster than others.
Canadians paid 8.6 per cent more to eat and 5 per cent more to keep a roof over their heads. By contrast, durable goods which have the highest labour content, cost only fractionally more. Stoves, cars, vacuum cleaners, refriger-

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
ators, radio and television sets and furniture increased by only 0.6 per cent. That statistic fascinates me, Mr. Speaker, because we have heard it said so often that high labour costs are to blame for advancing prices in this country. The blame is laid so frequently on those who work in the shops and plants whenever we have to pay more in the market place for our goods. Here, we have some good evidence to show that such is not necessarily the case.
Rising food costs, the main concern of the committee that we are about to establish by this motion, are blamed on shortages not in Canada, but throughout the entire world. If, as a result of these shortages, producers of food are receiving more for what they grow and raise, it is hardly compensation enough for the years in which they received far, far too little, especially in relation to the huge investments that food producers have to make in their enterprises and the small returns which they usually enjoyed.
Feelings about inflation are, therefore, confused and ambivalent because really inflation has two opposite faces. Whether we welcome or fear it, depends upon the face at which we are looking; how it seems to affect our personal interests at the moment. Inflation sometimes does have harsh effects on wage earners, on farmers and on businessmen, but the inflation which each of these groups deplores is not the inflation of their own prices, but those of some other group. It is not the prices which they get for their own services which are so distressing but the prices which they have to pay for the goods and services of others. Sometimes it seems, Mr. Speaker, that those who gain the most from inflation are those who cry the loudest against it. Reasonable price stability must certainly be a goal of economic policy. There is no question about that because inflation produces an arbitrary and often capricious redistribution of income, causing hardships for many people. With a general increase in prices, some prices and money rates of return rise faster than others. As a result, persons or groups whose money incomes remain fixed, or rise more slowly than prices rise, lose command over goods and services. In so far as these people are unable to defend themselves against erosion of the real purchasing power of their incomes, inequity and hardship always accompany inflation.
The real evil of inflation, then, is that it redistributes wealth and income in a wanton fashion. Those who gain through inflation, such as land speculators, do so at the expense of others who lose. They cause great hardship to the economically weak. I have even read, Mr. Speaker, that certain prominent politicians have profited from large land deals. I sometimes wonder why provincial governments, especially the government of Ontario, are so slow in taking action to control rapidly rising land costs. Rising food costs are indeed perturbing, but inflated land values also punish families which must, as a result, pay higher rents and higher mortgages and thus do without so many of the other things they would like to have.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that inflation is like a twisted magnifying lens through which, if one views, everything is confused, distorted and out of focus, and few are able any more to see realities in their true proportions. Hon. members in this chamber have spoken eloquently about the alarming rate of inflation, yet few have bothered to mention the significant increase in the weekly earnings of the majority of Canadians. We have just passed through a festive season which saw the biggest outlay of consumer cash and credit in our history. How was this money spent, Mr. Speaker? For the essentials and basic necessities of life? Of course. But it was also spent for an increasingly wide variety of luxury goods. Shoppers scurried about anxiously seeking that special item for the person who has everything.
Not everyone, however, was able to participate in this winter solstice spending splurge. Many pensioners, the unemployed, and large numbers of unorganized workers could do no more than barely meet their daily needs to keep body and soul together. Because this is so, Mr. Speaker, this House ought to move as quickly as possible to bring about measures which will alleviate this desperate situation facing a large number of Canadians. We must act to raise the basic old age pension and to increase the guaranteed income supplement. Family allowances must also be increased, especially for those on low incomes. As well, Mr. Speaker, there must be some generous income tax cuts, particularly for those with middle incomes and less who are trying to raise their families in an inflationary economy. Further, in amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, great care must be taken by us all to make sure that we do not unjustly punish those without jobs because of any misdirected sense that some few people are violating the work ethic. Before we jump with both feet on those people, we should deal as well with those in this country who are violating the business ethic, the professional ethic and the political ethic. I favour the establishment of a parliamentary committee that will look into the cost of food in Canada and I say, let us do it quickly; let us get on with it and then let us push on with some of those concrete measures which will assist the "economically disadvantaged", as we so euphemistically call the poor.
Reasonable price stability must be a goal of economic policy, because inflation results in an undesirable redistribution of income. That undesirable effect must be first and foremost in our minds. As well, Mr. Speaker, if our exports are to sell competitively in world markets, our costs and prices must not rise significantly more than they do in other countries. Inflation carries with it other dangers and other evils as well. Businessmen may come to consider continuous price increases as the normal course of events. Consequently, they may add to their inventories and plant, with the intention of escaping higher costs and prices in the future. Moreover, such businessmen will be inclined to proceed with less caution, in the hope that mistakes which may be made can easily be compensated by higher prices charged in the future. This is a lovely safety valve for those who have to make business decisions but are not always especially competent to do so. They think inflation will take care of any mistakes and errors they are likely to commit. As a result, inflation leads to the misdirected use of our resources. It leads to inefficiency and waste and finally to a destabilizing effect on the whole economy.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in an inflationary economy there is a natural tendency to switch from money into other assets as a hedge against rising prices. This results in prices

January 22, 1973

being pushed even higher. Thus it is that inflation may become self-generating, ending in what some economists call hyperinflation, and leading to a general breakdown of the country's monetary system.
Reasonable price stability must be a goal of economic policy, but how to achieve this in a satisfactory way without disastrous and undesirable side effects remains, I gather, a big puzzle for economists. Only by bringing about such stability, it has been argued, can the inflation psychology be broken. So, some favour the idea of government controls. They think they are a panacea for curing the inflation under which we are now living. Proposing the introduction of price controls, however, leaves a great many questions unanswered. For example, how do you determine the price of a new product after the controls have been introduced? How do you cope with changes in a product during the period when these price controls are in effect? How do you decide what the price ought to be after those changes are made? In the service sector of our economy, how can you ever arrive at a satisfactory definition of "normal service", in order to set a price? The sheer volume of goods and services available in our consumer-oriented society defies any meaningful way for controlling and monitoring prices. If controls are temporary, will not the accumulated demand pressure bounce prices right back up when controls are lifted? If controls are selective, whose prices and whose wages are we going to regulate? Whose will be left alone? Who decides?
In Canada there is a further problem in administering price controls. I refer to the substantial regional variation in the cost of living. There is also a very large political question. Do we really want a further massive intrusion of government into the market place? Hopefully, this committee to examine food costs in Canada will also consider how effective controls could be implemented, if they decide that it is a desirable solution, and whether these controls would in fact do what we all know is desirable, namely having a reasonable price stability in this country. Meanwhile, I repeat, that while this committee is deliberating in earnest, while they are busy examining witnesses and reading documents, we in this House must deal with priority number one, that is helping those who are most hurt by inflation, redesigning our income redistribution programs to make them more effective and beneficial for those who are in serious need.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate unduly, but I wish to make a few observations before the vote is taken. First, I commend to this House the subamendment moved last Thursday by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) calling for a two-month interim report with recommendations for action from the committee, but opposing the three month absolute limit upon the committee's activities which was suggested in the amendment moved by a member of the Conservative party.
I feel the subamendment achieves the best of both worlds in that it requires the committee to bring before this House within 60 days some recommendations for action which will have an effect in the economy before the
Food Prices Committee
winter is over and, therefore, bring relief at least in part to Canadian consumers as early as possible, without restricting the efforts of the committee to what would be an unrealistically short period of time considering the immensity of the task we are giving to it. One of the dangers of compiling a final report within a period of 90 days is that there will inevitably be a tendency to come to the easy and glib solution of pointing the finger at those who are least able to defend themselves and most vulnerable to accusation.
In speeches in the past two or three days, members to my right referred fairly frequently to the advisability of a prices freeze. We should look at that kind of action carefully. The implication in a prices freeze is that the primary producer and the ordinary working family are likely to be affected most directly and least beneficially. What will follow from a prices freeze may very well be some kind of wage freeze or control. Neither of these approaches, the price freeze or wage freeze, will come to grips with the basic problems in the food industry.
Hon. members have referred to the undesirability of the government intruding into the market place by means of a price review mechanism. They even went so far as to suggest that the committee would be intruding. Intrusion into the market place it may be, but that is surely up to the market place. If the market place is prepared to provide decent goods to consumers at a fair price and to offer the consumers the benefit of the doubt, I suspect there will not be much in the way of intrusion. On the other hand, as I suspect is the case in the food industry, if retailers and merchandisers try to get away with what the traffic will bear, the government will be forced by public opinion to intrude into the market place. I suggest to those hon. members who fear a collapse of the free enterprise system that most of the recommendations for an inquiry are coming, not from any kind of ideological foundation, but from the demands of many hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who want some action taken. That is why this House of Commons is now faced with the proposition of a prices committee.
The committee should examine the corporate structure underlying the food industry and inquire into large agricultural business-I believe the term is agro-business-transportation, packaging, processing, distribution, displaying, promotion, retailing and all other aspects which pertain to the food industry and food pricing. In particular, commodity prices and tariffs should come within the terms of reference of the committee. It would be of interest to study the extent to which food price controls in the United States affect prices in Canada. That is, do multinational corporations partially make up for restricted prices in the United States by charging higher prices in Canada, among other countries? There have been charges by consumer associations that certain canned and packaged foods contain too small a portion of the main ingredient advertised. Some information has recently been brought to light about stews which consist largely of potatoes and gravy.
A special study should be made as to whether products should be standarized as to contents by weight or whether precise information on labels would be sufficient to protect consumers against receiving less than fair value for
518

Food Prices Committee
their food dollar. Studies should also be undertaken on price differences between supermarkets in poorer downtown neighbourhoods where there is little competition and affluent suburbs where the competition is usually stronger. The information that is available indicates that higher prices are charged to those who can least afford them.
Little information has so far been assembled about the nutritional needs of older people and the food costs incurred by an elderly person living alone who buys food in small quantities and accordingly pays higher prices than large families which can buy in bulk. Packaging costs are probably the most significant factor. A study should be made in this context. Some years ago a royal commission undertook a study of food pricing and food merchandising practices on the prairie provinces. This commission, known as the Batten commission, brought in its report in 1966.1 just want to quote briefly from some of its findings since I think they are relevant to the work that will be assigned to the committee, the proposal to establish which we are discussing today.
In examining how prices are determined, the royal commission concluded that the power to raise prices is limited by the degree of market concentration. Where sales are concentrated in the hands of only a few sellers, those sellers recognize their mutual interdependence. It is usually in the mutual self-interest of sellers to avoid cutting prices and to agree, either tacitly or explicitly, on a price level that maximizes their joint profits. Without trying to pre-empt the conclusions of the special committee, I suspect that things have not changed very much since 1966. As one who represents a constituency where food prices are very much a matter of lively concern at this time, I am particularly anxious that the committee examine in great detail, and with as much searching light as can be applied, the subject of the pricing policies of the large food chains.
Amplifying on their conclusion, the commission stated that the largest sellers-it is true they were talking about the Prairies-had acquired sufficient power to enable prices to rise above competitive levels, thereby earning excess profits for the large chains. Second, excessive building of stores had led to what they called sub-optimal rates of utilization of stores, hence unnecessarily raising the cost of retailing groceries. Third, the position and power of the chains had led to and required the use of self-cancelling and costly advertising campaigns. And fourth, the luxurious and expensive supermarkets built to lure customers away from other stores had raised the cost of food distribution. All of these costs and price increases, and the factors leading thereto, had damaged the consumers' interest.
As our committee commences its work, I think we must bear in mind continually that it is the interests of the ordinary working consumer that must be paramount. I believe that they have a right to know what goes on in the matter of food pricing policy, just as, for example, the public feels it has the right to know what goes on in negotiations between the government and the postal workers, or in negotiations that are carried on in any form of collective bargaining.

Just as the ordinary worker must justify, through elaborate machinery sanctioned and established by the government, his reason for wanting a wage increase, I believe that food merchandisers and retailers, as indeed many merchandisers and retailers of other products, must similarly be placed in the position of justifying to the public their reason for feeling that a price increase is necessary. All too often the consumer, when confronted by a sudden price increase, is advised that the reason for it is that the price of coffee in Brazil went up last week, or that there had been a strike in San Francisco, or some other reason is given usually relating to an event outside the country and well beyond the public source of information. Thus, the public has to take the retailer's word at its face value, and from time to time I think this has enabled merchandisers and retailers to take advantage of the consumer.
I hope that this committee will conclude that a permanent, on-going prices review mechanism, whose purview should range well beyond simply the subject of food prices, should be set up for the purpose of continually exposing to the public gaze and bringing to the public knowledge the facts behind food pricing. After the committee has concluded its investigation, I believe it will be hard-pressed not to come to some such conclusion.
I hope that the publicity attached to the committee's efforts will serve to keep food prices in check over the winter. Since I have great faith in the public having knowledge of the facts, I am convinced that a permanent prices review mechanism will serve over the long run to expose facts to the public gaze that will keep prices stable, thereby assuring that the hard-won wage increases of the working men and women of this country are not eaten away or used simply to bolster and to maintain the ever-increasing profits which our corporate economy demands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have some very grave concerns and reservations about the proposal before the House to set up a special committee to inquire into trends in food prices in Canada and to relate domestic and foreign influences to today's soaring costs. In the long run, it is true that the committee may come up with some proposals that will alleviate the situation, but I particularly hope that the committee finds an answer to why there is such a gap between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays. What concerns me most is the immediate need, the need that will have to be faced tomorrow, next week and in the coming months of long, hard winter, by hundreds of thousands of Canadians on fixed incomes. The winter will indeed be much longer and harder for some Canadians than for others.
The special Senate committee on poverty told us that six million Canadians, almost one-third of the population of our country, live on or below the poverty line. A single person, we were told by that committee, lives below the poverty line if he or she has an income of less than $2,140 annually. That was the 1969 figure. It is interesting to note that all our senior citizens whose income is limited to the old age pension and supplement are today living below the poverty line. My concern is what will happen to them in the cold, long months ahead while the committee is
January 22, 1973

sitting and discussing its needs and expressing its concerns, while in the meantime prices continue to rise.
There are some 17,000 Canadians on disability pensions and their numbers increase by almost 1,000 a month. Do hon. members realize that some disability pensioners receive only $100 a month? If there are two children in the family, that amount is increased to $154 a month. People such as those on fixed incomes are finding that as a result of recent fuel oil increases they have to pay an average of $4 more per month for fuel oil. To them, $4 more for fuel oil means $4 less for food.
The department of health and welfare has just released figures from a year long study entitled "The World of the Welfare Recipient". This study shows that 62 per cent of women on welfare are single family heads and must look after the needs of dependents. In Ontario and Quebec alone there are 79,000 such women. Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia each have over
3.000	single mothers with at home families. There are
10.000	in Alberta and 14,000 single heads of families in British Columbia. I wonder how these women and others on fixed incomes reacted to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) last week. The minister is reported to have said during a speech in Halifax:
The public must be conditioned to expect to pay a more realistic price for food. I think we should be telling consumers what a fine job we have been doing and what a bargain they are getting.
What a bargain, indeed! Is this government, according to this minister's statement, so callous and so insensitive it can tell all those on fixed incomes what a bargain they are getting as food prices increase? I really do wonder whether the minister would be prepared to meet concerned Canadians like consumers, people on welfare, old age pensioners, the working poor, the 615,000 unemployed, all those on fixed incomes, to tell them what a bargain they are getting?
About 10 per cent of the labour force of Quebec and the Maritimes is expected to be out of work by spring. Statistics Canada reports do not include the 100,000 people on manpower retraining programs and the 100,000 or so on LIP grants. All these people are on minimum incomes. How will they manage this winter? The Minister of Agriculture seems totally unaware of the fact that one of the most disadvantaged groups of consumers in Canada is the 6 million people living below the poverty line. Their inability to earn a decent living is only one side of their economic plight. It is also important how they spend what little income they have. If they are forced to pay more for goods they buy they are, in essence, being denied the benefits of their earning power. It is cold comfort to a woman on a widow's allowance to be told by the Minister of Agriculture she is getting a bargain in food prices. It is cold comfort to a mother eking out a living on a mother's allowance to be told a food inquiry will eventually provide answers to her current needs. It is cold comfort, indeed, to an old age pensioner to be told his pension will be increased some time before April, perhaps, while food prices go up day by day.
A food prices inquiry is a simple way, I would think, to blur what must seem to many to be a drastic situation.
Food Prices Committee
Can they really wait while the committee holds its hearings? The committee may have a psychological effect on some people in this country whose earnings keep pace with increasing food prices, but the committee hearings will bring no immediate relief. It is beyond my comprehension how the minister, in introducing this motion, can say the committee would report in a relatively short period of time and, in the same breath, say the study should include an evaluation of food prices and trends throughout the world. Surely, there is conflict in his thinking. To achieve these goals the committee should be sitting on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week. With fuzzily defined terms of reference and a committee report at some unspecified date, the minister seems hell-bent on taking his time. As my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), pointed out, while the committee plods along through the winter and into spring the responsibility for action would soon become the responsibility of the committee instead of that of the government which is the real culprit behind the current high cost of living.
Just what is it that we are concerned with here and now in these immediate days and weeks? I suggest it is Canada's food price increase statistics. From 1961 to December, 1972 food prices increased by 47.1 per cent. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) finds solace in the fact that the citizens of France have to pay more for food than we do. He also assures us that the government has contingency plans. What are these mysterious plans we keep hearing about and when are we going to hear them?
Do members realize that the price of major foods have increased, except for powdered milk, peanut butter and baby food? Perhaps we could recommend baby food as a bargain to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Finance's (Mr. Turner) proud claim that Canada's inflation is lower than that of most European countries does not console those on limited incomes who must pay 36 or 37 cents for a quart of milk, and in some places much more? Does the minister realize that the average cost of a loaf of bread to the grocer jumped to 29.3 cents from 27.7 cents at the beginning of December? Does he realize that the price of eggs is up 11.2 per cent over that of this time last year, that the cost of vegetables is up 8.6 per cent and that the price of beef has climbed? The price of hamburger is up 17.3 per cent in 12 months, the price of beef liver is up 15.6 per cent and the price of stew meat is up almost 6 per cent. It is the cheaper cuts that have been increasing faster in cost. These are the cuts that are the staples for the 6 million Canadians who live below the poverty line.
If we think prices in most parts of Canada are out of line with people's earnings, those who live in remote areas and the periphery are in much worse shape. This applies particularly to the northern territories where food prices are always much higher than in the south. The rapid rise in prices in those areas in the last year has made them astronomical. While the prices rise, the quality of some foods like fresh fruits and vegetables deteriorates. I hope this unique situation will receive very extensive examination and special consideration by the committee.
I am sure we have all done analysis in respect of food prices in our own areas. In the Kingston area, basic food
25714-34J

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
prices have gone up by as much as 50 per cent since 1968. I realized this when I started comparing current supermarket ads with those of four years ago. In 1968 staples like meat, vegetables, fruit, butter, eggs, cheese and coffee that I could have purchased for $18.68 would today cost $28. This is an increase of over 50 per cent.
Let me tell you that the primary producer is no better off than he was in 1968. The food price increases are not reaching the farmer. What is even worse, there appears to be no end in sight. Statistics Canada reports that the general food price index has risen 8.6 per cent from December, 1971 to December, 1972. The present government obviously does not know what is causing this spiralling and has been unwilling to attempt measures to stop it.
To the extent that the food inquiry might come to some basic conclusions about food increases, I hope that, unlike so many other reports, it does not get covered with dust or perhaps lost in some flour bin. Again, I ask what will happen in January, February and March of this year? There is a great fear that food speculators will have a free ride for these months and will take advantage of the time lag in getting the report of the committee. The urgency of the immediate situation bothers me. To get us through this period of winter seasonal hardship, the government should have considered companion action in the form of price freezes, voluntary wage and price controls or some other structure until the committee has had a chance to report. These are measures which could help those millions of Canadians who will suffer from deprivation this winter, rather than make them wait for the final outcome of the committee's report.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, of course some interesting contributions have been made during this debate. It is very difficult to come to grips with and even more difficult to find answers to, this situation within the system in which we live. In his contribution to this debate the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) promised to be brief and sharp. He promised to be sharper than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). Indeed he was brief, but it is very difficult to find in his speech, as recorded on page 433 of Hansard, any evidence that he was sharp. One highlight of his speech seemed to be this statement:
The answer is simple: he is wrong and his colleagues are wrong. Food prices, like all prices, are simply running out of control today.
Having said that, he carries on and lays down a number of conditions in respect of the support of his party. He makes a tremendous contribution to the effect that it is the intention of the hon. member, on behalf of his party, to introduce an amendment which would reduce the number of members of the committee to 20.
Continuing on to the end of his speech, one finds very little evidence of a positive, constructive contribution that would permit members of this House and members of the committee to point to some guidelines or indications of what is in the hon. member's mind. At least the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) expressed the thought that what we have before us is a very complex problem. I agree. It seems to me that the question of price,

be it in respect of food or other commodities or services, is a question that is integrated with wages, incomes and profits and that therefore when we speak of price we are speaking of an item that is the result of a number of factors including the salaries of individuals, the percentage of profit which takes place at the retail level and so on. Therefore, we really are analysing the whole structure of our society when we try to come to grips with the question of price.
If we imply that we wish, in order to control the rising cost of food, to introduce a system of wage controls, I would think that it would be most unfair, particularly in respect of the category of salaried workers who are still desperately attempting to catch up with the remainder of society but who have not been fortunate enough to belong to powerful unions or powerful professional organizations over the years. This government-and I admit without success-asked Canadians to assume the responsibility of self-imposed voluntary controls. We all remember the experience of 1969-70. The suggestion was not well received. Perhaps it was not well explained. It was rejected, and here we find ourselves again, a few years later, facing what looks like another inflationary round still without a substantial knowledge of how to come to grips with this trend which affects not only Canada but apparently every other country which has a so-called free market society.
It seems to me, in light of the system we have and the society in which we live, the solution expressed at that time, which is still before us, that of voluntary self-imposed controls, is the most desirable one because it does not strike at the root of our system but invites, recommends and hopes that we can practise self-restraint. However, the reality of the situation is still that we are not ready for such an application. Therefore, what has happened in the intervening years is that the Liberal government in this country took measures in respect of redistributing the purchasing power of the people. It said it would take the purchasing power from those whose incomes are high through the means of income tax reform and the introduction of a capital gains tax. The government said it would redistribute this purchasing power and make it available to those at the lower income level by means of better pension programs, better support schemes, better developed and better funded public and low-cost housing and other such programs of reform introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
The other measure passed by the previous parliament, and just now being implemented, is the establishment of national marketing boards for a number of commodities. One which is now being put into practice is a national marketing board for the marketing of eggs. The purpose is to avoid the up and down cycles in respect of the price of eggs, to introduce some rationality into the production in that industry and in the end to protect the consumer from fluctuations in the prices of some of these basic commodities. I am looking forward to seeing what this committee will be able to establish, and what advice it will give to the government to resolve this very tough question as to whether, in a free society like ours prices can be controlled, an element can be introduced to slow down inflation when some of these elements are far beyond our control because they are part of an inflationary move-

ment that is taking place outside Canada as well. Today, it seems to me that voluntary self-imposed controls are the ideal answer and that, failing our ability to introduce such controls, we would be hard put to find permanent, satisfactory answers because the experience in other countries where temporary control measures have been introduced has been that once the lid was taken off prices jumped up again and what had been gained during the period of controls was lost in a matter of days.
It seems to me that if we are able to keep inflation below the level of inflation in other countries so as to remain competitive, and if we are able to redistribute the purchasing power to a much greater extent than we have been able to do so far in favour of the low income groups so as to provide them with the purchasing power that they are losing as a result of inflation, we will be making at least some strides in the right direction.
Perhaps this committee will be able to discover that there are certain levels in the distribution chain of food products that are not necessary. Perhaps this committee might discover that an increase in the production of certain staples, certain goods, might have the effect of producing an over-supply that will push down the retail price. I really do not know whether this will be the case, but I do know that there is no easy answer to this question unless we are really prepared to change, perhaps profoundly so, the system which we have.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and wish to assure all hon. members that I, too, share the great concern that has been expressed here by members from all parties in respect of the matter of increased food prices for all Canadians. I can assure you that my concern is certainly no less than that of any other hon. member in this House, but I do believe that it is fortunate that in this resolution we have singled out food prices because it can be well documented that in the whole gamut of cost of living increases food prices is but one of the major components. I think that while this committee which we are proposing to establish may well study increases in food prices, it would auger well for the House to seriously consider the other components that make up the cost of living index.
The committee may very well provide for a critical examination of all the factors that lead to increased food prices, such as production, processing and distribution. But I can assure you, Sir, that I will certainly not hold my breath while the committee comes up with a solution which would immediately relieve the pressures that have built up with respect to the rise in food prices.
It is interesting to note that our friends to the left, the NDP, are quite anxious to support this measure. When a similar joint committee was established in the House in 1966 to report, among other things, on the cost of living, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) stated, as reported at page 8312 of Hansard of September 9, 1966:
But I suggest that the minister's motion is a mere ruse to shelve the problem which faces him, instead of solving it. It seems to me that it cannot be anything else than a political move to seem to be doing something, when in fact referring the subject matter to a
Food Prices Committee
parliamentary committee is doing nothing to deal with the problem of the cost of living.
I think it is rather significant that in 1966 the hon. member for York South had some serious reservations about the impact of the establishment of such a committee. We now find that he and his party are supporting it wholeheartedly. I suggest to you, Sir, that this is just another of their hypocritical approaches in solving some of the major problems that confront this country. Perhaps we could call it another NDP flip-flop.
I suggest to you that the committee will not come up with an absolute solution, an over-all panacea, to mitigate the rising costs in food or the rising cost of living. I think that we should be looking at something more positive to immediately compensate those people who are most seriously affected by the increase in food prices and other living costs. The plain fact of the matter, as has been pointed out by many other speakers here, is that we are in the midst of a very dangerous and rapid inflationary cycle. Of course, it is one of the many failures that has resulted from the inadequacy of this government, and I do not believe that anything is more blatant than this government's economic mismanagement, and particularly the manner in which it has approached the matter of inflation. I do not believe that we can study the increasing cost of food in isolation. I think we have to look at the problem of inflation, the problem of rising costs in every sector of our economy, in a more co-ordinated way.
Certainly, inflation has its detrimental effect on all Canadians, but it is more disastrous and more detrimental to those who are on fixed incomes, to the recipients of old age pensions. Basically, those people are at the bottom of the income scale. But there are others who are affected by the problem of inflation, namely, the primary producers. Farmers have borne the twin effects of inflation and low prices for the goods they produce. There is no other segment of our society that has been hurt more than the producer by the so-called cost-price squeeze. It is quite true that in recent times the prices to farmers have increased, thanks to the world food shortage. We hear from both sides of the House that the prices paid to farmers now are better than they used to be. Better than what, Mr. Speaker?
Are we comparing them with the price slumps of 1969 and 1970? Yes, I agree that prices to primary producers are somewhat better, but we only have to look at world wheat prices as reported in the 1970-71 Wheat Board Report. We noted that the receipts to the producers for wheat were the lowest in ten years. When we look at the prices of other commodities today, as compared those in 1951, we find that there has been only a moderate increase in the price of these products as received by the producer. If we take into consideration the inflationary effect, the devaluation in the purchasing power of the dollar, in essence we have a backward step. In other words, if the income is remaining constant, the purchasing power is much lower. Here I suggest that we look at the realized net income picture for the farming industry. These figures were reported by Statistics Canada.

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
In 1966, realized net farm income was in the order of $1.8 billion. It dropped to $1.2 billion in 1970, a drop of $600 million in a period of four years. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what other segment of society could withstand that sort of drop in net realized income and still remain viable? In 1971, realized net farm income improved to $1.3 billion, and the estimated 1972 figure is something in the order of $1.8 billion or $1.9 billion, which simply returns it to the level established in 1966. Therefore, I suggest that we must be very cautious in examining the whole matter of food prices so that the emphasis will not be placed in the wrong area. The farmer, by and large, takes what he can get for his product. He has no measure of collective bargaining at his disposal. He must take what the buyers will give him for his product. If there is a demand for his product he gets a good price. If there is a surplus of his product he tends to get a lower price.
What did the government do to help the farmer, Mr. Speaker? In 1968, after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office, it lifted the interest ceiling on farm improvement loans and farm credit loans, which at that time was frozen at 5 per cent, and within a year those interest rates rose to 8 3/4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: And $3 wheat now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, $3 wheat now, but the domestic purchaser is not paying $3 per bushel for the wheat he purchases. The mills are paying $1.95 at Thunder Bay. Either we must take steps to subsidize our producers, if we want to achieve and maintain a healthy agricultural industry, or else the consumer must pay more. Immediately on assuming office, the government reduced the initial price of wheat. It removed the premium on the production of hogs, which was something in the order of $10 million. It unilaterally and indiscriminately destroyed the small dairy producers. The government received recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Price of Farm Machinery, but not one of those recommendations has been implemented.
Then we had a Prices and Incomes Commission that was another complete and total failure. It did nothing with respect to narrowing the gap. We had a Prime Minister who in December, 1970, said that inflation was licked. Mr. Speaker, it was licked then simply because there was a war on between the food chains, and also because the producers were getting very low returns for their produce.
What has happened to the cost of in-puts generally? Farm in-puts have risen from an index base of 100 in 1961 to 135.4 in 1971. Farm labour costs, based on 100 in 1961, have risen to 178.2. How has the farmer survived? He has survived simply by increasing his productive capacity. He has increased his productivity by 13 per cent per annum over the past two decades. Meanwhile, the cost of processing and distributing has increased about six times as rapidly as the return to the producer. This is manifested by the fact that in 1971, out of a total Canadian food bill of $7 billion, only 6 per cent of that went to the primary producer. This was a drop of 4 per cent since 1959. If you measure it in constant dollars, you would probably have to deduct a further 35 per cent from that figure. This

simply means that 94 per cent of the consumer's dollar is received by someone other than the primary producer. I suggest that this is ridiculous and must be corrected. If this inquiry is going to be totally objective it will bear this out, and place the welfare of the producer in its proper perspective.
I suggest that the whole inflationary cycle which is upon us at this time is something that the government has failed to correct. I believe that its policies and non-policies have helped to exacerbate the problems of inflation. I know that the food processors and those charged with the distributing of food products are getting the major brunt of the blame in this particular area, but I am sure that they, too, have had their problems with increased costs. This part of the food industry has, in fact experienced a very sharp increase in costs, increased basic costs of labour, of transportation, higher taxes, higher costs of urban land- these have all risen rapidly due to inflationary forces.
Other things which have contributed to higher food costs include an increase in the degree to which foods are processed. Canadians are buying more of their food products in more highly processed forms. There are very few products sold now in their natural, raw state. There is a great deal more prepackaging of foods. Then, there is the matter of increased shopping convenience. As mentioned by other hon. members, there are the huge outlays of money on great shopping malls and supermarkets. Someone must pay for those costs, Mr. Speaker. Who pays? The consumer pays.
I do not think too many members have touched on the matter of imports. A large portion of our food bill is for imported foods. This is something over which we really have very limited control. The prices of foods that we import have risen sharply. We are victimized by high transportation costs. Many of the products imported are of a seasonal variety. Then, there is the matter of tariffs, particularly tariffs on those items that are highly processed.
To put this thing into perspective, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give a few figures. In 1969, for the first time in the history of Canada, we imported $35 million more worth of agricultural products than we exported. That is a shame in a country such as Canada, with its expertise in agricultural production and its ability to produce. We are still importing $1.3 billion worth of agricultural products per annum. As I say, we really do not have too much control over the cost of those products. I suggest that in large part many of those products could be produced in Canada. Instead of discouraging the production of many of these agricultural products, I think we might do well to diversify our production to take in some of the items which we import. At the present time we are encouraging and paying farmers to leave the land and limit production. I believe this is an area that the Department of Agriculture could look at in a positive and rational manner. Many of the items we import we could produce quite effectively at home.
There is a great need for diversification in our agricultural industry. We would do well to promote a healthy, viable agriculture industry by encouraging more diversification. In short, I believe we must maximize our production and we must diversify our production. It is important



also that we take steps to bolster those sectors of our agriculture industry that from time to time may suffer depression. As we have experienced in previous years, if we get a recession in the wheat industry it tends to spread to the hog or livestock industry. This situation must be corrected by government action. I am suggesting here, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Agriculture should look very positively at protecting those sectors of agriculture which depend upon one another.
It seems that the government is bent on maintaining a cheap food policy, but if we are to have that we must have subsidies to the producer. There is no way that we can maintain an effective, healthy and viable agriculture industry unless there is a return for it and we cannot maintain the return unless we get it from someone. That is the decision that we must make. If we do not get it from the consumer, we must get it from the Treasury and that means some kind of subsidization for the producer. Increased labour costs, taxes, increased machinery costs and all the other inputs that producers have been confronted with cannot continue to rise without a corresponding increase in returns to the producer. If we have only an income comparable to the level of 1951, it is unlikely that agriculture can survive as a healthy productive industry.
Another area that needs consideration is that of transportation costs. There are great discrepancies between the rates in the east and the rates in the west, particularly in the area of processed agricultural products.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should examine its own expenditures because they, too, have a very inflationary effect upon the production, distribution and processing of agricultural products. Above all, I think government should refrain from further interference, further regimentation and further regulation of the industry. We have seen much of that in the past four years. Some of the programs thrust upon farmers have been so embossed with red tape that they have been difficult to implement. Less government interference would be welcome. I hope that the committee will take a very constructive approach to the examination of food prices, and I hope it will keep the welfare of the producer in its proper perspective.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can get a couple of thoughts in between now and five o'clock.


John Napier Turner: You will have some trouble.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I will do what I can. Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to carry out this inquiry I hope that consideration of the percentage of the food dollar which goes to the farmer as a return for his labour will be a part of it. If I should have the opportunity to be a member of the committee, or even if I were to sit on the sidelines, I would make sure that the committee concerned itself with the farmers' contribution to the well-being of the Canadian people.
Food Prices Committee
It does not become the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to charge members of this party with hypocrisy because we want an investigation of food prices.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Like myself, he is a prairie man.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You have changed since 1966; that is what I said.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member now qualifies it and says we are not hyprocritical in 1973 but we were in 1966.


Mr. Yewchuk:: You were then and you are now.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I thank the hon. member for Athabasca. He has the courage to stick with what the hon. member for Vegreville said.


Paul Yewchuk: I wish you had the courage to stick with what you said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have a lot of faith in you but not your leader.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member for Vegreville said that we are encouraging farmers to leave the land. I point out to him that the government of Alberta has signed an agreement with the federal Department of Agriculture to carry out what they now call a farm development program. The name has changed; formerly it was the farm adjustment program but the federal government was getting a lot of flak so the name has been changed. I point out to the hon. member for Vegreville that this will progressively eliminate a number of farmers in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: They will get $7 million.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: They will get $7 million. I am always interested when members on that side of the House start to read us a lesson, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are not taking over the land.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If there is anything left after you are through with it, it will be like a plucked chicken; there will only by the pin feathers left. I just want to point out to the gentlemen over here-


An hon. Member:: Gentlemen?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Well, I am a polite man, a courteous man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I will speak to my enemies. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if they want to have a proper investigation conducted, then they should help the House to do it because this is a very serious problem. The Canadian people, like the people in the rest of the world, especially the western world, have believed it their God-given right and their heritage to have an unlimited supply of cheap food available at their door all the time. But it is not necessarily so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this House should take the matter very seriously.

January 22, 1973
Small Business Loans


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the House will proceed to private members' notices of motion as found at page 23 of the order of business for today, but first it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40, to advise 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 Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Air Transport-Northern Canada-Inquiry as to program for installation of improved navigational aids.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Small Businesses Loans Act to increase the maximal amount of a loan thereunder to $75,000.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I discussed this notice of motion before bringing it before the House. We find no real objection to some of the items spelled out in the Small Businesses Loans Act. It first came into force 11 or 12 years ago, in 1961, for an initial period of three years and was subsequently amended to offer a wide range of opportunities for businessmen who wished to borrow money to improve their businesses. They could use such money for the purchase of fixed or movable equipment, the construction of premises or the improvement or modernization of premises. The act defines a small business as one with gross revenues not exceeding $500,000. From this point on, my colleagues and I begin to differ with the act. We feel that the maximum amount of $25,000 for a loan, as at present specified, in no way reflects what is reasonable for businessmen in Canada today. If one were in the construction business, $25,000 would not begin to buy some pieces of equipment; if one were in the manufacturing business, one could not buy

much by way of raw materials for $25,000. In the wholesale business, $25,000 would not even buy you a decent stock of cigarettes, never mind anything else. In the transport business, you could not buy one truck of reasonable size for $25,000.
In my maiden speech in the House, I made a point of saying what I thought of the Industrial Development Bank. Supposedly, it is a court of last resort for businessmen. It operates in the high risk area but, at present, definitely does not fill the needs of businessmen. The bank is far too protective and asks for far too much by way of security for the types of loans it makes. I repeat, its interest rates are usurious, to say the least.
The Small Businesses Loans Act was meant to help smaller businesses, because it was thought smaller loans would be an asset to businessmen of the type I have described. We contend, however, that even in that particular area the Small Businesses Loans Act fails. On looking at the statistics relating to the Small Businesses Loans Act for 1971, we find that were 2,129 loans, amounting to $22.3 million, for an average of $10,460 per loan. Of those, service businesses accounted for 37 per cent, retail for 22 per cent, construction for 14 per cent and manufacturing for 13 per cent. These are exactly the types of businesses that the Industrial Development Bank pretends to service.
We do not quarrel with the percentage of loans made in various provinces. On reading the report one will find that they are spread pretty well across the provinces in proportion to population. The banks which actually administer the loans seem, if one considers their size in relation to that of the community, to grant a reasonable percentage of such loans. We are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if 40 per cent of the maximum is the average criterion in granting loans, the average loans being for $10,500, or approximately 40 per cent of $25,000 allowed as a maximum, that by increasing the maximum to $75,000 loans of a reasonable size could be granted to the business community.
In 1961, the average loan was in the order of $8,500. The increase of $2,000 in ten year to $10,500 in no way, shape or form reflects increases in costs that must be met. I suggest that if one considers true dollar purchasing power, the size of loans has actually gone down, not increased. I suggest that this does not reflect the sort of activity that one might expect from legislation first passed in 1961 and now 12 years old. We suggest that as more people become aware of the existence of this loan program, the size of loans granted would have increased as well.
I know that motions of the type I am presenting are usually talked out by members on the government side. I suggest this to hon. members on the government side: Are there not in their communities, perhaps, businessmen who might need some extra money for their businesses, whether those be manufacturing, retail or service businesses? Are there not businessmen in their ridings who want extra help in putting their businesses together? Or is it that members on the government side do not care whether businessmen in their areas want or need extra help with their businesses?
Members on the opposition side of the House have stated very carefully how they feel about small business and how we ought to proceed if we are to help small
January 22, 1973

business which is the life blood of the Canadian economy. My colleagues and I think that the motion before the House covers the situation pretty well. This is not an attempt to give money away. The motion speaks of loans to businessmen. We are not asking for something for nothing. If indeed this notice of motion is talked out by my colleagues on the other side of the House, then I ask them to promise us that there will be action of some sort by way of a government bill that will do the same job as the motion would seek to do and increase in a reasonable way the amounts of business loans that are available to small businessmen.
If I may repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Industrial Development Bank is not doing its job. The Small Businesses Loans Act could be a tremendous support to small businessmen if they were allowed to borrow reasonable amounts of money. We suggest that the new maximum should be $75,000.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the hon. member for Hastings on his bringing before the House this important motion which, I can assure you, is of concern to several members on this side of the House.
The hon. member mentioned that he wondered whether Liberal members were concerned with the problems of small businessmen. I can assure him of the government's continued concern with this matter and, looking at statistics, we recognize that the present government has undertaken many projects which have been very helpful to small businesses.
He also spoke of the Industrial Development Bank, saying that it did not do a good job. It must nevertheless be recognized that the Industrial Development Bank does achieve something. It is estimated that by 1975 the Industrial Development Bank will have granted total loans in excess of $1 billion. The bank also has branches throughout the country, which are continually expanding. [English]
The government is interested in small businesses, Mr. Speaker. There are such programs of help. I might mention the Industrial Development Bank. There are other programs, as well, that help small businesses. Indeed, one of those coming under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is the PAIT program. Over one third of grants under PAIT were given to companies with annual sales of less than $1 million. They can be characterized as small businesses. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) during his speech on the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the government would undertake a comprehensive study of all assistance to small businesses.
One thing to be studied will be a revision of the Small Businesses Loans Act which is being asked for by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). He mentioned other programs, specifically the CASE program, Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises. A very successful pilot project was initiated by the department. Former business-
Small Business Loans
men and retired businessmen who want to help other small businessmen by counselling them are being employed. The pilot project was initiated in Montreal and has now been extended to Winnipeg. It is the plan of the department to extend the program across the country to other regional offices.
I also wish to mention the Industrial Development Bank. The outstanding loans by 1975 are expected to be in the vicinity of $1 billion. The Industrial Development Bank has 46 branches across the country. In the past few years, it initiated a financial advice program whereby applicants and people who received loans were visited.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are bankrupt by the time you receive a loan.


Herb Breau: I did not hear the hon. member's interjection. If I had, I would respond to it.


Mr. Leiebvre:: He said he does not need a loan.


Herb Breau: That is good. Most of the business conducted by the Industrial Development Bank is small business. It has been increasing by 20 per cent yearly. This indicates that it must be doing some good.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard about your speech.


Herb Breau: I am glad the hon. member read that very good speech.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I said I heard about it.


Herb Breau: I wish he would advise his colleagues to read it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard about it, but I did not believe it.


Herb Breau: That is too bad. When the business of a bank or organization increases by 20 per cent yearly, it indicates that businessmen across this country are using it. In the case of the IDB, it is mainly used by small businessmen. I have been involved in small business. There is no way I would be satisfied with any government program to help businessmen, regardless of whether the hon. member's party were in power or any other party.


Mr. Paproski:: How do you know? Try us.


Herb Breau: The people tried your party a few years back. It did not take them long to change their mind. When dealing with small businessmen, you do not necessarily satisfy them by only increasing the ceilings on loans or by making more money available to them. While government programs can improve a situation, many small businessmen may need counselling. They might not be able to afford proper marketing advice. They may not be able to afford proper counselling. This is one area being looked into by the government through the CASE program. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce wants to extend this program across the country because it might be very helpful to small businessmen.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why is it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that private members hour

Small Business Loans
should not become an instrument for debate across the floor of the House. The hon. member who has the floor should be given an opportunity to complete his speech.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I certainly accept Your Honour's ruling. I hope Your Honour and hon. members listening to this very interesting and sometimes believable speech, will forgive my interjections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I thank the hon. member, but I was not referring only to him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was the only one talking, Sir.


John Napier Turner: You just want to show that you are here this week.


Herb Breau: The hon. member felt Your Honour was speaking about him. I will conclude my speech in order to give other members an opportunity to speak.
Another way in which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is trying to help small businessmen is by further expanding the service offered in regional offices by trying to co-ordinate all government information that can be of assistance to small businessmen, whether it be under DREE, PAIT, the IDB or any other program. When a small businessman goes to the regional office of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he will not be frustrated by being sent to another office. All information with regard to the IDB, including government and other financing, might be integrated.
These are some areas which the government is now considering. I sincerely hope that it will not take too long to complete these studies. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is also studying ways to amend the GAAP program to make it applicable to manufacturing industries or services that are involved in increased costs of goods manufactured for export. This measure will also help small businessmen because many of these manufacturing firms are small businesses.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subject of small business because I believe it is an area of substantial strength in our economy and it offers perhaps the greatest potential for growth. I, therefore, thank the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for bringing this matter to our attention. This is also an area in which I have had some experience, going through the incubation stage of a business, struggling through growth and seeing it mature. All of these are difficult stages, as only one who has been through them can really understand.
First, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) said in the throne speech debate, some 60 per cent of all employed Canadians work for enterprises which can be categorized as small businesses. They account for some 30 per cent of our gross national product or $31 billion in some 350,000 enterprises.
Second, and quite important, all large businesses were once small. It is too bad the hon. member who raised this motion said that this side of the House is not interested in this subject. His few words represented a peanut type approach that did not amount to anything more than the other two suggestions. I heard from the oppostion about
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
small-thinking programs. The hon. member has left the chamber. I question whether he is really interested in small business.
Third, most small businesses are Canadian owned. Their growth offers real hope of Canadian ownership of our economy in the future in a non-restrictive, non-punitive and very positive way. In addition, small businesses offer opportunity and challenge for Canadian entrepreneurs, and help sustain bigger business both as a customer and supplier. This type of business helps small communities and contributes to the alleviation of regional economic disparities, as well as assuring competition in both products and prices. Such businesses are generally labour intensive and usually quite efficient. Very importantly, they are highly innovative, flexible and rapidly responsive to change or market conditions. Because they are less capital intensive, they can respond quickly to the stimulus of invested capital.
The question is, how can government help small business? I have had several thoughts based on my own experience, but in order to get a broader approach I have been meeting and working with a diverse group from the private sector over the past several months. In this process we met with the present and former ministers of industry, trade and commerce as well as their senior officials, and we also went to Washington to discuss the approach of the small businesses administration in the United States where we were warmly received by its chief, Mr. Tom Kleppe, and his advisers.
There is no one simple solution. It requires a multifaceted approach to respond to a variety of situations. In developing such a response I am indebted to a group that includes management consultants, venture capitalists, bankers, men who operate their own small and mediumsized businesses, and men such as John Bullock and John Earle of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. While I do not suggest that all of my views are theirs, their input has been invaluable, as has been the work of OECD and experience in other developed nations. In most cases, the cost to government is minimal. Indeed, when one considers the return to the economy and treasury, the gains are substantial.
The Small Business Administration in the United States operates on the principle of no giveaways. There are loans and guarantees, but they calculate that through proper programs they have created one new job for each $1,500, not in costs but in loans or guarantees. The direct losses are minimal, and if we are really to move in this direction, we should be prepared for an acceptable loss ratio. In the United States, the programs with the greatest losses have losses under 5 per cent, and most are well under this.
To really be of help, we have to make a commitment to be seriously and energetically interested in small business, as the hon. member for Hastings urges. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has taken a very significant step in announcing one stop service when dealing with government and, very importantly, decentralizing this service across the country, as the parliamentary secretary has just said. There is nothing more frustrating to the small businessman, usually wearing a
January 22, 1973

number of management hats, than to come to Ottawa trying to find the right man in the right department and leaving with a sheaf of applications in his hand. If he has time to fill them out, he does not have time to wait until they filter through the bureaucracy. When any legislation is passed, the interests of the small businessman and the impact of that legislation upon him must be considered.
Government itself must back up its commitment by directing an appropriate percentage of all government purchases to qualified small business. In addition, it must insist that all government business given to major contractors or vendors carries the stipulation that a given percentage of subcontracts or purchases come from small business. The Americans call this their "set aside program" and it has resulted in surprising new sources and savings as a consequence of shopping around for small suppliers, rather than taking the path of least resistance and going only to the other "big boys" they know so well. The impetus that this has given to smaller enterprises and the economy as a whole is incalculable.
There should also be national and regional advisory groups to government, largely comprised of small business representatives. They can offer valuable guidance to government, help tailor programs more closely to their needs, co-ordinate government efforts in the private sector, and generally work in partnership rather than in frustration or with a lesser impact than the potential of many excellent government programs.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business proposes an entrepreneurial council to carry out many of these roles and to actively seek out Canadian manufacturers to match many imports of products or components to existing or potential Canadian manufacturing facilities, establishing continuing mechanisms to maintain this coordination. Of vital importance-I am sorry that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has left the chamber-is revising our sales tax regulations so they work to the benefit of the Canadian manufacturers as opposed to imported goods, as is often the case today.
The management programs already functioning and being expanded substantially are of considerable value, as proper management techniques are critical, often more critical than capital, to many small businessmen whose drive, expertise and experience can often be dissipated by inadequate management procedures.
But capital is also vitally important. The IDB has been eminently successful in responding to much of this need and I welcome the minister's announcement that this highly successful, and increasingly aggressive agency is reviewing its role so that its experience and expertise can be put to even greater use. I share the hon. member's frustrations regarding the IDB, though I thought he was a little unfair in his remarks in the throne speech debate. I felt that way when I came here and, after going into the matter further, I am certainly satisfied that it deserves a better look. Perhaps things will improve as a result of my speech.
The Small Businesses Loans Act that this motion is specifically directed to should also be amended substantially to make it more relevant to today's realities. This must mean considerably higher limits. The hon. member suggested $75,000; I prepared these remarks for the
Small Business Loans
throne speech debate and was unable to get on, but I suggest a minimum of $100,000 and interest rates that will be competitive in attracting the necessary capital. The banks just will not go along with low rates, simply because they are unrealistic.
However-and this goes to the essence of the point contained in the hon. member's motion-this may not be necessary in view of the announcement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of a greatly expanded role for the general adjustment assistance plan, called GAAP. This, when available to all or to most businesses, may be even more effective, particularly when it already has its own administration and board. A similar program under the small businesses administration in the United States is its major program with $1J billion guaranteed last year, which amount is to be increased to $1.5 billion this year, and with a loss ratio of some 3.5 per cent. I think in crowing about high risk areas with a satisfactory profit picture we should also be prepared to accept a satisfactory loss ratio.
Another very interesting program of the small businesses administration of the United States is the small business investment company program. This program borrows money from conventional money markets, taking advantage of vast capital pools from insurance companies, mutual funds, foundation and pension funds, the latter a particularly fast growing source in Canada due to the requirement of our tax reform that 90 per cent of the assets of such bodies be invested in Canada. This is a good investment at a low but attractive rate due to the government guarantee. This money, then, is loaned to the SBIC, the Small Business Investment Corporation, at a rate of 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent additional, the current rate running at approximately 6.9 per cent. So it is not actually government money; it is merely the use of government guarantees.
The SBIC is a licensed venture capital company with good management experience and a good track record. For every dollar the SBIC invests of its own, the small businesses administration will lend up to $3. This is longer term money, lent over 15 to 20 years.
Since the term "venture capital" implies risk taking, this company usually gets involved in high potential and relatively high risk ventures, the kind which, when they do pay off, really add to the economy significantly. The losers generally show up early and the winners often take a long time coming. You have to hang tough with this sort of thing and be prepared for some losses in the early days. This fact has scared off the conventional money lenders, but there is a commitment to the program from good venture capital investors. I do not say that all of them are good, but many are.
In its initial stages, this program in the United States got off to a bad start as it was too loosely structured and monitored, if it was monitored at all. The number of licensed SBIC's in the United States has been reduced from 800 to some 300 effective organizations, and more consistently positive results are emerging. The speculator, the inefficient, the inexperienced have all been weeded out, and some of the vultures, too. They have tended to get in on the act and some very undesirable things happened, but as I say they have now been monitored out, largely as

January 22, 1973
Small Business Loans
a result of the action of Tom Kleppe, the administrator over the last 18 months or so who has done a magnificent job. The whole thing has been a stimulating experience.
We are in a position to benefit from this experience and to adapt it to our own needs and know-how. Regionally established SBIC's in Canada could have an invigorating effect particularly on the economies of our disadvantaged regions and provide very real opportunities.
I suspect that in many parts of the country where their economies are based on fishing, forestry and other resource industries there is much talent but limited opportunity. Who could better see the opportunities, know the people and the markets than the businessmen in those areas, men who have a feel for the region and its potential who with adequate resources plus their skill and instinct can help the local people in new enterprises, with their attendant jobs, to get off the ground much faster and more economically than government agencies at all levels no matter how skilled and dedicated are our public servants. After all, local businessmen have their own money at stake too.
Without delaying action in the area of small business, I believe we should try to learn a great deal more about small business. It is surprising how little really reliable information on small businesses is available in this country. I would think that in more tranquil political times we could have the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs conduct a study in this area. In addition to this, however, an organization such as the conference board in Canada, under the direction of one of Canada's most distinguised economists, Dr. Arthur Smith, could and should undertake such a task. This could be done by a similar group with the professional expertise and research facilities necessary.
May I say that in thinking of business we have been inclined to place emphasis on manufacturing and exporting, both vital, but I believe we should give parallel attention to the rapidly growing and labour-intensive service sector. Some 40 per cent of our gross national product comes from that sector today, without counting government at all levels which would bring it up to about 70 per cent. With growing automation and sophistication and increasing leisure time, it will afford our greatest areas of opportunity, most of which cannot be replaced by imports. It can however, be foreign-owned. Indeed, the chances are that it will be if we do not nurture and encourage it in a Canadian context.
In this respect, I am pleased with the announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) of increased assistance to the tourist industry; but that is only part of it. This is only highlighting a subject which deserves the very high priority it now appears to be getting from this government and I look forward to greater elaboration of the policies already announced and those yet to come in the budget. This priority attention must be sustained. In this respect I am happy to note the administrative changes in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with two assistant deputy ministers so that one can concentrate on domestic industry and one on exports. This might bring a

closer identity in each of these areas which existed before the department of industry and the department of trade and commerce were merged.
Frankly, I believe that the merger was a mistake because it reduced the political contact between the business community and the cabinet. Though the former minister and the present minister are men of outstanding ability and capacity, their concerns are about exports and trade agreements and it is very difficult for them to spread themselves so thinly. I think there are other able ministers in the cabinet today who are perhaps underutilized and who could go into the departments in an associate capacity and serve in the area of liaison with the private sector. This is something that would give added assistance to the small business area. The important thing is tne recognition of small business, its importance to the economy and its potential for future development in a Canadian context. We must commit ourselves to its success and give Canadian businessmen and women of imagination and enterprise a fighting chance of survival over what are frequently overwhelming odds.
Having been through this, Mr. Speaker, there are three stages in starting a business. The first is that you must have the guts to leave your job and start. Nobody really thinks you can make it except you. You go to the bank for a little help but the banker thinks you are crazy and should have stayed at your own job. You are too involved and confused to worry about reports, returns on investment, deliveries and so forth.
Next is the adolescent stage when you are determined you can be successful. You may have a couple of people helping you, such as a girl in the office and a shipper in the shipping room, or another salesman. But you need extra capital, perhaps in the range of $50,000. The banks are not interested in talking to you; they are interested in sales projections, cash flows and such things. If you are fortunate enough to obtain the money, not that you really need it to stay in business, then you have the confidence that it gives you to invest in new people, new projects and new schemes.
Then we come to the third stage, not the final stage, which I have always called the menopause stage in business when you really develop and become a success. You may have reached the limits of your own managerial capacity although you may have had a great deal of difficulty. You are balancing your receivables against your payables and deliveries, and you have the bank manager on your back and your wife on your back because she wonders why you are working 60 or 80 hours a week. This gets pretty trying.
Then somebody in a similar business comes along, perhaps from Milwaukee or somewhere else and says, "Barney, how is business?" You say it is great, but you haven't the necessary cash flow and nobody is interested in giving you the money. He then says, "You don't have to worry any more; I can give you the $250,000", $500,000 or whatever it is. "We will give you a salary of $25,000," $35,000 or $50,000 "a year under a ten-year contract and 10 per cent of the profits". You haven't drawn a nickel in profit from your business in all this time and you think you are nuts not to accept the man's offer. As a result, the business is lost to Canada. The entrepreneur has made a good capital
January 22, 1973

s
gain-although that is taxable now, and that is fair enough. He is on easy street. He is relatively independent and in most cases he establishes his estate, a high standard of living and never really has to worry. But the business is lost to Canada.
I suggest that we give this matter the attention it requires and really get involved by giving the small businessman a fighting chance. I think we can do this by making a firm commitment and taking a proper approach. If we help maintain small business as Canadian business, it will not only be good for the total economy of this country but we will find our economy more and more Canadian owned.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for North York a question?


Barnett Jerome Danson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the constituency is York North.


John Raymond Ellis: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: May I say that the hon. member across the way has made a delightful speech. If I understand correctly that he is in favour of this suggestion, will he impose his will on his colleagues to see if we can stop them from talking and bring this matter to a vote before six o'clock?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite strongly about this matter and might like to see the amount increased to $100,000. I am pretty satisfied, and this is why I have reservations, with the extension of GAAP as mentioned in the throne speech and by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but my suggestion is that we could do much better. I am not enthusiastic about the small businesses loans program. If we were to have it in isolation and there was nothing else coming along, I would be agreeable. But I think we have much more flexibility with the extension of GAAP which was set up initially to take advantage of the Kennedy round agreement and is available to a broad sector of Canadian industry including the service sector. Without imposing limits I think it would be good, but I believe we could get something much better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Hon. members look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to private members' hour. I suggest this is a perfect example of how hon. members can waste this limited time for private members by rising on points of order which require replies.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, being a new member this is the first time I have spoken in this House. I have listened with admiration to the remarks made to you and your deputies by hon. members. The courtesy you have shown to new members of all parties is proof to me that you are deserving of the numerous tributes paid to you by hon. members and I am pleased to join them in those tributes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Small Business Loans


William James Kempling: It is an honour for me to speak in support of the motion presented by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). The motion asks that the government consider increasing the maximum loan available under the Small Businesses Loans Act from $25,000 to $75,000.
I am an operator of a small business and I know all the frustrations that face small businessmen. I also know what this increase will mean to thousands of people classed as small businessmen in Canada today. When you examine the sources of funds available to the small businessman you see the dilemma he faces. The chartered banks are in the retail credit business, automobile financing, residential mortgages and numerous other fields heretofore occupied by others. Each time the chartered banks enter a new field, the amount of money available to the small businessman diminishes. They will tell you this is not the case, but when one applies for a loan that is what one learns really is the situation.
For a moment let us consider the small businessman. He is a merchant, a small manufacturer, an agent or one of the thousands engaged in that broad category called the service industry. We have heard from previous speakers that these people are the largest employers in Canada. Collectively they have the capacity to significantly aid in the reduction of unemployment in Canada. Small businesses rarely lay off their staff during economic slowdowns. They are flexible and can expand rapidly when required. They are the stabilizing force in most communities and collectively import tremendous stability to the economy of Canada.
The single most pressing need is for funds to update or expand their businesses. To remain healthy they must keep abreast of the market in which they compete. Today's small businesses are the large businesses of tomorrow. They are almost 100 per cent Canadian-owned and operated. We should keep that in mind. We are discussing at some levels in this House foreign ownership policy and a screening board. Here we have Canadian-owned and operated businesses in need of assistance in the form of repayable loans at reasonable rates of interest. They do not seek grants or subsidies or floor prices. They only seek adequate funds to operate their businesses as only they know best.
Various other federal and provincial agencies do not normally have programs for businesses of the type I have mentioned. Probably the most significant move we can make is to help them by increasing the ceiling on loans available under the Small Businesses Loans Act from $25,000 to $75,000. I urge hon. members to adopt this motion.
I do not wish to speak very much about the IDB. I have done business with that agency and I know the situation. I understand the frustration in this area and the situation in respect of the interest rate at 11 per cent or 12 per cent, which is 3 per cent above that of the commercial banks whose rate was 9 per cent. I know what the IDB is all about. I can tell hon. members that the average small businessman does not want to deal with any government agency because of the red tape involved.

January 22, 1973
Small Business Loans
The businessmen with whom I am associated are probably the last persons who would go to a government agency for advice in respect of their businesses. When I hear about the offices which are to be opened for the purpose of advising businessmen, I shudder. I shall not say much about the CASE program because I am not very well informed in respect of it. However, as a practising businessman the last thing I would do would be to go to a government agency and ask for advice on how to run my business.
I think the most useful thing we can do to help the small businessman is to increase the ceiling on loans under this program from $25,000 to $75,000. I therefore urge hon. members to adopt this motion.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Has the hon. member the permission of the House to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) understands that the program suggested by the parliamentary secretary, and previously by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is not in respect of people seeking advice from the government. I am sure the hon. member realizes that there is a myriad of government programs and that one can come to Ottawa and spend considerable time looking for the right people. This is an effort to co-ordinate the channels here so that someone will help them tiptoe through the tulips. I should like to ask the hon. member if that is an acceptable role for these regional offices in helping with programs such as PAIT, IRDIA and GAAP, as well as numerous other quite good programs of the government.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member let me say that most of the businessmen I speak with wish to have as few dealings as possible with the government. They do not want to be bothered with it; they do not want the involvement, they do not want the forms, they do not want the IDB or any of the red tape. They just want to run their businesses and build on what they have. If the government would keep off their backs it would be doing them a great favour. If the government would just let them have the money and let the banks administer it under this program, it would be doing them a great favour. But it should not become involved in the ins and outs of tiptoeing through the tulips because, quite frankly, they are businessmen and not horticulturists.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Should programs such as PAIT, IRDIA and GAAP, as well as various other programs that assist small and large business, be scrapped?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think perhaps we are entering into a debate.


Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, tonight it is with great pleasure that I take the floor for the first time since the

opening of this 29th Parliament. I should like to congratulate the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Messrs. McCleave, Laniel; and Boulanger); I think that they perform exceptionally well in the House, granting to all hon. members the consideration they deserve, reflecting the confidence they have obtained from the electorate in their own constituencies.
Tonight, we are debating a notice of motion for raising to $75,000 the ceiling on loans available to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I think that we should consider the problem in a much more comprehensive and general manner. At present, there are two ways of obtaining credit from the federal government for the small and medium businesses. First, there are the small business loans granted through the Industrial Development Bank. In my opinion, the hon. member for Hasting (Mr. Ellis) has well covered the matter of increasing the maximum amount of such loans, but I believe he ignored very important factors.
As concerns the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), he insisted mainly on the important role being assumed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning assistance bo businesses in general, and I believe that he too has discussed that role quite well, though very briefly.
The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) no doubt had worked somewhat harder on the speech he was to deliver in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, but I believe that he dealt here with almost all the important points to be considered.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has underlined some weaknesses to be found in the current administration of such legislation.
Although I have been parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance for a few weeks only perhaps I might put forward some ideas on the subject.
In my opinion, the most important thing that we should consider is a complete revision of both programs. If we could find some means of combining and integrating those two programs into a single one perhaps we might partly solve our problem in view of the fact that in our modern world of 1973 it is very difficult to distinguish small businesses from medium-size businesses. I think that a turnover of $500,000 does not mean anything today nor does a maximum loan of $75,000.
The Speech from the Throne stated that great importance should be given to the medium-size businesses and the people who operate them. And what makes me rather optimistic in this connection is that the medium-size or small business is the most important source of employment for people 45 or over and most often not unskilled.
Having worked for a business firm I know from experience that the facts mentioned by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth are true to a certain extent. It is quite difficult for a medium-size business to have dealings with a government agency. In my opinion, this is not a flaw in the legislation but rather a gap in administration and personnel which in some cases should be filled.
January 22, 1973

Each week I receive a number of people 45 years old or over looking for a job. Big businesses and even government services find it very difficult to employ those people. And when they succeed in finding a job it is most often with a small or medium-size business.
While reviewing those pieces of legislation, I believe we should keep in mind the part played by average enterprises in the Canadian economy by providing work for these people who could not find work otherwise.
It was emphasized a while ago that small enterprises always managed to keep their employees twelve months a year because of their flexibility and ability to adjust to all circumstances.
I believe we should find some way of assisting, through grants, enterprises specializing to a certain extent in the employment of people who would otherwise be at grips with great financial difficulties and would probably have to rely one day or another on welfare benefits.
I believe it would be much more profitable for all governments at the federal or provincial level to subsidize employment rather than unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, the object of the notice of motion moved tonight is merely to increase the maximum of a loan from $25,000 to $75,000, which is entirely inadequate since it does not meet with current problems. The hon. member for York North dared mention the amount of $100,000: I for one cannot see why limits would be set when an application is justified.
If we make a quick review of the aims-


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, on a noint of order.


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


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, if the hon. member who has the floor now is in favour of this notice of motion, he could perhaps shorten his statement so that we can vote on the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, in view of his long experience in this House, knows very well that he cannot rise on a point of order in that case.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I am not so much in favour of this notice of motion; I say so because it is not comprehensive and it covers only one very limited side of the problem.
This time, the Speech of the Throne seems to be approved by all opposition parties. Some people say it draws inspiration from the programs of different parties. However, one can find in the Speech of the Throne this importance given to the middle businessman, importance that will be granted to him in a more practiced way within the weeks to come.
I know perfectly well that the Department of Finance is carrying out a study of the reform of these programs. Indeed I suggest that all governments continuously review programs of assistance to business as a whole.
As to the Small Businesses Loans Act, I am quite confident that in the coming weeks the committee will hand its
Food Prices Committee
report to the department and that before long the minister will announce new policies in that regard.
I should like to come back to the point raised by the hon. member for Hastings regarding the Small Businesses Loans Act and remind him that those loans are only complementary to all other sources of credit available from various private institutions. A small business will call on the government to obtain a loan under that act only when it cannot obtain loans at satisfactory terms.
Such loans are generally made for periods of up to ten years, but I think that all this-


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is saying that the only time one can turn to the Small Businesses Loans Act is when you cannot obtain funds anywhere else. That is not the case. It is the case with the Industrial Development Bank, but not with the Small Businesses Loans Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. This is a point of debate.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say is that as a rule small businesses go to banks to obtain a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act only when they are experiencing difficulties, and I am talking from experience. Indeed, as the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth said a while ago, people are generally somewhat hesitant to go to provincial or federal agencies to obtain a loan.
Mr. Speaker, judging from the Speech from the Throne, I think the hon. minister of Finance will be introducing concrete measures in his budget speech and the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) will be announcing new legislation to help those various businesses across Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.


[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 committee of this House be appointed to enquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in
[Stage Direction]
January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
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 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 the amendment of Mr. McGrath (p. 477), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harney (p. 478).
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been negotiations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there has been negotiation and agreement among the various parties to defer the vote on the amendment today, and if there is to be a vote of the House it should be tomorrow after the oral question period. I believe there is agreement to do that, and also that the votes be taken on any other amendments at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that is correct, Mr. Speaker. There are a very large number of hon. members who because of the inclement weather have been unable to arrive here, and we certainly do not want to deprive them of their votes. Sometimes undue prominence is given to the fact that the number of those who vote is not as large as it might be, if the reason is not made plain. We are quite agreeable to this plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, our position is substantially the same. We are not happy about postponing votes on amendments that are before the House, because we feel that generally the rule is correct that one issue should be cleared up before we deal with another one. But for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) we think it would be appropriate not to have any votes this evening but, rather, to have the House order that there be recorded votes at the beginning of government business tomorrow on the amendment and the subamendment now before the House and on any other amendments that might be moved between now and the end of this debate at ten o'clock this evening.
I might say that my friend, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), has the floor on the subamendment that is before the House, but once this discussion is over I think you will find that his remarks, as usual, will be brief and to the point.


Gerald William Baldwin: That will be a change.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The Actine Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) does not appreciate the very kind words which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said about me. I thought everyone in the House appreciated my brilliance.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was talking about your brevity; that is a different thing.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Before the debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was answering a few of the points that had been made by the party to my right, and now I would like to make one or two further points. Some opposition was expressed to the point of view put forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that food in this country was a bargain for Canadians. It certainly is so far as the farmer-producer is concerned. Someone said there would be long, cold months ahead for those on fixed incomes. This will depend upon how high or how low the incomes are fixed. For those who are comparatively well-to-do it is not a great problem. For those who are not in that position it creates an almost insurmountable problem. I hope that as a result of this proposed investigation we will arrive at some procedures or proposals to make food more readily available to those who are on limited incomes.
As has been pointed out by other hon. members, previous investigations and studies of food prices have been conducted in Canada. I would point out that in a relatively short time in terms of history, practically in one person's lifetime, there has been great change in farm practice and in the distribution and marketing of food. We have moved from subsistence to commercial farming.
There was a time when the consumer and the farmer met face to face over the sale of practically all farm products. Indeed, that can still happen here in Ottawa; consumers can still go to the Bytown market and buy flowers and vegetables directly from the growers. But that is the exception to the general rule. Over the years we have moved progressively to separate the consumer from the producer. This has proven to be a very expensive operation. It has cost both parties a great deal, and it is a continuing cost.
Recently the Manitoba department of agriculture began to publish the differences in retail and farm prices. A good example is eggs. A recent release states:
Traditionally, Winnipeg and Montreal have shared the dubious honour of having the largest spread between farm and retail prices for eggs, namely, 22 cents per dozen. By comparison, the average spread between farm and retail in Toronto has been 15 cents per dozen and in Regina 18 cents per dozen.
Nobody can really do very much about packaging an egg once the hen has laid it. About all that people in the chain from the producer to the consumer can do is wash it, put it in a carton and see that it gets on a shelf. For this the charge has been 22 cents a dozen in some Canadian cities. We should ask ourselves why this situation has taken place and why there is this wide difference in price. We often hear the story, "The consumer wants this kind of package. The consumer wants this done and that done." That really is not the whole story by a long shot. I have watched much of it unfold. Departments of agriculture

have played a role in it. University extension departments have played an important role; they have said, "There has to be better quality. We have to look after the quality of eggs, pork, broilers and turkeys."
Mr. Speaker, upon examination it will be found that at least 50 per cent of the changes that have taken place to ensure quality and conformity of the product were not to please the purchaser or producer but, rather, were an effort to develop a product that would move uniformly through the processes of packaging, evisceration or counter display in the stores. The changes were designed to facilitate these steps and make it easier for the processor or retailer to reap a larger profit with less trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That was the reason for a good many of the changes. In many cases the benefit to the consumer was incidental, and in other cases it was the farmer who paid the price of the new regulations or controls. The dairy industry is a glaring example of this; it was so nearly run into the ground that the Canadian Dairy Commission had to be established in order to regulate it. If it were not for the commission, milk production would not have met the needs of the people of Canada. Indeed, even now cream producers have not been able to meet our needs because of these harsh regulations and for the last three years we have had to import butter, as we will again this year.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture said in the House that he faced this situation with equanimity, that our position is quite good. This country is one of the richest in agricultural resources of any western nation, yet the Minister of Agriculture is happy because we are not producing enough butter to look after our own people! This situation has developed at the expense of the farmer and the consumer and, in the process, control of some sectors of our agricultural industry has been turned over to multinational corporations whose concern for the consumer or producer is non-existent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As we know, the Kraft Company has moved from thirty-second place to twenty-eighth place in the list of the largest corporations in North America. Last year its profits amounted to over $82 million. It operates in many countries of the world. Last summer the Standing Committee on Agriculture was trying to find out why at least one cheese factory, and perhaps more, could not get enough milk to manufacture cheese, and to this end had the dairy council appear before it. That factory had to close down, but at the same time the price of cheese to the consumer skyrocketed. This is part of the control process in our society with relation to the distribution of food.
A few years ago we had a surplus of grain, but not now. Some things should be realized when we tackle this question of food prices. The first is that the days of cheap land in Canada for agricultural purposes have just about come to an end, and the days of cheap labour are also coming to an end. This House can calculate what this will mean in relation to the question of cheap food. This year there is a world shortage of grain, especially rice. In some cases this
Food Prices Committee
has been the result of drought or flood in the rice producing regions, so we cannot continue to count on this bounty. Mr. Speaker, we will have to conserve our land and protect the people who farm it, otherwise the price of careless exploitation of the people or the land will be much higher than this society can afford.
If the standing committee which we are proposing can bring this one fact of life home to the Canadian people, then it will have accomplished something. If at the same time it can inform the consumers of Canada where the excess costs of food lie, that will be another very important contribution. Perhaps we can also cut down some of the barriers between consumer and producer both in terms of price and content. If we can do this, Mr. Speaker, we will have accomplished something.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made this day, the recorded division on the subamendment is deferred, to be taken tomorrow immediately after government orders are entered upon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had in this parliament to speak in any debate. I should like to make my opening remarks quite brief and incorporate all the nice things that have been said about you, just adding one of my own. Not only are you most fair, Sir, but I think what makes you an able Speaker is your ability to read human behaviour and your sense of humour which can keep the House on an even keel at times-even when the person speaking happens to be the member for Calgary North.
We are again debating the motion to set up a special committee dealing with food prices. The first paragraph of the motion asks:
That a special committee of this House 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-
Pursuant to another amendment passed, the other place has been deleted from membership on the committee. I intend to begin my remarks by saying that I propose at the end of my speech to move a further amendment which will reduce the number on this committee from 20 to 19. I intend to move that the figure "20" in the first line of the second paragraph be deleted and that the figure "19" be substituted therefor. My reason for moving the amendment is that in accordance with established prece-

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
dent in this parliament there ought to be on all standing committees of the House eight government supporters, eight members from my party, two from the New Democratic Party and one from the other party, making a total of 19. I do not see why more than 19 should serve on this committee-this is the case with the supplementary estimate committee-and I think other hon. members will agree with me.
I shall now direct my remarks to the question of the price of food and other costs. Before doing so, I endorse fully the remarks made by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) regarding this committee. Certainly, I am prepared to see a committee of the House investigate high food prices. These prices have been going up and up. Between 1968 and 1972 they ran wild. We discussed this question during the election; it was one of the main election issues and I am happy to see that it has come before the House. But I am shocked, as a Member of this Parliament, that at this time, in view of the terrible shape the economy of this country is in, we should now be debating the setting up of a committee which at some time in the future will come up with some suggestions.
This reminds me of what the leader of the Creditiste party said; the government spent many millions of dollars on the B and B Commission to come to the conclusion that one part of the country speaks French and the other English. That commission cost $16 million. I say, when speaking about this committee, let us get down to brass tacks otherwise this committee is a sham. It is a farce, and shocks me. I was on the hustings, Mr. Speaker, and heard what many members of the NDP said about the government. They said it was doing nothing to cure inflation. According to some to them-and I agree-we are in worse shape now with regard to inflation than any other western nation. We have done nothing in the past four years to control it. Yet members of the NDP are now carrying this farce too far and behaving as if they were part of the government. That I find most shocking.
I should like the committee to look not only at food costs but at other costs, including shelter. The costs of shelter have risen by 60 per cent in the last short while. This affects drastically the wage earner, the pensioner, the man on fixed income, even the small businessman, because all need shelter. I do not think we need be concerned about food costs so much as about what our dollar will purchase. Money has become so inflated that people are not able to purchase as much food and shelter with their money as they could four years ago. That is the question we must study. What has happened to reduce the purchasing power of the dollar? In that regard we ought to discuss the government's position on taxation.
In the previous parliament-it is opportune to bring this to the attention of the House at this time because the committee should consider food costs and costs of shelter-a white paper on taxation was introduced. It was considered by a committee of this House for a considerable time. Then when the whole business was over, what was the result? The average, middle-income Canadian paid the highest amount he has ever paid in personal income tax. I do not have the figures before me relating to United States taxpayers; however, they pay less than the

taxpayers of this country. As I said, we pay higher taxes than ever. The government is taxing the farmer, the processor, the wholesaler, the retailer and, finally, the consumer. The few dollars left in his pay envelope will not stretch far enough so that he can afford the necessary groceries and shelter that his family needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is the problem. This government, by introducing its policy of high taxation in the last four years, has brought about the erosion of the dollar. It has aggravated the situation by permitting inflation which has been brought about through its taxation policies and its spending policies. I wish we could bring the estimates back before this House. This government has squandered millions of dollars. That, together with its policy of high taxation, has brought about inflation in the country. That is why we are debating the setting up of this committee, which I do not think will bring about any solution. By the time it reports, as hon. members know, inflation will have reached a new plateau and our people will be even shorter of cash. That is the situation.
I now want to talk about shelter costs and discuss what this government has done. Not long ago the then deputy prime minister of this country resigned. I am referring to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). He left the treasury benches because he could no longer go along with the economic policies of the government. That is why he resigned, Mr. Speaker. Today he is sitting on my side of the House. As I say, he resigned because he could no longer endorse economic policies which brought to this nation the highest rate of inflation among western nations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was the main issue in the election. An article I hold in my hand is headlined, "Housing in Toronto is 'major social tragedy' ". The article reads.
ness than 4 per cent of Toronto wage earners can afford a new home, says a study by the Urban Development Institute which calls the city's housing situation a major social tragedy.
The study, released Wednesday, warns that 'unless drastic action is taken immediately, this situation will become more desperate.'
The institute's figures are based on a comparison of 1961 and 1971 incomes.
I am about to illustrate the magnitude of our inflationary problem. In 1961 when my party was in office an annual wage of $5,284 was enough to buy a house. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would lend a man earning such a salary enough money to obtain a mortgage, or would back a mortgage. So a man could buy a house if he earned a little over $5,000. In 1973, in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal or any other major centre, a person needs an income of $16,623 before he can qualify for a mortgage through CMHC. These are facts. This is inflation.
How did we reach this situation? In other words, why did the hon. member for Trinity resign from the government party? It will be remembered that the government had set up a task force on housing and then, when the hon. member brought in recommendations, refused to act

on them. At present the minister responsible for urban affairs is attending a conference. He said in a recent speech that the government will set aside $500 million for setting up a land bank. The acquisition will be spread over five years, which boils down to $100 million per year.
C. D. Howe once asked, "What's a million?". Perhaps I should ask this government, what is $100 million today in considering its land bank policy? If you took 640 acres in the north of Toronto and divided it up at ten lots to the acre, how much would you accomplish? Add another half section of land, making a total of 960 acres, divided that up, and how much would you accomplish? How much land do you think you can buy for $100 million surrounding one city, Toronto? Why, that amount would not be enough to buy the land for a Toronto development. So the whole thing is a sham.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am under the impression that we are discussing food prices. The hon. member has not yet mentioned food prices. Is it permissible to speak about housing and everything else, or should the hon. member be speaking about food prices?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the cost of living. If the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) thinks the only problem in his constituency is the cost of food, and he is not concerned about shelter, he had better go back to Lake Centre and not to Regina, because I do not think those people will agree with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to continue with my thoughts about the cost of living. The problem today is that 60 per cent of the income earned by the average wage earner is needed to buy any form of shelter-and to give those people and their families any kind of dignity. That is the purpose of raising this question. I emphasize that a person must earn about $17,000 before he can qualify for a CMHC mortgage. That is three times greater than the salary required in 1961. Therefore with regard to how inflation is affecting the cost of houses, in the past ten years the situation has become three times worse because of this government's policies as far as inflation is concerned.
Let us look at another area. Let us go further west to Vancouver. I quote from the United Housing Foundation:
The cost of a housing lot in the greater Vancouver area has jumped $2,000 and in some cases $3,000 in one year-an 18 per cent increase. The average industrial wage earner is already hard put to it to find suitable housing for his family. Anyone on a limited income is in trouble now-the situation will get worse. Non-profit and co-operatively owned housing are an effective way of putting a lid on the spiralling costs of at least some of our housing stock-
At least this article makes certain recommendations. The housing situation is now tragic. People are unable to buy decent homes. They cannot buy a decent place for themselves and their families. Therefore I wish to make a recommendation. The motion should have been broad enough to cover the whole cost of living. If this committee
Food Prices Committee
is going to be of any help to Canadians, it should not only cover the price of food but the whole cost of living as far as Canadians are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Those on fixed pensions and incomes, with the exception of a few senior citizens who live in subsidized homes, are unable to purchase even the lowest priced house at the present time. Misery has been fanned everywhere by this government since 1968. A committee is now being established to look into the matter. Nothing whatsoever has been done since the last election in October, 1972. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was correct: we see the same government, but the men are in different cabinet positions.
When the Minister of Finance told us what he thought of the new cabinet he gave a splendid answer, even though he was quoting somebody else. As far as this government is concerned, it is like somebody moving from one death chair to another on the Titanic. That is how bankrupt the government is. The Canadian people know that the government is bankrupt and has nothing to offer, and the quicker it goes to the people of Canada or gives up its job on the treasury benches, the better it will be for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Are you hungry, Eldon?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that I am not hungry but the people of Canada are hungry tonight. That is who is hungry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I want to know why the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned my name instead of going to the person who made that particular comment. The only comment I would make is that he is anticipating a promotion. He did not mention anything about the cost of food. I think I know more about it than he has told us so far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always like to flush out my good friend. If he was not talking at that time it must have been exceptional, because he is always talking from his seat. When I heard a remark from that direction, I naturally thought it was from him. If he denies it, I accept that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It makes sense when I speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You make a lot of sense.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What should we do immediately with regard to housing? We should legislate together with an agreement with the provinces in order to get land prices in major areas down to a reasonable amount. We should have a serious conference with the leaders of municipalities and urban centres-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not want to limit the hon. member, but points of order have

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
been raised asking the hon. member to come to the subject matter of the motion before the House at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I know the subjects of inflation and the cost of living are interesting to all members, but any remarks outside the ambit of food prices should be directed toward the motion before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I respect Your Honour, but I might speak to the point of order without taking up my time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At page 479 of yesterday's Hansard, Mr. Deputy Speaker and the government House leader stated that this debate should take place in the broadest terms. That certainly encompasses the factors I have raised in so far as the cost of living and the cost of housing are concerned. That ruling made yesterday is recorded at page 479 of Hansard; I bring that to Your Honour's attention.


Gerald William Baldwin: They looked at the NDP when they said "broad".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member. I did not question the hon. member when he talked about the cost of housing and other factors of inflation, but when the hon. member goes as far as proposing solutions to specific problems such as housing and the cost of living, that is a little beyond the interpretation that might have been made by Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Sir, when talking about the price of housing surely it is relevant to discuss how to get it down to a fair price. There is another recommendation I wish to make. The sales tax on building equipment should now be abolished. If the government feels it cannot go that far, the very least it should do is refund to home owners when buying a new house the portion of the sales tax they paid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Having said that, I now wish to turn to my amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, the proper number of members on this committee should be 19, the same as on the standing committee. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the motion be amended by striking out the figure "20" in the first line of the second paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the figure "19".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate very briefly. Indeed, I rise for only one purpose, to suggest a different figure for the number of members who should constitute this committee. As hon. members are aware, I raised this question in the House a few days ago in the hope that we could settle it by consultation among representatives of the various parties. However, since we did not achieve unanimous agreement on the point, the only way we can now resolve it is by putting the matter to the House.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel)]
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has made the assertion that all the standing committees of the House now consist of 19 members and therefore that is the proper number for this committee. May I make a slight correction to this assertion. It is not true that all standing committees number 19, or even 20 as the book says. There are two that have over 30 members each, and there are at least two that have 12 members. There are also two or three committees with memberships of 21 and 23. So there really is not anything sacred about the number 20 or the figure 19. The only reason that 19 has been chosen for a large number of the standing committees in this session is so that there can be equal representation by the two larger parties in this House of Commons.
However, when it comes to this committee we happen to think it is an important one. We are aware of all the time that has been lost since my leader during the election campaign demanded an immediate inquiry into the price of food. Nevertheless, it is better that it get started now than not be started at all.
We feel that if this inquiry is going to be made, the representation on the committee should be as close as possible to the proportionate representation of the parties in the House of Commons. If hon. members will do some arithmetic, they will find that out of 19 members we would be entitled to about two and a half, but we get only two.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I knew you had a point somewhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: (Winnipeg North Centre): Mind you, our two may well be worth two and a half. If there are 25 members, the fractions work out a little more fairly, and this is one reason for our suggestion that this committee consist of 25 members. These 25 members should be made up as follows: ten Liberals; ten Progressive Conservatives-you cannot tell the difference between them, so we might as well have the same number each-three New Democrats and two representatives from the Social Credit party.
I said the other day that we would be glad to make it 25 or 30 members but that we are now prepared to settle for 25 on the understanding that they be divided in the way I have suggested. Therefore, we hope that the House will accept a subamendment to that effect.
Originally the government proposed a committee consisting of 30 members. We kicked off ten who were not exactly useful to the committee, so we can new split the difference between 20 and 30 and have the committee consist of 25 members. I hope the House will accept this proposal which, as I say, we tried to reach by consultation among the parties. As it turned out, three representatives agreed to 25 but the fourth did not.


Gerald William Baldwin: The most important one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So, Mr. Speaker, we have no alternative but to move this subamendment. We hope that as a result of the additional representation on the committee from both the two older parties, from this party and from the Social Credit party the committee
January 22, 1973

will be able to do a better job. Therefore, without taking any further time I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the proposed amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the figure "19" and by substituting therefor the figure "25".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I suppose procedurally the Chair cannot refuse the amendment, but it might not be the best way to find a solution. In any event, I hope hon. members will not come along with further amendments as to the number of members.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would ask that the question be put, since we think the subamendment is not a proper one. We did hope that this might have resulted in the elevation of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) to the chair, but in the absence of that guarantee we have some doubts about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the understanding of the House that all the votes on the amendment and on any subamendments be deferred until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Then according to the special order made this day, this vote stands deferred until tomorrow after the question period.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that when this committee was suggested with the number 20 as membership from the House of Commons, it was going to be a boondoggle participated in by members of this House, and at one point by members of the Senate. It is interesting that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants to increase the size of this boondoggle to 25. I would urge the members of the House, when the appropriate time comes, to restrict the number to 19 which seems more clearly to reflect the usefulness of the exercise.
At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I will be moving a further amendment to the government motion before the House. This motion, in effect, will be to insert after the first paragraph, next after the word "Canada", the words "since 1967". The intention of the motion is to restrict the committee in its study of price and food trends to the years from 1967 to the present
Food Prices Committee
time. The motion is not in any way intended to restrict the effectiveness of the committee. Indeed, it is intended to increase effectiveness.
History has shown that we have had in this House a considerable number of committees examining the question of food prices. As so many speakers in this debate have pointed out, the most noteworthy committee in recent times was during the years 1966 and 1967. It seems to me that what the main motion before the House is doing is merely continuing that exercise which was terminated temporarily in 1967. It would assist whoever is chairing the committee and, indeed, the members and staff of the committee to focus on only immediate problems, those from 1967 to 1973.
Reference has been made in this House to a number of policy studies both by parliamentary committees and royal commissions. As early as 1935 there was a Commons committee on price spreads in the food industry. In 1948 there was another Commons committee, and in 1958 there was a royal commission. In 1967 there was a Commons committee. You can see how the cycle goes. In the mid-1950s royal commissions came into fashion. It seems to me the boondoggle was then transferred from members of this House to members of the civil service or those outside who happened to be friends of the government at a particular time. Then the boondoggle came back to this House in 1966-67. The studies have become a periodic ritual. But nothing was ever done.
There are many of us who will remember the activities of the 1966 committee as it travelled around the country holding hearings and then came back and held hearings in the city of Ottawa. During that time there were exposes on the front pages of many newspapers. There may have been some good work on the part of that committee, although that is sometimes difficult to discern.
I would honestly submit that we are engaged in the same old exercise which will have the same old results. It is high time the people of Canada had some new approach to problems in respect of food prices. We have not seen a new approach and I think the public is honestly looking for one. After all, this government does have other sources of information available to it. This committee is not going to uncover brand new questions for the first time and unearth facts, figures, views and concepts which will provide a startling and instant solution.
It is my understanding that there is, after all, a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This department apparently has officials who receive information from industry and a variety of sectors of the economy. Indeed, it was that department which sponsored the famous Bill C-256, the Competition Act, which was supposed to deal with combines and the exercise of a monopoly power in all sectors of the economy. This was an ill-conceived bill the likes of which this House had never seen. No doubt the new bill, if it ever comes, will be a significant improvement and more carefully drawn than the old one.


Gerald William Baldwin: It could not be worse.

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee


Ronald George Atkey: Undoubtedly the new bill will be based on a wealth of information that many of us know the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has received during hearings and private meetings with the minister and members of his staff.
There has also been a prices and incomes commission in this country which apparently has done research on food prices. The members of this House and members of the public have not yet had the benefit of much of that research but it is hoped that it will be made available to members of the committee. Indeed, one would like to think there may be some wisdom emanating from that research on which the government might well have acted had it the will to act.
We also have in this country a Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act. I am sure members of this House are familiar with the powers of that gentleman and his staff, both his powers to investigate and the research carried on. One would hope that that sort of information could be available to the government and that it could act on it. One would hope the information will be available to members of the committee when they begin their investigation.
Finally, we have a body in this country called the Economic Council of Canada. It attempts to set economic goals and provide direction for the country on the frequent occasions when this government has not seen fit to do so. That council in its third annual report produced a document entitled "Prices, Productivity and Employment". That report and the background studies carried out pursuant to it provided useful documents for this government upon which it should have based a policy dealing with food prices. Again, these studies will be available to the committee. It represents part of the wealth of information available to this government upon which it should have acted.
With this wealth of information collected during the history of Commons committees, the shift to royal commissions and then back to Commons committees, and with the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission, the combines investigation branch, the officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Economic Council of Canada, we have almost exhausted the subject. It is very difficult to appreciate what useful purpose is to be served by yet another committee.
Lest we on this side of the House be understood as being completely negative in our approach, let me say that there are a few benefits which may result from this committee. I can think of the difficult position of the city dweller and his mystification about the very high and drastic increases in the price of food. I can understand his rather futile attempt to lay the blame at the doorstep of the most obvious and apparent person involved in the marketing of food, that is, the operator of the supermarket and the small, corner grocery store. One of the few useful purposes this committee might serve is to show the Canadian public that the problem is complex and that there is no single group to be blamed for the high price of food.
What the committee might do in its very detailed report, which we hope will eventually come out, is to set forth in skeleton form the structure of the food industry for the benefit of the Canadian people. In other words, the com-

mittee is an educational process. There are easier ways to educate the members of this House and the Canadian public, but if the committee has some value I suppose it should be viewed in this context.
Secondly, as the committee of 1966-67 pointed out, the very existence of a committee on food prices may have some short-term benefits in terms of a stabilization of food prices. It may be that with all the publicity given to the committee's hearings, housewives will attempt to shop more carefully and more selectively. This may be a shortterm benefit.
Thirdly, there may be some benefit flowing from the committee in the sense it will encourage participants in the food industry to try harder to lower prices. One of the great revelations of the 1966-67 committee was the extent of monopoly power and control in the food industry. It may be that just the publicity given committee hearings will once again result in some voluntary price reductions by participants in the food industry, whether they be wholesalers, retailers or producers. They may choose to revise their particular structural organizations which will result in freer competition and lower prices for food.
All these are merely short-term, temporary solutions with marginal benefits at best. Certainly they are marginal when one compares them with the time to be invested by the committee members and the expense and the attention required of a large number of members of this House and others in what may prove to be a futile exercise.
As the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has indicated, we will co-operate in the conduct of the proceedings of this committee. I am not sure it will remedy the mystery which is still in the minds of a great many people throughout this country as to where the blame lies. But it will do one thing. It will prove more than ever that in recent years there is one party which could have done something about food prices but has not. That is the government. The government has not acted, and the Canadian people are going to realize that.
Therefore, to expedite the work of the committee I should like to formally move my amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting in the first paragraph thereof, next after the word "Canada", the words "since 1967".
There is one additional matter I would raise in the context of this debate. It is the question of comparing food prices in the major cities in Canada with food prices in certain major cities of the country to the south of us. I raise this more as a question than as a matter of providing any definitive facts or answers. I am referring to a survey conducted by the Montreal Star which contains a comparison of the price of a typical grocery basket purchased by an average family in Canada in the month of June, 1972, and by an average family in the United States in the same period. Significantly, the Canadian cities proposed for this survey were Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The comparison was with the United States cities of New York, Chicago, St. Louis and San Francisco. One might say that this selection of cities represents a fair sampling of cities in the case of each country.
January 22, 1973

In all four Canadian cities the price of the average basket of groceries was significantly higher than the price in the United States cities. In my city of Toronto the price was $32.03 for the grocery basket selected, while the price for a similar grocery basket in the so-called expensive city of New York was $28.67. I would hope that the significant variations in food prices for those living north of the border in comparison to those living south of the border might become one of the major subjects of investigation by members of the committee. The answer might possibly be in the broader context of the special controls which might be instituted pursuant to a foreign investment policy by this or other governments, but I believe it is a question which should be dealt with.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my intention to support the motion put forward by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) in respect of the setting up of a committee to look into the causes and reasons for the rapid increases in the price of food in Canada. There is no question but that inflation in this particular area is a most important and serious matter. I think something must be done about it and therefore welcome the initiative on the part of the government in proposing the establishment of this committee. Furthermore, this is one way in which the government can show it in fact meant what it said in the Speech from the Throne when it indicated its intention to look into this problem and to do something positive about it.
I also intend to support the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party which asks that this committee should make an interim report and bring forward recommendations for action within two months. I support that because I believe the problem is indeed urgent. I welcome that amendment and take great pleasure in stating I shall vote in favour of it when it is before the House.
In respect of the original amendment put forward by the Conservative party which in effect suggests that the final report of this committee and its recommendations should be made within three months of its first being convened, I must say that this is an amendment I cannot support because it implies a rather simplistic approach to the question of prices in Canada. I do not really think the problem of inflation will be licked for all time by the establishment of such a committee. I believe the committee ought to meet on a more continuing basis and look into these problems as they develop from time to time. I am sorry the amendment put forward by the Conservative party earlier, which was supported by the New Democrats and by the Creditistes, removed the Senate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have to bring the hon. member to order because it is not permitted by the rules of this House to comment, pass judgment or reflect upon any vote taken earlier by this House.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Perhaps I could say that I believe it would have been a good idea to have included on this committee people such as Senator Croll from the other place who could contribute a great deal to the work of the committee.


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.
Food Prices Committee


Norman Augustine Cafik: In fact, I believe the addition of Senator Croll to the committee would have been of great benefit to the people of Canada. However, since I am not allowed to say that, Mr. Speaker, I shall not make any comment in that regard although I would have liked to indicate the immense contribution which they could have made in the work of this important committee.
I would hope this committee will in fact come forward with some specific recommendations to solve the problem of inflation in the food sector of our economy. I do not wish to prejudge what the recommendations might be but speaking for myself I would have no objection, and would certainly give careful consideration, to the possibility of introducing legislation affecting the cost of food. I hope the committee will look very carefully into the question of mark-ups by groceterias and supermarkets to see what effect this factor has on rising, inflationary costs. In conclusion, I take great pleasure in supporting this measure. I hope it will in fact do something significant and meaningful to stem the rising cost of food in Canada.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, originally I had no intention of taking part in this debate, not because I did not recognize that the subject is one of great importance but because the case has been well presented for our party by other spokesmen who have carefully developed our position. Indeed, there have been some recent converts, in terms of the recognition of the importance of this issue, on the government side and some of their contributions have yielded something of substance.
However, if ever one wanted to find a set of speeches which manifestly displayed the most cynical kind of political opportunism in Canada in recent years, one only would have to go through Hansard for the past four or five days and look at speeches by members of the Conservative party. This party had the audacity to say that they had the right to govern the country. This was completely strange to hear from the Conservative party, rejecting hundreds of years of constitutional history when they did not have the largest number of seats. In addition, this was strange to hear from a party which during the election campaign spoke about the importance of increasing food prices, documenting how terrible was the plight of the consumer, the pensioner and the disabled veteran and saying that from one end of Canada to the other during the election campaign. One would have hoped that in this debate there would have been one Conservative spokesman who would have risen in the House and said, "This is what we would do; this is our proposal for dealing with rising food prices." I for one would have welcomed that.
As a second alternative, one might have hoped that they would at least approach the committee study proposal with some degree of seriousness. Instead of that, what have they done? The first amendment they brought before the chamber would have astounded poor John A. Macdonald who recognized the Senate for what it is. It is never mentioned in Canadian history books, but some Tories on my right may recall that John A. Macdonald, in defending the Senate, said that he needed an institution in Canada to protect the rights of the minority.

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think in view of the fact that there is a motion for discussion before the House, a worthy motion, the hon. member who is now making his speech should not be referring to the first motion which was before the House and which dealt with the composition of the committee. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member be brought to order and that he be reminded to deal with the motion now before the House.


John Edward Broadbent: That is precisely what I am doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The point is well taken. I think hon. members should refrain from reflecting on any debates at the conclusion of which a decision had been rendered, and I would invite the hon. member to try to stay away from making such comments.


John Edward Broadbent: I will do that, Mr. Speaker, with as much sense of decorum as I can. The point I am making is that the amendment presented by the Conservative party illustrates very well their total lack ot desire to deal with serious political problems and their total desire to bring down this government and to discredit serious politics in this country.


Stanley James Korchinski: You must be kidding.


John Edward Broadbent: Let me conclude my comment on the observation of the great leader of the Conservative party at the time of confederation. He said that we needed a Senate because the Senate would protect the interests of the minority. And, Sir John A. Macdonald said, the rich are always a minority. Of course, that has been the history of the Senate in Canada. I found it a little surprising that members of the party to my right, for the first time in that party's history-and I noted that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was away that day; perhaps it was accidental, perhaps it was not-should have come before the House and proposed the removal of the Senate from this committee. Cynicism?
The second amendment they brought before us was that the serious study made of the increase in food prices be completed after a mere three months. Anyone with an ounce of brains and two ounces of political commitment to this important issue should know that such an amendment is completely idiotic.
Finally, a new member of the House-I do not criticize him particularly since he is acting for that dishevelled crowd on my right-presented an amendment which provides that we cannot look at what causes rising food prices for a period antedating 1967. Is that not coincidental? Of course, we had a Liberal government elected in 1968.
Quite apart from that-perhaps a relevant political point of a cheap nature which they are trying to make- there is also the important intellectual and academic fact that you cannot talk about trends in food pricing, you cannot talk about the price-making policies of the large food chains, you cannot talk about anything of a serious nature in pricing in the economy if you look only at a three or four-year trend. What I am saying on this point is that every amendment brought by the Conservative party shows that they do not take the increase in food prices
[Mr. Broadbent.)
seriously. They show also that that party has no interest right now in making this parliament work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In my concluding comments I want to suggest as precisely as I can some important issues that this committee might consider and deal with in a concrete way, issues that could have an effect, not in six months perhaps but within a year in terms of a permanent, long-range pricing policy on food in Canada. That is what this kind of committee should deal with in part. In part, also, it should be making early recommendations to deal with the immediate crisis. That is why we have an amendment calling for an interim report to be presented to the House in two months. But the main thrust of the committee's work should be concerned with a recommendation to keep food prices in Canada down in the long run so that Canadians with an average income, and in particular those who are poor, can afford to eat well.
What can this committee do in a serious way that the Conservative party would not call boondoggling? First of all, it can find out who is getting the food dollar, the farmer or the middleman. We know some facts on this already. We know that in 1949, for example, the farmer was getting 57 cents of every dollar spent on food. In 1972, last year, his share had dropped to 38 cents. I have another statistic on the share that the farmer is getting and I think it should be brought before the House since I come from an urban constituency and think it is very important indeed to make it quite clear that farmers in Canada are by no means getting their share of the food dollar, at least on the basis of the preliminary evidence.
The net income of farmers from their farm operations declined in the last three-year period, when the average income of other Canadians was going up, from 1968 to 1971 by 8 per cent. In addition, those of us who will be working in the committee in a serious way might find out what real impact the packaging industry has on food prices, what real impact advertising has on the share of the dollar spent, and how it contributes to the rising cost of food. These are serious questions that have to be looked at in a serious way and, if I may say so, must be examined by our party also. We do not pretend to have all the answers.


Stanley James Korchinski: Read the NDP advertising in the last campaign.


John Edward Broadbent: I make no comment on that. That is like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who got up to make a speech on food prices and talked about housing. That a housing conference is going on in Ottawa is simply a curious, incidental fact.
The other matter the committee can look into and seriously consider is the feasibility of financing more direct charge co-ops. I know that in Halifax, Hamilton and in my own constituency, Oshawa, direct charge co-ops began operating in recent years and have been operating with some degree of success. Where they have not turned out well has been in a number of communities where the most important factor was the absence of significant financial
January 22, 1973

resources. In Oshawa and Hamilton the organized trade union movement played an important part in their initial financing. I would like the committee to consider what role federal financing might play in the spread of direct charge co-ops across the country, as one means of keeping down food prices.
The third item the committee might consider is why there are significant disparities in food costs between one region of Canada and another. Just the other day one of the ministers of the British Columbia government was in town and some of us had a discussion with him. Just because we were debating this subject he mentioned that there was a small town north of the city of Vancouver where food prices were 30 per cent higher than in Vancouver. What are the reasons for this? Are there just two or three stores in that town that effectively eliminate competition? I do not immediately know the answer, but it is an important question.
This is also a problem within big cities. Studies have been conducted in Canada, and more particularly in the United States, which show that the large supermarkets charge poor people the most for their products. In the ghetto areas of large cities the costs of basic commodities such as meat, milk and bread are frequently higher than they are in upper-income suburbs. One of the reasons for this is that the mobility of lower-income citizens is substantially less than the more affluent, and thus stores in those areas have a captive market and, if you like, can gouge poor people. If that is the case, I for one think it should be stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The fourth item the committee should examine is how different incomes result in very different kinds of diets for young children. Studies have been conducted among old age pensioners on this subject. Are they indicative of a trend across the country? If they are, this means that old age pensioners are eating a very substandard diet, a low protein diet, low in essential vitamins. A study that seriously looks at food prices must examine that question. The committee might come up with a particular solution-in this case it might be an increase in pensions-or it might be selective price control over certain essential commodities to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, are assured of a sound nutritional diet.
Fifthly, I suggest that the committee ought to summon before it the heads of large supermarkets. In this respect I give full credit to the government of the United States of which, on other grounds, I am frequently quite critical. The congressional system, in terms of public hearings, is simply light years ahead of the parliament of Canada. In the United States, when they look at such matters as automobile prices or food prices committees are given effective powers to call witnesses before them and those witnesses must provide the information requested.
I for one would like to get the heads of Loblaws, IGA, Steinberg's, Canadian Safeway and Dominion Stores before the committee to explain their profits. For example, Loblaws, after taxes, recently showed a profit of 6.5 per cent, IGA 6.7 per cent, Steinberg's 9.1 per cent, Canadian Safeway 10.2 per cent and Dominion Stores 11.2
Food Prices Committee
per cent. In the case of the latter three it seems to me that exorbitant, unwarranted profits are being made. It may be that the heads of those companies could present testimony that would show they warrant these profit figures. I doubt it. However, I for one would like them to appear before the committee and present their evidence so that we can seriously consider it.


An hon. Member:: What about co-ops?


John Edward Broadbent: A direct charge co-op sells products for cost plus 10 per cent. That means compared with the profit margins of these companies, in terms of their total assets they are operating at a profit of perhaps 1 per cent. That is why the direct charge co-ops are quite important.
Among the kinds of questions that we might ask the heads of supermarket chains are: do they think it is advantageous for the Canadian consumer to have 75 per cent of the grocery business in urban Canada transacted by five companies? Do they think that there is some effective manipulation of prices in Canada to bring this about? In effect, do they think that there is any competition in the food industry? Then the committee could call upon some economists with expertise on food pricing policies and ask them whether they think the Canadian consumer is getting what he ought to get from these five large companies which dominate the grocery business in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the committee can appraise the significance of a point made by government spokesmen in recent months, particularly during the election campaign. Government spokesmen throughout Canada have said that the only country where a consumer spends less on food as a share of his total spending dollar is the United States. It is true that on a comparison basis we are well off.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask the hon. member an important question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member may not be asked a question unless he is allowed extended time. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's speech. If he thinks things are so great for the supermarkets-here I have particular reference to the city of Hamilton-can he tell me why so many Loblaws stores are closing down? With his experience and knowledge, could he explain why Loblaws are closing down en masse across the country?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would not attempt to give a definitive answer and that is why I support the motion for a committee to look at the question. Perhaps one of the reasons is that if they are rationalizing the number of
542

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
their outlets in the city so that they may get a better profit per store, in that way their overheads are going down; their rents, and so on.
The committee should consider the claim that our food costs are lower than those of many other countries, particularly those in the western world. The government takes the position that this has no critical meaning, that there is no problem, but we in this party say that is a fallacious conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Compared with the rest of the world, this country has one of the finest agricultural sectors that any nation could desire. It may well be that with a more efficient organization for the production of food and effective control of pricing and even the selective control, if need be, of certain key commodities our production could be even better and all the people in this country could get food at a reasonable price.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the fact that his party has been amongst the strongest advocates of co-operatives in my province, could the hon. member tell us why they are struggling and why some have closed down?


John Edward Broadbent: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that co-operatives in Saskatchewan have only about 10 per cent of the food business. I do not pretend to have any expert knowledge of the function of co-operatives in Saskatchewan, but I think the committee should look into that matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would be ready to recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), but according to my information the hon. member was going to put an amendment. If I allow him to speak now and if he really intends to put an amendment, it would be difficult for him to do so, as we have not yet disposed of the amendment now under consideration. I therefore recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion now under consideration. I think that the special committee of the House which will be established to investigate the constant rise of food prices will have a very heavy task to perform. Its members will have to be very courageous if they truly want to go to the bottom of things, because the committee will surely face some big financial interests which will try to drive it off its course, since we know that there is in that field as in many others, a very powerful trust sponging on producers and consumers.
Obviously, if the committee looks into the matter in depth, it will discover many factors which contribute to the cost increase of food products, factors of which the public are unaware but which work against the consumer as well as the producer.
The people should not be led to believe that the increase in the cost of living depends only on the higher cost of food. Many other products have gone up too, and considerably, although we hear much less about them; they add to the rise in the cost of living, but consumers do not complain about them.

Let us take, for instance, the case of alcoholic beverages. Their price has gone up considerably, yet their consumption has also increased. Let us have a look at the statistics: beer consumption goes up every year. What about soft drinks: in 1968, some sold for 60 cents a quart or $24 per cwt. while industrial milk was paid 12 cents a quart or $4.80 per cwt. to the producer. Today, the same soft drink sells for $30 per cwt. while industrial milk with a 3.5 per cent fat content really costs the consumer only $5.50 per cwt. The cost of soft drinks has gone up considerably, in fact twice as much as that of milk.
We therefore cannot say that in the industrial sector the higher cost of milk products has contributed the most to the increase in the cost of living. Let us be logical: the farmer-producer is entitled to a bigger share of the national income, because it is in this area of our economy that the highest increase in production has been achieved, which has been more beneficial to the consumer since there has not been any price inflation in this area, none at least that could be attributed to the farmer-producer himself.
I am convinced that the consumer has been exploited by trusts which spend huge sums of money for often misleading publicity and which should be the object of very close scrutiny from the special committee.
To get back to the subject that I was talking about a short while ago, I dare suggest that some 20 years ago, the producers of raw agricultural materials were getting 28 cents out of every dollar spent on food by the consumer. According to a brief submitted to the Quebec cabinet in 1971, producers received 12 cents on every dollar spent in 1970. In 1972, that part of the consumer dollar going directly to the farmer was 10 cents only.
When retailers such as Steinberg, Dominion and others increase their retail prices in a prohibitive way claiming that crops have been hurt by bad weather, the committee should examine whether it is a pretext for increasing profits by fooling people through misrepresentation. The whole thing should be clarified. The farmer is allowed subsidies by the federal government as an income while the big operators of chain stores increase their profits on food prices.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the committee should have even broader terms of reference to enable it to examine to what extent direct and indirect taxes, high interest rates and the burden of the public debt contribute to the rise of food costs and to recommend in its report to this House the action that should be taken to correct the situation. In other words, if the committee only produces findings that were arrived at by other agencies such as the Economic Council of Canada and the Senate Committee on Poverty, and if the government does not use the means required to improve the situation, we shall simply be wasting time and the taxpayers' money without improving the lot of all consumers.
Consequently, for the committee to be really taken seriously and accomplish a very meaningful job, we should have given it somewhat broader terms of reference.
It would have been profitable for the people of Canada for the committee to scrutinize seriously the abuses of
January 22, 1973

financing plans of all kinds that affect prices considerably, in order that once more a committee of this House should expose financing procedures that reduce the purchasing power of working people, the unemployed, older people, disabled people, widows, etc., while permitting exploiters to get richer.
However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the committee will work seriously and quickly and that it will prepare a report which will include informative recommendations to the House so that steps can be taken to end the state of disorder before the year 2000.
But if the government is to ignore the report, we shall simply once more be wasting the time of hon. members and raising false hopes in the minds of consumers.
Has the government acted on the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty? Let the facts answer this question. The report was published and the government simply put it aside on the ground that the recommendations did not coincide with its views. This is precisely the reason why we are creating a committee; to inform the people whose responsibility it is to legislate so that legislation meets the needs of the people.
For instance, has the government taken any action about farm machinery following the Barber Commission report?
Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any action taken after the pulication of that report to bring about some improvement in that area, to reduce the cost of producing foodstuffs, which would certainly have improved the lot of the farmer.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us hope, in our century of speed, that parliament will act with a little more speed, that the committee will be able to carry out its task efficiently, wasting no time hearing witnesses who have already submitted briefs to other committees, will do a good job and demonstrate once more to the people that the proceedings of the House are not futile and that when a special House committee is set up it is because there is a specific problem to be considered and we do not want to legislate in a haphazard way.
I therefore hope that the sub-amendment brought forward by the New Democratic Party, specifying a deadline for the committee's report to the House, will be adopted and that the committee will carry out the wishes of the House and, in short, produce an adequate report which will prompt us to take the required steps to relieve the consumers who are hardest hit and increase their purchasing power in keeping with their requirements.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few thoughts I wanted to contribute to the debate and I feel sure that all of us together can find valid solutions to the problem we face.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the main motion, amendments and subamendments thereto, I feel rather fortunate in having heard this evening those who spoke before me. I feel the hon. member who spoke immediately before me raised many good points which members of this House could well endorse.
Food Prices Committee
One thing was revealed to me tonight which I admit had puzzled me. I wondered what was the true reason behind this government's proposal for setting up this committee. I think that reason was given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who pointed out that his leader, during the past election campaign, asked that this committee be established. I had not known until now that that proposal was part of his platform. Presumably part of the deal is that the committee shall be established and the NDP group is willing to support the action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in that respect.
I have listened to various government spokesmen, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), attempting to justify the establishment of this committee. I must admit I am greatly disappointed by the lack of factual information they have given to support their proposal. For example, a neighbour of mine, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), said in his speech last Thursday evening that he had done intensive research into the subject and felt that the establishment of the committee was justified. Among his observations he said that just about 50 per cent of the married people in the country are women. I think that shows how seriously Liberal spokesmen are attempting to justify the establishment of the committee. They think such comments justify the need for this committee.
Prior to my speaking, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) indicated why they propose to support the main motion and certain amendments. I found it interesting to note that those two members, who come from adjoining ridings, gave almost similar reasons for supporting the proposal to establish this committee. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby made what he feels are five suggestions which the committee might adopt when it is formed. What the hon. member forgot is that a similar committee of this House was established several years ago. Its final conclusion was that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be established. I note that in the current estimates the budget for that department is over $32 million. I suggest to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that surely a department that has at its disposal a budget of $32 million could have undertaken a few of the studies it is now expecting from this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As has been mentioned earlier, with the establishment of the committee we shall see the seventh of such committees set up by this House. One was established back in 1935 by the Hon. H. H. Stevens-who is not related to me, I might remind the House-after that five more committees were established and the one presently being considered will be the seventh.
I point out that the Prices and Incomes Commission has carried out an extensive review of inflation in this country, at a total cost of $6 million. If I were a member of the government I would feel embarrassed to come to this House and suggest that another committee be established, a committee which will cost about $20,000 a week and will report, basically, on something that has already been reported on by the commission that was disbanded just last August.
25714-35 J

January 22, 1973
Food Prices Committee
I would also emphasize that in disbanding that commission the Prime Minister made it clear that he intended to establish a contingency working group, which is now operating I believe; that working group would be responsible for continuing research on the role of prices and incomes policy in dealing with inflation. In other words, there is a group that presumably is being paid to look into inflation and prices generally including, presumably, food prices.
I have supported our amendments to the main motion, Mr. Speaker, as I feel they have been an attempt to limit the time and cost that this special committee may entail; at the same time, they have not detracted from the committee's effectiveness. In fact, I believe that an early decision, as is contemplated in the 90-day amendment, will make the committee much more effective than if it is allowed to have a protracted life. As I have already mentioned, the Prices and Incomes Commission finished their study only last August. They made ten points, including suggestions to the government. After paying $600,000 for each one of those points, it is time the government took them into consideration before asking this House to form another committee to make further recommendations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wish to point out, contrary to what was suggested by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, that we do take this committee seriously. Certainly I take it seriously. I only wish the committee had more effective terms of reference than have been suggested. I wish to elaborate. While it is true that food prices have been caught in our inflationary spiral, I wish to emphasize that the food industry and the agricultural industry generally have not been the main culprits contributing to this country's inflationary position.
In singling out the food industry and the farming community for this study, I suggest that the government has done so to create a scapegoat to distract public attention from matters which they feel would be much more embarrassing to them. That is why I feel that a three-month limitation is long enough for any scapegoat, even if the government has made some deal with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
Let it be known in this House and in this land that it is the Trudeau government that has sown the seeds of inflation throughout our economy. It is unworthy of any government to now attempt to mislead the public and the voters by an unfair attack on the food and agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I do not want to defend the food industry nor the farmer particularly, but I suggest that the government in singling out this particular field has done so most unfairly.
In their motion the government asks the special committee to make recommendations. Isn't that a funny twist, Mr. Speaker? Here we have people who say they can lead this country, yet they come to parliament and say, "please form a committee so that the committee can make recommendations and tell us what we should be doing." Does
this House need further evidence and, indeed, does the country need any more evidence to indicate that this government should not have the confidence of the House and, I sincerely hope, the public at large?
In various speeches made during this debate, including that of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it has been stressed that the government is looking for suggestions and recommendations. We must bear in mind that this government, that claims it can lead, is asking parliament for help. Have they forgotten completely that it is the government that proposes and this parliament simply disposes? If this government is looking for suggestions, let me make a few to help them out. I hope the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is listening.
First, if the government truly wants to stop inflation in this country, they should start in their own back yard. Wasteful spending programs of government, and resulting governmental increases in our money supply have been the two largest contributors to inflation in Canada. If we want to appoint committees and if the government wants worthwhile recommendations, I suggest that parliament set up a special committee to inquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in government spending.
Let us not forget that this government spent many weeks and months drafting, studying and then proposing legislation, which they forced parliament to accept with the use of the guillotine, to empower them to extract taxes from the taxpayers of this country through perhaps the most extensive and complicated tax gathering process known in the world today. One wonders why they were so anxious to pass tax legislation before examining and studying government expenditures, including their own.
If some in this House feel a 90-day limitation on the committee is too short, let us expand the committee's terms of reference, including the government's spending spree, galloping taxation and monetary policies. Before the Prime Minister gained power in Ottawa, concern over the growth of public sector spending was expressed not only by the taxpayers but government officials. In an address to the annual conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation in April 1967, Hon.Mitchell Sharp, then minister of finance, invited assistance from outside government in the study of public expenditures which he described, as "the chief issue in our political life."
In the year ending March 31, 1967, Ottawa spent $8.8 billion. Today the government is spending at double that rate. It took 100 years to reach $8 billion in federal spending. The Trudeau government has doubled the figure in less than six years. On a per capita, real dollar basis this government is extracting 50 per cent more from every man, woman and child in this country than was taken in the last year of the Pearson government. I notice that Mr. Sharp, now the deputy prime minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I owe it to the hon. member and to all hon. members to remind them that when they make speeches in this House they should refer to hon. members by either their constituency or the title which they hold in the ministry. The hon. member has twice, inadvertently I am sure, made a mistake; he referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the

January 22, 1973

Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) by name. It is wrong for a member to refer to another member by his family name.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may continue, I notice the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member, but we have reached the hour of ten o'clock. Before calling it ten o'clock I must inquire of hon. members whether it is the desire of the House that the question be put on the amendment now before the House. My understanding of the order made earlier today is that all motions should be submitted to the House at this time and that the divisions will take place tomorrow at the time of calling government business, except, of course, on the main motion. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Moved by Mr. Atkey, seconded by Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That the motion be amended by inserting in the first paragraph thereof, next after the word "Canada", the words "since 1967".
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The recorded division will be deferred until tomorrow after the other amendments and subamendments have been dealt with, pursuant to order of the House agreed to earlier today.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on January 8 I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) for some explanation of the situation with regard to the concern of organizations and communities, particularly in high unemployment areas, over delays in having their projects approved. I also requested the minister to make a statement on motions outlining the reasons for the difficulties, the state of progress to this date, and the expected date of final approval.
Adjournment Debate
I realize that many questions of a similar nature have been asked since and also that the minister has answered many of them piecemeal. However, I feel that if he would make a statement on motions as requested it would help clear up a number of ambiguities which exist. I am besieged daily with phone calls from organizations in my district seeking answers to these questions which could easily be cleared up by a statement giving all the details. Members could then help their constituents who are becoming more and more frustrated each day by the lack of answers.
The special co-ordinating group which will be delegated by the minister to look after these applications is just as frustrated because of its difficulty in coping with the situation. I might say, in reply to a suggestion made by the minister last week in the House to the effect that not enough use is being made of the on-the-job training program, that he might apply to his own department for such a program so that he can provide additional staff which would then be available to process applications, especially those over $75,000 which require much more detailed information. Many organizations and communities are unable to cope with the provision of this detailed information and are frustrated in their attempts to get their applications approved.
The other problem that exists is the disappointment being experienced by organizations that have already been notified that their projects have been turned down. This is destroying the initiative of citizens who are trying to carry out and achieve the objects of the program. Particularly disappointing is the fact that many projects approved last year could not be completed for lack of sufficient funds, and if they are not approved this year many will be left half done and will result in the waste of many dollars.
The common sense solution to the whole problem of "not enough money chasing too many projects" would be to make the program an on-going one, or at least a five-year program, so that communities can plan to provide the public services required to make them more self-sufficient, at the same time creating continuing employment over a longer period. Under a five-year program communities could plan their needs, such as water and sewage systems which are basic to every community in Canada, recreational facilities, roads to resources, farming and fishing facilities and other public service needs for which municipalities are not able to get money from the provinces or the federal government without much difficulty. I brought this idea to the attention of the former minister of manpower, who agreed with it and has since mentioned that the LIP program should be an on-going one. I hope the present minister will consider this idea carefully.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in many government departments funds are allocated to provinces to fulfil the needs of many of the projects that are being turned down for lack of funds. I think it is time that consideration was given by each department to the allocation of funds for projects under LIP, thus making the Local Initiatives Program meangingful.
The minister also confirmed the fact in the House last week that a new supplemental program called LEAP-

January 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Local Employment Assistance Program-was ready to be announced. As leaked to the press, this program is designed to offer funding of projects to disadvantaged Canadians and unemployables. The minister indicated that he would be making an announcement on this shortly and I hope that he will. I hope it will afford the opportunity for those organizations that had their projects turned down to resubmit them for consideration under this new program.
I agree with the concept of the Local Initiatives Program. My only objection is the lack of projected planning, the lack of co-ordinated effort to look at all aspects of its objectives and come up with a meaningful program to fit the needs of those to whom it is directed. I look to the minister to give me the answers I am seeking in a spirit of co-operation.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, approvals of LIP applications have been made as quickly as possible this year. Due to the large number of excellent applications received, the task of selecting the best projects has been a very difficult one indeed.
Perhaps a comparison with the program up to this date last year will be helpful. At this time last year some 2,045 projects, valued at $58 million, had been approved. This year, as of today we have approved about 5,000 projects for a total of $148 million. In fact, as the minister promised, applications for the bulk of LIP funds have been processed by today. Just to review the figures, the number of applications received this year amounts to 15,053 and the dollar value of those submissions is $480,500,000. The number of applications approved was 5,000, with a dollar value of $148 million, and the man-months of employment created were 304,000. As for training on the job, the figures as of January 18 are: applications received, 10,575; dollar value, $57,951,584; applications approved 5,001; dollar value, $50,270,257; and man-months of employment created, 58,925.
Perhaps part of the problem to which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) referred is due to the fact that in the case of many applications no decision has yet been made. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that the minister does not wish to turn down applications when subsequently it may be possible to approve them. It is necessary to consider all the applications made, and some are made earlier than others. There is a desire to cast the net as widely as possible and this has led to delay in the making of some decisions.
In respect of the continuation of the program, of course those who received assistance from this program in the past and again this year are normally expected to complete their programs within a certain period. This is usually one of the terms. I will certainly take the suggestion of the hon. member to the minister and the department. A continuing program might indeed be something which we will have to look into in the future.
The LEAP is primarily for hardcore unemployed. It may apply to some of the cases my hon. friend has cited. If he wishes to have any of the applications in his area

transferred to that program, I am sure this would be sympathetically considered by the department.


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
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, on January 10 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in respect of the loan made by the CNR pension fund to Fidinam (Ontario) Limited, allegedly amounting to some $33 million. My question had to do with the terms under which this loan was made. The minister at that time informed the House that he would take the question under notice and look into it.
Since then, with my meagre resource for research I have been able to dig up this information. Negotiations between Fidinam (Ontario) Limited and the CNR pension fund began in February, 1970. Then a letter of intent was signed between Fidinam and the Canadian National investment division on January 24, 1971, which provided for a first mortgage loan of $25 million and a second mortgage loan of $6 million, for a total of $31 million. This sum was raised subsequently to a total of $33 million.
Under the total agreement to build Upper Canada Place, a project in which Fidinam was involved, there was another $15 million to be loaned by the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario and Fidinam Corporation, which is the parent corporation, was to put up a total of $7 million of which $5.1 million was to be raised at the time of the commencement of the project.
My question at that time was simply, under what terms was this loan made? There are more questions raised under this same rubric. First of all there is the question of policy, or lack thereof, in respect of Canadian control, as to whether direct loans of debt capital can be made in this country. That is to say, to what kind of corporations can they be made, and whether they are Canadian or foreign-owned.
I raise the question because in this particular case we were not only dealing with trustee money held by a Canadian investment group, in this case the Canadian National investment division, but money which is held by it in trust which belongs to its workers, in this case Canadian workers in the parapublic service. It is rather strange that the savings of our workers in this country are being put to the service of foreign corporations in Canada, especially a foreign corporation such as Fidinam which has brought in very little capital from the outside and uses its leverage to borrow $48 million to build a building which is rents back in large part to public institutions in this country at a time when there is an enormous need for what could be called socially useful projects. A point was made, in an article today which appeared in the Toronto Star, by Ed Finn regarding the CNR pension fund. The article reads:
Almost one-third of the fund is now invested in mortgages, mostly for office buildings, hotels and luxury apartments. Ironically, many thousands of the CN employees whose money is being
January 22, 1973

funnelled into high-priced real estate don't earn enough to qualify for NHA mortgages to buy homes of their own.
The other question raised is the matter of worker representation in respect of the investment policies of these funds. I have directed the question to the Minister of Transport because in this case we have a public institution the funds of which are being funnelled into the hands of foreign corporations. This fund is a rather large one; it is one of the largest trustee pension funds in this country.
I think it is important to note that these funds are beginning to form an enormous part of the capital savings of this country. Back in 1960 they amounted to some $3.5 billion, while the figure for 1970 is twice that amount, $11 billion. What is particularly striking is that a decreasing proportion of these funds is going into Canadian investment and that investment of these funds in stocks controlled by foreign companies increased seven and a half times between 1960 and 1970. I would very much like the Minister of Transport, through his parliamentary secretary, to table for the perusal of members of this House the letter of intent which I cited above.
I should like to ask the minister, further, if it would be possible to start developing a policy which first of all would prohibit the investment of Canadian workers' funds in foreign-controlled companies, so that they would be directed into Canadian-controlled projects and, secondly, to direct the investment of these funds into projects such as housing which would be a useful development and not simply just another corporate enterprise of this country.
Mr. ]oseph-Phillipe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I shall be specific because the question of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) referred to financing for the construction of office and commercial space at the corner of Bloor and Yonge Streets in Toronto. In this regard, I am informed by the CNR that the Canadian National pension trust fund, in keeping with its investment policy, has made a commitment to advance mortgage funds for the project. The relationship between the pension trust and the developer is solely that of mortgagee and mortgagor. It is not the practice to disclose terms and conditions of transactions with other parties.
In reply to the second part of the question, the answer is no.


AIR TRANSPORT-NORTHERN CANADA-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRAM FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVED NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker,
tonight I welcome the opportunity to raise a very serious question of improved air navigational aids in respect of northern navigation as it relates to low altitude aircraft flying in the northern regions of Canada. I have had discussion with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) on this question and I have put questions to him in the House. I believe it is a subject which has evinced a great deal of interest in the last few months, particularly arising out of the recent accident involving Martin Hartwell.
Adjournment Debate
I do not believe that we as members of this House should ever underestimate the amount of suffering and anxiety that is associated with the loss of an aircraft in the northern region, and above all I believe it behoves us all to consider the great expense of search and rescue operations every time an aircraft goes down in the north. I understand that the last search cost in excess of $1 million. Surely by now, with the equipment and the amount of money that has been spent on search and rescue, we should have enough to establish a navigational aids system in the north, at least to cover the main airline corridors.
I note that, for example, the CBC is asking for $30 million to extend television service to communities of 500 people or more. I also note that the Export Development Corporation agreed to lend Spain $16 million for the purpose of buying eight Canadian CL-215 water-bomber aircraft. I also note that C&nada agreed to provide Turkey with $9.85 million in a long-term loan to help expand that country's telephone system. I have no objection to expenditures of this kind, but surely if we have that kind of money to spend it is time we seriously considered the importance of improving air navigational aids in the northern parts of our country.
Furthermore, I believe that with the kind of activity that is currently going on with respect to resource development, we can only expect that there will be more air traffic in that region and if that is the case, naturally we will be subject potentially to more losses. I believe it is important that this government and the Department of Transport in particular embark immediately upon a crash program of installation of suitable air navigational aids to ensure the safety of our planes, our pilots and our passengers. Surely pilots and passengers flying north of the sixtieth parallel deserve the same degree of safety as those flying in the south.
I ask the parliamentary secretary if the Department of Transport has a program on the drawing-board. I know that our present air navigational aids are far from adequate when compared with the United States northern air routes. I call on the parliamentary secretary to tell us what his department's priorities are in the field of air navigational aids.
He might also make reference to the $2 million network proposal which was cancelled approximately one year ago. I understand that it was rejected by the minister of transport at that time. I would also suggest to him that if. an accelerated plan is not on the drawing-board at this time, he should discuss the matter thoroughly with his minister and with the officials of the Department of Transport in an effort to develop an air navigational system consisting of very high frequency omnirange and distance measuring equipment, at least along the two main airline corridors to the north extending from Edmonton which would connect Edmonton to Inuvik, and another which would connect with the Arctic islands, specifically Resolute Bay. This would be a very important first step in the development of an air navigational aids system and of a route along which other ancillary devices and necessary equipment may be installed as required.

January 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Mr. ]oseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I too share the concern of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) pertaining to flights in the north. The ministry of transport has a program for expanding and upgrading air navigational facilities in the Arctic which includes the provision of facilities to meet both current and anticipated requirements. Part of this program calls for the installation of a number of very high frequency omnirange and distance measuring equipment facilities. Installations are now under way at Yellowknife, Resolute Bay, Whitehorse,
Frobisher Bay and Cambridge Bay. Additional installations are planned for subsequent years.
The Cambridge Bay installation is of special interest as this will be the site of the environmental testing of a development, the "VOR/DME package", newly designed to meet the special requirements of the Arctic. Testing of this package will proceed after winter installation which is planned for completion next month. Aside from that portion of the plan that is included in the ministry's estimates, the implementation of improved or additional facilities is adjusted annually to meet high priority requirements as they develop.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday. January 23, 1973