1973-01-23

THE LATE LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, little more than two weeks ago we performed in this House the sad task of paying tribute to a former president of the United States. Now we do so again, this time in memory of President Lyndon Johnson, a contemporary in public life of many hon. members.
Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency from the office of vice-president, as did Harry Truman. And as President Truman had done before him, President Johnson was successful in seeking re-election in his own right. During his term in office, some of America's most progressive social legislation took form in response to his desire to eliminate disparities of all kinds from American life. Abroad, however, the tragedy of Viet Nam became increasingly intractable, and escaped attempts at resolution.
President Johnson visited Canada on three occasions. During one such trip he opened the impressive United States pavilion at Expo '67.
Mr. Johnson was, in many respects, larger than life; a man who mirrored faithfully the colour and character of a vast region in his country, reminding us in Canada of the variety and size of our vigorous neighbour. President Johnson's role both in the United States and the world is too recent to measure with adequate perspective. No one can doubt, however, the intense passion and dedication to his countrymen which he brought to the presidency.
To President Johnson's family and to the people of the United States, I offer sympathy and condolences.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister reminded us, this is the second time in a few short weeks that it has been our sad duty to pay tribute to a former president of the United States who has passed away. I did not know President Lyndon Johnson, but with my fellow citizens I followed his career with absorbing interest. Even though he was not working within the parliamentary system as we know it in Canada, I think it is fair to say-if it is not presumptuous of me to say this-that he was a great parliamentarian within the Congress of the United States. Probably no American of his generation was such a master of the legislative process in that country, and it seems to have been generally due to his skill in that area as a member of Congress that he was able to achieve such an enviable legislative record, first as leader in the Senate, then as vice-president of the United States, and finally as president of his great country.
He was a man of great courage who suffered a severe heart attack years ago but overcame it to seek and achieve the highest and most responsible office in his land. As president of his country he had, certainly, some agonizing decisions to make in the realm of foreign policy, and it is no secret that some of these caused division in his own country and in the world. It was surely to his great credit, both as a man and as a patriot, that under circumstances that are generally familiar to all of us he put the interest of his country before any desire he may have felt to continue to serve as president by seeking a further term in office.
I join the Prime Minister this afternoon in paying tribute to a man who for five years served as a powerful president of the United States and whose actions were certainly dictated by the good of his country as he saw it.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, after a long and successful career in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, Mr. Johnson was catapulted to the presidency of the United States on the assassination of President Kennedy. On that day the world saw him on a plane being sworn in as president and sympathized with the concern etched on his face as he committed himself to his awesome duties. The five years during which he held office as president were difficult and to some extent unhappy ones for the United States, both internally and externally. His death at a relatively early age may well have been the consequence of his heavy and sometimes frustrating burdens.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I join in the expression of sympathy and condolences to Mrs. Johnson and the family.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the death of a man whose far-reaching importance put him in a position to determine the fate of the whole world comes as a shock to us particularly in view of its unexpectedness.
The former president of the United States took over the leadership of the most powerful western country under tragic circumstances that we all remember. The task that was his was only equalled by the enormous responsibilities attached to it. History will assess the work of Mr. Johnson.
We grieve over the death of this prominent statesman. However, we also think about the thousands of human lives sacrificed in Viet Nam. May these days of mourning afflicting our southern neighbours coincide with peace in Viet Nam.
550

January 23, 1973
The Late President Johnson



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave of the House to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In November, 1972, the Minister of Transport undertook an austerity program. One result was to cut back the staff of professional radio operators at the Vancouver Marine Aeradio station. This has reduced the staff to the point where adequate service cannot be provided-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make a speech in support of a motion under Standing Order 43. I have had occasion in the past to remind hon. members of the very special circumstances which attach to a proposed motion under Standing Order 43. Because there is no opportunity for reply or debate, such a motion should be accompanied only by a brief statement indicating the urgency. There should not be argument in support of the proposed motion.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now make the motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the Minister of Transport take action to ensure that Vancouver Marine Aeradio station be allocated sufficient job categories of appropriate classification so that the station is adequately and efficiently manned at all times to provide effective air-sea search and rescue service.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. This motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the following serious matters relating to the economic well-being of Atlantic Canada, namely, the reported phasing out of Nova Scotia's joint federal-provincial planning board, the impending decision involving federal aid to the vitally needed $32 million Pock-Wock water development for the

city of Halifax, and the withdrawal of Volkswagen Limited from Saint John, New Brunswick, because of lack of port facilities and infrastructure, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That these matters be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development for serious and detailed consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing rise in Bell Canada profits and earnings per share I move, pursuant to Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That the federal government do now formally appear before the Canadian Transport Commission to state its opposition to Bell Canada's application for further rate increases.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister made up his mind on whether to proceed with a second Toronto airport at Pickering? Both he and the Minister of Public Works have had the report from the public hearings since January 5, and I wonder whether we can have a decision today?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this decision is not to be taken by the Minister of Transport alone but by the cabinet; it will probably be made in a few days.
January 23, 1973


Ronald George Atkey: Is the Minister of Transport prepared to honour the undertaking of his predecessor, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, made in the House on April 18 of last year, that all documentation and reports relevant to expropriations in the Pickering area have been made public, and that those persons objecting to the expropriations will not in the future be caught by surprise through new material previously unavailable? I might add that this undertaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech. He should ask his question as briefly as possible. Perhaps the minister might reply to the hon. member's question now.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if my predecessor made an undertaking of course it will be respected, but I want to have an opportunity to check the undertaking.


Mr. Howlan:: Oh, he is checking on you, Don!


Mr. Jamieson:: Wouldn't you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: Are the minister and the cabinet, in reaching a decision on the need for a second airport and the half billion dollars required to build it, considering alternative social needs in metropolitan Toronto such as increased federal assistance for housing, public transit and the preservation of a green belt and prime agricultural land?


PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FROM TORONTO AREA TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING DECISION
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to invite Members of Parliament from the Toronto area to make representations with regard to the decision on the proposed airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it was made clear by the former minister of transport and by the Prime Minister that the government intends to give not only Members of Parliament but the general public in the Toronto region the opportunity to make representations on the new airport, the new facilities, and the way in which transportation development should take place in the area.


MOUNT HOPE, ONTARIO-INQUIRY WHETHER EXPANSION WILL PROCEED
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Went worth):: In view of the continuing uncertainty concerning the expansion of airport facilities at Hamilton, Ontario, will the minister advise the House in the clearest possible terms whether this project will proceed in the spring of 1973?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I already stated that the Port Hope airport is
Oral Questions
going to be expanded. If this is what the hon. member has in mind, I think we have decided to go ahead.


STEPS TO REDUCE AIRCRAFT NOISE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of what happens at Pickering, arc the Minister of Transport and the government prepared to take immediate steps to reduce aircraft noise by requiring airlines to replace noisy engines with quieter models now being developed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts whether this is a supplementary question but, having been asked, the minister might reply. The Chair will then recognize the hon. member for York South.


POST OFFICE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General or the President of the Treasury Board. In view of reports that the conciliation board which dealt with the dispute between the Council of Postal Unions and the Post Office has now unanimously made a new proposal with respect to grievance on classifications, may I ask whether the recommendation or proposal of the conciliation board has been received by the government and whether, since the proposal would seem to lay a basis for settlement of the dispute, the government can announce its acceptance of the present proposal?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Shime actually transmitted explanatory notes to Mr. Finkelman. This document has not been made public yet but whether it was or not there has already been a first meeting between the two parties. I understand that there is to be today new meetings between the parties at the negotiation table and the hon. member will realize that under the circumstances it is preferable to let the parties come to an agreement without making any further public statement.


David Lewis: I knew that the document was in the hands of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, but the minister did not say whether he has seen it. I am going to pose my question on the assumption that he has seen it. I appreciate that this is a matter for negotiation. May I ask the minister whether the government's stated acceptance of the report of the board of conciliation necessarily includes acceptance of this additional clarification or proposal of the same board of conciliation?


André Ouellet: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that remarks to clarify the situation were made to both parties, that both
552

January 23, 1973
Oral Questions
parties accepted those points of clarification and that they have since gone back to the negotiation table.
Therefore, I do not wish to add anything at this stage which might cause embarassment to those who are now negotiating a contract.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the issue was a very simple one, namely, whether or not the amendment to section 903 is to be introduced into section 904 of the collective bargaining agreement so that the words "except classification matters" are deleted from both clauses, and in view of the fact that Mr. Shime-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask the question. It seems to me that his supplementary is somewhat involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I do not think it is involved, at least not for the minister, nor is it involved for those who know anything about it. There may be a few gentlemen on my right who know something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


David Lewis: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister my question. In view of the fact the dispute is a simple one, namely, whether or not the same amendment should be made to section 904 as was made to section 903 in the collective agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


An hon. Member:: Whereas, whereas, whereas!


An hon. Member:: Hold your tongue!


David Lewis: That pleases me, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his question. He will recognize that he has had the floor for some time now. Perhaps he should ask the question and give us a chance to proceed further on this subject.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question. You might ask the gentlemen on my right and on your left-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


David Lewis: -not to keep on interrupting me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he cannot now inform the House whether the government will accept this additional amendment to the contract so that the dispute may finally be settled?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment as long as that clarification report has not been made public.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-INTERVENTION OF MINISTER
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Has the minister himself contributed to clarify the situation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if I must account for all my hours of work, I can tell the hon. member that I worked very hard during the weekend.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that this and other disputes involving the public service and adjacent areas have been complicated by certain sections of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which circumscribe the free collective bargaining process, and in view of the fact the government has had before it a report dealing with this matter since the middle of June, 1971, will the minister now say when he proposes to bring forward the proposed changes to that act?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was asked and answered a few days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta on a supplementary.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This is an airport question, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago he informed me that the contracts for the Hudson Street bridge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I was under the impression that the hon. member wanted to ask a supplementary question. He will be recognized in a moment. I believe the hon. member for St. John's East has a supplementary on the matter being discussed.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OF CONCILIATION BOARD PROPOSAL RESPECTING CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General whether a representative of the government yesterday signed an agreement whereby the government would accept Mr. Shime's interpretation of the report of the conciliation board dealing with sections 903 and 904?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the government representatives at the bargaining table have received a very precise mandate to sign a collective agreement. We hope that the meeting scheduled for today will lead to a positive conclusion, that is the signature of the agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether a statement of intent was signed yesterday on behalf of the government by a government representative, together with the chairman of the conciliation board and a union representative?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we shall certainly honour the commitments of the government representative who signed a document.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister aware that the Chateau Laurier is giving preference to immigrants newly arrived from Europe by hiring them instead of qualified Canadians. Can the hon. minister inform us of the Canadian National policy in this respect?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of the facts just reported. If the hon. member can specify concrete grievances, I shall gladly discuss them with Canadian National authorities.


IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON MICHELIN TIRES IMPORTED FROM CANADA- REPRESENTATIONS BY GOVERNMENT APART FROM NOTE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to either the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following the trip of the premier of Nova Scotia to Washington after consultation with the Prime Minister over the United States countervailing duties on Michelin tires, what new efforts, apart from handing notes of protest to the United States Department of State as was done last week, is the government making in this matter? Also, is the matter now of sufficiently high priority to join the list of so-called economic irritants which need solving at the highest level of discussion between Canada and the United States?
Oral Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the note to the United States government was tabled yesterday, I believe. We made our representations in that note and we are awaiting the reply of the United States government before taking further action.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As a supplementary question-


Peter Reilly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West rises on a point of order.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the answer given me a few minutes ago by the President of the Treasury Board. He said that my question had been answered a couple of days ago. According to my best information, that is not the case. I would like an answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary.


PREPARATION OF POLICY ON DREE GRANTS AND TRADE PRACTICES FOR PRESENTATION TO GATT MEETINGS- EEC POSITION ON COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the government now preparing a comprehensive policy as far as DREE grants are concerned and trade practices generally to be presented at the next round of GATT? Also, have they been in touch with the European Economic Community to understand precisely what the position of the community is with regard to countervailing duties?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet discussed the question of countervailing duties, as it applies in principle to the Michelin case, with the officials of the EEC.
Undoubtedly, this question will be included with other questions of non-tariff barriers when the GATT hearings get under way later this year.


POSSIBILITY OF PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH UNITED STATES BEFORE LAUNCHING REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN FUTURE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the 6.6 per cent countervailing duty imposed by the United States on Michelin tires, will it be the minister's policy to consult the United States in future before launching development programs dependent on export markets in order to prevent this type of economic conflict?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite improper to ask another country whether we should go

January 23, 1973
Oral Questions
ahead with plans that we think are legitimate and in the interests of our own country.


PROTEST TO GATT RESPECTING UNITED STATES' IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON MICHELIN TIRES IMPORTED FROM CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Regardless of the discussion in principle with the GATT officials at the next meeting, has there been a formal protest to GATT about the imposition of a countervailing duty by the American government? If not, why not?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why not?


POSSIBILITY OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES BEING IMPOSED ON IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED UNDER DISC PROGRAM
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the appeal procedures in the United States with regard to the countervailing duty make it possible for Michelin to actually launch an appeal until the end of 1973, which might be a little late in terms of preserving jobs, and in view of the fact the memo sent by the government of Canada to the United States makes no reference to the granddaddy of all protective measures, namely, the United States DISC program, can the minister inform the House whether the Canadian government is considering levying countervailing duties on the products of all firms in the United States which are exporting to Canada under DISC?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is no; we are not considering that action at this time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and is a follow-up to a question I asked a while ago concerning a report made to the House by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Has the minister consulted with the CBC, and have steps been taken to collect these income taxes?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with members and the president of the corporation and I should have an answer to the specific question in the next day or two.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I asked this question two weeks ago, I would ask the minister to give an answer as soon as possible.


COMMUNICATIONS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was kind enough to indicate that he would ask his departmental officials to investigate the possibility of misleading advertising by Bell Canada. I wonder whether such an investigation has now taken place and is the minister now in a position to report to the House?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that certain advertisements in this connection have been considered in light of the misleading advertising provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I am further advised that the investigation did not disclose any grounds of violation. However, I would be pleased to transmit to the officials of the combines branch any further information the hon. member might have so it could be looked into further.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether it is now official government policy that an advisory council to deal with questions of multicultur-alism be established?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the government.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for multiculturalism. Can he indicate what method will be used in appointing members to this council? Will this simply be done by appointment by the government or will the various cultur al groups be asked to put forward names?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in the federal government's multicultural policy and the advisory council. I wish to inform him that the leaders of ethnic cultural organizations have been asked for suggestions and recommendations. I am reviewing the suggestions, which were very positive and numerous, and I hope to submit a report to the Prime Minister as soon as possible.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for multiculturalism. Can he indicate what the terms
January 23, 1973

of reference of the advisory council will be and when the council is expected to hold its first meeting?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I would rather make a statement on motions later in respect of this question.


An hon. Member:: When?


MULTICULTURALISM POLICY-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it relates to the same matter. Can he indicate what portion, if any, of the Department of the Secretary of State is answerable directly to the minister responsible for multiculturalism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister is responsible for this area of policy and questions should be addressed to him.


Charles E. Haliburton: Can the minister responsible advise the House whether in fact there are plans to transfer the administrative duties of that section of the Department of the Secretary of State to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of administration for the government and I do not wish to discuss it in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State-


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary question. I will then recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is not a supplementary. I should like to direct it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and then recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


CHURCHILL-ACTION TO ACHIEVE GREATER UTILIZATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the congenial Minister of Transport. On January 11 he said he would consider the greater utilization of the port of Churchill and would make a decision in a few weeks. Can he tell us now whether he has made a decision in respect of the greater utilization of this port which is so important to the Prairies?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is something our department is concerned with. We are now completing studies on costs and profits. As soon as these are ready, we shall be able to inform the House of the government's decisions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact we have been getting answers like this for years-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -can the minister tell us by what date we can expect a final decision on the greater utilization of that port?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the exact date.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is a very simple question for the minister.


An hon. Member:: It always is.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to ask the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism to advise the House to what extent research programs are being undertaken in his department to produce information on language maintenance and cultural development?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, this study is now being undertaken by a special research team and I hope to have a report within the next few months.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for two years now for at least one concrete proposal. When are we going to have it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that a report will be made as soon as I receive my report.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are beginning to sound like the Prime Minister.

January 23, 1973
Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Has the minister been in touch in the last 48 hours with representatives of the automobile industry with regard to the automobiles that have been recalled in Canada, and can he give the House the assurance that the federal government intends to take steps to make sure those recalls are made efficiently?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should allow the Minister of Transport to answer that question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, this time I should like to put my question to the Minister of Transport.
Has he been in touch within the last 48 hours with representatives of the automobile industry concerning the automobiles that have been recalled in Canada, and can he give the house the assurance that the federal government intends to take steps to ensure that those recalls are made efficiently?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that this falls within my jurisdiction. In any event, I will take the question as notice and answer it later on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: It was never like this in the old days.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will then ask the minister responsible, and I am surprised that it is not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


An hon. Member:: There is no responsible minister.


An hon. Member:: Get a better executive assistant.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister responsible for automobile safety standards whether he has communicated with the automobile industry in the last 48 hours in relation to the mass recall of unsafe automobiles and, if so, can the minister responsible assure the House that he will verify immediately the effectiveness of these recalls?


An hon. Member:: Will the real minister stand up? [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I simply wish to say that whenever I do not know the answer to a question, instead of talking through my hat, I shall take the question as notice. Members of the opposition enjoy a laugh, but they will laugh until their dying day.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Public Works that the three derelict barges disposed of by the department by sinking them in Okanagan Lake are not a hazard to navigation, will the minister assure the House that these barges do not constitute a hazard to either the environment or the recreational use of Okanagan Lake?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are checking into the matter and if the barges are a hazard either in respect of navigation or to the environment we will take appropriate action.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that the government has established procedures to ensure that acts of this nature will not be repeated until they have first received consideration by the Department of the Environment as to whether such acts are a contravention of Section 33 of the Fisheries Act of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think each department, like each developer, has a responsibility to look after matters of this kind. My department meanwhile will do its best to work with these developers or departments to make sure that the environment is protected.


John Allen Fraser: In view of my previous question, may I ask whether the minister is aware that prosecutions have taken place in the province of British Columbia against logging companies for dumping sinker logs in lakes, which is practically the same sort of act?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, and they have been taken principally by my department.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of the Environment whether his colleague the Minister of Public Works consulted him in his capacity as Minister of the Environment before these barges were sunk in this beautiful lake?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and also the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it is so long since you have recognized me that you have me over at the other end of the island.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Marshall: I have built up a good friendship with the Minister of Veterans Affairs because we have had lots of time. In view of the difficulties being experienced by many war veterans in acquiring land for homes because of the restrictions under the Veterans Land Act, and particularly because of the October 16 deadline, would the minister indicate whether he intends to bring in amendments to the act to satisfy the needs of these veterans?


Hon. Daniel I. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I inform the House that in 1965 legislation was proposed and enacted, with applications for qualification to be submitted by the deadline date of October 31, 1968. This gave veterans an opportunity to make a loan application. The closing date for loan applications is 1974, and there was also a provision for additional loans to be made up to 1977. In further reply to the question may I say we have not received many requests in this respect, and unless further interest is shown at this time my department does not intend to enact any further legislation.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that many veterans now retiring as well as many servicemen now retiring wish to make application under the act but are restricted by it as to the location of their homes, would the minister reconsider, because many more applications are coming in, amending the Veterans Land Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are always ready and willing to reconsider, and we will take a look at the number of applications coming in.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Would the minister reconsider the answer he gave me a couple of weeks ago and take another look at the bail reform legislation in view of a grand jury recommendation made recently in Toronto, and also in view of the arrest today of a suspect alleged to be involved in over a dozen offences, including twice failing to respond to bench warrants while at large by virtue of this legislation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated on many occasions that we would be willing to look at the bail act again as it began to be lived with and would make changes if they seemed to be required.
Oral Questions
However, I should like to confirm to the hon. member that I have followed up on the point I made to him on the previous occasion and have written to the Attorneys General across the country, drawing to their attention the need for appropriate action by both police and Crown prosecutors as well as the appropriateness of taking action against those who do not respond to summonses, so that in fact the bail law will work effectively.


ALLEGED IMPEDING OF INVESTIGATION OF NARCOTICS OFFENCES BY BAIL REFORM LAW
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice in connection with a story carried on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail. Is the minister's department inquiring into the suggestion that the bail reform legislation as it now stands is impeding investigation of narcotics offences in the country? If so, is he or the government considering altering the instructions that went out to the provincial Attorneys General earlier last year respecting the treatment of accused persons appearing before the courts on possession charges?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, those are two completely separate questions and I certainly would not relate them in any way. We will be looking at any report having to do with the operation of the bail law. I have had and will continue to have discussions with my provincial counterparts about this question.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court which will result in broadly liberalized abortion laws in 46 states, and in view of the Canadian Gallup poll published on January 4 of this year which showed that 61 per cent of Canadian adults agree that the decision on abortion should be made solely by the woman and her doctor, is the government planning to introduce legislation this session to amend the Criminal Code to this effect?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is the government prepared to arrange for a debate on this matter, such as was promised but not had before, during the present session?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been no decision to have one at the present time. We would have to consider the time of the House and the other pressing business before us.
January 23, 1973

Oral Questions


ABORTION-REQUEST THAT CALGARY BIRTH CONTROL ASSOCIATION BE PROHIBITED FROM REOPENING CLINIC
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Calgary Birth Control Association has just received a second year grant from LIP for $45,200, and this association last year opened abortion clinics which promoted easy abortion and set a precedent in the use of government money for abortion, will the minister prohibit the Calgary Birth Control Association from reopening its abortion clinic?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's allegations, my understanding is that they may not be correct. In checking into this we found that an unfortunate error was made in a newspaper report about this project some months ago which stimulated a great deal of criticism of this project. We doublechecked it and found that most local citizens considered it a very worthy one. My understanding is that this association does not operate an abortion clinic.


AIRPORTS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the question of airports and direct my question to my good friend the Minister of Transport. Just when we had gained some confidence that the minister was aware of the difference between Mount Hope and Pickering, the minister advised us today that his department does intend to go ahead with the expansion at Port Hope. This must come as some surprise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to take into account that other hon. members want to ask questions. It is very easy to preface a question with a speech but I do not think that is proper. The hon. member should ask his question.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to make sure that the Minister of Transport knew of that of which I speak. I now ask the Minister of Transport, who gave us the assurance that he would live up to the commitments of his predecessor, whether there will be public hearings into the proposed expansion of Mount Hope airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member wants to make his colleague laugh and I know this is easy to do. The public has been consulted widely enough in Hamilton, but if further consultations are needed, we shall not only gladly hold them but we shall also hear any person wishing to be heard.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplemental and is addressed to the Minister of Transport concerning airport matters. I should like to ask the minister when he will make some statement and provide some assistance to the airports at Fort St. James, Vander-hoof, Burns Lake, Smithers and Terrace?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OIL AND GAS-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES DEFENCE OFFICIALS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the optimistic evidence given yesterday by the assistant deputy minister of the United States Department of Defence before a Senate committee on oil and gas, may I ask whether there have been discussions or negotiations between the Canadian Department of National Defence and United States Pentagon officials in regard to an oil and gas deal between Canada and the United States?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister immediately expand his LIP program so as to provide for a desperately urgent works program to build dikes, earthworks or the taking of other appropriate measures to prevent imminent disaster to hundreds of homes and cottages on Long Point Island in Lake Erie?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there has been an application for a local initiatives project for that purpose but I shall take note of the hon. member's representation, with sympathy.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which I should like to direct to the Minister of the Environment and also the Minister of Transport. Has the Minister of the Environment discussed with his colleague the Minister of Transport measures that may be taken on Lake Erie? I raise this matter because of the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act over which the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment seem to have jurisdiction.
m


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry, Your Honour, but if they have discussed this matter what do they intend to do about it?


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada with reference to information they have provided concerning the question of capital punishment to Members of Parliament and the national press. From the point of view of categorizing and breaking down the information and in view of the increase of 100 per cent in murders and violent crimes, why was that information not sent with the other information? Was there any reason?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that these statistics were prepared for publication in Murder Statistics, 1971 and Murders Reported, 1961-1970. Due to the time requirements of the printing process, these publications will not become available for approximately two months. It is Statistics Canada's normal policy, especially if there is prior evidence of public interest or concern, to provide advance information regarding forthcoming publications just as soon as the relevant data are available.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I might divide it into two parts. First of all, has the minister taken note of the fact that the national newspapers say they could not obtain this information and will it now be supplied to all Members of Parliament and the national press at their request?
Mr Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Murder Statistics tabulations are complete and the data are available upon request. I can inform the hon. member of the telephone number if he would like it.

f Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that many people who submitted local initiatives projects have not received an answer yet, may I ask the minister when these requests will be approved or turned down?

Hon. Robert E. Andreas (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this was dealt with on the late show last night to a degree, as I believe the hon. member
Oral Questions
opposite mentioned. At the moment $148 million of the $165 million allocated has been approved, including some
5,000	projects. This is 5,000 out of 15,053 projects for a total of $480 million in applications received. We are holding about $10 million to look after the special section for entrepreneurial, co-operative and business projects, which we will hold for a little while longer to deal with such special applications. The rest will go generally to administration. So we are very close to the end of the allocation this year, and all project sponsors will be advised shortly as to whether or not their projects have been approved.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROJECTS BY MEMBERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Local Initiatives Program.
Could he tell us whether it is the policy of his department to allow municipal LIP projects to be announced by members or ministers of provincial legislative assemblies before these projects are approved by the federal government?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the policy of the department. If the hon. member can give me some examples I would be glad to look into how it might have happened.


AIRPORTS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport regarding the Hudson Street bridge contract. In the minister's telegram to me on January 16 he assured me that any contracts which are directly affected by the outcome of the Burkeville area expropriation hearings will not be awarded until after the results of the hearings are known. When does the minister expect these expropriation hearings to be over?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask those who are conducting the hearings when they think the hearings will be over. I do not know now.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the minister now tell the House when these expropriation hearings will start? They have not yet started.

January 23, 1973
Oral Questions


INDEMNIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF THALIDOMIDE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Owing to the recent decision rendered in Great Britain which has compelled the company responsible for the distribution of thalidomide to assume the financial responsibility for afflicted children, can the minister assure the House and the country that the government is seriously considering the matter, in order to find the moans to help the 82 victims of that drug who are still alive in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as early as 1962, the Canadian government, in co-operation with the provinces, was one of the first governments in the world, I think, to develop a joint program of full services for thalidomide victims. This program is available to all thalidomide victims, and all parents of a child who has been affected by this drug may benefit from this program.
Furthermore, officials have recently held a meeting with representatives of the firm responsible for the production of this drug, and I understand that the representatives of this firm are negotiating with the parents of all these children in order to come to a settlement in this matter.


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


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I am, Sir. It is understandable that the backbenchers on the other side might not have full opportunity to obtain information but it is carrying things a little to the extreme for parliamentary secretaries to set up questions and answers like this. The next thing that will happen is that we will have ministers asking ministers questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is perhaps more a point of order than a question of privilege. If the minister wishes to address himself to the point of order he may do so.


John Napier Turner: I think Your Honour decided some time ago that parliamentary secretaries are
entitled to put questions to ministers as long as the questions are put to ministers other than their own. The hon. gentleman has been here long enough to know that this is perfectly legitimate.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Saint-Denis on the point of order. [Translation]
Is the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on a point of order?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I said that unless the Chair advises us otherwise I intended to discharge my duties as well as any other member. Unless the Chair advises us otherwise, I would like to assure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that I fully intend to continue discharging my duties, and taking as much interest as he is taking in current problems.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to get into any controversy with the Minister of Finance, but it is not the practice for parliamentary secretaries to ask questions in the House. I realize that they need information, but if they do not get better and more complete answers than we do from ministers they are welcome to the opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would point out that discussion of this point of order could continue for a long time. We have gone beyond the question period. I tried to recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge at the same time that I recognized the hon. member for St. Denis. Perhaps before we call orders of the day we might give an opportunity to the hon. member for Lethbridge to ask his question.


RAPESEED AND FLAX-INQUIRY AS TO PLEBISCITE ON INCLUSION UNDER WHEAT BOARD FOR MARKETING PURPOSES
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was becoming a little concerned as I took my red jacket back to the rental outfit. My question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the government going to initiate a plebiscite on whether rapeseed and flax should be included in Wheat Board marketing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated many times in the past number of months, we intend to consult producers concerning this matter. Some of the producer organizations are still quite concerned that adequate information is not available on the subject in a way which will expedite a good decision. We

January 23, 1973

are discussing this further, and I hope to be able to have a decision from the prairie producers in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members want to ask supplementary questions but we have gone ten minutes beyond the question period. I think we should call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
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:
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 (p. 477), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harney (p. 478); the amendment, Mr. Woolliams (p. 536), and the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Knowles (p. 537); the amendment, Mr. Atkey (p. 538).
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the special order made at yesterday's sitting, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions and to the putting of any other question necessary to dispose of the amendments now before the House in relation to the motion to appoint a special committee to inquire into the trends in food prices.
The first question will be on the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment carried.
The amendment as amended will now be put to the House.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of saving time, now that we have heard the sweet mating call of the NDP and the Liberals, we see no reason to put the motion as amended. It is obvious that the Liberals and the NDP will agree to it and, as far as we are concerned, there is no reason to put it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we would not want to break up that happy marriage.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House wish to withdraw the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it carried on division?


An hon. Member:: Carried on division.
Amendment as amended (Mr. McGrath) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). 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:: Is it the wish of the House to proceed without ringing the bells? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Messrs:
Cossitt	Howie	McKinnonCrouse	Hueglin	MitgesDanforth	Hurlburt	MuirDarling	Jarvis	Munro (Esquimalt-Dick	Kempling	Saanich)Diefenbaker	Knowles (Norfolk-	MurtaDinsdale	Haldimand)	Neil (Moose Jaw)Ellis	Korchinski	NesbittEpp	Kuntz	NielsenFairweather	Lambert	NowlanForrestall	(Edmonton West)	OberleFrank	Lawrence	O'ConnorFraser	Lundrigan	O'SullivanGillies	MacDonald	PaproskiGrafftey	(Egmont)	ReynoldsHales	MacDonald	RitchieHaliburton	(Kingston and	RocheHamilton	The Islands)	Rynard(Qu'Appelle-	Maclnnis	SchellenbergerMoose Mountain)	(Cape Breton-	SchumacherHamilton	East Richmond)	Scott(Swift Current-	MacKay	StackhouseMaple Creek)	MacLean	StanfieldHargrave	Maequarrie	StevensHees	Madill	Stewart (Marquette)Hellyer	Marshall	TaylorHigson	Masniuk	Thomas (Moncton)Hollands	Mazankowski	TowersHolmes	McCain	WagnerHorner (Crowfoot)	McCleave	WhittakerHomer	McGrath	Wise(Battleford-	McKenzie	WoolliamsKindersley)	McKinley	Yewchuk-101.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment carried. The question is now on the amendment, moved by Mr. Woolliams, seconded by Mr. Dinsdale. I am not sure whether-


Gerald William Baldwin: Possibly Your Honour could carry out the same procedure as on the last amendment.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is it not the situation that we now have an amendment as amended?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, this is the amendment as amended which will have to be put before the House. I am seeking the guidance of hon. members whether they want the question put and either carried or lost on division. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.
Amendment (Mr. Woolliams) as amended agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Food Prices Committee


Mr. Speaker:: 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:: Is it the wish of the House that we have the division without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now return to consideration oi the main motion as amended.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise to discuss some of the important matters and criteria that this committee should examine in respect of food prices. I was somewhat amazed by some of the amendments moved. We have now entered an era in which that great party of tradition and protection in this country has moved an amendment to eliminate the other place. This has been quite a change.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I simply want to remind the hon. member that he cannot reflect on a vote. There

should not be any debate on a matter that has been decided by a vote in the House.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in this nation we have had a series of committees examining the matter of food prices as they affect the consumer. Quite often those committees have not considered the problems that are faced by the producers. Certainly, there is ample evidence to indicate a need for a revision of the entire food industry from the primary producer to the consumer. The criteria outlined for the study could well be expanded to include a considerable number of items in addition to those in the terms of reference. This is certainly true when we consider that in 1949 farmers were receiving 57 per cent of the food dollar, while in 1972 they are receiving only 38 per cent of that food dollar. Surely, this is an area which ought to be examined as well.
I am not so much concerned about the kind of debate which has taken place, and some of it has been very good. What disturbs me is that before this motion to establish a committee was put forward the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) consulted with the food industry to determine whether there should be an examination of the food industry. He wanted to know if it would be all right to examine this whole area as well as the corporate interests involved. There was no minister of finance in the constituency of Assiniboia asking the farmers about a study of food prices as they related to them. There was no minister of finance asking the consumers of this nation what effect an examination of food prices would have on them. The minister went to the food industry for consultation, which indicates the relationship between the corporate interests and the present government. He wanted to know if it would be all right to have an investigation of the situation.
When the measure is adopted we will have a committee of 25 members with the old line parties having equal membership, and with three members from the NDP. I can see how the consumers and farmers of this country can be helped by that situation. There ought to be a clear examination of the structure of corporate power within this nation and how it relates to food prices.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Who voted with the government?


William George Knight: I am sure that the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) can find some kind of agreement in his Tory heart. He knows the plight of the farmers. He knows that wheat is selling to the milling companies for $1.95 a bushel while domestic wheat is bringing, on the average, $2.63 a bushel.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You supported the government.


William George Knight: The price is $1.95 j for milling wheat, but the actual market price is up to $2.63 a bushel. I suggest the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) should learn that farmers are not going to be fooled by the two-price system which allows the price of wheat to milling companies to stand at $1,951 per bushel. There has been no sign from that group that there will be any change in this kind of situation, certainly not by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). The Minister of Finance had an interview with the members of the food industry with regard to what could be done, and this parliament, through amend-

ments, has now strengthened the role that this committee should play; I think that is important.
What has brought this issue to a head? Some interesting facts were pointed out in the Gazette. For example, the bag of groceries that the housewife bought in December cost her 8.6 per cent more than it cost a year ago, thus squeezing the family budget and eroding the purchasing power of those on fixed incomes. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has referred to the situation faced by many people on fixed incomes when they buy food. Indeed, many of them have no incomes at all, and to them a steak is a slice of bologna. In this nation of so much wealth and possibility, these are questions that ought to be examined by the committee and some answers to them brought forward.
Then, we have the corporate side of the food industry. Supermarkets state that their profit range is less than 1.5 per cent of sales. However, they neglect to point out that profit on investment is closer to 11 per cent. We are used to hearing these kinds of figures from the old line parties, but we are not used to hearing these kinds of figures from the food industry-that is, unless you are a farmer, in which case you have been hearing them for years. A profit of 11 per cent is more the kind of tune they should be playing.
Let me give some further information about the corporate side of the food industry. In 1966, five corporate chains controlled more than 75 per cent of the grocery business in urban areas, and since then that control has been increasing all the time. During this debate reference was made to the termination of the investigation that was made in 1967. My family has been involved in the food industry, either as a producer or as a small retail operator, for quite a long time and could tell a lot about the corporate interests in this country, as well as what has happened to small businessmen as a result of the growth of large corporations. We have seen chain store after chain store built on every corner of every street, almost to the point where they are like garages. What a waste of capital expenditure.
In the city of Weyburn there is a co-operative which does offer some competition to the monopolies. There is also an OK Economy store and a Safeway, and there is not a block between the three of them. The co-op does very well and I believe that Safeway does very well, but the OK Economy store might as well have never been built. This is an illustration of waste and it is the sort of thing the committee should examine to determine the best use of capital by large chain stores.
In one part of the food processing industry one firm controlled 100 per cent of the market in the Maritimes and western Canada and 80 per cent of the market in Quebec and Ontario. What does this kind of control do to prices, Mr. Speaker? It allows monopolistic capitalism to set the price that the consumer pays and which the producer receives for his commodity. I assume that the two old line parties call this free enterprise, but to me it is the kind of free enterprise that is free only for those who can gouge.
I have already referred to the domestic price of wheat and how it is affecting producers in western Canada. We
Food Prices Committee
have had the Lift program and Lord knows what other kind of programs offered by this government which have been let-downs. I remember the hue and cry on the part of some members of the opposition in this House at the small farm development program, yet two Tory governments were the first to participate in that program.
In 1972 the farmer, particularly in the west, was simply getting to the position where he should have been in terms of income. This committee should examine with real seriousness farm income and how it relates to the price of food. How many realize that only one and three quarter cents of a 30 cent loaf of bread goes to the producer? I include the three quarters of a cent since the price of bread has risen on the world market, though the millers are still paying $1,954 per bushel for wheat. Let me use as a further example the price of another product. A 48-ounce can of apple juice sells today for 40 cents. Do you assume, Mr. Speaker, that the producer gets 20 cents of that 40 cents? No, Sir, he does not. Would you assume that he gets 15 cents? All he gets, Mr. Speaker, is seven cents of that 40 cents.
The average return on an acre of land in western Canada during the last five years does not even amount to $1, which would produce a net income of $640 per section. The net return is not even 50 cents, it is a mere 44 cents an acre. This is an atrocious situation in terms of trying to keep farmers on the land and illustrates the problems faced by producers. In 1949 the net income of a farmer was $1,383. By 1971 it had climbed a little and had reached $1,570. If an individual can look at those figures and fail to recognize that there have to be some fundamental answers to the problems facing producers, then he cannot see beyond his own nose.
Cash receipts received by western farmers in the year 1951 amounted to $694 million. If I may go back to 1949, the total was $682 million. Instead of increasing in step with the rest of the economy, these cash receipts had dropped to $533 million by 1969. In 1970, they totalled $570 million and in 1971 $575 million. No producer can get fat off the land with a return like that. As I say, the committee ought to examine what is the farmer's share of the food dollar in relation to the price paid for his commodities by the consumer. The committee should examine the whole question of pricing in the large urban centres. In a certain end of the town when it is known that the workingman is buying hamburger, bologna or other cheaper cuts, the prices are increased. At the other end of the town where the more well-to-do people live-


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives.


William George Knight: -the food prices remain the same. Another matter the committee should examine is the relationship between the price the farmer receives for his commodities and the cost of production. When people say that the price of food has increased, in terms of what the farmer is receiving,-and I am not talking about retail prices-they never examine the cost of the various items connected with production such as the price of farm machinery which is skyrocketing, the price of fertilizer which increased $10 a ton in one week or the gouging in respect of land in western Canada which is the greatest it has

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
been in five years. These things should be kept in mind by the committee when it examines the food industry.
Finally, the committee should look into the area of corporate expenditures related to the construction of fancy buildings, the use of fancy advertising and so on. Furthermore, the committee should take some initiative or show some imagination by examining the possibility of having a program to help those people in Canada who are in need of a proper diet and proper nutrition. For example, one might examine the idea of an internal food aid program. This would be the type of program that would ensure that Canadians on low incomes, and perhaps those in some isolated areas of this nation, would have a proper diet. If we were to examine the kind of program outlined by the United States government, perhaps we would find that such a program could be generated for the farmers of this nation, particularly the farmers of eastern Canada and the Maritimes rather than the wheat producers. Through an internal aid food program, we could generate something in the neighbourhood of $200 million for the benefit of the producers and at the same time solve the problems of the needy people in this country where one Canadian in every four still lives below the poverty line. That kind of redistribution in terms of food should be given serious consideration.
I asked in this House for a copy of a report by the United States Department of Agriculture under its internal food aid program, as did the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) previously. When one asks for information on such a program what is the result? We are told that the publication of this report is not in the public interest. It is not in the public interest because federal governments, either the Tweedledee's or the Tweedledum's, have not had the imagination to develop this kind of program which would be of assistance to the primary producers of this country. This is one area into which I hope the committee will look.
I have a letter, if I may call it a letter-perhaps it is more in the form of a petition-from the Federated Co-operatives Limited in Saskatchewan. It is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who just stepped out. This organization is interested in the matter of the inflated costs. It reads:
WHEREAS the Prices and Incomes Commission in its final report-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him under the order of last week has expired. He could continue, however, if there is unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William George Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my fellow members for their courtesy in giving me this extra time, including the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I shall proceed to the part of this letter containing the resolution:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we urge the Government of Canada to reconsider the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission and to initiate, with the least possible delay, a program of measures designed to control inflation and to stabilize prices in Canada;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such measures be contrived and applied in such a manner as to avoid placing the preponderance of its consequences upon wage earners or persons of fixed income, but in fair and just manner, apply to all forms of individual, corporate and institutional income and include prices, profits, interest, salaries and wages, and tax-derived revenues.
This is something we would never get from the Tory party. When this committee draws its report, I suggest it may come to the conclusion that there must be a program of income support or support prices for the producer's commodities, perhaps in the form of guaranteed minimum prices. On the other end, in terms of the consumers, the committee may conclude that there should be a program of income redistribution in this country so that people will have the money necessary to purchase those consumer goods, such as food, which everyone needs.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate I wish to say that as a member of this House of Commons I am somewhat shocked by the blasphemies heaped upon the members of my party by my friends to the left, especially when we were so generous in permitting the hon. member a few moments of extra time.
Like everyone else who has preceded me in this debate, I am concerned about the price of food and how it keeps rising. I am concerned about the effect of these increases on pensioners and others on fixed incomes. Frankly, I do not understand how some people are able to raise a family of three or four children with all the necessities in respect of clothing, housing and so on, on the incomes they have. I am concerned about what is happening to these people in the communities. They are taxed at one end of the scale by the Department of National Revenue, by sales taxes, by municipal taxes, by education taxes, by the excise tax, and on the other end of the scale they are taxed by the fact that the value of the dollar they have dwindles and disappears. I agree with many hon. members who have spoken from both sides of this House that if this increase in food costs had in some way supported the farmers or producers of Canada in a realistic manner then maybe the public would not be so concerned. But that has not happened.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spoke of the abandoned farms in the west. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have them in eastern Ontario as well. The government has embarked on a marketing policy that is putting producers out of the market. As if that process needed any help, a capital gains tax has been placed on farmlands, even when they are passed within a family. The basic herd principle has been abandoned. All these factors not only drive producers off the land but ensure that very few new producers can come on the land to take their place. I remember this past spring and fall that the farmers of eastern Ontario, particularly in Dundas, Grenville and Carleton counties, were having difficulty in even getting onto the land to see whether they could harvest their stunted crops. When they could not get on the land to do that, when they needed cash to help them, when they needed a policy to help stabilize the price of feed, when they needed real help, this government came through with a pittance in comparison with the size of the problem. In fact, one farmer in my constituency said to me that what he got from the government in the form of aid in that

January 23, 1973

crisis would not pay the legal fees of a good lawyer in the foreclosure action that he faced.
The NDP, that party to the left, lash out at conglomerates, the big chains, the retailers, but they never mention the unions. They take us on a trip that starts at the corner store, continues to Loblaws and finally ends up in Sweden. We always seem to end up in Sweden.
What of this government? The minister says that the government is determined to contain inflation and to protect the dollar. I ask you: when did they develop this concern? I suggest that they started to develop it in the election of 1972. The problem has been with us for four years. They like to say that this is a lesson they learned from the election. I put it to you, Sir, that I would be forgiven if I called it a deathbed repentance. They called it a world-wide problem. They blame it on poor food crops. They compare Canada with countries with which there is no valid comparison and, when all else fails, they blame it on the weather. They never face up to the fact that they could have done something about it, but they did not even try. The best they have been able to do for a country that is waiting for answers has been to wring their hands and to form a committee.
I share the doubts of members of the House on both sides on the question of whether this committee will ever be effective. But as members of this House, we cannot throw up our hands in despair. Our duty is to make that committee work, if it will work, and to make that committee as effective as possible. That is why I supported the motion not to include the members of the other place, as well as the other motions. However, the House has voted on those motions.
There are some hon. members who have advocated the imposition of price and wage controls, and who have suggested that it be done immediately. I hope that the situation in this country can be such that we will never need this kind of control of our economy. But it is a matter which the committee must consider and upon which it must make a recommendation. Speaking for myself and judging from the calls I have had from the people in my constituency as well as the letters that I have received from my constituents and other people, I am satisfied that the mood of the country, if it can be measured on the basis of telephone calls, letters and conversations, is such that the people would now accept at least a temporary freeze on wages and prices. The committee has a duty to consider this remedy, but the government has a duty to the House and to the country in that regard. No one would expect the government to announce a system of wage and price controls unless it is debated in the House first, and after they have determined to impose such a remedy, if they ever do. But everyone expects this government to come clean with the committee and with the country. Everyone expects the government to lay its cards on the table.
The Trudeau government has said that they have contingency plans. They have a duty to this committee, this House and this country to produce plans. The country should know how far the government intends to go if it decides to impose wage and price controls. Would their
Food Prices Committee
plan include a prices and wages review board? What other machinery would be included in their contingency plan? Indeed, do these plans go beyond the mere control of food prices and do they venture into the field of rent, housing, and other incomes as well as all the other components in the total inflation picture?
The government has said that these contingency plans are in existence. They should not be hidden behind the words "in due course". The government should now take this country into its confidence. More important, they have said that they will impose these contingency plans "when the time comes". They have a duty to tell this committee, to tell the House and the country what criteria they will consider in determining when the time has come. I say this, and I say this with some sorrow, that I am satisfied that the indecisive and unresponsive attitude of this government in all matters, whether in postal disputes, industrial disputes or even on the matter of prices, has encouraged rather than discouraged changes and increases in prices. I am satisfied as well that the government has contributed to an attitude in Canada where large price increases are now considered inevitable by all those engaged in the market, and as a result those who now ask us for remedies find themselves in the midst of a crisis.
The government has a duty to make a full disclosure. If they do not, then the committee may well be a charade, and I hope it never becomes that. If they do make a disclosure, then I put it to you that it is reasonable to expect that the glimmer of optimism which some of us still hold may be justified. I do not think I shall take up any more of the time of the House in this debate. There are other hon. members who wish to speak on the question and instruct the committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, once more the members are forging ahead in a debate on inflation. Indeed, the problem of increasing cost of living and salaries continues to haunt the government and once again we realize that the government does not have ready solutions to solve it.
Faced with this situation, the government suggests as usual that a committee be created to study the trends in food prices across Canada as well as their causes.
Mr. Speaker, by asking the House to form a committee to study the higher food costs, the government recognizes the total failure of the studies made by the famous Young commission on inflation. I remember the bitter debates in this House when the Young commission was created, when the government thought it had found a miracle solution to check inflation. In fact it was decided that a special commission would be assigned the task, by Parliament, of looking into all the elements, domestic and foreign, which contribute to the rise in prices and salaries, and taking the necessary steps to check, inflation. As it happens, the work of that commission gave absolutely no results.
Inflation-to use a favorite expression of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-keeps "galloping", prices and

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
salaries keep going up, and poverty exists among riches. Quite paradoxically, the price of commodities keeps rising, while the Canadian people are getting deeper and deeper into debt because they lack the purchasing power to buy them, and the government keeps taking that power away from them by picking their pockets and then, we are in a vicious circle.
Mr. Speaker, this committee the government proposes to appoint will have to report and make recommendations on the trends of food prices. There is no need to appoint a committee to do that. Every Canadian will agree with me that prices are going up. Therefore, there is no need to appoint a committee in order to determine the trend of prices because they are obviously going up. And I suppose that if the government is now making a further attempt by giving such responsibilities to that committee it is probably because the Young Commission, with all its studies that cost thousands of dollars, did not succeed in finding whether prices were going up or down.
It is indeed incredible that we should be satisfied with marking time and still ask ourselves whether prices are rising. Such studies will not give one cent more to any Canadian consumer, except to the officials travelling with the committee.
The second responsibility entrusted to that committee is to study the factors domestic and foreign which account for the trends of food prices.
Mr. Speaker, as concerns the factors likely to have a bearing on prices, no new information will crop up. If you consider the results of the Barber Commission on the prices of farming implements mentioned in his speech last night by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)- a report which has been shelved under a ten-inch thick layer of dust-you will find conclusions about the foreign and domestic factors that influence price increases.
If you go through the reports submitted by the Canadian Economic Council since its establishment, you will realize that the foreign and domestic factors of consumer price increases have been identified by that organization but here again these conclusions remain the bedside book of the Right hon. Prime Minister and of the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). They do not go any further because the governments, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, of the last 100 years have been the main factors of price and salary increases through their policy which only results in depriving taxpayers of their purchasing power, thus creating an imbalance between consumption and production which only leads to more inflation.
Among the factors which influence consumer prices, one should consider indirect taxation instead of direct taxation, and particularly the sales tax on building materials which causes consumer prices to go up. One should also consider personal income tax which still reduces the purchasing power. What happens under such circumstances? The income of the Canadian citizen is subjected to all kinds of taxes and inevitably he is unable to buy the goods which he himself produced. Why? Because between production and consumption the governments always step in to reduce the purchasing power, but they never dare think one minute that perhaps they

should do the opposite in order to solve this problem, that is increase the individual purchasing power.
It is rather paradoxical that in spite of an overproduction in Canada, not only the findings of studies but even some members say that underconsumption exists because prices are too high. It is strange to find that everyone is playing around the real problem, but nobody attacks it.
Social Crediters have been laughed at for a long time because some said they were advocating a silly doctrine and intended to operate a money machine. Today all serious-minded people know that this is false. In explaining their doctrine, Creditistes have often indicated that the individual is the cornerstone of the economic system and that, inasmuch as the individual really takes part in the economic life of his country, it is soundly administered and the government truly achieves its end which is to make financially possible what is physically desirable for the Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, the various succeeding governments always went in for getting more money from the taxpayers' pockets in order to finance countless government programs in social security, regional economic expansion or any other fields, thus reducing the taxpayers' purchasing power.
Given this fact and spiraling prices and wages, Social Crediters suggest two solutions. First, as thd major problem is the lack of purchasing power it would be imperative to recommend the establishment of a guaranteed annual income for each citizen, whatever his situation, his language, his race or his religion so as to enable him to get his share of the national production and this without any rise in prices or in wages. Each and every one, according to his age and certain categories and taking into account the present economic situation, should be granted an income which will ensure not only that individual work is encouraged, but also that the individual has the financial means to take part in production and consumption by purchasing products on the market.
Mr. Speaker, ministers of finance gorge themselves with nice talk when they say that Canada has a very high national product. In his next budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will tell that due to the good administration of the government, gross national product has once again increased by so much per cent. In the meantime however, the purchasing power of the consumer will also have been eroded, poverty will have increased and the administration of social security schemes will cost more and more. The wage-earner is heavily taxed in order that those who do not work may be given something and finally the economic wheel of our country is not turning well.
We therefore propose granting each Canadian citizen a guaranteed annual income whose amount would be scientifically calculated to enable him to purchase the share of the national production which he either earns through his work or is fully entitled to as a Canadian citizen.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would certainly increase Canadian production without necessarily boosting prices, but of course prices might still go up.
January 23, 1973

Because of this, the Social Credit party has long been advocating legislation entirely in contradiction with the philosophy of the old parties which have been succeeding each other over the past 100 years, namely compensated discount to be granted to consumers through the dealer with reimbursement guaranteed by the government. This program is contrary to price and salary controls in that it leaves the consumer free to purchase where he will and the dealer free to participate or not to the program. Moreover, this compensated discount program would allow the government to take direct action relative to prices.
Mr. Speaker, that is a scientific economic project worthy of examination. To my great regret, once again the government is about to set up a task force to study studies carried out by other task forces, all of which will result in more reports which will sit on shelves, without any positive recommendation being brought forward.
Under the influence of the New Democratic Party, they will propose controls over prices and salaries.
Through the backward policy of the old political parties, the consumer today is caught in a vise and unable to participate in production. As for the merchant, he must in turn face price increases, wage increases, taxes on capital gains, so that the businessman, the industrialist and the private sector are also trapped in a vise. This is why we say that we are heading more and more toward a socialist system.
But, Mr. Speaker, I shall oppose with all my strength any control over prices and salaries in Canada because, having observed the course of this debate, I realize very clearly that this will be one of the findings of the committee's report and I fully intend to keep on proposing in this House a compensated discount.
The compensated discount, as I summed it up a moment ago, is a concrete step. Nothing is forced upon anyone and price increases are directly affected. Those dealers who want to opt out may do so. However, they will have to face a fair competition, because Social Credit respects and promotes the healthy and normal development of free enterprise in our country, that is private enterprise.
The dealer who chooses to join the compensated discount scheme can then give, according to the present economic conditions and the indications of the Minister of Finance, a discount up to 5 per cent for specific economic conditions.
Thus, any consumer is free to do business with a dealer who takes part in the compensated discount scheme or with another who does not. Moreover, the dealer is entirely free to accept or not the compensated discount program.
The consumer buying from a dealer who has joined the program will get a product at 5 per cent less. The consumer pays 5 per cent less for the product and the dealer files a claim with the government at the end of the month so as to compensate for his loss; thus the selling price of a product for the dealer taking part in the program is the same as for the dealer who has not joined it, except that in the case of the consumer there is a 5 per cent saving.
Food Prices Committee
Why is the government creating a committee to investigate consumer prices? It is precisely because they want to yap, to clamour from one ocean to another that prices are going up, that people's incomes do not enable them to buy those products, and that they are therefore getting into debt with finance companies that will take advantage of them through publicity by making them pay hidden interest rates.
Supermarkets are exploiting consumers as they create in their stores such an atmosphere that consumers cannot help buying. The consumer is also deceived by the false publicity as well as by middlemen between producers and consumers, so much that an item which should have cost very little in the first place is finally sold at an outrageous and abusive price because a whole series of middlemen took their share of profit without taking part in the production.
Mr. Speaker, if the government is aware of price increases and if in creating this third or fifth committee on prices it recognizes the failure of its earlier committees, I wonder whether it is trustworthy, serious and really sincere in its attempt at finding a solution. I wonder therefore why it would not consider, through the action of this committee, the possibility of using the Social Credit's scientific mechanism for prices, namely the consumer's compensated discount. The government would then show that it is responsible because, while respecting the freedom of the dealers, it would respect that of the consumers and would encourage a greater consumption. Consequently, production would have to be stepped up. Unemployment would be reduced and free enterprise would be respected. For once, it would get some encouragement from the government.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit party of Canada have taken a vote earlier in favour of an amendment designed to increase the membership of this committee from 20 to 25, because when there was a membership of 20 our party had only one representative on this committee. By increasing that number to 25, we shall have two spokesmen who will surely propose to other committee members the adoption of a compensated discount scheme which is a logical, modern and advanced solution. Perhaps this is why it is so badly understood, too advanced as it is for the retrograded minds of the federal cabinets which have succeeded each other for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the goodwill of my colleagues from all political parties that they have at least the moral earnestness to consider the proposed compensated discount before falling into the clutches of socialism with all its implications: a general control over prices and wages, impeding the rights of individuals and businesses in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we must never forget that the keystone of our economy and of our country is personal initiative, the development of the individual, his desire to progress, to improve his standard of living by taking part in a business by his work or otherwise. The day when we finally achieve such a total control over prices and wages, for whatever period of time, we shall display moral dishonesty because there are many other positive and efficient solutions, like the compensated discount. Moreover, we shall hamper all, personal initiative.

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Before going back to my seat, Mr. Speaker, I shall give a typical example: There are families which live on welfare, on unemployment insurance benefits, families whose head is working for Rubin Bros. Clothiers Ltd. or Utex Corporation, in Victoriaville, for a low salary or working for an industry in Three Rivers, Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe or elsewhere for a very low salary. When this worker goes home, he gives his pay cheque to his wife, looks at his children, smokes his cigarette and feels rather depressed. It is not an incentive for him.
Two unpleasant things happen which show the extent to which government policy is stupid, irrational and backward. First, the only course open to this worker is to push his union to get him a salary increase, and then prices unavoidably go up, and he is faced with the same problem. Second, when the mother of the family does her shopping, she does not buy her groceries according to the needs of her family but rather according to the pay cheque of her husband because of this crazy system protected by both the Grits and the Tories.
Mr. Speaker, that is where we stand in this economic system, where people are deterred from participating in production and from helping themselves, requesting from the various levels of government more and more social security measures to provide for what they lack, and what they lack is a purchasing power that will allow them to participate in the economic life of their country.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I urge this government, as well as their advisers and protectors, the NDP members to consider seriously the proposals brought forth by the Social Credit Party in opposition to the present policy which actually reduces the purchasing power. We say: let us give each Canadian citizen his share of the national output by means of a guaranteed annual income and let us give him protection against production costs and consumer prices by accepting this solution which is not a magic solution but an economic one, administered by men, that is a compensated discount which will allow us to respect the freedom of individuals and at the same time reach for the goal that this government and we are seeking to achieve, that is to make sure that prices will no longer be a nightmare for Canadians.


Mr.   Terry@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this august body for the first time. May I briefly but sincerely congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and your deputy for your well deserved elections to the status of being just a little more equal than the rest of us equals.
Mr. Speaker, it is of some encouragement to me that the government has at last formally acknowledged the existence of one of the serious problems facing this country today. Canadians have at their disposal many methods of communication with the federal government. But undoubtedly the most effective tool available to them in order to make their voices heard is the ballot box. It took this ultimate weapon to bring to them the realization of what committees, provincial governments, opposition parties and many ordinary citizens of this country have been telling them for years: that is, that inflation is a serious national problem in both economic and human terms. As encouraging as it is that their attention has finally been

directed to the problem, albeit with a sledge hammer, it is just as discouraging to look at the solution they propose.
As previous speakers have pointed out there is a plethora of committees, joint and otherwise, as well as royal commissions dating back to the depression. These have not solved anything. In fact in our modern setting, they may well contribute to our inflationary problem in the short run. Their very existence, with the possibility of recommendations involving some sort of controls, may tend to create panic price increases in anticipation of these controls.
No, Mr. Speaker, along with most observers of the political scene, we in the official opposition are not optimistic that this grudging acknowledgement of the problem by the government will solve anything. Notwithstanding this, we are determined to try to achieve some beneficial results from the exercise. Thus, we have moved our amendments to this motion to eliminate Senate representation, to limit sitting time to 90 days and to limit the costs to the taxpayers by restricting travel and the use of outside support staff. In place of "outside support staff" we may well substitute the words, "defeated Liberal candidates".
Surely, the precedents set during previous severe inflationary periods have proven the truth of these comments and established the necessity for the amendments proposed. We have endured a history of four or five committees sitting interminably, travelling luxuriously and exhibiting for all Canadians to wonder at, the usual three ring circus of House of Commons balancing artists, Senate clowns and government trained seals. And what has this recurring circus accomplished over the years? For an answer, we need only ask any Canadian housewife. Prices continue to rise and the scramble of wage and other income earners to keep up has severely accelerated the inflationary spiral.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that even the government knows that we can hope for little in the way of concrete results. They have attacked and resisted our amendments. But when such eminent government apologists as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail impugn, not the amendments themselves, but our motives for moving them, they are admitting the necessity of the amendments. I will resist the temptation to comment on the motives of any member or party in this House. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the government moved this motion and proposed this committee for any but the most noble of reasons.
This committee will have an opportunity to make some contribution towards solving the serious problem of inflationary food prices only if it assiduously analyses all facets of the food producing and distributing industry. It must act with despatch, sit continuously and call responsible and knowledgeable advisers and economic analysts. Further, it must do something entirely unnatural and unaccustomed, to this type of committees. It must actually listen to the economic advice proffered, weigh it and be prepared to recommend to this House strong practical economic measures which will effectively combat the
January 23, 1973

problem. The answers are economic, Mr. Speaker, and they relate to the state of the entire economy. It is inconceivable to me that this body can hope to examine the face of the coin and fail to turn it over. Inflation is related to prices and incomes. To look at just one aspect is to perform just half of the task before the committee.
However, given the narrow terms of reference, I suggest that the committee spend no time determining that food prices are high and getting higher. We know this already. Nor should it spend undue time examining the causes of inflation in the food industry. I suggest that causes have been analysed ad nauseam. We on this side of the House, as well as the people of Canada, want a few solutions. We want practical solutions, strong solutions that are capable of legislative implementation.
Such a course of action would receive the unanimous approval of this House and the undying gratitude, including the political gratitude, of the people of Canada. Further, the committee must attempt to profit from the experiences of previous committees studying this subject, if only to know what not to recommend. For instance, the government must now be painfully aware of the fact that it cannot fight rising food prices or rising prices in any other sector of the economy by deliberately encouraging unemployment. They must now be aware that voluntary restraints by one side of the labour-management combination will not be effective.
A prices review board, as suggested by our friends on the left, is not the answer.


William George Knight: What is?
Mr. O Connor: I will come to that. A logical extension of their argument would surely be a wages review board, then an interest review board, then a profit review board and, finally, a review board to review the review boards. We should not resort to the proliferation of government agencies. Direct bureaucratic involvement in our lives should be employed only as a last resort.
The problem must be attacked uniformly throughout all sectors of the economy and must not be left to individual members of individual boards or commissions to adjudicate, perhaps unequally, in individual cases. The problem of food prices faces every single Canadian every single day of his life. The solutions must be applied equally throughout society so that no geographic or economic sector bears the burden of rising prices or, more importantly, bears the burden of the solution to rising prices more than any other sector. The solutions, Mr. Speaker, lie either in a comprehensive short term program of prices and incomes controls or in income tax provisions which eliminate the effect of inflation on the individual consumer.
The first solution, prices and incomes controls, attacks the problem by preventing its happening. The second solution, income tax amendments, relieves the effect of inflation when it occurs. I refer, here, of course, to our party's real income proposal introduced to this House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in response to the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) last May. He proposed a simple formula which negated the effect of increases in income tax due to inflation and eliminated the government's vested interest in the infla-
Income Tax Act
tionary spiral. Both of these approaches have been urged by our party over the past year for at least the consideration of the government. Both have been rejected out of hand. Well, the election has very forcefully gained the attention of the government donkey. Perhaps this commission, by examining the proposals I have suggested and others made to it and by making strong and specific recommendations can force the donkey to take a forward step.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition are not optimistic. The record of this government in accepting suggestions and recommendations of others is dismal. On the other hand, the silver lining in this grey cloud is the real possibility that by the time the committee reports, Canada will have a new government, one with ideas and initiative which responds positively to the needs of this country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is five o'clock. 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 Central Nova (Mr. Mackay)-Regional Economic Expansion-Request for explanation of disappearance of certain jobs;
the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)_
Northern Affairs-Northwest Territories-Maintenance of employment for Indians on clearing of right of way; the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Youth-Opportunities for Youth Program-Request for indication of criteria for establishment of local selection committees.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, beginning with public bills.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is agreement in the House for standing items 1 and 2 on the order paper. Will Your Honour, therefore, be kind enough to call the third item listed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: that Bill C-8, to amend the Income Tax Act (Section 239) be read

January 23, 1973
Income Tax Act
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words. On hearing the debate on my bill this afternoon, Your Honour may say that it sounds like old-home week. I do not want to accomplish my purpose by lese-mageste or otherwise, but at the time of the lengthy debate on Bill C-259, you were my colleague in dealing with many of the matters in that bill and, therefore, know full well the subject on which I now speak. Perhaps the discretion of the Chair is proving greater than the valour and Your Honour is now moving to another place.
1 wish to draw to the attention of hon. members, particularly those who are of more recent vintage, that although there are many provisions in the Income Tax Act to which hon. members would take exception, there is one that I doubt 95 per cent of the members of this House know exists. I refer to Section 239, the subject matter of the intention of my bill.
If any hon. members are interested, I invite them to refer to the debate of November 30, 1971, page 10018. It was a rather lengthy debate and is where this provision had its start. Section 239(2) reads as follows:
Every person who has failed to comply with or contravened subsection 116(3), 153(1) or 227(5), or section 230 or 231-
This by the way, covers a lot of territory.
__is guilty of an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise
provided, is liable on summary conviction to
(a)	a fine of not less than $200 and not exceeding $10,000, or
(b)	both the fine described in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I read section 238(2). Section 239(2) is as follows:
Every person who is charged with an offence described by subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted upon indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and not less than 2 months.
My undying opposition to that section is that it is an official of the government, normally the Attorney General of Canada but in actual practice either the deputy minister of the Department of Justice or the Director of Prosecutions, who decides in what way a man shall go to court and to jail. The magistrate or the judge, depending upon the jurisdiction, has no power whatsoever to relieve against the penalty of imprisonment when proceedings are by way of indictment.
The minimum penalty of imprisonment is two months. This is not one of those cases where there can be a technical offence. Because of the action taken by an individual, or if it is a matter that can be considered less serious, the judge might impose a sentence of one day or, as is done with many other offences, grant a conditional discharge. Under this section, there is a minimum period of incarceration of two months or a maximum of up to five years. This is because some offence has been committed under the Income Tax Act. Section 239(1) includes all sorts of offences, even the offence of refusing to file an income tax return. There is no way a magistrate or judge can give relief. The individual must go to jail. The court of

appeal can reduce a fine or a jail sentence, but it cannot go below two months.
We can comb the Criminal Code or the offence provisions of all sorts of statutes and we will not find anything as barbaric as this. Because there has been some offence, even the suppression of some records, the individual goes to jail at the whim of the Director of Prosecutions. Perhaps that is the wrong term. I should say at the discretion of the Director of Prosecutions. There is no other provincial or federal jurisdiction where there is this absolute discretion in a government official who is not answerable to anyone and whose decision is not reviewable by the Court of Appeal, unless the Court of Appeal finds that no offence has been disclosed. However, all too often, we know that the offence has been committed.
One only has to read the terms of the regulations or the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act to find that there are offences aplenty. Almost by turning around or signing a document, one may be said to mislead. I am not trying to excuse the offences, but I find it passing strange that in an act that was supposed to contain great reforms, this provision was carried forward. Hon. members on the government side sprained their shoulders by patting themselves on the back when boasting about these great income tax reforms. That bill was piloted through the House by the former member for Calgary South. He was a parliamentary secretary at the time. He and others on the government side refused to budge on this. The government has introduced bail reform bills, bills dealing with first offenders and other matters. However, with regard to income tax, the state is going to extract its pound of flesh and quart of blood as well because a transgression under the Income Tax Act seems the most heinous of all offences.
We as Canadians have a strange quirk. In no country in the world are people jailed for so many types of offences, and here we have a classic example. Under summary procedure, however, one does appear before the magistrate who has the right to impose a jail sentence. If we look at Section 239(l)(f) we see that if there has been a further offence, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, the individual is liable on summary conviction to a fine not less than 25 per cent and not more than double the amount of the tax sought to be evaded, or both the fine described in paragraph (f) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
So you see, if the crime is flagrant enough, and goodness knows there are some, the provincial judge or magistrate has the right to impose a pecuniary penalty of up to double the tax sought to be evaded and, in addition, send the offender off to jail for two years. So there is not a question of a rich man buying his way out. These are penalties in addition to those I have described before, including a fine of up to $10,000.
My amendment proposes that we strike out this procedure of the indictment route which guarantees that a man goes to jail, willy-nilly on the initial and binding decision of a bureaucrat. In order to compensate, why could not the judge or the magistrate, if the case before him is severe enough, increase the period of incarceration up to

five years? This would be no greater than that now provided by the indictment procedure, but at least the judge would have the option and it surely must be a court that finds a man guilty, not some faceless bureaucrat.
I will admit there may be all sorts of preliminary screenings and so forth and so on in the department, but I invite hon. members to read what I had to say back on November 30. The debate at that time lasted right through to December 6, as we came back to this section several times. I invite hon. members to consider why there should be a provision in the Income Tax Act whereby the indictment procedure can be used at the discretion of an official of the Department of Justice, with the least penalty prescribed as a mandatory two months imprisonment. Regardless of anything else, there must be a minimum of two months imprisonment. We do not have such a provision anywhere else and I find it extremely difficult to see why we must maintain this type of provision in this act.
As I pointed out during the debate over a year ago, I have known firms and individuals whose fraud on the income tax was considerable, yet somehow or other, because of either political influence or some other consideration, they were proceeded against by way of summary conviction. They paid dearly, but nobody went to jail. We know of other cases in which there may have been other considerations, yet the Crown proceeded via the indictment route with no valid explanation for the distinction. This is the point I want to make. There is no way one can confront the Attorney General of Canada or the individuals who make the decisions and ask why they proceeded by way of indictment rather than summary conviction. One cannot inquire of the Attorney General of Canada about a case that is sub-judice. He will not answer questions about the case while it is in process. When it is finished, it is too late. The individual has gone to jail. Nor can one question the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or the Director of Prosecutions.
I would invite the sincere consideration of all members of this House in support of this bill. Members have all taken some humanitarian steps in respect of other aspects of the justice process. Here is one that I maintain is deserving of such a consideration, because the decision to proceed by way of indictment is almost like the ancient "lettre de cachet" of 15th and 16th century France. The decision to proceed by way of indictment is not reviewed, yet it commits a man to jail should there be the likely conviction under the Income Tax Act. I would invite hon. members to accept this motion that the bill be now read a second time and sent to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so it can hear further representations, if need be, and examine the officials of the Department of Justice. This is something that demands immediate attention. I thank hon. members for the careful attention they have paid to my remarks, and I hope they will be moved to accept the motion.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has entertained us with an impassioned plea on behalf of the tax offender. Who is this tax offender he is defending and for whom he has urged our consideration?
Income Tax Act
I should like to direct your attention to Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Act which informs us that the people who are in the situation about which my hon. friend is speaking are those people who have made, or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of false or deceptive statements in a return, or those who have tried to evade payment of a tax imposed by this act or destroyed, altered, mutilated, secreted or otherwise disposed of the records of books of account. The section also refers to those who have made false or deceptive entries in tax returns, and to those people who have wilfully or in any manner evaded or attempted to evade the tax imposed by the act. The hon. member is not referring to a man who has paid his tax late or who has made a mistake in his income tax return. He is referring to a man who has in some way wilfully sought to evade the payment of part or all of his income tax. This is the gentleman on whose behalf we are asked to be so solicitous.
I think we should look at the elements of the offence presented here. First, there is the element of the laying of the charge, as provided for in Section 239(1) and (2). Taking them together, the Crown can proceed either by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment on the election of the Crown. This is not an unusual provision in our law. The Criminal Code of Canada is filled with instances where such discretion is given to the Crown. It may be as my hon. friend has asserted that this is not a matter on which the Attorney General of Canada can be directly called to order in this House, but the fact remains that this is a usual power that the Attorney General of Canada has in the administration of criminal or quasicriminal statutes. The onus for its exercise is by statute placed squarely on the Attorney General of Canada. It may be that he will see fit to delegate his power to the Director of Prosecutions, but even so this is an official in his department to whom he would normally refer for advice in the exercise of his power in other cases. Therefore, it is not an unusual power for the Director of Prosecutions to exercise under the Minister of Justice, nor is it an unusual power for the minister himself to exercise. Therefore, I see no novelty in this kind of option being given to the Crown. It seems to me that if we are to take seriously the claim that is being made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, we must look to the other elements of the offence for the gravamen of the change he would seek to make to the act.
The second element, I would suggest, concerns the finding of the court. We must not overlook the fact that the gentleman upon whom a fine or a sentence of imprisonment would be imposed is a person who has been convicted by a court. The imposition of such a penalty is not a decision taken by the Attorney General of Canada; only after a court, following due process of law, has formally convicted an accused of a charge laid under section 239 can the penalties come into effect at all. This is the usual course of justice and there is nothing here that is very surprising to a student of law.
Therefore, I suggest we must turn to the third element, the penalty element, before we can find any novelty whatsoever. The element here that may seem to the hon. member for Edmonton West to be one of novelty is the
574

January 23, 1973
Income Tax Act
prescription of a minimim penalty. In the case of an indictable offence the minimum penalty is one involving imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two months; that is provided for by section 239(2). Thus, when the Attorney General of Canada chooses to proceed by way of indictment, and when a conviction is registered by the court, the option of the court in imposing sentence is thereby narrowed.
It is true that this is not. the general principle of the law. It is not the general custom, though I submit it is highly justifiable in a case of this kind. In order to see how justifiable it is, I think we must take a broader look at the question and at the kind of morality that holds sway in society, or at what I submit are the conflicting moralities that exist in this area.
I believe that we have here, on the one hand, a business morality, not to say a big business morality, and on the other hand a social morality. It does not surprise me that the hon. member for Edmonton West, who is the financial spokesman of a party that traditionally has been the party of big business in this country, defends the big business morality in a case of this kind.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is the little guy who gets hit.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not agree that it is the little guy who gets hit. It is not the little guy who usually has a stake in wilfully evading the payment of his taxes; rather it is the malefactor about whom my hon. friend is concerned, the one who has a heavier tax burden.
This is one view of morality which claims the allegiance of some people in our society, and I suggest it may claim the allegiance of too many. It would seem to many in our society that the person who commits what is sometimes called a white collar crime, a crime not involving violence, a crime that is not habitually associated with those committed by the less well off in our society, often escapes the penalty of the law. I do not believe that is true, but it sometimes seems that way when such a person receives a penalty that is regarded by some as being too light.
In considering legislation such as this we must bear in mind that a different social morality must be taken into account. The big businessman who offends against the law should not receive a penalty that is ineffective in his position in society. It may be that in order to give public credence to the administration of justice it is necessary to impose a minimum sentence; indeed, I believe that to be the case. If the Crown decides to proceed by way of indictment, in the case of a conviction the sentence imposed here is a minimum sentence of only two months, certainly not a long sentence. If I am right in thinking that it is the humiliation of the imposition of a jail sentence that serves as an effective deterrent in a case like this, then I believe a jail sentence of two months, indeed any jail sentence that has more than a purely nominal effect, constitutes a considerable deterrent to those who might become involved in crimes of this kind.
I think it is just as important that there be a symbol to the people of the country that the parliament of Canada is determined to see to it that the law is upheld equally by all; that those who are better off in our society are going to be discouraged from breaking the law and committing

crimes just as much as those who are less well off. This is why I suggest we cannot take a narrow look at a provision such as this. Experience in the courts suggests that such a provision is necessary, and I believe I find support for this contention from the need of our society for a social morality and for a proclamation by the parliament of Canada through legislation of this kind that it adheres to a social morality in which white collar crime does not have some kind of special place.
For these reasons, I am unable to support the bill that has been presented to us by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Despite the fact that it appears to make only a small change in the law, I believe that the change that he proposes is large and significant.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I found it an honour to listen to him during the debate on tax reform, and I also listened to the argument raised in support of this amendment when it came before the House on a previous occasion. I also found the remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) somewhat entertaining.
I am always amused when members of the Liberal or Conservative parties debate that which is totally irrelevant. In a tax system which has all the loopholes and protection for the rich already built in, the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West is not worth much at all. We can cry crocodile tears for the workingman, but it is not he who is in a situation where he breaks the law by evading payment of tax. The system is such that those with large amounts of income or who receive large profits from certain areas of activity already get special tax breaks. This is something that both parties quite often ignore.
If we had a tax system in which a dollar was a dollar and was taxed as such, then we might be able to look at this amendment a little differently. But our present tax system protects the rich, and certainly they do not need any added protection of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
If a workingman earns $10,000 he pays income tax of $2,285. If a man is a wheeler-dealer and obtains $10,000 in the form of a capital gain, and has no other income, he pays income tax of $833 in our so-called just society. The man who collects dividends from shares in the Canadian stock-market and benefits by $10,000 does not pay nearly as much income tax as the workingman who pays $2,285 or the man with a capital gain who pays $833; he pays $197. This is a matter which should be debated in this chamber.
I know my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is quite a capable man in the area of taxation. He has strong views on how the tax system should work under the method we have adopted. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West that all the talk about tax reform and the time we spent last fall was wasted because we failed to provide the type of protection we had previously. That debate ought to have created a happy situa-
January 23, 1973

tion for the hon. member in respect of tax reform because it was no more than a cover for the special privileges which existed then and which continue now. In this case, the hon. member for Edmonton West wants to get back to the area of further special protection for his privileged group.
I cannot get very excited about this bill, although it does give us an opportunity to again debate the question of instituting a fundamental tax system in our country. Those who are offenders in relation to section 239(1) of the act are people who have, as was very aptly pointed out by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, a refuge which enables them to make false statements, and so on. I have no sympathy for them when I know that most wage earners in this country have income tax taken off at the source. This system may allow the government to collect a considerable amount of money that they can play with. However, I believe the provision should remain in the act.
I have no reason to support the bill. I was very attentive to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West, but when he made the statement that this was not a measure to protect the rich he looked at me and I was suspicious that he thought he was introducing in the bill a principle at variance to my socialist philosophy. It is. I oppose this bill introduced by the hon. member, as I opposed the hon. member on his views in respect of the taxation of co-operatives and credit unions and the question of foreign takeovers. He is the financial critic for his party. He does very well to defend the status quo in this nation and to show us in the New Democratic Party that if in fact we change the Tweedledees for the Tweedledums there will be no fundamental change in the serious problems which affect this country.


Mr. ludd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) stated in his remarks, it is somewhat like old home week this afternoon in respect of the debate we had previously on Bill C-259. In the last parliament the hon. member introduced an amendment on November 30, 1971 which in substance was the same as the bill he has now introduced. His amendment at that time was debated at some length.
The problem under section 239 is twofold. In the first place, the section permits the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute an offence either by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. If the prosecution is by way of summary conviction, then a court may impose a monetary fine or a monetary fine coupled with a prison sentence for a term not exceeding two years. If the prosecution is by way of indictment, then only a prison sentence can be imposed but in this instance the term of the sentence cannot exceed five years and cannot be less than two months. The criticism levelled at this choice of procedure is that two taxpayers, having committed an identical offence, can be punished in two different ways depending upon the choice of procedure by the government. This choice of procedure parallels the procedures to be found under the Criminal Code and other federal statutes.
I suspect that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) would wish to retain this option on procedure, with its consequent difference in penalty, because it performs a useful deterrent service. In some instances there is a possibility that a fine would simply be regarded as a
Income Tax Act
cost of doing business and would have no deterrent effect. It seems to me that it is important, in a system which depends to a large degree on self-assessment, that the threat of imprisonment be a real deterrent.
In passing, we should note that the constitutional validity of this optional procedure was recently examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Smythe case. Although the court carefully refrained from expressing a policy view on this issue, it unequivocally held that such a practice was intra vires and did not offend the Bill of Rights.
In the debate on this subject on December 6, 1971, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed puzzlement as to whether the Minister of Justice or the courts should decide whether an individual should go to jail. The then hon. member for Calgary South replied as follows:
What does happen is that the Minister of Justice may determine in this particular case, as I understand he can in some others, that the matter is of such a serious nature that it should proceed by indictment rather than by summary conviction before a magistrate; in other words, that it must proceed by indictment to the Supreme Court. At that point the court must still decide, on the evidence presented to it, whether an offence has been committed and whether a conviction is warranted. Once the court decides that, then certainly this section does come into operation: it does provide a minimum penalty of two months' imprisonment. But it is not the Minister of Justice who determines whether a person is guilty or innocent, or what the penalty will be. That decision is the decision of the court.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say a few words during this debate. I do not pretend to be a taxation expert as the hon. member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) and during the few years I have been sitting in the House, I have always closely followed his comments and his amendments on almost any tax measure or reform.
I was pleased to hear the speech of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacGuigan), who comprehensively outlined the problem. I think that his arguments were quite valid and that we can rightfully object to that amendment which, while being apparently very harmless, completely alters the subject matter of the clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If you are in favour, you take one path and if you are against, you take another.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I also liked the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) who held an opinion quite different from that of the hon. member for Edmonton West. The latter brought up an interesting point, namely that the worker, the wage earner has no problem with that section since his tax is withheld each week. I feel that is quite an important point and that the deterrent effect of the section is excellent since it prevents professionals of taxation from seeking potential over-convenient loop-holes. This fear of imprisonment remains an excellent deterrent measure and I hope that will be kept
25714-37 i

January 23, 1973
Income Tax Act
in mind because we shall soon be debating in this House another subject where fear will be quite an important consideration.
As stressed before, it might be necessary to carry out a new reform of our fiscal system rather than try to alter it by bits and pieces if it does not really meet present requirements. As for the amendment, which I might consider minor, I cannot support it for the good reason that I am one of those who are convinced we should maintain in our legislation the fear of imprisonment which has a very serious deterrent effect.
This, Mr. Speaker, allows discussion about a debate like this one-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A public servant makes the decision.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: -Yes, the civil servant.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the observation of the hon. member for Edmonton West, I would say that the judge decides in the case we are concerned with here. The civil servant decides on the procedure to be followed, but the judge passes judgment and imposes the penalty within the limits of the law.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion of clauses like this one gives several hon. members, including myself the opportunity to learn quite a lot about the law on income tax, perhaps because we have never before run into those problems. We realize that swindlers can be prosecuted in two very different ways, by imposing very different penalties. For instance, they may be prosecuted upon indictement in which case they are liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two months. However, there are cases where imprisonment cannot be avoided and that is the restriction the hon. member would have us do away with. For the reasons stated earlier as well as for . . .


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order .. .


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the parliamentary secretary means to mislead the House, but I must suggest to him hat under the act there is. further to any other penalty, a monetary penalty as well as a compulsory jail sentence, while according to another view there is this monetary penalty and-to the judge's discretion not that of a bureaucrat- imprisonment.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for his corrections. I had probably misunderstood his remarks. I also expected the hon. member to present his plea in both official languages since he is perfectly bilingual, but the interpretation is rather difficult to follow and I apologize for having misinterpreted his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by simply repeating that I disapprove of this legislation because the fear of imprisonment is enough reason I think to prevent a great many
[Mr. Comtois.j
people from misusing the law by evading it and the monetary penalty alone is insufficient in my opinion.
I hope therefore that hon. members will realize that in our judicial system we must maintain certain penalties which may constitute significant prevention factors.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill C-8, is substantially the same as the series of amendments which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) moved in the last parliament during the tax reform debate. Basically, it provides for a change in the way in which the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General representing the Minister of Justice may proceed in dealing with certain cases arising out of the Income Tax Act.
I have had an opportunity to look at Hansard of December 6, 1971, pages 10192 and 10193. The argument which the hon. member for Edmonton West at that time put to the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance who was piloting the bill through the House was basically summed up in what he said as recorded at page 10192. He said:
I do not think there is one hon. member across the way who would want to be in the position of the minister who has to decide whether a taxpayer should go to jail. The Minister of Justice, as Attorney General for Canada, has the right to do that under section 239(2) because non-compliance with the act within the terms of the section is a matter of fact. Wilfully refusing to file a return demands a great number of actions under section 239. These are matters of fact. There is no question that there may be other than a finding of guilty or a plea of guilty, yet by the minister proceeding through the indictment route there is a mandatory jail sentence.
I think that that is the essence of the argument which the hon. member put forward today. The whip for the NDP, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), raised the issue in terms of a different proceeding for somebody who has committed a crime similar to that but of a different nature from one committed under the Income Tax Act. He raised the very real problem that in the case of crimes of a similar nature the courts should be in a position to consider crimes of different magnitude because they had been committed under different acts of parliament, in this case the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.
I think the answer to that proposition was put forward by the then parliamentary secretary in the debate as reported at page 10192 of Hansard for December 6,1971.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is why he is no
longer here.


John Mercer Reid: That may well be. He said the following in response to the hon. member for Edmondon West and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
I think the hon. member for Edmonton West is both over-dramatizing and over-simplifying the situation. It is not the Minister of Justice who decides whether someone will go to jail; that is a determination made by the courts.
What does happen is that the Minister of Justice may determine in this particular case, as I understand he can in some others, that
January 23, 1973

the matter is of such a serious nature that it should proceed by indictment rather than by summary conviction before a magistrate; in other words, that it must proceed by indictment to the Supreme Court. At that point the court must still decide, on the evidence presented to it, whether an offence has been committed and whether a conviction is warranted. Once the court decides that, then certainly this section does come into operation; it does provide a minimum penalty of two months' imprisonment. But it is not the Minister of Justice who determines whether a person is guilty or innocent, or what the penalty will be. That decision is the decision of the court.
I think that is the essence of the proposition which we have before us. Are we going to set up a situation in which the penalties as outlined in the law are to be changed for the convenience of people who have committed a certain kind of crime, a financial crime, as opposed to crime that took place under other laws?
The argument put forward by the hon. member for Assiniboia is one that appeals to me very strongly in that there ought not to be any differentiation in the way in which crimes against money, so to speak, and crimes against property are dealt with in our system. In some cases it could be argued that crimes under the Income Tax Act, since we use the Income Tax Act as a considerable leveller of wealth, in many respects are far more serious than crimes committed under the Criminal Code. If that hypothesis is accepted, it can be argued that the weakening of the Income Tax Act as proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West in Bill C-8 is a matter of some concern to all hon. members, and particularly to those people who might have occasion to be proceeded against under the Income Tax Act.
Basically, our Income Tax Act depends upon trust. The number of income tax returns made in Canada is considerably over six million. We do not have facilities at present to investigate all returns and I would hope we would never find it necessary to do so. This feeling of trust has been built up over a considerable period of time. It implies that with respect to those people who are caught in violation of the Income Tax Act the country does have a responsibility to deal with them fairly harshly.
The Income Tax Act is far more than just a means of raising money for the ordinary expenditures of the federal government. It is a means by which a considerable amount of social justice is applied in terms of levelling out incomes, in giving the government the funds it requires for the development of social programs such as old age pensions-now that the special 4 per cent surtax has been removed-in giving funds to finance programs such as family allowances and the expansion of family allowances as proposed by the government in the last parliament, in providing moneys for the funding of programs such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the whole purpose of which is to take funds collected from the urban centres and disperse them in those parts of Canada which are not so well favoured in terms of industrial growth, and in providing moneys for other programs such as agricultural subsidies in order to give a proper return on investment and work to those people working in the farming industry.
I believe we should give very careful consideration to this whole matter before we act to remove from the Income Tax Act the flexibility which is sometimes desir-
Income Tax Act
able or to reduce the severity of sentences that might be applicable under the act.
There is always a problem in trying to discuss matters of taxation in the House of Commons because if there is one kind of law which touches almost everything a person does, particularly since most of the taxes we pay are taken off at source, we find the Income Tax Act, in many of its applications, to be far more pervasive throughout our system than even the Criminal Code itself. Consequently, the penalties that are prescribed in the Income Tax Act with respect to various aspects of its application have a tendency to be perhaps far more severe than one might gauge at first view. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this is not something that has been approached by accident. I suspect it is something which successive governments have done by design, simply because of the pervasive nature and impact of the Income Tax Act as it applies to the conduct of our ordinary affairs.
It is quite true that in many cases the Income Tax Act is silent. It is quite true that there are grey areas in it. I can recall a specific case in my own district where a group of men came together to launch a project. At that time there were no particular laws on capital gains. They hired a lawyer, he gave them the advice that was current at that time and they proceeded to construct their affairs in accordance with what they believed the law to be at that time and what the jurisprudence at that time indicated was in fact the law.
Unfortunately, the law in respect of the interpretation of the Income Tax Act was in the process of being changed. These people found themselves in the embarrassing position, having spent a considerable amount of money on a lawyer, having consulted with officials of the Department of National Revenue and having filed their papers in accordance with the advice they received both from the lawyer and the department, of one morning suddenly waking up to find themselves being brought into court on a charge of evading the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
It seems to me that the section of which we are speaking attempts to deal with both these cases. It attempts to deal with the case of those who deliberately go out to conduct their affairs in a way which might be considered fraudulent, in order to avoid the incidence of tax. At the same time, the section provides an opportunity for those people who have affairs in the grey areas of the Income Tax Act to construct their affairs in a way which is not fraudulent, so that they are able to take advantage of the way in which the act is written and of the loopholes which creep into the writing of all legislation. They are not proceeding on fraudulent grounds; they are proceeding in accordance with the well known dictum that a man may arrange his affairs so as to avoid the incidence of taxation. In this particular case the people in my constituency found themselves in conflict with the law as it was evolving.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Food Prices Committee AFTER RECESS

January 23, 1973
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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 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 subcommittees 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.
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have spoken in this House so I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate Your Honour on your election, as has been so ably done by many hon. members who have already spoken.
I realize that we are now debating the setting up of a committee to study food prices so I shall not take time to tell the House about the riding that I represent in beautiful British Columbia. I think it is one of the best ridings in Canada, as many people have discovered who have come there to retire. I hope to speak about my riding at a later time, because many members have spoken about theirs in glowing terms and I do not think that anyone represents a riding which is in any way better than mine.
Mr. Speaker, the easiest place to hide is behind a study, especially if one can have everyone else studied but oneself. A study can go on for a long time in the hope that the problem will right itself, be accepted or somehow go away. If and when this committee study gets going the government's agricultural policy on food should be investigated to see if it is contributing to the percentage rise in food prices. Producers know that over the years certain foods have been imported into Canada, driving the producer price down. Producers have been telling the government that sooner or later the chickens would come to roost and the cost of food would spiral.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) said that the farmer should not worry. Mr. Speaker, whenever anyone is talking about the cost of food, I can tell you that the farmer becomes very worried. He knows very well that when the squeeze is on, the place where it is felt most is at the farm gate. Everyone else gets their due; everyone else has a set price that they receive,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
or a set income, and invariably the squeeze ends up at the farm gate.
A prize example of this, and there are many, is a situation which occurred this year in Winnipeg with regard to the marketing of apples. In order that the producers of the Okanagan Valley could meet the price of apples at the retail level, a reduction on the f.o.b. price of 20 per cent had to be effected. This meant that the price to the producer decreased by 80 per cent. There was absolutely no way that he could make a living and meet this type of competition. It is said that it is the retailers and wholesalers who make the money, but in this case there was competition and the squeeze was on at the farm gate.
The policy of the Liberal government regarding imports almost ruined the apple juice business in Canada. It took us three years to convince the government that imports of cheap, highly subsidized concentrate would ruin the apple juice business for Canadian producers. We finally got a tribunal which showed beyond a shadow of doubt that we were correct, and then we got some action-three years later! However, the overproduction of concentrate in the world dried up, and today if you can get apple juice in its pure form-and about the only place in eastern Canada where you can get it is Nova Scotia-the price to the consumer is higher than it should be. This is mainly because of what went on over the years at the producer level and the importation of cheap, highly subsidized concentrate rather than building the industry within Canada.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which was born of the last investigation has helped to raise prices to the consumer, not lower them. There is ample evidence of this, Mr. Speaker. In many cases it is the producer who has to absorb the squeeze on price, not the consumer. The cost of goods and services to farmers has been rising much faster than the price he receives for his goods. Such things as gas, fertilizer, machinery and labour-not necessarily the direct labour that he hires himself but the labour that is hired throughout Canada in the process of distributing, handling, packaging and selling his goods-have sent his costs soaring.
Farmers would also like to have these areas investigated. An investigation into the cost of farm machinery was held a few years ago, but as far as I am concerned the only result was that the supply of cheap tractors from England dried up. As far as labour is concerned, the farmer would like to have the same deal that labour has in Canada. He is not jealous of labour's position nor is he against it. He knows, however, that there is almost free entry into Canada of foods such as fruits and vegetables. They come from places in the world where labour is cheap and he is competing against countries which subsidize their products.
When labourers come into Canada, they work under laws that specify a minimum wage; they start at wage levels that unions have negotiated for them. We are not against this but we would certainly like to be given the same opportunities. Somewhere in the world there are people who can do a job more cheaply than it can be done in Canada.
January 23, 1973

The wholesaler is always considered the bad guy. The hazards that have to be faced in the wholesale business, and the lack of profit, have resulted in that business being accumulated largely in the hands of a few large organizations. Bigness is not always best and big firms are not always the least costly, even though the Liberal government over past years may have left the impression that it is best and that big firms are least costly. One prime reason which leads me to believe that the fruit and vegetable wholesale business is not very remunerative but, instead, is hazardous is that Federated Co-op, the largest co-op in Canada, has chosen to stay out of this business. I believe they have also chosen to stay out of the meat business.
We often hear NDP members saying that co-ops can distribute food more cheaply. I have had considerable experience in the co-operative field and have had the good fortune of travelling quite frequently to the markets of western Canada and observing the fruit and vegetable industry. I also know that no sooner had the NDP government been elected in British Columbia than they were saying the co-ops could distribute food more cheaply to the consumer.


Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):: And we will prove it.


George H. Whittaker: My friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) says they will prove it. I should not like to hold my breath until they do. If I thought that by acting co-operatively I could distribute food to the consumers of Canada for 15 or 25 per cent less, then that is the vocation I would have chosen; I would not have become a politician and would not have come here. I would have done that because I would have been doing something for the consumer of Canada, something I enjoyed. I am not talking about figures in the neighbourhood of 2 or 3 per cent; it has been proven that consumers will not pay much attention to 2 or 3 per cent. I have an open mind, Mr. Speaker; certainly it is not closed. If there is any magic under the NDP in B.C., then that government could do this. What is more, I would be all for it. I would very quickly be behind them 100 per cent. I would enjoy seeing this magic at work, if there were any magic.
Under the NDP government in Saskatchewan the price of fruits and vegetables, according to my observation, was higher than in any other place to which I travelled. Why was the magic not used there? Why could not Federated Co-op, the largest co-op in Canada, perform the magic for that province? Supermarkets at one time were supposed to distribute food more cheaply to consumers. I do not believe they did but, rather, they provided an atmosphere that the majority of consumers liked but which cost more. Consider the wages paid; butchers are paid $6 an hour.
A few minutes ago I spoke about the marketing of McIntosh apples in Winnipeg and the squeeze that was put on our producers there. It so happens that these apples were being marketed in a package that we did not want any part of. My friends to the left said to me the other day that packaging was being forced on the consumer by somebody. My experience has shown that the consumer has forced the packaging on the producer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Food Prices Committee


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: I invite those people to go into the marketplace and observe what is going on, because it is obvious they are staying home writing speeches and dreaming. The package I am talking about is the six-quart basket. We find it costly. It does not sell enough of the product and we want no part of that package. However, if we put apples in the stores in anything else, we will not sell more. The consumer is picking up the six-quart package; it must be put in the stores because that is the one the consumer likes.
I notice that my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway is not here. Over the years I have read some of the things she has said. As well, I have read some of the things that some so-called food experts have been saying. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the marketplace and observed what happens, and those remarks just do not add up. What the consumer is doing and what people like the hon. member are saying are entirely different. I should like to see the consumer doing what people like the hon. member says should be done, but they have not been able to convince the consumer to do that. Therefore, we are compelled to do what the consumer wants.


An hon. Member:: That is the psychology of selling.


George H. Whittaker: I think, if we are to get down to the nuts and bolts of what is necessary, we need a cooling-off period in Canada during which we might institute price and wage controls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: How about dividends?


William James Kempling: You never invested a nickel in your life.


George H. Whittaker: We need controls that would deal with the total cost of living, that would attack inflation and do something for the people my hon. friends are talking about, those below the poverty line and those who must live on fixed incomes. Such controls would help all the people in Canada. I submit that many people in Canada today are living below the poverty line, and if they were given all their food for nothing they would still not be above the poverty line.
We are not going to help people like that and we will not solve this problem by hiding behind a mere study of food prices. However, if this is what we have to do, and it appears it is because this is the majority will of this parliament, let us do the job quickly, thoroughly, fairly and objectively. Let us not try to find one area that someone likes that is politically expedient, hide behind it and for the next five to ten years keep on calling for a study. This committee should not be the comfortable refuge of defeated Liberal candidates and supporters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George H. Whittaker: Surely by now these are well looked after and the housewives, pensioners, mothers and farmers of this nation have no obligation to them. If this committee needs professional assistance, let it not be

Food Prices Committee
found in the tattered ranks of the vanquished, for in those ranks are only the defeated and disheartened. Our consumers need the assistance of men and women who are understanding, sympathetic and devoted to the cause of the desperate. Let us give this committee the integrity it deserves. Let it not be a vehicle for political escapism.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), prompted me to make a few remarks on the motion before the House. We in the New Democratic Party support the motion that a special committee be set up to inquire into food prices and food trends and to make recommendations to the House.
I noted in the speech of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) that his attitude was one of reluctant support with regard to setting up this committee. His remarks were brief and not very stimulating. It seems he is backing into the proposition of setting up a food committee. Possibly he remembers the experience of the government in 1966-67 when a similar committee was set up to investigate food prices. The only thing of real note to come out of that committee was the setting up of a ministry of consumer and corporate affairs. This was probably a very worthy result, but very little action was taken by the government with regard to rising prices.
The substance of this motion is restricted to the question of food prices. Many hon. members would like to see the motion extended to include shelter costs and high interest rates. The attitude of the Progressive Conservative party has been most disappointing. Their attitude has been: Let the public be damned; we want power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: The substance of their speeches has been more in the nature of destructive rather than constructive criticism. When I look at the last three rows of the Conservative benches, I draw the inference that maybe they are disappointed in their front bench with regard to the ideas they have suggested for solving the problem.
One of the vital issues in the recent election campaign was the high cost of living. Any member who campaigned came in contact with this issue. He probably heard criticisms from many housewives about their experiences in the chain stores. They told us that when they went into a chain store to buy certain products, they found three or four labels on the products indicating different prices; the top label indicated 49 cents, when they removed this label they found a 39 cent label, and when they removed that they found another label with the price of 29 cents on it. This type of conduct by the food and chain stores annoys and concerns housewives. When the first attack was made on chain stores in 1966-67, they attempted to act as good corporate persons. There was an immediate drop in prices. After a month or two they started their old game of increasing prices. Prices gradually went up until today most people in Canada find them almost unbearable.
It was indicated in the recent election campaign that people with low incomes and those on fixed incomes were the hardest hit by the food prices to which we are now subjected. It would be very easy to place the blame on the farmer. I am happy that the speeches so far have suggest-

ed that the farmers are in no way responsible for the price increases that have resulted. Studies conducted in 1949 showed that the farmer received 49 cents of the food dollar. In 1972 he received 38 cents. The inference to be drawn is that he is suffering as a result of high prices.
During the election campaign we in the New Democratic Party stated that two things should happen. First, a prices review board should be established to study the prices of various products. By dint of persuasion and government action we hope that prices will come down. If chain stores will accept their corporate and social responsibility there will be a downward trend in prices. Second, there should be an immediate investigation into food prices. Not only should there be a prices review board but there should be a study with regard to the trends that have developed, and a special study concerning chain stores.
In the last study that was made, in 1966-67, evidence was presented of the corporate chains and their sophisticated method with regard to setting up corporations which almost amount to a corporate jungle for the purpose of evading, in many instances, taxes. When you look at the corporate set-up of the various chain stores, you appreciate that they are part of a sophisticated method of avoiding taxes and that they have been able to persuade and control the public to their way of thinking.
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary suggested that the consumer was responsible for the type of packages we now see in the stores. Can you imagine laying the blame on the average housewife for having three or four different sized boxes for different soaps, three or four different sizes for cereals, three or four different sizes for toothpaste and three or four different sizes for coffee?


Some hon. Members:: Sure.


John Gilbert: The average housewife goes into the store, determines the number of ounces in a package in relation to the price and then calculate which is the better buy.


An hon. Member:: There is probably no difference.


John Gilbert: If we had some uniformity in respect of packaging and an indication of the price per ounce that an individual was paying, this would be of great assistance to the housewife. We are all aware of the advertising techniques and gimmicks that chain stores indulge in. Hon. members well know that Dominion Stores advertise that it is "mainly because of the meat". Other chain stores suggest they have "deep discount" prices. Every Wednesday and Thursday the newspapers are filled with advertising in an attempt to persuade the innocent housewife to go into the store and take advantage of these deep discount prices when, in fact, the majority of the prices are fixed or predetermined by the corporation before the goods even go on the shelf. Those prices bear very little or no resemblance to the actual cost of producing the article. These are some of the things we feel the committee should study in depth in the over-all study of rising food prices in Canada.


An hon. Member:: The same old story.


John Gilbert: The previous speaker referred to co-operatives. We have two types of co-operatives in this country, discount co-operatives and consumer co-operatives. City fellows like myself have only been exposed to consumer co-operatives. We find that consumer co-ops have patronage dividends in an attempt to help the producer reduce his price, but they have not been successful in the cities. Probably the reason they have not been successful can be related to the pressure of the large chain stores.


An hon. Member:: Be careful now, John.


John Gilbert: Recently, co-operatives have taken a new approach to the problem by putting on a direct service charge for the service rendered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It is very hard for the Chair to follow the speech of the hon. member. The speech is not being made in my mother tongue, but I am attempting to learn the English language and when hon. members conduct themselves as they do it is difficult for the Chair to follow the debate.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure hon. members to my right are attempting to assist in their usual kind way. I enjoy their banter as it stimulates my thinking, and wisdom usually comes from the clash of ideas.
To get back to co-operatives, they now have the idea that there should be a direct service charge for services rendered. They have experienced almost instant success in these efforts in different cities across the country, more especially those in the maritime provinces as well as in Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton. It has been pointed out that these co-operatives have received financial assistance in many cases from trade unions. It seems to me that the committee should delve deeply into the possibility of encouraging co-ops in their efforts in this important field.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has indicated the experience of the United States, England and Sweden in respect of prices and wage control. I think we should give some time in the committee to a study of this matter One would be foolish to adopt the methods and techniques adopted by these countries but we should not ignore them. We in the NDP want the fullest study possible on effective controls which might result in lower food costs to Canadians, always keeping in mind that at this stage the farmer is not getting for his produce a fair share of the food dollar.
The previous speaker was critical of labour costs as they relate to price increases. Let me point out to him that less than 35 per cent of all Canadian labourers belong to trade unions. Many people working in the labour market are completely unprotected in respect of bargaining for wages and working conditions. To place the blame on the trade union movement as the hon. member has done indicates that his sympathy lies with the corporate giants which in many ways and on many occasions contribute substantially to the political party he supports.
It is for the reasons 1 have outlined that we in the NDP will support this motion. I note the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) looking over with some scepticism about our
Food Prices Committee
support of this motion. I would repeat to him what was said by members of our party this afternoon. We were disappointed in the Minister of Finance when he conducted a survey of food companies and chain stores after the election, inquiring of them whether they would be agreeable to a study being made. That is not worthy of the Minister of Finance; I think he is more progressive.


John Napier Turner: What do you base that on,John?


David Lewis: That is what I would like to know.


John Gilbert: I thought the minister might have been concerned enough about Canadians to bring this matter immediately to their attention with recommendations that would result in lower food prices.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons we in the NDP will support this motion. We hope that the Liberal members of the committee will have the determination and vigour to pursue these matters and bring forth recommendations which will result in lower food costs for all Canadians.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it being the first time I rise to speak in this House, I would like to wish you, as the other speakers have done before me, all possible success in the performance of your duties in these difficult circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words in support of the motion which is now before the House.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't look like Perry Ryan.


John Napier Turner: It doesn't sound like him, either.


An hon. Member:: Thank God!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter A. Stollery: This is a motion that is consistent with the direction of the Speech from the Throne as well as the spirit. If my addition is correct, I am the fifty-first member to speak on this subject. I suggest that if there is any real interest in launching this committee, the motion should be passed with the least possible delay, certainly after a debate less wordy than the debate we have had so far.
The rapid rise in food costs since last summer has been of serious concern to Canadians everywhere. In fact, the whole mysterious business of food prices occupies a unique position in the economy, one that seems to be least understood. For example, why do various chain stores have such a disproportionate rate of profit? According to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who made some very pertinent remarks last night in my opinion, IGA showed a profit after taxes of 6.7 per cent, whereas Dominion Stores showed a profit of 11.2 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Which year was that?
582

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee


Peter A. Stollery: He did not mention that. What exactly is the correct story? On the one hand it is claimed by large department stores that they cannot make any money. It is not their fault, they say, that prices are skyrocketing? It is plain that the reason IGA is not making any money is that they have too many stores doing too little business. Dominion has got rid of most of the neighbourhood stores in Toronto and claims that by making its new stores larger and more efficient it makes a larger profit. The French have had experience with very large supermarkets, the largest in the world and the most efficient. It is claimed by some that these efficient super-supermarkets have contributed to the price stabilization that has occurred in France over the past few months.
I for one am a merchandiser, coming from a family of merchandisers who until we sold our business three years ago had a significant effect on stabilizing the price of shirts in this country. I should like to know whether any of these stores are making any money or whether they share in the larger responsibility for food prices in this country. We also have the middlemen, the packagers, the processors and the jobbers; they say they also do not make any money. Evidently nobody in the food business makes any money.
The New Democratic Party say that middlemen are unnecessary; at least, that was the inference I drew from the remarks about unnecessary packaging. On the other hand, people work in the packaging industry, which provides jobs, a problem to which I thought the NDP was addressing itself. I must admit that when I fight my way into a package of vacuum-packed bacon I also wonder about the necessity for a packaging industry. Perhaps the committee will be able to throw some light on this matter.
Not long ago I attended the annual meeting of Ontario food processors along with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). His solution to the problem, he said, was to allow the industry to rationalize. According to him, it would become more efficient that way. However, it did occur to me that the 200 members in the audience on that occasion might shrink to about 20 members at the next annual meeting in 1973 who would be discussing behind closed doors how to fix prices on food. In our own business the industry was dominated by a few large shirt manufacturers, and I recall Cluett, Peabody and Company removing their merchandise from our store because we refused to sell their shirts at the suggested retail price.
The approach of the Conservative party to this committee has been very obscure. On the one hand there seems to be a suggestion of support for the committee to investigate prices and to make recommendations; on the other hand there seems to be a bias against informing the Canadian public. The other day the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred to the important work done by the Senate Committee on Poverty and I know she will agree with me that it is unfortunate that the chairman of that committee will not serve on this proposed committee.
I have referred to two of the three areas that affect the price of food. Like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I too am a city boy. Coming from the city, I do not know the first thing about farms or farm prices. However, I do not see anything in this motion referring to

farmers or farms and I have seen no reference to them in any amendment. Nor do I see anything in the motion that I am supporting singling out farmers as opposed to middlemen, merchandisers or anybody else.
I am surprised at the members of the Conservative party, being at their most negative, assuming that this whole proposal is a plot against or attack on the farmers of this country. Surely the idea here is to investigate in a positive way the exceptional rise in food prices over the past 12 months. Equally, one cannot investigate food prices unless we investigate them at the farm level, at the producer level. All I know about eggs is that they always seem to be stale, in spite of what the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) had to say last night about the quality of their shells. Certainly when you buy eggs in Toronto you can hardly cook them, they are so stale. I should like to know why this is the case and possibly I will get this information from the committee.
In any event, I was most surprised at the assumption last night that this House was preparing an attack on farmers. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), in defence of farmers, made some references that I would have thought would be better reserved for the representations that he will undoubtedly be making to the committee, which after all is what this committee is for. Surely the motion is very clear, to the effect that the committee will investigate the cost of this inordinate price rise.
We want information concerning why food prices have risen so sharply in such a short period, what constitutes those prices and what percentage represents what. We also must ask why this mysterious business of food is so unknown to everybody in Canada. Members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Conservative party could undoubtedly comment on the reason for the rise. However, no one really knows. I think we should allow the committee to do a thorough job of investigation in order to clarify the situation and bring forward solid recommendations.
For some time I have wondered why the price of beef in 1961 and 1962 rose and then dropped eight points. I have also wondered why eggs are always so stale, particularly on the other side of this House. In supporting the motion I shall conclude by wishing the committee well. I hope it will act positively and not give in to the negative attitudes displayed on the other side of the House. I would hope that after 53 people have spoken in various ways on this subject, this should be enough. I would now like to see us get down to business.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that it is a most humbling experience to be called upon to speak for the first time in the presence of so many distinguished parliamentarians and accomplished orators. I would also like to add my congratulations to those of my colleagues to Your Honour on your appointment as Speaker of the House. In addition, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his appointment to the office of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees of the whole House. He brings a wealth of experience and judgment to that office and I am sure he will serve with distinction.
January 23, 1973

With respect to the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, it is one that any member of this House would find it difficult to quarrel with, but on the other hand one would have to ask the question, "Why was it left to this session to deal with a matter that has been one of great concern and immediacy for such a long time?" The great P. T. Barnum has been credited with saying, "There is nothing new under the sun". I feel that we could say the same about the motion we are debating. The problem has been around for so long, and so much has been said about it, that it would be difficult to add anything new to the arguments that have been presented.
Previous speakers in the past few days have pointed out that the serious problem of inflation in the specific area of food prices has been with us for a number of years. The problem has been debated over and over again. Many speakers of the Conservative party, including our very able leader, have been for the past four years urging the government to come to grips with the matter and propose specific measures that would root out the factors involved and provide solutions. My colleagues on this side of the House have called for expressions of concern by the government and they have called on the government to provide some evidence that it is willing and able to exercise leadership in this area of concern to so many Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of establishing a committee such as the one proposed in the government's motion. I am in favour of any sort of machinery that might be effective in assessing factors involved in trends and fluctuations in food prices. However, we are debating a measure that will become effective only at some time in the future, and desirable as that might be I would have preferred to have the government begin by asking the House to approve a crash program that would have become effective immediately. I would have preferred to see the House set into motion some type of interim machinery, such as a task force, that would be looking into the problem and suggesting remedies during the weeks or months that it will take the committee to become operational.
Many of the factors involved in the recent spiral of food cost inflation are already known to us. Many others might be brought to light quickly and easily by a task force and at least some action might be undertaken before the committee can be assembled and its terms of reference approved. I realize that it might be interpreted as brash or presumptuous for a new member to suggest that this House is approaching the problem of inflation in respect of food prices from the wrong direction, but I hope that that interpretation will not be placed on my remarks. I am simply expressing deep concern over a matter that has concerned me for a number of years, long before my election to parliament.
Any of my colleagues who watch television even occasionally will be aware of the constant barrage of television advertising inflicted on the consuming public by the national chain store operators. It is constant and it is, in my experience at least, telecast in prime viewing time and this is expensive. I should note at this point that one advertising campaign features the Canadian actor who starred in the television series "Star Trek", a series that dealt with outer space. I do not know whether or not he was selected on the merits of that particular show, but it is
Food Prices Committee
appropriate because some of the stuff he delivers to his audience is pretty far out.
It is my view that in this particular case we are dealing with two factors which figure largely in the present high rate of increase in food costs. We have a prime example of saturation-type advertising on the most expensive of our media, and obviously the cost of this advertising must be borne by the consumer. Secondly, as a consumer I would question the claims that are made on some television commercials. This is one of the areas where I feel a task force might make some immediate assessments and press home to the food industry as a whole that it is about to come under the scrutiny of a very concerned House of Commons.
There are other factors that are known to us which figure in a very significant way in food costs. Food retailing is moving more and more in the direction of a controlled industry operating out of the multi-million dollar shopping plaza concept. This is supposed to take all the pain and inconvenience out of shopping, but there is a real danger now that the concept has been oversold. With regard to the claim that the glittering plaza takes the pain out of shopping, those who make this claim do not take into account that people who suffer most in the process are those who can least afford it. The great shopping plazas and the new concept of prepackaged foods add to the cost of the products being merchandised. Add to this the massive and expensive advertising campaigns and other gimmicks that have become a part of grocery merchandising, and you have the ingredients of a process that tends to militate against a very significant segment of the buying public.
Those who are being hit hardest by this situation are in the low and middle income brackets. Statistics have shown that consumers in the low income bracket spend as much as 27 to 28 per cent of their total income on food. Those in the middle income groups spend 18 to 20 per cent of their total income on food. As food becomes increasingly more expensive, these people spend an increasingly larger percentage of their total income on food.
This is a vicious and cruel spiral. While one could say that those who are forced to suffer most from the spiralling cost of food are defenceless, that is not quite true. We are their defence, Mr. Speaker. We, their representatives in parliament, are their defence. That is the main reason I feel we must move with speed in coming to grips with this problem. We might find that the retailing of food and other necessities of life is concentrated in a few hands. We might find that the needs and the well-being of the buying public are being disregarded in this tendency toward bigness in the food industry, as in other industries. We might find that either now or in the near future our anti-combines laws will have to be called into play to curb this alarming tendency toward bigness.
I do not want to give the impression that I favour measures designed to stifle or hamper the growth of industry and commerce in our country. I do not want to imply that I fear healthy and measured progress in our corporate community. I leave that sort of alarmist gimmickry to the socialists. I only want to examine and
25714-38J

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
explore every effect and every cause of the problem facing people who are paying too much for the necessities of life. I believe this can be done without damage to the very desirable growth of our food and livestock industries.
Another aspect of this problem that interests me is consumer education. I do not believe that enough money or effort is expended in this area of teaching people how to get the most for their shopping dollar. I know that many advertising campaigns today are billed as consumer education programs, but they are designed to push products rather than to educate the buying public. What I have in mind is a government-sponsored program. It could be applied at any level of government considered to be the most effective for the purpose. It would be designed expressly to inform the financially disadvantaged consumer how he or she could get the most out of the shopping dollar.
I have not worked out the mechanics of how such a program should or would work, but I feel that such an avenue is worth exploring. I feel, also, that we have a responsibility to consider the desirability of upgrading consumer knowledge. We spend tens of thousands of dollars every year to get people to buy this product or that product. Why not spend some of the money teaching people how to buy?
Mr. Speaker, I have not tried in my remarks to show with figures how serious is the plight of the consumer nor how serious it might become. My purpose has been only to point out that inflation is not something which occurred a few weeks or a few months ago. It has been with us for a very long time. It has been with us for too long, and I would like to see an early start on positive action to determine the causes of and to seek the earliest possible solutions to the problem.
In conclusion, I would like to express the hope once more that every effort be made to ensure the committee will get into action and become effective in the shortest possible time. I am heartened by the note of urgency I have detected in the speeches made so far in this debate. I have reason to believe that before long the real winners in this exercise will be those who are now the losers. I refer, of course, to the financially disadvantaged Canadian consumers.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that I rise to speak on this matter is that I believe in all sincerity that too many speeches have been made so far on the matter of rising food prices, matters which should really be discussed in the committee which we are about to establish. What we should really be debating at this time is the formation of the committee. The discussion here will not solve the problem nor will it benefit the consumer, and while we are using the time of the House as we have done in the speeches made in the last few days, the price of food is going up. Certainly this is not to the benefit of the Canadian people.
The sooner everyone in the House allows this matter to go to the committee to give an opportunity to the members of the committee to perform the fact finding task which they will be called upon to perform, the better will

we be able to say in all sincerity that the Canadian people will be given a chance to benefit from that fact finding of such a committee.
In the meantime, I would suggest a vote as we had this afternoon is merely a delaying tactic. In fact one might think, on hearing the speeches which have been made in the last few days, that most members are again taking part in the debate on the throne speech and they are making speeches just for the sake of speaking. I believe it is the responsibility of the committee to do the job of fact finding, and not the responsibility of those who are making speeches here. The sooner this motion is passed, the sooner we will be able to say in all truthfulness and sincerity that we are forming a committee to do the job. We should stop speechmaking in the House and hand over the responsibility to the committee which this afternoon we voted to establish.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on the motion presently being considered. It is certainly always important to establish committees to do studies, but I will say that several committees have been formed since I have been sitting in this House to do various studies.
If my memory is good, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a committee was formed to study both the increase in prices and the means of helping the consumers. This, I believe, cost Canadians about 32 or 33 million dollars and the prices have kept on increasing. Therefore, what has been done to solve the problem? What will the committee and its 25 members be able to accomplish? We are all in favour of studies but what solutions will they bring about to solve the problem?
Mr. Speaker, this is an economic issue and as long as we do not get to the root of the problem we will never succeed in properly stabilizing incomes, expenses and profits.
Mr. Speaker, farmers for instance have many expenses but their income is not sufficient. The price of food depends mostly on agriculture but what was done by the government or the appointed commissions to remedy this situation? The incomes of farmers and big corporations have kept on decreasing.
They say that the retailers are not making any money either. According to the NDP members, those retailers make profits, but others say they do not especially when it comes to selling of food. Then nobody makes any profits. Farmers do not make any money and the merchants who have to stock those goods and to pack them, once they have paid for everything, do not make any profit either and the cost of living keeps on increasing.
Why is the cost of living going up? Because when the farmer needs more buildings he has to pay 11 to 12 per cent sales tax on building materials and 11 to 12 per cent tax on the farming equipment he needs. This, Mr. Speaker, is a factor which increases the cost of living for the farmer as well as his costs. What should we do to restore balance to the economy?
The committee should be responsible for investigating the role of the price and income policy in the fight against inflation, including food prices. This is why the committee should be appointed. However, a similar committee and
January 23, 1973

other committees have already been established and they have prepared many studies and made many suggestions but prices keep on increasing. We only hear about price increases and people complaining that each week the cost of living is going up.
If the cost of living is higher, only a few drastic measures should be taken. In my opinion, no member of the House actually described the true situation. I do not believe either that any member has made any practical suggestions to reduce prices. We do not need higher prices but lower prices. To reduce prices we must lower taxes and allow compensated discounts on prices.
Inflated prices give rise to certain factors, which we cannot cope with at the present time. And prices keep spiralling up and we cannot put a stop to that. Therefore we should appraise total production as well as total consumption in this country and if total production greatly exceeds total consumption, it would be wise to set up a total compensated discount which would lower prices and enable citizens to buy more.
We could begin by lowering prices of agricultural machinery and buildings. It should be a good thing also to abolish taxes so as to lower prices. But an increase in taxes and wages will automatically bring an increase in prices, especially in transportation. Therefore prices begin to spiral and there is no solution as there is nobody to suggest any.
Therefore in order to solve that problem which affects us all, we should first lower food and shelter prices, because housing is almost as important as food.
We can get neither food nor shelter at a low price on account of the taxes and of the outrageous interest on loans. As a matter of fact, as early as 1955, farmers were paying around 5 per cent interest on the money they borrowed. Today they pay an interest rate of 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore, the government proved remiss when failing to check interest rates, for their consequence is soaring prices for products.
If the committee fails to deal with interest rates, to devise technical means likely to cause lower prices and a return to a properly balanced economy, thus allowing our citizens to live decently and pay reasonable prices for what they need, the appointment of such a committee will be useless.
The members of this committee could possibly not have enough guts, enough heart, enough courage to take the bull by the horns and to restore, once and for all, the balance of an economy which gets out of kilter day after day. The more our present techniques are applied, the more the cost of living increases and the more it is difficult to live for the citizens of this country. The real problems must be considered.
I respectfully submit these reforms to the House and I ask the government to look into them because if reforms other than those we know presently are not considered, things will go from bad to worse. To solve the problem, we must strike at its roots. The real problem is of an economic and financial nature, and if we go on favouring finan-
Food Prices Committee
cial institutions and allowing interest rates to go up, the present economic imbalance will persist and worsen.
All hon. members seem concerned about the matter, and prepared to seek solutions. However, solutions have been considered before and I am sure the committee will come back with the same findings, which means there will not be the slightest change in our present unfortunate economic situation. The more this system is used, the worse the situation gets.
There are many solutions we could consider and I am sure that if we did so seriously, we could successfully bring down prices not only of food, but also of housing, and the cost of living in general as well.
The whole economy should be reviewed and it should be put to rights if we want to get somewhere. At the present time, we are getting nowhere. Our economy is hardly viable and far from sure. We have modernized our farm production; why not then modernize our financial means in order to ensure distribution of that production? It exists for the purpose of consumption and not to remain on shelves. If there is excess production as is the case this year-our excess production being of the order of some $40 billion-it is easy, through technical means, to cash in on that production and have it distributed at low price to our citizens. That would allow them to live, it would lower the general cost of living and would solve current problems once and for all, especially the main economic problems that we are now experiencing.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate without making apologies such as have been made by some hon. members. It seems to me only appropriate that members on all sides should point out areas in the context of the price of food which they believe are problems which should be examined by the committee and upon which the committee should report and recommend. I do not think it is wrong for any member of the House to point out the problems in his part of the country or to point to other aspects of rising food prices.
This whole issue is a political and economic one right across the country. I wish to say only one thing about food prices in relation to the problems of producers. Between 1961 and 1971, Canada's food bill increased by $4 billion but realized net farm income during the same period increased by only $600 million, or 16 per cent of the total increase. Surely that is an indication that the rise in food prices has not been related to any significant increase in the income of primary producers.
There are a number of areas that I think the committee should look into. Last September the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made some statements on this subject and I hope the committee will call upon him to support them. The committee should also ascertain what portion of food costs encompasses transportation costs; how much freight rates contribute to rising food prices.
The committee probably would not be in a position to make a great number of recommendations within 60 days, but during the life of the committee I hope they will make

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
suggestions that will be useful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he meets the western premiers to discuss freight rates, because this is a significant factor in the cost of food in all parts of Canada. Our freight rates structure does not relate to our geography or our climate; it relates only to the individual modes of transportation and the profitability of each.
This country is 4,500 miles wide, comprising an area of 2} million or 3 million square miles, with 22 million people scattered throughout and as far north as you can go. Why are people in outlying areas penalized for living there with high transportation costs? This is an area in which the committee must bring forward concrete recommendations.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), were good enough to provide me with some examples of what transportation costs mean to them. I have here a copy of an advertisement for the Bay Food Mart which appeared in the Inuvik Drum on January 4, 1973. A 48-ounce can of apple drink-not pure apple juice-costs 59 cents. That is double the price in Regina, Mr. Speaker, and it is a sale price. I hope the committee will find out what the regular price is in Inuvik, because the normal price in this part of the country is three cans for 99 cents. Two 16-ounce cans of pork and beans were advertised for 79 cents. In the more settled parts of Canada it is two for 38 cents or 40 cents.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the difference in price is due to higher transportation costs in the north. The price of cut green beans is double what it would be in Regina, Toronto or Montreal. I am not at all suggesting that the transportation costs are not legitimate, but I am asking the committee to look for ways and means for sharing the transportation costs amongst the entire population of Canada. This could be done partly through equalized freight rates and partly through subsidized freight rates so that the person who lives in Inuvik is not victimized because of geography.
In a place like Fond du Lac in northern Saskatchewan a quart of milk costs 94 cents because of the air freight. What family on a low or medium income can supply the children with a sufficient quantity of a basic necessity at 94 cents a quart? In Buffalo Narrows it is 44 cents a quart, which is 12 cents more than the price where it originates. Surely some equalization of the cost of distributing goods to the people from one coast to the other is long overdue. Members of Parliament have been fighting these freight rates; farmers, farm associations and the co-operative movement have been fighting them for years.
Another thing-this could almost be considered a crime against humanity-is the cost of beer in Yellowknife, at $4.20 a case.


An hon. Member:: What brand?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Any brand. Of that, $1.25 is the cost of transportation. Why could not the beer drinkers in Ottawa pay a nickel a case more and lessen the cost for beer in Yellowknife?
Last September, when the election campaign was in full swing, a great deal was being said by consumers, politi-

cians and many others regarding food prices. On September 19 the Minister of Finance made a statement in this city which was reported in the Ottawa Citizen by Mike Pasternak. He quotes the Minister of Finance as saying:
Food prices will continue to climb and there is little the federal government can do to control them.
At that time the Minister of Finance was a member of a majority government. If he was right then, I would like to know why the government put a motion on the order paper proposing a committee of the House of Commons to look into food prices. If there was little that the federal government could do about it in September, why bother now? The article goes on to quote the minister as follows:
I'm afraid we're in for higher prices-that's all there is to it.
Now, why is the government submitting this motion to the House?


John Napier Turner: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. That particular report was denied by me and the denial was carried by Canadian Press about three hours later.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that. They did not carry the denial in Regina, 1,854 miles from here, but they did carry the original story. If the Minister of Finance was misquoted, that is the best news I have had all night. But, Mr. Speaker, it has also done away with about ten minutes of my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is the best news we have had all night.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, that is not going to stop me. I should like to know, before I read further from this clipping, if the Minister of Finance says that everything in this article is incorrect. He may just indicate by a nod. Is the entire story wrong?


John Napier Turner: No, just that statement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then we will go on to the juicier parts. The minister is reported to have said that a food shortage is causing prices to escalate. A food shortage in Canada, Mr. Speaker? We are up to our backsides in wheat and barley, tomatoes and potatoes, beef and pork. We have a food shortage in Canada, Mr. Speaker? I should like to know about that. Except during wartime we have always been able to bring in more than sufficient food to meet our needs. I should like the Minister of Finance to explain about the food shortage in Canada and how it is causing prices to escalate. He should explain that to the committee if requested to appear as a witness. The other red herring the Minister of Finance threw out last September 19 was, I suspect, the biggest red herring that has ever been thrown out with regard to food prices. According to this report he said:
I ask myself whether people in Canada would put up with rationing in peacetime.
Mr. Speaker, even if the minister were correct, let me point out that the productive capability of the farmers of
January 23, 1973

this country is unmatched by those of countries anywhere in the world. We are second to none as food producers. Let him ask his colleague, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), who has been paying farmers not to grow food. I repeat, we are unmatched in our ability to produce food. Considering that, let me say the minister threw out a red herring on September 19 by saying that if we were even to contemplate or implement any kind of price control, price freeze or regulation, the result would be rationing. That red herring is redder than most and smells more than most.
I hope the minister is willing to volunteer to appear as a witness before the committee and explain why any kind of control, regulation or investigation of food price or review of price increases could come close to causing rationing. Let me quote further what the Minister of Finance is reported to have said. The minister was comparing Canada to the United States which has wage and price restraints, and he said:
-prices in Canada other than food, but including housing, have risen less than in the United States-
You will notice that he said "other than food".


John Napier Turner: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I continue:
-and far less than any other country in the industrialized world.
Again, he was speaking of items other than food. Then he said:
That is very little comfort to the ordinary Canadian but it happens to be a fact-
As if the average Canadian did not already know that. Then he said:
It also is an answer to those who say price and wage controls would be an immediate solution.
I do not know, but judging from what little I do know, and I am not an economist, I do not think price and wage controls would bring an immediate solution. I think that for a number of reasons. First, if you try to control wages only, without controlling incomes generally, you will be a born loser, especially if you try to implement those controls. Such a wage freeze has been mentioned a number of times by members of the official opposition and also, I believe, by some on the government side. It seems passing strange to me that every time those people have spoken about controls, they have always spoken about prices and wages. We have yet to hear some of those people say something about prices and incomes generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When we say incomes, Mr. Speaker, we mean all forms of income. When we speak of incomes, we mean incomes that start at the top, the incomes of financial institutions and incomes derived from exorbitant interest rates. It is these interest rates that make supermarkets all the more expensive to build. Those interest rates add to the food costs of Canadian consumers. They are interest rates that food corporations are willing to pay because they can pass them on to Mrs. Joe Citizen who is shopping in the shopping centre in her town or city.
Food Prices Committee
High interest rates have not been a deterrent in the building of more shopping centres. We need more shopping centres in my city like we need a hole in the head, but we are getting more. You can go to any one of them on a mid-week afternoon and fire a cannon down the deserted aisles lined with goods and not hit anybody. You may find two clerks standing there, but that is all.
There you will find a large building, heavily capitalized and carrying a high interest rate. It is not being used for a number of hours several days each week. And what does the food industry do? Those great free enterprisers that my friends in the old parties support and make excuses for, they build more shopping centres and pass on their increased costs by increasing the cost of food, thus increasing the cost of living for consumers.
I hope the committee will bring in specific recommendations for both immediate and long term action in the area of transportation costs. One recommendation which might apply in the short run is for the immediate establishment of a prices review board; at least such a board could examine prices. The government could, when necessary, impose selective controls. If the situation became bad enough there ought to be controls right across the board on incomes, beginning with those at the highest levels. I submit that the incomes of the presidents of the food chains should be the first to be controlled. Let us work our way down from there, and the last person we need worry about is the woman working on the cash register at minimum wages in the supermarkets. Such people ought to be the last to be considered in the imposition of income controls.
Much has been said about the middleman. I refer to an article in the Regina Leader-Post of September 13 under the byline of Dave Thomas. This is a Canadian Press story. It reads:
Processors, packagers and distributors are by far the biggest culprits in the continuous climb of food prices, the agriculture department said Tuesday.
I am presuming that means the federal Department of Agriculture. I hope the committee will ask the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to appear as a witness. It had better ask the old one to appear as well, because he was the minister when members of his department said this. They pointed out who are the main culprits in the continuing climb in food prices. According to this report, food prices rose by 7.4 per cent between August, 1971, and August, 1972. A departmental bulletin placed the blame for most of the rise in food prices on the industry's middlemen. The article reads, speaking about the bulletin:
-processors and dealers account for 64 per cent of the $2.8 billion increase in farm food prices since 1961, with farmers themselves benefiting from only 36 per cent.
I notice that the federal Department of Agriculture disagreed with the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who said in an election announcement that increased prices at the farm level were largely to blame. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the committee should ask the present Minister of Agriculture and the former minister to appear before it, and the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) as well as the former minister. It should also ask the middlemen to appear, to

January 23, 1973
Food Prices Committee
justify their share of the increase in food prices that they enjoyed between 1961 and 1971.
If the previous House of Commons and Senate Committee examined this question up to 1966, that is fine; we will look into it with regard to the time after 1966. If the Batten commission on the Prairies has looked at the situation in the prairie provinces, that is fine; let us look into the situation affecting the rest of Canada, especially since 1966. I tend to think that the bulletin put out by the Department of Agriculture last September is largely correct. I think the department pointed to the main culprit responsible for rising food prices.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are ready to rise and cut me off. I hope the committee will report back to the House on the items I have mentioned.


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, like so many hon. members who have spoken in this debate, I am rising for my first speech in this House. I rise with a great deal of humility. It is a great distinction to speak here. However, the degree of humility I feel has been somewhat lessened in the last two or three weeks, I must confess; it has been lessened by the debates I have listened to in this House. It seems to me, as a new member, that perhaps that degree of statesmanship and wisdom that I had expected to find here is not entirely present.
I was interested the other evening to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party indicate on a television broadcast that in his opinion the members of the party I support are obsessed with power and that the entire program of my party, as evident during the proceedings of the House, was aimed at gaining power.


An hon. Member:: You are right there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't apologize.


Charles E. Haliburton: Obsessed may be putting it a little strongly, but I would say that the members of this party are concerned about the quality of leadership which this House and this country is receiving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles E. Haliburton: It has now been several weeks since this session began. This party has made every effort to facilitate the business of the House. Our suggestions have been ignored. On each occasion we have ended up with a fairly lengthy debate.
There is another matter which was mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party. It seemed to be more or less an afterthought. He said that his party will do everything in its power to ensure that the committee which is to be established will bring in some concrete results. I listened with interest to the members of that party to try to filter out the concrete results which they hope will result from the committee. As nearly as I can tell, the objective they seek is the establishment of a prices or wages review board. That may be of help but, as has been pointed out, there was the prices and incomes commission which only recently retired, and the continuing

task force which is presumably operating and advising the government on this matter.
What policy does this government have with regard to rising food costs and inflation in general? Does the government propose to put its future policy in the hands of this parliamentary committee which will, quite properly, be made up of representatives of all parties in this House? Do they intend to call on the opposition, which will comprise the majority of that committee, to advise them on policy in these circumstances? Are we being led by a government which calls on the opposition to give them their program? If that is the case, it is high time the government acknowledged that that is their position and moved over to make room for a party that has its own policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles E. Haliburton: Why is a committee being established? I suggest that the reason is lack of any cohesive or coherent program on the part of the government. They are asking this committee to give them a program.
I intended to speak on why the time should be limited for this committee to bring in its report. In view of the circumstances in this House we are not speaking of a continuing committee in terms of one which will be operating for a very lengthy period. The members of the committee would do well to consider that they will have, at most, three months or six months to bring forward their final report. If it is possible for a committee to bring in a meaningful preliminary report after 60 days, it should be possible to bring in its final report very shortly after that.
During the course of this debate many members have spoken about one particular price or another and compared it to other prices. I do not intend to involve myself in that aspect of the matter. Contrary to what the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) said a few moments ago about the uselessness of this debate, I think it is incumbent upon this House to provide some ideas and guidelines for the committee.
If the findings of the committee are to be effective or valid, the committee will have to deal with a very broad area of policies, not just food prices. I am sure that members opposite realize that food prices cannot be dealt with in isolation. They are a product of an economic policy of the government. Unless the committee is prepared to look into the entire economic policy of the government, and unless the government is prepared to review its entire economic policy, the deliberations of this committee will be a wasted effort, certainly as far as any short-term effects on food prices are concerned.
If the committee is going to determine the reason for the rise in food costs, how can it justify ignoring the rise in the cost of shelter which has increased 4 per cent more than the cost of food in the past year? The rise in the cost of food is serious, but it cannot be viewed in isolation. There are short-term factors that affect the price of food, such as supply and demand.
A member of the New Democratic Party a few minutes ago mentioned a surplus. Can we imagine a shortage of eggs, chickens, beef and wheat in this country? In fact, we
January 23, 1973

are a net importer of agricultural products. While we do not have a genuine shortage in the sense that we cannot supply our food needs, nevertheless the supply of food is obviously a factor in pricing.
In the past two or three years there has been a price fluctuation in the poultry business. The price is governed by supply and demand. It prompted producers to endeavour to create marketing boards and concur in the government's proposal for the creation of marketing boards. That certainly has beneficial effects on the agricultural community which specializes in those products. However, far from being any rip-off, it will take some years before the poultry producers are able to recoup the losses they suffered in the past two or three years when prices were disastrously low.
Strangely enough, Canada is experiencing a shortage of potatoes. The price is indicative of this. Obviously, the government had some difficulty in programming wheat production. This was brought to the attention of the government and the public. The price of wheat is governed by short-term factors such as supply and demand; this is well known.
Previous speakers mentioned the impact of transportation costs on food. As a member from the maritime provinces, I know that is a substantial factor. That is one reason we in the Maritimes feel our cost of living is higher than it is in most areas of Canada. It is certainly higher than in the large centres where distribution is centralized and, therefore, more economical. Transportation problems in transporting food and other goods affect the cost of living in outlying areas. This is aggravated by rationalizing railroads and trucking service and diminishing production. The growing multiplicity of regulations affects both rail and road transportation. All these factors in fact cut off effective competition because these areas of endeavour are controlled as my friends to the left would like to have them controlled. The effect of these controls in the transportation industry has been, obviously, the limitation of competition and increases in prices.
Another factor to be considered is the increase in wages in the service industries, and by service industries I refer to services in the food industry. I have in mind the $6 per hour figure for meat cutters. One hon. gentleman in the NDP apparently misunderstood that comment in that he felt it referred to somebody in a meat packing plant. Let me point out to him that it had reference to the horrible practice of large food chains employing meat cutters at $6 to $8 an hour. Certainly that is to be resented by a wage earner getting by on a minimum wage. If a meat cutter is getting $6 or $8 an hour for mincing 25 pounds of hamburger, one can imagine the effect on the price the store charges.
Another factor mentioned during my presence in the House by a member of the Creditiste party was the effect of taxes levied on our citizens by the federal government. These taxes have increased at a fantastic rate over the past few years and they have a direct bearing on food prices because they have a direct bearing on wages. Anyone who pays tax on profit or on wages will require larger profits or larger take-home pay in order to pay the
Food Prices Committee
higher tax. Indeed, anyone with an ounce of sense can readily appreciate that a wage earner or a businessman earning a salary or making a profit of $10,000 a year and paying increased tax must organize his affairs in such a way that his take-home pay is not affected. The only way he can do that is by demanding a higher wage or increased profits.
If I understood correctly the statistics I read, the price of food increased from 1961 to 1972 at an average rate in the vicinity of 5 per cent or 6 per cent. From 1961 to 1965 the food index increased by about 10 per cent; during 1967 it increased about 8 per cent, in 1968 by about 4 per cent and in 1969 by approximately 4 per cent. I hasten to say that these figures are fairly rough. In 1970 the food price index increased by about 3 per cent, and in 1972 it increased by 8.6 per cent. These increases are substantial.
Let us compare these increases with the increases in federal revenues. I might say that these increases have a direct bearing on the gross incomes people require in order to pay the additional tax. As I understand it, in 1969 the revenue of the government was $10.1 billion. In 1970 this increased to $12.3 billion. According to my calculation this is an increase of 23 per cent. In 1971, government revenues increased to $12.8 billion, an increase of about 4 per cent; a very modest increase. In 1972 it increased to $14.2 billion, an increase of 10 per cent.
With such an increase in revenue there must be an increase in gross wages earned in order to meet increased taxes and maintain the same take-home pay. Businessmen must also increase their profits. This increase is required by food chains, farmers, meat packing plants and wholesalers in order to meet increased taxes. I submit that this is one of the most important aspects of increasing costs.
I realize I am running out of time, but I should like to mention one other important aspect. This matter was referred to by another hon. member. As the representative of South Western Nova, this aspect is of particular interest in my area. I refer to increasing costs in terms of food as related to the multiplicity of government regulations. I realize that hon. members, whether they sit on this side or the other side of you, Mr. Speaker, may have a great deal of difficulty controlling regulations which are largely, I suspect, conceived in the minds of civil servants or those in the employ of the government who believe it is their duty to protect those people and products within their areas of responsibility.
As an example, let me refer to the multiplicity of regulations in effect in the fishing industry. They are forcing many small fish producing firms out of business. Most of these firms are in competition with each other. I have even heard it said that it is government policy that such regulations should have the effect over a period of a few years of reducing the number of firms in the fish business in Canada to five. At the present time there are hundreds of these firms. What is to become of these independent fish producers? What will become of all these independent agents presently competing in terms of prices paid to the fishermen and prices paid at the marketplace?
One other illustration of inflationary prices is that in respect of the cost of fishing boats. It came to my attention recently that a lobster fisherman has been paying in the neighbourhood of $10,000 for the construction of his

January 23, 1973
Adjournment Debates
boat. Regulations recently put into effect, which according to steamship inspectors have nothing to do with safety and are not wanted by fishermen or builders, have resulted in ships deemed to be over 15 tons costing about 15 per cent more. In one fell swoop another $1,500 is taken out of the pockets of the fishermen who are only earning about $5,000 a year.
I would ask the committee to consider carefully the effect of multiplying government regulation in relation to the increasing cost of food and of doing business in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The main motion is carried on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The main motion as amended is carried on division.
Motion (Mr. Gray) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, recently in answer to my question concerning the apparent disappearance of approximately 3,800 jobs for which the government claimed credit through DREE projects, the minister said he owed it to the public to explain what occurred. Pursuant to the minister's professed intentions in this regard, I have some suggestions by which more information could be made available from his department.
I suggest that section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act be amended so that reports can be issued every month regardless of whether or not parliament is sitting. If DREE is going to turn out press releases outlining the various new jobs allegedly created, information should also be made available showing whether companies refused initial offers of the approved grants or whether they were withdrawn by the department at a later date. Monthly reports should have a table showing, by province, the net accepted projects, expected eligible capital costs, the estimated expected new direct jobs and

the estimated incentives. The minister should also follow the advice offered to his predecessor and prepare a table showing regional levels of unemployment in relation to the amount of grants awarded in each region of the country. Not that unemployment levels should be the sole criterion, but they are relevant factors.
Reports pursuant to section 16 should be published each month in the same way as statistics on employment and statistics on the consumer price index, to form part of a co-ordinated total economic picture. Efforts should be made to determine if Statistics Canada could assess the DREE figures. I would think the minister would be glad to have Statistics Canada do this because it would give his department more credibility; something this government and this department needs badly. There is something incongruous about DREE assessing its own performance.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of performance, and owing an explanation to the public, may I say through you to the minister that we are waiting for an explanation of exactly what he means by the term "decentralization". The switching of bureaucrats from Ottawa to the local level could simply be an empty exercise unless accompanied by a restructuring of present programs. There are qualified people at the scene who know local conditions and what needs to be done. Shipping out DREE personnel and retaining highly paid consultants is unnecessary. I believe that municipal, civic and regional planning agencies should be invited to submit local development plans to DREE, which could facilitate plans which have merit by dealing through the provinces and expediting with them development schemes.
Special area agreements are administered by joint planning committees, with representation from the federal and provincial governments. If meaningful decentralization is to take place, it would be well to give municipalities greater representation on these joint planning committees. The federal government should be prudent in maintaining a proper check through DREE on the funds allocated through special area agreements. However, its role should be more of a conciliator and facilitator between the province and the municipality instead of playing the role of an economic czar. There must be more co-ordination between DREE and other federal and provincial government departments and development agencies. Transportation problems must be taken into account. For example, DREE cannot work to expand the economy of this nation if other government departments are trying to slow it down, as was the case when the former minister was in charge of this department.
It may be necessary to establish a more independent review board, like an advisory board to a bank or a trust company, instead of the present quasi-judicial one. While the actual power of an advisory board can be downplayed, its influence must be a factor in the department's decision-making, otherwise why was it formed? In any event, such an arrangement should be improved.
In expanding the IDB pursuant to the proposal outlined in the Speech from the Throne, the minister should consider co-ordinating it more closely with DREE in order that DREE could use the expertise of the IDB both in an
January 23, 1973

advisory and a supervisory capacity. It should be possible to establish a risk capital, or venture capital, division for the IDB using DREE funds. This should be looked into since IDB already has regional organizations, considerable expertise in business practice and advisory capabilities; and with the IDB being used in an advisory capacity there is less chance of conflict of interest situations arising.
A new emphasis on massive infrastructure programs for strategic areas must be considered. Infrastructure developments such as roads, port facilities, etc., are tangible assets and remain reasonably permanent inducements and advantages to potential investors, unlike grants which are subject to the vagaries of policy changes, of which this department is a particularly good example.
In summary, there is still a great need for the minister to inform the Canadian public what the new policies of his department are going to involve. I trust that we will not have to wait much longer for a comprehensive announcement in this regard.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my personal congratulations to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) on assuming the responsibility of regional economic expansion critic for his party in the House of Commons. I am, of course, very pleased to respond to the question which he put to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) on January 11 and which he has presented in greater detail this evening.
Specifically, the question relates to the release of information concerning incentive grants from DREE to business or private companies which were offered but which were subsequently withdrawn. The minister in his reply referred briefly to the difficulty of determining accurately on a projection basis jobs which may be created when companies are made an offer of assistance. Certainly, in making public these offers the department refers to them specifically as offers. Rates relating to capital costs, the expenditure per job and other relative statistics are disclosed. I think this is a desirable objective.
Mr. Speaker, each offer is subject to conditions specified in the Regional Development Incentives Act. Therefore, there are instances where the applicant may decide for his own reasons not to proceed. But, more important, there are instances where the department is required to withdraw an offer because the company has not lived up to the conditions. This is a measure of protection to the public purse and it is the reason for publishing and distributing monthly reports to parliament containing summary statistics sections on figures of total capital costs, incentives and expected employment of those offers which were subsequently withdrawn and declined.
In respect of explaining the decentralization policy announced by the minister, which was not the subject of the question raised by the hon. member, I am sure that in the very near future we will have an opportunity to elaborate on this new policy of decentralization. Also, so far as the new policy of the department is concerned, I am sure we will have occasion to work very closely with other interested members. I am sure, also, from the question
Adjournment Debates
asked by the hon. member for Central Nova, that he is interested in DREE programs. We are all interested, as is evident from questions and suggestions such as those of the hon. member. I am sure DREE will be a good program and that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will serve its purpose in helping the non-developed areas of this country.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES- MAINTENANCE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR INDIANS AND CLEARING OF RIGHT OF WAY
Mr. Walter Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments about the Hire North project which involves a group of labourers working under the able leadership of Rudy Steiner out of Hay River. These people work on the clearing of the right of way over a stretch of highway between Fort Simpson and Camsell Bend, a distance of approximately 50 miles.
A few weeks ago I was concerned, in respect of the Hire North project, that it would turn into a "fire north project" as some people were being laid off. I am now informed that many people are going back to work, although not necessarily on the Hire North project. These people originally worked mainly with hand tools on a 49 or 50-mile stretch; they were three months ahead of schedule and therefore worked their way out of work. The people employed on the job were northern natives who were very proud of the work they were doing, and justly so.
I am sure that given the time, the money and some equipment the native peoples of the Northwest Territories can build that highway from Fort Simpson to Tuktoyak-tuk on the Arctic Ocean. These people are very proud of the work they have been doing, and they have been doing very careful work because it is in a part of the country which they know best. Many of them are familiar with the bush and are well trained to look after themselves in the bush. I should like to make it very clear that I and the people who are on the project know very well that they can build this highway themselves using common sense and northern experience.
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, in asking some very important questions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand). Let me point out that it seems a little ironical to me, or perhaps somewhat strange, that a Metis on this side of the House should be asking a question of an Indian on the other side of the House.
The first question is: On what section of the clearing of the right of way will Hire North be allowed to proceed with the work, and could this information be passed along to Hire North as soon as possible?
My second question is: How much money will Hire North be allowed for the vocational training part of the project, and could this information also be passed along to Hire North as soon as possible? This information is most important as Hire North will have to obtain some equipment on the site to carry out this training program

Adjournment Debates
and this must be done during the winter months when the land is frozen, for very obvious reasons.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that I do not have the specific answers to the two last questions he has raised this evening. Perhaps we could consult a little further on the exact nature of his intervention tonight. However, I will obtain the exact information and pass it on to the hon. member as well as to the people whom he wished to be informed.
Hire North, an agency organized by the Northwest Territories government to employ native people on the Mackenzie Highway project, is now employing some 30 native people on clearing and other labour-intensive work on the highway between Fort Simpson and Camsell Bend. This is the work force that will be built up after the Christmas work break which started on December 16 to allow workers to return home for Christmas. Work was completed on December 15, 1972, on the original contract for clearing the Mackenzie Highway between Fort Simpson and Cam-sell Bend by Hire North and it provided during this time 8,517 man-days of employment. This provided a total of $346,915 in wages and benefits.
Along with the rather obvious benefits of Hire North such as the wages paid to the native people, some very important intangible benefits arising from the work experience have accrued to the people employed on the project. I believe my hon. friend mentioned this. Hire North is also being used as a training project to assist native people to adapt to the needs of a wage earning environment.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been very pleased with the way in which this project has succeeded. I am also pleased that the hon. member has expressed a similar view on behalf of the native people in that area. We are very encouraged by the results of this program and we have every intention of carrying on the program throughout the winter.


YOUTH-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INDICATION OF CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL SELECTION COMMITTEES
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on January 16 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to provide terms of reference which would indicate what criteria the government would follow in establishing a local selection committee for the Opportunities for Youth Program. So far, to my knowledge, no criteria have been given and no answer has been given. I want to raise the question of OFY tonight, not on that narrow point but on the larger matter of the purpose of the program and the ability of parliament, which is paying the piper, to gain at least some inkling of the tune.
From the beginning this program has been kept away from parliament. This year, for the third straight year, it was announced outside the House. There has never been an attempt by the government to come to parliament with a description of the purposes of the program or of its performance. Indeed, the government cannot come before

parliament with a full report because the government refuses to give a statutory base to the program. It exists at the whim of the government, a whim with a big budget but with no more accountability and no more assurance of survival than the Prime Minister's assurance that we have licked inflation.
No matter how glowing the terms in which the government might describe OFY, it remains a program it refuses to embrace. It is an orphan, disclaimed at its birth and in perpetual danger of abandonment. It is a shocking situation that the only time this program comes before the House of Commons-and it is a program which will cost almost $40 million this year-is when the opposition parties bring it here either by questions or by debate on one of our days.
Those in the country who believe in the principles of a program like OFY should look with unease upon the persistent refusal of the government to grant it permanent status. No one who remembers the emasculation of the Company of Young Canadians can avoid the apprehension that on the day that OFY no longer serves the private and partisan designs of the government it will simply disappear. That is one danger with the present program, the danger that it will be done away with in the dark of night by a government whose highest principle is its own survival.
Another danger is that in some naive corners of the land there might actually persist the belief that the program is in some way related to an attack on unemployment. Indeed, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the government had programs up its sleeve for young Canadians he made explicit reference to job creating potential. He struck the chord and, as so often has happened, his ministers and minions have dutifully sung it.
OFY is the flag ship of the government's attack on unemployment among the young-and not only the flagship; it is the whole fleet. But it is in an entirely different ocean. The OFY program has little or nothing to do with the crisis in unemployment among the young. It is an excuse for inaction, not an instrument for action. To argue, as the government does, that it is an effective answer to youth unemployment is fraudulent. As an innovative social program it has considerable potential; as an attack upon unemployment it is a fraud.
It is aimed at providing jobs for the young in summer. Look at its rate of success in the summer of 1972. In April, 1972, the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, for the age group 14 to 24 years was 10.2 per cent. The next month the program began and the rate of unemployment went up to 10.8 per cent. In August, 1972, the effect of the summer employment program was most clear; the rate of unemployment in that age group soared to 12.1 per cent, the highest in over ten years and double the national total of 6.7 per cent for the same period.
Last year some 30,000 young people were listed as being employed as a result of OFY. That is a figure that is almost invisible in the shadow of the 1,306,000 young people described by the then minister of manpower and immigration as intending to seek employment in that summer. There is no way of knowing how many of those
30,000	would have found other jobs, including some kind
January 23, 1973

of seasonal work such as that on farms which went without takers last summer and work with volunteer social agencies which, because they cannot compete with OFY rates, went without young workers in parts of Canada last summer.
The stated figure of 30,000 jobs is negligible enough in light of the total number seeking work. It might be more negligible still if we had a chance to examine the workings of individual programs. Members of Parliament have asked for a full evaluation of projects, but in keeping with the Liberal principle of denying information to parliament only a partial assessment has been provided-a sample of less than one-sixth of the total projects.
In a very serious sense the OFY program contributes to the record levels of unemployment among young Canadians because it gives the government an excuse to do nothing concrete. Whenever they are pressed about youth unemployment, they point with empty pride to OFY. In that sense the program has been of much more use to the government than it has been to the young people of the country.
As a first priority we in this party demand that the government stops the sham of pretending that OFY is a remedy to youthful unemployment. Instead, as a start we want the government to work with the private sector and the provinces to develop a seasonal employment program that works and that provides the basis on which grant and incentive programs might work. We propose the establishment of a Canadian youth employment directorate whose initial responsibility would be to determine the causes of youth unemployment and to work out practical programs which meet the needs of the unemployed. That approach would begin with the recognition that youth unemployment remains a Canadian crisis, whereas the government today treats it as a matter which mere press agentry can dismiss.
But if it is a fraud in the fight against unemployment, OFY remains an important innovative program, an instrument to enlist both the creative proposals and the energy of young people across the land. Clearly the program should continue. But is should continue without the burden of its disguise, without the pretence that it is designed to do something it patently cannot do. We in this party particularly approve the reliance upon local initiative and ingenuity. It is a principle we introduced into Canadian legislation with the ARDA program and we hate to see it abused in ARDA or in OFY.
If the government would stop pretending the purpose of OFY is to fight unemployment and would recognize its great potential to put money where the needs are, the program can succeed. We want to see some major modifications. In rural areas in particular there should be a much greater attempt to tie in to the recognized priorities of the regions where the projects proceed. Everywhere there should be an attempt to have projects staffed and inspired by people who know local needs because they are
Adjournment Debates
local residents. When projects are seen to work, there should be substantial attention given to ensuring that they return next year and are not mere one-summer wonders.
As a start, the government should bring the program to parliament, ensure the impartiality and the permanence of OFY by enshrining it in statute, announce new programs in the House of Commons and let parliament, as the representative of all the people, participate creatively in the development of guidelines and priorities. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) pointed out in his press release of January 15, 1973, this summer's program will mainly emphasize benefits to the communities. Our experience of last year with some local advisory committees will be repeated, but on a wider scale, to involve more people. Young people and other designated persons will be called upon to take part in these local advisory committees, which will provide an additional source of consultation for the review and eventual selection of the projects.
Officials of the Department of the Secretary of State, in co-operation with representatives of the provincial governments, have started to identify areas within each provinces where it would be possible to set up local advisory committees. The selection of these areas will be based on economic and geographical grounds. The committees, where any, will be responsible for providing the officials of the Opportunities for Youth program with additional information on priority needs and on existing services in the communities they represent.
To ensure that these committees really represent the interests of the people they serve, spokesmen for youth, for communities as well as for provincial governments will be invited to participate in these committees. Their thorough knowledge of their surroundings will enable them to determine the primary needs of their community and the resources which will be available. Moreover, representatives elected to sit on these committees will already have an experience of working with youth as well as of social service activities. As far as possible, we shall add representatives from groups which benefit from services provided through community projects of Opportunities for Youth.
Mr. Speaker, within the few minutes left I shall not have the opportunity of taking up the challenge that my hon. friend has sent me and saying more about the Opportunities for Youth program but I can assure him of one thing:
I accepted to become affiliated to a party because I believe in the earnestness of this party, and I shall not accept that this program be used as a cover by a political party. It will be-and I am now committing myself-a service reserved for youth and the whole people of our country. During the weeks to come I shall have the opportunity of speaking at some length about the Opportunities for Youth program.
At 10:27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday. January 24, 1973