1973-04-17

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege this afternoon in connection with a matter of extreme interest and concern to my riding of South Western Nova. The matter relates to the fishing of offshore lobsters.
In this House on April 5 I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about a certain study that was supposed to have been undertaken nearly two years ago. Subsequently, both in the House and in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I raised this issue. On April 4, in response to a question, I was told by one of the officials of the Department of Fisheries that the report should be available within a few weeks. May I stress he said it "should be ready within a few weeks' time".
Within a week, namely, on April 10, the report that I had been asking for for a month or five weeks was released to a newspaper reporter in Halifax and reported pretty fully in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 11. The publication of the contents of that report and the stories that went out on the wire press have caused serious embarrassment to me since this was a matter occurring within my constituency in which, as I say, I had great interest. It caused me additional embarrassment since I had, after all, been requesting this report and the people there knew I had been requesting it. Indeed, it was in fact released on April 10 as a result of the pressure that had been brought to bear on the government through my questions. Further embarrassment attaches because of the fact that I was asked to comment on the report by various members of the media.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this matter and the nature of the procedure for releasing such statements be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the motion could be put to the House for debate and disposition the Chair would have to rule that there was a prima facie case of privilege. Although the hon. member may have a grievance or complaint, I have serious doubts whether his point would amount to a question of privilege which ought to be referred to either the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or another committee of the House. I think the hon. member has made his point in his presentation to the House in relation to the grievance of which he has
complained, but I doubt that the interests of the House would best be served by having a debate at this time.


Charles E. Haliburton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, April 18, 1973, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 7, 1973, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, two major objectives of our defence policy are to protect Canadian sovereignty and, in co-operation with the United States, to make an effective contribution to the defence of North America. These objectives are achieved in part through Canada's participation with the United States in the North American Air Defence Command agreement which is known to all of us as NORAD.
The NORAD agreement was originally signed on May 12, 1958, for a period of ten years. On March 30, 1968, the agreement was renewed with some additional provisions for a further five years. As the end of the five-year renewal period is on the 12th of next month, the Canadian and American governments have been giving consideration to the renewal of the agreement.
The United States government has been actively engaged in the development of modernized air defence systems. Canada has been kept fully informed of the

April 17, 1973
Easter Adjournment
progress being made and has actively co-operated in some aspects of the work being done.
Although development of the new systems is now at an advanced stage, it has not reached the point at which the two governments are able to decide upon the extent to which the systems for the air defence of North America should, at this time, be changed and improved.
As further time is required before decisions can be reached by either country, it has been determined that the best course of action to meet the requirements of both governments is to extend the present NORAD agreement for a further period. It has, therefore, been agreed between Canada and the United States that the NORAD agreement will be extended in its present form for a further period of two years commencing May 12, 1973, and that an appropriate exchange of diplomatic notes will shortly be exchanged for this purpose.
Hon. members already know that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has made a special study of the NORAD agreement and has tabled a report in the House on this subject. I am particularly pleased to be able to point out that the government's decision to renew the NORAD agreement is consistent with the recommendations contained in the report tabled by this committee.
As I have described in some detail the policy of the Canadian government on NORAD before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and as the reasons for the government's decision to renew the agreement for two years are already in the public record as a result of evidence given before this committee, I do not believe it is necessary to elaborate further at this time.
In this statement I do, however, wish to emphasize that the government's decision to renew the NORAD agreement for two years will assist Canada in a meaningful way to achieve the central objectives of our defence policy.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I express our appreciation to the minister for having made his statement available to us a good hour before the House met this afternoon. I also want to welcome the statement and to indicate to the minister that it is at least the minimum position acceptable to us in respect of sharing of responsibility for North American defence.
The importance of maintenance by Canadians of the sovereignty of our northern air space requires this minimum position. Our role should continue to be that of surveillance, detection and identification. Whatever the outcome of the present testing by the United States of such technological advancements as over the horizon, back scatter radar, AWACS and the improved manned interceptor programming, Canada will have to go it alone or go via this route. In other words, one way or another we must ensure that the means of maintenance of our own sovereignty are within our own control. We feel strongly that such planning can only be done, and we hope it will be done during this two-year period, not in the context of the NORAD agreement alone but also in light of our over-all bilateral defence arrangements with the United States. We

hope the contingency plans in respect of what Canada does at the end of the present two-year agreement will take that into consideration.
It is my hope that the standing committee will exercise its investigative prerogatives and call before it witnesses and all the agreements, protocols, notes and memoranda that exist-I imagine there are some three or four dozen- for the purpose of coming up with an integrated role for Canada in the defence of the North American continent which will achieve the purpose of serving our own national interests as well as the interests of our collective responsibilities. We recognize that our responsibility is not only to ourselves but also to our neighbours. We welcome this announcement and express the hope that the long-term implications of NORAD and continental defence concepts can be taken under very active consideration not only by the minister's department but by the standing committee in the months that lie ahead.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party did not accept the recommendation of the majority of members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and we do not accept the statement of the minister as satisfactory. In our view Canada should take advantage of the termination of the NORAD agreement and let NORAD die a natural death.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Our reasons are simple. NORAD was founded in 1958 and renewed in 1968 to meet an apprehended threat of an attack on North America by manned bombers from the U.S.S.R. Defence against the bomber was and continues to be the most important of NORAD's objectives according to General Lane, Deputy Commander of NORAD, who gave evidence before the committee as recently as March 2 last.
1 It is our conviction that the threat of attack by manned bombers is non-existent, again for simple reasons. In the missile age when both superpowers possess the ability to destroy the society of the other, even after an all-out attack by the one, in a response to the original attack, or second strike, there is no possibility of an attack by manned bombers, because to send over bombers to attack would be madness and, indeed, suicide as it would invite the destruction of the country that made such an attack. The minister recognized this in the statement he made to the committee the other day. Let me quote just one sentence from that statement:
The deterrence of an actual attack depends not on air defence capability, but in assured retaliatory capacity.
We agree entirely with that statement.
The contribution that Canada can make should be through detection and identification which may require surveillance and interception. This is an entirely different concept from that of NORAD. Canada should control and survey its own air space. It should co-operate with the United States and give information to the United States. But it is not necessary for this purpose for Canada to be locked into NORAD.
It was suggested by the minister before the committee that the committee report, and, indeed, the committee accepted the suggestion, that if Canada withdrew from
April 17, 1973

NORAD this could seriously harm Canada-United States relations needlessly and antagonize the United States administration. This is dangerous timidity and a denial of Canadian sovereignty as well as being insulting to the United States. Of course if we withdrew from NORAD on the basis that we wanted no truck or trade with the Yankees this would cause difficulty, but if we demonstrate, as we can, that a new framework is needed for Canada-United States co-operation in air defence of North America and that NORAD is outdated, there is no need to assume there would be resentment by the United States.
Lastly, we take issue with the way the decision was made. In fact, the decision has been announced in a casual way by the minister. He did not even see fit to give the reasons for it but merely referred to his evidence before the committee. This is a serious matter. This engagement in a treaty with our neighbour involves in monetary terms alone hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet at this time we have this announcement in a casual way respecting the agreement which is to be perpetuated by an exchange of notes. It is true it is only for a two-year period. In our view, details in respect of international and defence relations are for the executive, but when substantial and durable commitments are made this should be propounded in parliament. If this has not always been so in the past it should be so in the future. The government should submit the renewal of the NORAD treaty by resolution for debate and ratification by this parliament.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) for sending us copies of his statement in the two official languages an hour before the House convened. I think all ministers who have statements to make when the House resumes its sitting should take such an initiative.
Mr. Speaker, the minister just announced what everybody was expecting, that is the two-year renewal of the Canada-U.S. agreement on NORAD.
I was somewhat surprised by the position taken by the members of the NDP as expressed by their spokesman who would have liked to see an end to this agreement with the United States. Up to now the danger of an attack would have apparently come from the U.S.S.R. and it is in that direction that Canadian control and defence measures were oriented.
I might compare this means of surveillance and defence with the measures taken by someone who had a beautiful house containing valuable jewels, paintings and ornaments, and protected by three watchdogs to keep off burglars. As long as the watchdogs were there, the enemy would not be tempted to break in, but the moment they were gone, you could expect to be robbed.
This is somewhat like the attitude that must be taken to NORAD. There are powers that might like to come and cause trouble in our country. But as long as we have a lookout system, they are reluctant to put their schemes into action.
So far, we have two main blocks: the American block, on the free block, and the Soviet block. But there is now a third block in the making, that of Communist China, which is becoming a major military power, which will
Cape Breton Development Corporation
soon be as strong as, if not stronger than, the other two. We have just heard that China's military budget has doubled in only seven years and that over 10 per cent of this budget goes towards the purchase and development of military materiel. That is worth thinking about. I should like to repeat something that was said by Mr. Camilien Houde, the former mayor of Montreal, that armaments were not made to be put on Christmas trees.
The committee was also informed that Russia is now building up a fleet of 180 heavy missile-bearing bombers capable of flying anywhere in North America and returning to base without refuelling.
I therefore think it is important to have a highly developed warning system and we know that the United States are at present developing an even better system than the one we have now.
Given those facts, Canada would be wise to renew this agreement for a two-year period, which would give us sufficient time to get acquainted with improvements which the United States intend to make to their warning, control and defence system and to review our financial participation of $150 million to that system, which is about 12 per cent of the total budget of NORAD. I think that it is not excessive and it would be much more costly if Canada alone assured its defence.
Therefore, the members of the Social Credit party approve the renewal of this agreement for two years. By that time, we will be in a position to see what our southern allies could provide for the protection of Canada, so that we may avoid the fate of France which during two world wars was used as a battlefield for Europe. Indeed, Canada should not be used as a stepping-stone by any country which would decide to attack the United States.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation's preretirement leave plan.
In view of the fact that the then minister of regional economic expansion, the present Minister of Transport, stated on December 9, 1968, in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, as found on page 3700 of Hansard:
... I think that we can do like the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and say that the pension is not high enough. There is a lot to be said for that.
I also find that $3,000 a year is no fortune, as I said earlier. But the amount can be discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that is part of the motion. As the hon. member knows, he

April 17, 1973
Canada-U.S. Auto Pact
should not submit argument in support of the motion which he is proposing for the consideration of the House. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that.


Robert Muir: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just laid that foundation for the benefit of the newer members who were not here in 1968.
In view of the fact that the preretirement leave plan still provides the same amount as in 1968, and in view of the tremendous escalation in the cost of living that has placed such a burden on persons such as those under the preretirement leave plan, many of whom were forced into retirement, I would urge the government to take immediate steps to have the Cape Breton Development Corporation initiate a re-examination of the amounts available for both married and single recipients under the preretirement leave plan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether that is the motion, that the hon. member is urging the government to do something. To me that appears to be argument. Perhaps I did not hear the hon. member correctly. Perhaps that is the motion he is inviting the Chair to put before the House, but it does not appear to be in the form of a motion. I apologize again to the hon. member for having to interrupt him.


Robert Muir: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), that this take place, that the government initiate a re-examination of the amounts available for both married and single recipients under the preretirement leave plan so that an amount can be made available that would provide to those in receipt of this allowance an amount not less than an amount equal to the purchasing power that was available when the plan was first initiated and, further, that an escalation clause be attached to the allowance to cover the actual increase in the cost of living on an annual basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity on which I rise is related to the story that emanated from Washington today to the effect that the government of Canada, in the present negotiations on the auto pact, has proposed the phasing

out of the safeguards in that agreement. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to negotiate for an improvement in the production safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement in order to establish the principle that Canadians shall have, by agreement, the right to produce in dollar value that level in North American automotive products which we actually consume.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of an extensive questionnaire being widely circulated in Atlantic Canada by Nicolas Matossian & Associates, based in Brome County, Quebec, requesting information on service industries in Atlantic Canada by the end of April, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie).
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development and that the committee be instructed to inquire into all matters surrounding the appointment of the consultant, the costs involved, and the reason the inquiry is not being conducted by departmental personnel or the Atlantic Development Council.


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.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that section 18 of the act authorizes the Bank of Canada to grant loans or advances to the provincial governments for periods not exceeding six months and that this period of six months is much too short to enable
April 17, 1973


COMMONS DE3ATES
[Stage Direction]
the provinces to take full advantage of those loans or advances, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abiti-bi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House ask the government to amend the Bank of Canada Act in order to authorize the Bank to grant loans for periods not exceeding 20 years.
Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.


HIGH WATER LEVELS ON GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from the long-range forecast which indicates the possibility of renewed damage to property along the Great Lakes in the coming weeks, and also arising from the fact that parliament will be adjourning tomorrow. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House instructs the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on motions tomorrow indicating whether arrangements or agreements with the Ontario government have been satisfactorily concluded and are now in effect with respect to compensation for property damage, and the sharing of costs arising from the use of Canadian forces personnel, and if not, by what date such arrangements will become effective; and further, whether the federal government is considering sharing short term capital costs for preventive works.


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.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask leave of the House for consent to give first reading to a bill which appears on the notice paper today having to do with the
Public Service Staff Relations Act Public Service Staff Relations Act. If we could give this bill first reading by consent we might be able to give it passage through all stages later today so that it could be dealt with by the Senate before the Royal Assent tomorrow.


Mr. Baldwin:: We are agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker. On all those rare occasions when the government brings in good legislation we always facilitate it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is an acceptable bill and we would be glad to facilitate its passage through all stages today.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of our party also advised us that he was in favour of this bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-178, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I do so at this point because we are dealing with the business of the House for the rest of the day. I think Your Honour will find that as a result of discussions there would be unanimous agreement with respect to government order No. 31, the order having to do with the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, namely, that this order might be resumed for debate at eight o'clock tonight with a House order that the debate conclude and any votes necessary be taken at ten o'clock. There are certain understandings, the details of which do not need to be spelled out, about the possibility of an amendment, about who will speak and so on, but I think there is general agreement for this item to be called at eight o'clock tonight and for any necessary votes to be taken at ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
April 17, 1973

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of one of our concerns about the future of employment in the country. We were pleased to see the improved figures for March.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the concern arises from the revelation that there may very well be an effort on the part of the United States Senate to abrogate the auto pact between our two countries. I should like to ask the minister whether he has presented to the United States government or any of its officials a proposal to modify the auto pact?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I had discussions with Secretary Shultz about a number of outstanding matters of mutual interest to our two countries, bilateral matters and multilateral matters. In the course of these talks we also had an exploratory exchange with respect to improvements that might be made in the auto pact.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the assurances the minister has given both inside and outside the House that changes in the pact with regard to the safeguards would be made only if they were improvements, can the minister give the assurance to the House that any proposals he has made do in fact constitute improvements in the protection afforded to the automotive industry in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on earlier occasions I have given assurances to the House that if there are changes which can be mutually agreed upon they will only be agreed upon from our point of view if they provide some kind of built-in mechanism so that we can have our fair share of the production of North American vehicles consistent with article 1 of the auto pact.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the vagueness of the minister's assurances and in view of the ominous situation that seems to exist in the United States Senate, would the minister and the government agree to the automotive agreement being referred to a committee of the House to, among other things, review the positions of the two countries in the negotiations and to assess the operation or effectiveness of the agreement as well as the desirability of retaining and improving the present safeguards in the agreement? Will the minister agree to a reference to a committee for this purpose and others?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that at this particular moment a reference to a committee would be in the best interests of the House or the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Alastair William Gillespie: For one very good reason. As I have indicated before, in talks of this kind I think we are more likely to be able to make useful progress if the negotiations or discussions do not take place in public.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have not been doing too well so far.


Mr.   Terry@: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tremendous importance and the significant value to this country of the auto pact, would the minister consider or agree to the referral mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition provided that consideration were in camera before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that there would be other opportunities to discuss the operation of the auto pact when my main estimates are called again. I believe that I will be meeting with the committee early in May and of course it will be the committee's decision whether they want to raise this matter with me at that time.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-CANADIAN PROPOSALS
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Putting aside the question of general benefit to Canada that the government may or may not be trying to obtain in negotiations, I should like to ask the minister specifically whether the government of Canada has proposed the removal of the 15 per cent duty requirement that consumers must pay if they bring a car in from the United States? If it has made that specific proposal, has it attached to that the requirement that the production level safeguards in the pact must be maintained?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am, perhaps, repeating myself when I say that these were exploratory talks.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: It would be overstating it to say that that proposal had been made, but I can assure the hon. member that if there are any changes agreed to, as I have already indicated on past occasions, they will only be agreed to if there is a mechanism to protect existing and future Canadian jobs based on article 1 of the agreement itself.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REPRESENTATIONS TO AMERICAN SENATORS THROUGH CANADIAN EMBASSY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact
April 17, 1973

that in the American constitution there is a radical separation of powers between the presidential wing and the congressional wing, and the threat at present seems to come, according to news reports, from the U.S. Senate, can the minister inform the House whether or not the Canadian Embassy in Washington has been instructed to keep in close liaison with the key American senators on the important finance committee to make sure that they know the Canadian position?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I have also indicated on other occasions, there are various channels by which Canadian views are made known to key figures in Washington, and undoubtedly Canadian views have been made known to legislators by Canadian officials. I cannot, nor am I going to, indicate whether Canadian officials at the embassy specifically have made these views known, but I can say that Canadian officials have made our views known to a variety of important figures on the Hill.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Richmond wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Beaudoin:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member shortly. [English]


USE OF UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM BY CANADIAN CAR MANUFACTURERS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he inform the House if Canadian car manufacturers are taking advantage of the United States DISC program and, in view of the fact that they have the privilege of free trade, has the government, through the minister, lodged an objection?


Alastair William Gillespie: Speaking to the last question first, we have on earlier occasions made our views known on DISC. My predecessor, I think, very clearly stated our opposition to this particular proposal. As to the first part of the question, if the automobile companies themselves have taken advantage of DISC, it is my information that they have applied and been granted DISC status. Whether they have in fact taken advantage in any unfair way is not a question that I can answer at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resumption of bombing raids by the United States Air Force in Laos, and in light of the
Oral Questions
clear provision in article 20 of the cease-fire agreement to which the United States is a party that foreign countries shall put an end to all military activities in Cambodia and Laos and totally withdraw from and refrain from reintroducing into these two countries troops, materiel, etc. what representations has the Canadian government made or will it make to the parties in question and the United States in particular in respect of this continuance of hostilities?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Canada is a member of the International Control Commission, that particular article quoted by the hon. member does not fall within its competence. In general, I think it is pretty well known that there have been many violations of the peace agreement not only by the United States but by others.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In light, however, of these breaches of the peace agreement referred to and the danger to the fragile peace in southeast Asia, will the government reconsider its position in regard to the continuation of Canada as a member of the International Commission of Control and Supervision and convey to the government of the United States and others that if this situation continues we will have to withdraw?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for us to reconsider. The whole matter is under continuous consideration. This is one of the factors that will have to be taken into account when we make our decision whether or not we will continue.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had an opportunity to give consideration to the possibility of consultation with our colleagues on the commission with respect to the reconvening of the parties in Paris?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been awaiting a report from the International Control Commission on the helicopter tragedy and until we receive that report we think it would be inadvisable to go any further.


SUGGESTION THAT CANADA ASK UNITED NATIONS TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST BURUNDI
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister say whether he intends to suggest to the United Nations that trade sanctions or other reprisals be taken against the military government of Burundi which is made up of members of a minority tribe and which have executed in the most cruel fashion from 100,000 to 200,000 members of the Hutu majority tribe?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to raise this question in the United Nations in the form suggested by the hon. member.

April 17, 1973
Oral Questions


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In these circumstances, does the minister not think that the Canadian policy regarding South Africa, which has been much more democratic, could also be applied toward this military government which has been extremely cruel to the majority of its citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is supporting his question with an argument.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. I have before me an advertisement of several pages that appeared generally in ethnic papers concerning the policy on multiculturalism, which has all the appearance-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John George Diefenbaker: -of patently naked partisanship for which the Canadian people are paying a quarter of a million dollars. I ask him, in the preparation of this advertisement was it an intentional omission in not letting the people know to whom the advertisement is directed that of the $90 million being spent this year outside Quebec, according to the figures I secured this morning, for bicul-turalism, the total amount that these ethnic peoples will secure will be approximately 3.4 per cent of that sum? Was it just a lapse on his part that that information was not passed on?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to reassure the right hon. gentleman that that was not the purpose of this information bulletin.


John George Diefenbaker: No, the purpose was to get votes. Was the purpose intended to be a partisan one, to get votes by false pretences in not giving the figures?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the right hon. gentleman again that, in response to a very wide demand from the spokesmen of the ethno-cultural groups of Canada for information about the multicultural policy and its programs, I thought it was necessary to inform them as soon as possible in the most comprehensive way, and non-partisan as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The devil can always quote scripture. I ask this simple question: Was it inadvertance or something else that caused him, in the preparation of the advertisement, to forget to tell the ethnic peoples that they are getting about 3lA per cent of the total expenditures?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, it was always my good intention to inform the readers of this information bulletin of the facts of the multicultural policy and its programs.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I have it on authority that the minister now has a report from the advisory committee containing the results of its inquiries in connection with the investigative blitz and other related matters. Can the minister advise us whether the report confirms the allegations that benefit control officers were overzealous or used questionable methods during their investigations?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I did receive that report yesterday afternoon. It is not a complete report. There will be more information forthcoming from the advisory committee. In response to the second part of the question, the answer is that it did not confirm that the benefit control officers had been overzealous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the importance of this document, can the minister assure the House that he will table the report in its entirety-he will notice that I say "in its entirety"-on Wednesday before we adjourn for the Easter holidays so that not only the hon. gentleman and his officials but members of the House and all the people of Canada may know what it contains?


Robert Knight Andras: As I indicated to the hon. member privately yesterday, that is my intention.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the report probably went into certain areas set up by way of criteria or terms of reference-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Why not table your copy?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am talking to the Minister of Manpower, now; I will get to you later-can the minister advise whether in fact the terms of reference have now been sufficiently completed that, after study, he can bring in a revamped or amended bill C-125, or does he have to wait for a further report before he can get down to business on this very important subject?
April 17, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: The report I shall be tabling tomorrow relates to benefit control operations and is not related to the second portion of the hon. member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already asked three questions. We have to proceed. I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West for a third supplementary and then the hon. member for Joliette.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said "That's enough." I respectfully say to the Prime Minister that he does not sit in the chair. His position over there is only temporary.


An hon. Member:: He said he was there for keeps.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You know, it's amazing how one percentage point can bring back that same old arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get information for the benefit of hon. members. If you have patience you will see it is very revealing. I am trying to ask the minister whether he now has sufficient information by way of the report from the advisory committee to enable him to proceed with the long-awaited Bill C-125 or an amended version thereof, or does he have to pussyfoot continually-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and acquire another report in order to stall this important bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

1976 MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES-ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE STAMP


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Postmaster General.
Since it is so important for the Montreal Olympic Games Committee to be able to arrange for the sale of a 1976 commemorative stamp which would provide an income which would enable them to implement part of the project, may I ask whether the Postmaster General can tell us when the stamp will be available?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand a bill on the Montreal Olympic Games is now being prepared and I can assure the hon. member that as soon as parliament has approved the legislation the Canadian Post Office will be prepared to give a positive reply to the committee's request.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


VIET NAM-RENEWAL OF HOSTILITIES-MEASURES TO RECONVENE PARIS CONFERENCE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members seem to have a somewhat early attack of Easter fever. I would invite them to allow the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe to ask his question.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address my question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Further to the other questions which have been asked this afternoon, and which reflect the concern of hon. members over the resumption of hostilities in Indochina, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what steps Canada has taken to reconvene the Paris conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I answered earlier in reply to a previous question, we felt it would be advisable to get a report on the helicopter tragedy from the International Control Commission before we proceeded to consider whether we should try to invoke a reconvening of the Paris conference. At the present time we do not think an undertaking of that sort would be successful. We would prefer to sound out the grounds in advance.


Claude Wagner: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the bombardments in Laos and Cambodia have nothing to do with the helicopter incident, is the minister considering the possibility of reconvening a conference in Paris so that peace in Indochina could be achieved once and for all?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as a member of the International Control Commission we would have a responsibility to call the conference into session in regard to matters related to the operations of the commission itself. The breaches of the agreement which have been made by the bombing and by the intrusions of North Vietnamese troops and so on are of a more general character. Our membership in the conference derives from our position as members of the commission. Otherwise we would never have been there. So it seems to me we should take initiatives when the subject relates to the commission itself and not to these more general breaches which it would be more appropriate for the great powers to raise.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not
know whether I heard the minister clearly. Did he indicate that by the bombing on the part of the United States and because of the bombing there has been a breach? Is that what he meant when he referred to bombing a moment ago?

April 17, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I may read the section of the peace agreement, hon. members will find it is very explicit:
Foreign countries should put an end to all military activities in Cambodia and Laos-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I continue:
-totally withdraw from and refrain from reintroducing into these two countries troops, military advisers and military personnel, armaments, munitions and war material.


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, and the minister having won applause from these people over here who have always condemned South Viet Nam and the United States, I ask him-


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


Mr. Lewis:: I certainly am, Mr. Speaker. Oh, keep quiet over there!
There is' no one in this House who respects the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert more than I do. But I respectfully submit to him that he has no right to use his position and the affection that hon. members of this House have for him to make speeches about various things constantly during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I want to tell the right hon. gentleman that we have condemned the communist activities as well as the South Vietnamese.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should try to proceed in a more orderly fashion. The hon. member has the floor on a point of order and he should indicate as quickly as possible what his point of order is so we may return to the question period.


David Lewis: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a perfectly legitimate point of order which I have been on the verge of making for weeks. If you, Sir, cannot, for reasons that I can understand, make certain that every member of this House used the question period for the purpose for which it is meant, then it is my duty to rise on a point of order when the question period is abused in the way in which the right hon. gentleman has abused it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made concerning the NDP was true in substance and in fact. They have done nothing but condemn the United

States and South Viet Nam over and over again in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for York South rising again, I assume on another point of order. I would hope that we would set aside the argument that has arisen between the hon. member for York South and the right hon. gentleman. Since we are running short of time for the question period, I would think it would be helpful if we returned to questions. There are a number of members seeking the floor to ask questions, but I have to recognize the hon. member for York South if he is seeking the floor on a point of order.


David Lewis: This is precisely the point, Mr. Speaker. If this were a debate, then we would have the chance to show the right hon. gentleman that his statements are untrue and improper. He gets to his feet during the question period and makes statements in the knowledge that no one can answer him in debate, and I do not intend to stand for that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


David Lewis: You might inform the right hon. gentleman that I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Paproski:: Stand up then so we can see you.


David Lewis: I know I am not as conspicuous as the hon. member who said that. I merely want to say that if Your Honour wishes to go to questions, we will agree. But if the right hon. gentleman continues with his improper and inaccurate statements, there will be more points of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I immediately say to you that I am sorry; I thought the hon. member had sat down but he was waiting for applause. In so far as accepting advice from him is concerned, I do not intend to join the ranks of the government, which apparently allows him to dominate them.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how the point of order has been settled but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister obtained from International Nickel Company projected employment and production levels at this company over the next few years? If not, is it the minister's intention to ask INCO to provide his manpower consultative services with such information?
April 17, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the International Nickel Company has advised officials of my department that production cutbacks are not anticipated at this time in the Sudbury area. Consequently, no lay-offs are expected. I am assured by company officials that press reports regarding expected lay-offs and cutbacks are entirely without foundation.


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister about lay-offs but about work force levels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope we do not get involved in another point of order. The hon. member might like to ask a supplementary and he will be recognized for that purpose, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that I did not ask the minister about lay-offs but about projected employment and production levels, would the minister please answer the question?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's representation under advisement and reply later.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since section 106 of the act is difficult to enforce in many offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, could the hon. minister indicate whether he intends to brief commission employees on the provisions of section 106 of the act so that they may co-operate with the department to improve the situation of many unemployed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rimouski wants to ask a supplementary question.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say according to which decision the Unemployment Insurance Commission officers attach more importance to the high pressure enquirers who try by every means to catch applicants napping instead of helping them reintegrate the labour market?


BENEFIT CONTROL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO DISENTITLEMENT WITHOUT PERSONAL INTERVIEW
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the
Oral Questions
investigation just mentioned by hon. members opposite. Can the minister now assure the House in regard to the unemployment insurance investigations that nobody who is receiving unemployment insurance is disqualified unless he has had a personal interview with one of the officials at a UIC office?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, an unemployment insurance benefit recipient can be disentitled to unemployment insurance if he is not fulfilling his obligations under the act. The benefit control operation, as I indicated in a statement several weeks ago, when it goes into operation involves a personal interview, but there can be disentitle-ment arising from other reasons.


WELFARE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare having to do with whether or not the minister or his office in a very direct way have engaged a number of public relations firms across the country for the purpose of publicizing his release tomorrow of the white paper on welfare policy. If this is so, why did the minister's office not use the existing instruments within the government service for this purpose?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the department's information officers, when they do work in the regions of each province, have undertaken to organize an information session for regional newspapers. They are assisted by experts in that field to ensure that newspapers and information media can obtain the required information.


J. Michael Forrestall: So that I may properly understand the minister, is he telling the House that he has not engaged outside public relations firms for the purpose of carrying out what should normally be a departmental activity?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. My answer clearly indicated what the situation was.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a
supplementary?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Scarborough East, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on a supplementary.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister whether he considers this to be an ethical method? Why is he, like his colleagues, seeking partisan support for programs that

April 17, 1973
Oral Questions
have not yet been discussed with the provinces, as he has undertaken to do?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Solicitor General. In light of an incident that happened yesterday in the province of Quebec in which a prisoner from Cowansville Penitentiary on leave of absence so-called forced a citizen at knife point to take him 50 miles to the city of Montreal and the escape by that prisoner, and in view of the suggestion in the Speech from the Throne that greater priority would be given to the protection of society, will the minister give consideration to changes in the administration of the leave of absence program that will prevent the kind of incident which happened yesterday and has happened all too often since the beginning of this session?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that incident is now under investigation. As I mentioned to the House, we are preparing proposals to change the parole and temporary absence system, and these will be given to the House shortly.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General how many incidents of this kind we must experience before he stops investigating and starts to act?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PAROLE OF WOMEN-POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recommendation in the report on the status of women concerning women and the Parole Act, and in particular the closing of the women's quarters at Kingston Penitentiary, would the Solicitor General indicate whether he has taken any action on these recommendations?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing these with the provisions provinces and have certain proposals to make to them. We hope to have some announcements to make in due course.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-EFFECT OF POSSIBLE CHANGES
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce

and is supplementary to a number posed earlier. Is he really optimistic that the possible changes in the U.S.-Canada auto pact will result in an improved Canadian position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not in order,


POST OFFICE
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General of which I have given him notice. Has the Post Office recently issued T4, 1972, statements to a number of persons in the Toronto district, including Mr. H. Griesdorf, 32 Alberta Avenue, for work performed during the Christmas rush of 1971?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, but I should like to remind him that payments and deductions for tax purposes do not come under my jurisdiction but rather under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the Central Pay Division of the Department of Supply and Services.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Is it the practice of the government to issue 1972 T4 forms for work performed in the fiscal year 1971, does this comply with the law of the country and, if not, will the minister look into this matter and make whatever restitution is necessary so that these people will not be taxed in 1972 for income earned in 1971?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I shall surely examine the matter as suggested by the hon. member.


SHIPPING
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and I have given him notice. It is pursuant to my question of April 11 and pertains to the hazard of damage done to the shoreline, particularly in the Bay of Quinte, as a result of lake vessels moving at full speed in confined waters. I asked him for a ruling in respect of a speed limit. Can he now inform the House regarding new restrictions on the speed of vessels plying the lower Great Lakes and the Bay of Quinte area during this period of high water emergency?
April 17, 1973


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I asked the hon. gentleman to be a little more precise as to the region he wanted covered. As the hon. member knows, in some parts of the area to which he is referring perhaps ships cannot decrease their speed because of the danger of currents. As soon as I have the specific information I will be happy to send someone to see if a speed limit can be established.


MANPOWER
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will he inform the House whether it is the policy of officials or counsellors of manpower offices to interview and provide prospective workers to industry and employers in circumstances where a labour dispute is in being? More specifically, are manpower offices being used to supply strikebreakers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not listening to the earlier part of the question. Perhaps the hon. member would repeat it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether it was the policy of officials or counsellors of manpower offices to interview and provide prospective workers to industry and employers in circumstances where a labour dispute is in being and, more specifically, is it the policy for manpower offices to interview and provide strikebreakers?


Robert Knight Andras: Most certainly not, Mr. Speaker, and if there is any evidence of such a suggestion I would like the hon. member to let me have it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the minister is ready to investigate the specific circumstances of this being done through the offices in Saskatoon for the potash mine owned by Duval?


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ASSISTING ONTARIO RESIDENTS SUFFERING PROPERTY DAMAGE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to representations made by the Ontario Provincial Secretary for Resources Development at the beginning of March of this year-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: Wait for it, fellows. Subsequent to those representations and representations by his provincial Ministers of the Environment and of Agriculture and Food,
Oral Questions
has the federal government decided to change its present position of refusing to assist those suffering from flood and erosion damage in the province of Ontario until the province has spent a minimum of $8 million, and assisting only to the extent that by the time total expenditures were $40 million the federal contribution would still be only 50 per cent?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, when the provincial ministers were here they were impressed by our policies and they went home saying they would be developing policies which would fit in with ours. I have yet to hear officially from them.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the minister has on numerous occasions referred to the fact that he has had no contact with the province of Ontario on the matter of erosion. I am surprised to hear that he has had this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that a motion earlier today which would have arranged to assist financially preretired coal miners was rejected by the government, may I ask the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation whether he would immediately contact the president of that Crown corporation and members of the board and urge them to take the necessary steps to bring preretirement allowances up to a decent level, at the very least commensurate with the high cost of living?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I not only will, Mr. Speaker, but I have on several occasions been in touch with the president of Devco, most recently last evening at approximately five o'clock. There is a meeting tomorrow of the board of directors and I asked specifically that this matter to which the hon. member has referred be considered at that time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the remarkable drop in unemployment rates announced today, and particularly the rate of 4.8 per cent in Toronto, for which the government is to be congratulated, will the minister tell the House whether
3374

April 17, 1973
Oral Questions
he intends to relax his present policy in order to grant permits to work to those people seeking them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to the degree that the lowering of unemployment means that Canadians would not be available or looking for particular jobs sought by visitors, yes; the policy has a self-relaxing portion built into it and permits would be granted.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he say if new developments have occurred since Friday concerning the request of the TEMBEC group relating to the Temiscaming plant? Were there new meetings or are they being discussed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say anything more to the hon. member other than I answered that question for a relative of his on Monday, I believe it was. He might have a little family consultation about it and he will discover that progress is being made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot and then call orders of the day.


INCOME TAX
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he inform the House what he or his department is doing to explain the tax act, particularly that section affecting multinational corporations such as Massey-Ferguson, so that they would retain their head offices here in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said during the debate earlier that we are reviewing foreign accrued income and we hope to allow a moratorium on this until 1975. We also hope to have an announcement to make well before that time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Under that vague assurance can we, as Canadians, rest assured that this once proud Canadian company which has done so well internationally will retain its head office in Canada?
[Mr. Caccia.j


John Napier Turner: I made that very point to Mr. Thornborough, the head of the company, when I saw him last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-130, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives third reading, a stage which I anticipate will be reached very shortly, I should like to comment on some of the explanations that were given at the committee stage which made it unnecessary for some amendments to be moved at the report stage which otherwise might have been moved. Over a period of time there had been considerable discussion concerning whether or not the first clause of this bill or, in fact, the title should be amended to make it a permanent feature. It was pointed out, and I think rightly so, that the "Emergency" part of the legislation carried with it an acknowledgement that there was not an intention to keep this industry under government subsidy indefinitely, and that world conditions probably would make any payments under this bill unlikely. I, for one, and the committee in general, were very appreciative of the deputy minister who outlined in some detail the method of calculation of emergency gold mining assistance. The committee was also appreciative of the work the deputy minister has done in relation to co-ordination with other government departments.
The suggestion was made that some publicity should be given to the federal contribution in those communities which have been dependent on gold mining assistance since 1958. Many of them have passed into limbo. Many of them are no longer communities. However, some of the communities in northern Ontario and northern Quebec are still in existence-and I think this is particularly true of Timmins today-with a totally different industry, partly because of the ability of the mining industry to survive with the assistance of this particular piece of legislation. The deputy minister also indicated that, in co-operation with other government departments, progress had been made in respect of the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to work with the communities, with community leaders, with the unions and with the management of the gold mining industry, to assist wherever possible in the introduction of other industries into that
April 17, 1973

area which originally had been totally dependent upon gold and the emergency assistance.
It is very interesting to note, with the increase in the price of gold on the open market and the unfortunate-I think it is unfortunate from a Canadian point of view- unacceptability of the International Monetary Fund's plans to introduce a new economic unit, that gold may again be one of this nation's most valuable commodities. It may be that the fact we have spent $300 million since 1958 in order to keep this industry in operation will keep us in the forefront in respect of any changes which may take place necessitated by the inability of the world to accept any international stability of currencies other than gold. The fact is that gold is now selling at $100 an ounce. In some countries it is selling for considerably more than $100 an ounce on unofficial markets. I presume it is worth more than $100 an ounce in the United States where technically it is illegal for anyone to buy gold other than a numismatist. It is reported that such people are selling gold for upwards of $200 an ounce. Not only is our silver being drained off, but also any coins we have been able to produce have found a ready market south of the border.
As has been mentioned previously, there is an indication that a world gold standard will be established. If a gold standard is established-and I think there are many reasons we in this country should hope it is not-it would obviously mean that Canada, so far as production is concerned, will probably be the third largest producer of this very strategic metal, either for industrial purposes or for the purpose of stabilizing international transactions. I would predict that if a world standard is established for gold, that standard will range somewhere around $300 an ounce. It will mean that in the northern parts of Canada a great impetus will be given to the development of the gold mining industry, which over the past 20 years has been a liability to the nation and, in many instances, has been a liability to the community where the gold mine is located.
Personally, I am pleased that the act will be extended. I did not press in the committee, nor did other hon. members, for a change in the formula to include the production of new mining developments because of the uncertainty of the role that gold will play in the industrial and monetary markets of the world. I think that some progress would be achieved in the development of new mines in the northern areas if a stable price for gold were established for a long term and the fluctuations in the price were to cease.
It is a fact that our gold mines are not taking advantage of the provisions of this act. This act is an insurance against a calamity which may at any time occur in the international monetary situation, an insurance against any calamity that might befall the gold mining communities if the price of gold were to drop to the United States price of $38. If the price of gold could be stabilized above $100, obviously new mines would open. Money for development is readily available, but this money could not be expended in the amount that would be necessary for the development of existing properties and of other known deposits unless the investors also had the assurance that there would be a period in which they could use the floor price set in the act to wind up their operation.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
In northern Ontario-and I believe this is true of northern Quebec as well, with the exception of one or two new mines that came into production in the last four or five years-we are not witnessing the type of growth in the industry that we might have anticipated in view of the fact gold is now selling on the open market at from $75 to $90. I am sure that this has made much of previous mining development feasible. Therefore, there could be some merit in the government giving consideration to amending the act at a later date, in view of the possibility of new gold mines being developed throughout the northern area, which would provide those mines with the same type of safeguards that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act provided to mines that were in existence before 1958.
I think that all hon. members representing gold mining communities sympathize with the position which the government has taken in not wanting to extend the act to include new producers. It has been the policy in Canada not to encourage the gold mining industry, but I suggest that if any long term stability in the price of gold is achieved in the international market so that there will be a steady demand, it will be a worthwhile project to encourage the development of gold mines and the extension of the communities in which they exist. Most of these communities are developed, at least to some extent. There are few known gold deposits in my area that are not within close proximity to already established communities, and therefore we are not envisaging a repetition of what happened 30 or 40 years ago when the total community was dependent on the gold mining industry. I suggest to the House that the assistant-deputy minister of mines, in conjunction with representatives of other departments, has made some progress in ensuring that gold mining communities are not wholly dependent on gold mining but are able to take full advantage of and receive full co-operation from, other departments concerned with development, such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Canadians no doubt are aware of the fact that although Canada does not hold gold, that although Canada has always transferred its gold faithfully to the United States, we have at present a small amount of gold in our mint to cover the cost of assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which, if sold, would bring to the Canadian public a profit of probably well over $1.5 billion. I am not suggesting that we do that. However, I am suggesting that in the total context of the Canadian economy and, the gold mining industry, the service that has been provided under EGMA to those communities that are totally dependent on the industry has been vindicated by the fact that the value of the gold which is now being held by Canada is far in excess of the subsidy that we have paid. If it is our wish to put small quantities of that gold on the international market, Canada not only stands to recoup the cost of the assistance which has been so kindly provided for those communities to ensure their survival but will also make a very nice profit, something that seldom happens with any other commodity that has been stored, either in the agricultural or the mining sectors.
I suggest that the Canadian people can rest assured that emergency gold mining assistance to date has been a blessing to those communities which have a large labour force predominantly in the upper age levels, often with a
3376

April 17, 1973
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act relatively low educational level, and has been able to provide them since 1958 with employment. It has enabled the communities to exist where in other circumstances their existence would have been totally impossible. This act has averted the almost total collapse of the community in Kirkland Lake, in Val d'Or and in Timmins, and I think in some other areas with which I am not nearly as familiar.
So, on behalf of the people of those communities, I wish to express my appreciation to those hon. members who have supported the EGMA when the act was costing money and when the general opinion of the Canadian public was that the gold mining industry was not worth supporting. I thank those hon. members who saw fit to support the act, not so much for the sake of the industry but for the sake of the people in the mining communities who were totally dependent on the gold mine. In many cases the application of the provisions of this act has resulted in additional development, and it appears to me that a new era may be dawning in gold mining within the very near future. Canada may yet find gold to be a very valuable and influential commodity which may put our country in the forefront in international circles so that we will no longer have to go begging for a market for a commodity which was selling on the international market for $35 when our costs were averaging close to $50.
I hope that the officials who have agreed to co-operate in the orderly development of the gold mining communities will continue to do so, and in fact will accelerate their assistance to those areas. I hope that through this co-operation, mainly resulting from the work of the deputy minister of mines, who has done an excellent job, there will be further development not only in the mining industry but in tertiary industries that can be developed through the type of co-operation that we have enjoyed.
I am therefore pleased that this legislation is being passed, and I anticipate that the next time I have an opportunity to participate in a debate on emergency gold mining assistance we will be talking about gold that will be worth several hundred dollars an ounce, that gold again will be a commodity reaching its zenith, and that due respect will be paid to those communities which at one time were the life blood of most of Canada.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was presented for second reading on March 29, I had the opportunity to speak in support of early passage of the bill, and said it should be referred to committee without undue debate. I am now pleased to be able to join in the debate on third reading, and I would point out that it has taken only 14 days to give the bill second reading, have it examined in committee and returned to the House for third reading. Surely, this is an indication that those who are so fond of saying that there is obstructionism in this House do not have a foundation for that statement. Given proper legislation and a fair hearing in committee, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no intention on this side of the House to obstruct good legislation.
However, Mr. Speaker, I also spoke on another bill amending another act, namely, the Export Development

Corporation Act, and I would have to say that the story with respect to it is anything but similar to that with respect to the bill which is before us today. We were met with evasion, procrastination, and the desire to conceal facts wherever possible.
When dealing with the Gold Mining Emergency Act, we found that in the committee there was an excellent presentation of the government's position, the main witness being Mr. Drolet, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Mineral Development) in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Before concluding my remarks, I feel I should reiterate some of the points that were raised in committee and also at second reading stage.
When we are dealing with this legislation we should remember that it is one of the best examples of a government program which has been extremely beneficial for an industry. In fact, it not only has benefited the industry but in each of the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 it resulted, through the sale of gold on the open market, in several millions of dollars of profits. More than that, Mr. Speaker, Canada was fortunate enough, because of its gold reserve holdings, to have a windfall of $1 billion as a result of our activity in the gold field. That alone is sufficient justification for this act being extended.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters), we are number three among world countries in the production of gold. Number one, of course, is the Republic of South Africa, and number two is the USSR. However, I believe that we could do better as far as production is concerned if certain modifications were made to the act. Perhaps I could now summarize our five proposals with respect to this legislation.
First, we believe that the government should give consideration to extending the life of this legislation until 1980. This would ensure that the gold mining industry would have a full understanding, for the next seven years, as to what assistance it can get, and what floor pricing the government will supply to the industry if it decides to go ahead and expand.
Second, we believe that the amendment which was made to the act in 1963, and which contains a restriction on eligibility for assistance in the case of old gold mines to only those communities where it could be said that approximately 50 per cent or more of the persons employed in the mines resided in the established mining communities listed in a schedule to the act, is not necessary today. It would be better to have the act apply to all gold mines, irrespective of whether they are existing, and irrespective of whether they are in communities listed in the schedules to the act.
Third, we also believe that the formula which the act provides for the assistance plan should be reviewed with a view to increasing the amount, or the price at which it becomes effective, to a more realistic level in terms of today's inflationary prices. This would mean that instead of the act becoming effective at roughly the $49 to $50 per ounce level, it could become effective at the $59 to $60 level. We suggest that the government give serious consideration to this proposal.
Fourth, we believe the act should be designed to encourage more actual exploration and prospecting for gold
April 17, 1973

mines in Canada. Geologists tell me there are many areas that could be developed with respect to gold mining, and with the proper legislation in force prospecting and exploring could be undertaken at a much faster rate.
Finally, we believe that the name of the act is a misnomer in that it should be more of a stabilization act. With that in mind we have suggested that the name be changed to "Gold Mining Stabilization Act". At the committee stage it was suggested that that amendment would be accepted, but we felt it was better not to change the name without changing the general philosophy and policy of the act at the same time. In short, we believe that the long-range objective of the legislation should be to stabilize the gold mining industry in Canada. If the five points I have outlined were adopted by the government, we believe that the legislation would have a stabilizing effect on the gold mining industry and lead to a growing mining sector in our economy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-178, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very much of the time of the House in explaining this bill but I believe it is of some interest to make a number of statements in order to advise members of the House and members of the Public Service of what is intended.
The present bill to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act has the objective of strengthening the board by allowing for the addition of not more than three deputy chairmen. This is an interim measure which is required in order to strengthen the board and permit it to deal effectively and expeditiously with matters coming before it.
One of the advantages deriving from the passage of this bill will be an easing of the demands on the chairman of the board, Mr. Jacob Finkelman, thus permitting him to undertake a report on further amendments required to the act. Mr. Finkelman, who has been with the board since its inception in 1967, has witnessed the actual day to day operation of the existing legislation. Therefore, if we can provide relieving additional vice-chairmen, we will ask Mr. Finkelman to make a report on further amendments to the public service staff relations board. In exercising his function, Mr. Finkelman has gained the respect of both the employer and employee representatives before the board for his impartiality and good judgment.
The government has decided to take advantage of Mr. Finkelman's expertise in this area by requesting that he prepare a study based on his experience under the present act and make recommendations for change where he feels they are necessary. Although Mr. Finkelman's study is not to be restricted to any particular aspect of the Public
Public Service Staff Relations Act Service Staff Relations Act, it is envisaged that his internal knowledge of the requirements of the board will be of great assistance in determining what administrative framework is required for the effective administration of the act. In the preparation of his report, it is the government's intention that Mr. Finkelman shall have available to him any relevant internal documents, including the Bryden report, which may be useful to him.
It is hoped, therefore, that the House will see fit to pass this bill as quickly as possible so that Mr. Finkelman will be able to begin his task as soon as possible. If the chairman of the board is successful in recruiting the necessary deputy chairmen required for the board, it is anticipated that his report will be available to the House early in the fall for consideration. It has been the government's posture that no major amendments would be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act without a full opportunity being given to the employee representatives to openly participate in any proposals which are made. It is anticipated, therefore, that the employee representatives would be invited to comment on Mr. Finkelman's report to the standing committee charged with its consideration, and in addition, of course, there would be full consultation between the government and the employee representatives before the government bill making major amendments to the act is brought forward.
Although this proposed procedure is open to the criticism that it will further delay any proposed amendments to the act, I think it is fair to say that all parties involved in the application of the act will agree that it has worked reasonably well thus far and is considered to be among the most progressive and successful legislation of its type in the world. For this reason, I think it is essential that any further major amendments to the act be fully considered and agreeable to the parties affected by the legislation. Only through the good will, confidence and voluntary agreement by all the parties involved to "make the legislation work" can we expect any amendments to the act to be successful and an improvement.
The proposed bill before the House today would strengthen the public service staff relations board by adding "not more than three" deputy chairmen. These deputy chairmen would be neutral members of the board appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding ten years. The addition of these deputy chairmen would permit the board to dispose of cases before it more quickly and to deal effectively with the existing backlog. The existing balance at hearings of the board whereby, in addition to an equal number of representatives of both the employee and employer, only one "neutral" member of the board would be permitted to vote will be continued. This is provided for in subclause 5(2). It is anticipated that these additional members of the board would be incorporated in any new administrative framework proposed when the major amendments are made to the act in the future.
This is an amendment which all parties affected by the legislation have requested, and I would hope that it could pass the House today so that it could be dealt with by the Senate and given Royal Assent before the House rises for the Easter adjournment.

April 17, 1973
Public Service Staff Relations Act
In order to complete my information to the House, if and when the bill passes, the government will formally ask Mr. Finkelman to conduct this study or examination. For purposes of putting it on the record, I should like to read the draft terms of reference that have been proposed. It is recommended that Jacob Finkelman, Q.C., be authorized: to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and its administration and to make recommendations, having regard to the experience gained since that act came into force, as to how it should be amended or revised in order to meet adequately the needs of the employer and the employees in the Public Service and the employee organizations that represent them, and to serve the interest of the public. An integral part of this review will be a consideration of the administrative framework required for the effective administration of the provisions of the act.


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader (Mr. MacEachen) has asked for speedy approval of this measure. We are in favour of that and the terms of reference seem to be in order. The House Leader spoke of three neutral deputy chairmen. I hope when he uses the word "neutral" that is what he means, and that he would not have in mind the appointment of any more defeated Liberal candidates!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: I hesitate to say that because I am one of those who, for many reasons, was not against the appointment of defeated candidates to political posts. I have found that some political candidates, and in nearly every case I would think they were government candidates, who have been appointed to departments have been very co-operative. At least we know them when we call them on the telephone, but I must say I have still to get much satisfaction with the problems I present. At the moment, however, I believe that the public considers we are at the end of the list, and the minister should assure us that we have just about run out of possible Liberal appointments-at least until the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for putting on the record quite clearly the purpose of this bill and we are happy to agree to it. I may say that there have been discussions among us about the bill so that the information the minister has given today is already known to some of us. However, I think it was proper for him to put the full story on the record.
As a matter of fact, I believe a case could be made, even apart from the extra duty to be assigned to Mr. Finkelman, for an increase in the number of persons comprising the Public Service Staff Relations Board, in view of the work load of that board. But the particular reason that prompts the bringing in of this bill, and the request for it to be passed quickly, is a very real and pressing one. As the minister has implied, there has already been regrettable delay in bringing forward amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We have had the experience of the Bryden study and the Bryden report. There have been a number of things about that which have been unsatisfactory. We were never completely happy with the way the hearings were held. Too much was done in camera, and

then we had the long struggle in trying to see what was in the report. Added to that is the fact that it is a couple of years old and probably, in view of some of the new thinking which has been evident on the part of the minority government we now have, there might be a disposition to move in a direction different from that which I suspect was proposed in the Bryden report. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion that Mr. Finkelman, whose reputation for impartiality has been so well established, should be given the job of making this study of the operations under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the operations of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. He will do this, not as an academic outsider, but as one who has been very closely involved. The minister is quite correct in saying that the staff, associations and those concerned all welcome the proposal that Mr. Finkelman make this study and present his recommendations for changes in the act.
It is quite clear that, because of the work load facing the board, if Mr. Finkelman is to do this job he will need to be relieved of some of his duties as chairman. That is the reason for this bill and that, also, is why we are prepared to expedite its passage. As a matter of fact, we do not see why it cannot pass all stages today.
I was glad to hear the suggestion that Mr. Finkelman should be able to make his report not later than the fall. I hope, therefore, that whatever government sits across the way when that time comes, we shall then be dealing with proper and appropriate amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Not only are we willing to see this bill passed quickly; we welcome it. We have examined it, to make sure that there are no jokers tucked away in it. It seems to me a straightforward, honest piece of drafting and we therefore hope this bill will be passed very quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears that the House is ready for the question. Pursuant to special order made earlier, the motion is that Bill C-178, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations act, be now read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the House is in this mood to do things quickly, would the Minister of Veterans Affairs like to bring forward his bill to amend the Pension Act.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: I should love to, Mr. Speaker.
April 17, 1973


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-3, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: Now, by leave.


Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in the debate on third reading of Bill C-3, I think various matters should be put on the record of this House. I feel that the activities of the Export Development Corporation should be reviewed in two basic respects. First, its activities should be reviewed in a national Canadian context. In short, in this corporation serving the businessmen and, in particular, the exporters of this country as productively and effectively as it might be doing. Second, this corporation should be reviewed in the context of what it is doing in terms of world trade. In particular, we must ask what is it doing to, or possibly for, underdeveloped nations in the world.
In considering the bill I think it is important for the House to take into consideration the general policies of the minister responsible for this bill. I am referring to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). In a speech delivered yesterday to the Canadian Club in Toronto, I believe the minister clarified much of the confusion that exists with respect to government policies as they are communicated from department to department and as understood within departments. In the course of his speech he makes the startling observation that it is impossible to develop an industrial strategy in Canada. This is a statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) a member of a government which has been in office for some ten years. He is now telling us that they cannot develop an industrial strategy for this country. Instead, he says, what they propose to do-and I emphasize that this is still in the future

is develop a strategy for sectors of the economy on an industry by industry basis. This, presumably, is the philosophy of the government. Then, he tells us, the time to start getting into shape for the game is now. It was not last year, or five years ago, or ten years ago, but now. The unfortunate thing, however, is that the indecision of the minister's department and of associated departments, is causing tremendous hardship to businessmen in this country.
It has been said before in this chamber that such industries as tanning, electronics, and shoe manufacture are being severely hurt by the absence of import quotas and the resulting flood of imports into this country from overseas. Spokesmen for these industries have appealed to the
Export Development Act
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the minister for relief. But to date no relief has been forthcoming. Asked what he intended to do to relieve the plight of these industries, the minister said the question had been referred to the anti-dumping tribunal and that he was still awaiting a report from this tribunal. When members of that tribunal appeared before the appropriate committee of this House they admitted a report had been requested from them as long ago as November of 1971 but that as of today no report had been made to the minister.
In the meantime, the industry is in a state of serious decline. Its spokesmen say that if the present situation is allowed to continue until 1975, the tanning industry in Canada will be extinct. I emphasize that when I refer to the tanning industry, I am referring to a 100 per cent Canadian-owned industry which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through its indecision and incompetence, is allowing to die. On the other hand, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has introduced Bill C-132, in which he proposes to set up an agency to scrutinize foreign take-overs and the expansion in certain circumstances of existing foreign subsidiary companies in Canada. I shall refer to this bill in the course of later debates, but I think it is safe to say now that these proposals amount simply to window dressing. I say this on the basis of the known history of the Export Development Corporation. That corporation has been signing up financing contracts to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars with absolutely no reference, as was shown during the committee hearings, to the ownership or control of the companies in Canada which received the benefit of this financing.
The fact is that some $1 billion had been committed by this corporation up to the end of December, 1972, of which amount approximately half had gone to eight corporations in this country. And of those eight corporations approximately half were foreign controlled. During our committee hearings a representative of the Canadian Export Association gave evidence that the total membership of the association amounted to some 400. On subsequent questioning of Mr. Aitken, the President of the Export Development Corporation, we were startled to find that only 15 Canadian companies had received direct assistance in the past year from the same Export Development Corporation. In other words, less than 4 per cent of the total membership of the Canadian Export Association received direct assistance from this plaything called the Export Development Corporation. I say it is a plaything; you should witness the signing of these contracts to which I am referring. The minister leaves this building in his chauffeur-driven limousine; an ambassador in a car comes in from the other side. They meet in the luxurious offices of the Export Development Corporation. They drink champagne, they sign big deals, and they drive back to their respective offices feeling they have done something of significance. I am referring to the fact that it has become a champagne circle as far as world activity is concerned.


Mr. Breau:: You have not got to the hoochy-coochy girls yet!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The government has often been accused, rightly, I think, of adopting yesterday's solutions for today's problems. Here, the opposite is happening. Now, it

April 17, 1973
Export Development Act
is creating tomorrow's problems today. I can guarantee that within five to ten years time a committee of parliament will be reviewing the deals which have been signed by this corporation and they will be trying to figure out why we were so stupid. The committee will be trying to ascertain why these deals were entered into by the corporation without more precautions being taken, and I would remind hon. members that when I speak of deals I am speaking of deals which are made not for one year only but, as the President of the Export Development Corporation told us, are operative for up to 20 years.
Let me return to an earlier point I made. How desirable in terms of world trade is the activity of the Export Development Corporation? In this regard it is important, I believe, to read various references which are available in a world context on this subject. The first I should like to mention is a reference in an article by the late Lester B. Pearson entitled "Partners in Development". This is a report of his commission on international development and, as recorded on page 119, Mr. Pearson makes some very relevant statements. Incidentally, the Berne Union which he mentions, is the name given to a loosely knit association into which all or most of, the export associations belong. He states:
The Berne Union understanding that credits should not normally be extended for periods exceeding five years has effectively been abandoned by all major capital goods exporting countries and maturities frequently exceed eight, and sometimes even ten years. Virtually the entire net flow of export credit to developing countries in 1967 involved credits with maturities of more than five years.
And here we are, in 1973, being told by the President of the Export Development Corporation that they are now considering loans for 15 years in the same field. In the review Mr. Pearson points out that export credits have a part to play in development, but that their imprudent use involves very real dangers. First, export credits are usually an expensive form of external finance. This may be true, he says, even where the nominal rate of interest is low. However, this is offset by adjustments to the price of equipment purchased. Cases were reported to the commission involving price adjustments exceeding 100 per cent of the world market price. Although these cases are presumably rare, smaller adjustments are understood to be common.
In that connection, I think it is interesting to note that when he appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 9, the Most Reverend Edward W. Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, referred to the problem of international financing activities. He pointed out that he was convinced from experience and studies that two crucial areas required much more attention and action: one was trade policy and the second was population. Mr. Scott made it clear in his remarks that he knew of examples where what he called fast selling salesmen were able to sell to persons in underdeveloped countries merchandise at over 100 per cent above the going market price for such merchandise.
Coming back to Mr. Pearson's article, his second caution is that the excessive use of export credits has created serious balance of payments problems for developing

countries which have relied on short-term borrowing to finance long-term investments. Since the mid-1950s an undue accumulation of short-term suppliers' credits has been a major reason for the need to reschedule the debts of a number of countries, namely Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia and Turkey. With the exception of Ghana, our Export Development Corporation, either on their own account or as agent for the government, have been actively giving further credits to each and every one of those countries referred to by Mr. Pearson. When I say "credits", I am referring to credits aggregating almost $250 million, approximately a quarter of a billion dollars of the total $1 billion signed up to date by the Export Development Corporation.
Mr. Pearson goes on to say that export credits are frequently used to finance industrial projects in the public sector, because in general neither international aid agencies nor the main bilateral aid donors are eager to finance industrial projects in that sector. Instead, credits are used as the next best alternative.
Mr. Pearson then comments that, as a rule, proper investigation is not made before these credits are granted, and that often they are probably motivated by an awareness that the project at issue might not pass rigorous economic reliability standards. Mr. Pearson recommends that the World Bank group draw up ground rules which would guide various contries in this field in order to avoid what he felt was a key problem in the field.
Nevertheless, Mr. Pearson comments, some restraint on the part of creditor governments is indicated. They, themselves, have an immediate interest in avoiding excessive use of export credits which is likely to lead to default or to a rescheduling of debt. Then he says:
We recommend a strong early warning system based on the external debt reporting which is being evolved by the OECD and the World Bank. The World Bank should be charged with the responsibility of issuing definitive recommendations against further encouragement of export credits to countries which are in the danger zone from the standpoint of debt liabilities and interest burden. It should fix ceilings which should not be exceeded.
Not only does the Export Development Corporation not adhere to any such ceilings, but the fact is that in evidence given to the committee it turned out that it has no internal guidelines even as to the amount of credit it might extend to any country in the world.
If I may, I feel I should point out that the Export Development Corporation was likely born, as much as anything, out of the report on Canadian financing facilities for export by J. W. Gibson, issued on May 14, 1968. This is an interesting report. Unfortunately, the various things that Mr. Gibson expected to happen with respect to the Export Development Corporation have not, in fact, materialized to any great extent. I am referring, for example, to his wish to see Canadian chartered banks participate in export activity to a much greater extent. He mentioned the various means by which the Export Development Corporation could enhance export activity in the country. In short, I believe that what has happened is that a good idea has been warped, and this matter will become a problem child with which future Canadian governments will have to live.
I suggest it is being warped because Crown corporations, as they are administered by this present government,
April 17, 1973

become a law unto themselves. I am amazed to find there is virtually no orientation in a Crown corporation toward making a profit. For example, when questioned as to why CMHC's profits have fallen in three successive years, I was startled to find the minister in charge of the corporation say: "As far as I am concerned, the lower the profit, the better". When I asked him whether he was on record as saying that, he replied yes, the lower the profit, the better, as far as he was concerned. Surely it is a strange thing that we have corporations that are almost invited to run at something less than significant profitability.
Be that as it may, when this bill was first introduced by the minister he said that he hoped it would get speedy passage through the House. Subsequently, he stated that there would be ample opportunity to discuss the bill during committee stage. I would suggest that that was not so in actual fact. What we found when we got to the committee stage of the bill was that every attempt was made to be secretive and not reveal information to which I believe we in this parliament are entitled. For example, it was not until literally the opening of the first committee meeting that we even received the annual report for 1972 of the Export Development Corporation itself. I would also point out that the Export Development Corporation took it upon itself to tell various exporters who had commitments from that corporation that we were holding up the passage of the legislation both at the committee stage and in the House.
I think what the President of the Canadian Export Association, Mr. J. M. McAvity, stated in a written submission to the committee in Item 5 should be on the record. He said:
At this time, some companies are being cautioned by EDC that their commitments for long term loans and guarantees are approaching the authorized ceiling and, until Bill C-3 is passed, they are not in a position to give any assurance that a loan will be available for new business.
When I questioned Mr. McAvity he indicated it was the Vice-President of the Export Development Corporation, Mr. Chapin, who made that observation to him. I suggest that surely this is a very irregular proceeding when we were invited to make a deep and thorough investigation of this corporation, and in particular this bill at the committee stage, yet we find that those who are guiding the Export Development Corporation take it upon themselves to create a lobby to pressure the bill through the House. Just who is running whom? I feel the minister should not have tolerated that type of behaviour on the part of the executive of the Export Development Corporation.
Then, we come to the first little bit of illegality concerning the corporation. When the bill was first introduced it was stated that the ceiling in respect of the financing Section 29 was $850 million, and there was the request that the ceiling be raised to $1.5 billion as stated in the bill. On further questioning, the minister was very definite in stating that in any event the ceiling at no time had been exceeded. That view was maintained right down to the point of handing in the 1972 report to the committee. This is very strange because if you compare Note 2 in the 1972 financial statement with Note 2 in the 1971 statement, you will see that the terminology in respect of what is includ-
Export Development Act
ed in loans under the ceiling was changed very conveniently. It now turns out that the total of the loans committed was not even close to the ceiling. In fact, the figure suggested for the total liability defined under the act was only $502 million, and there was lots of room under the ceiling of $850 million.
In support of this position a copy of a cable was handed to the committee dated November 30, 1972 showing that if a projection were taken right up into 1976, at no time, including all disbursements and repayments, would they exceed that magic ceiling of $850 million. A further schedule was tabled subsequently, dated in January of this year, which showed that in fact that schedule had been offered to the committee for a purpose. The true projections of the corporation were contained in the subsequent January 1973 schedule which showed that there was a substantial over-run as far as the ceiling was concerned.
Let me refer to the specific comment of the president of the corporation during the hearing. He was asked whether in fact the total of loans committed would be over the ceiling now if the same terminology were used in 1972 as was used in 1971 in respect of what is included, and his very clear answer was yes. He was then asked why the terminology was changed and he said it was because of the misleading implications of the statement the year before. In short, we have the President of the Export Development Corporation admitting before a committee of this House that the corporation published a misleading statement the year before. I suggest that, in their hearts, the management of the corporation did not feel the 1971 statement was misleading, but believed they had to cover their tracks in order to ensure that, within the terms of that definition, they were not over the ceiling and the committee could deal with the bill.
Various references were made to the misleading effect of the wording in the earlier statement. Perhaps it is sufficient to say there is no doubt these statements have been put in a most convenient form to serve their own purpose. What was done was illegal, yet rather than admit the illegality the corporation asked for, and apparently received a convenient legal opinion which allowed it to calculate the ceiling liability in a different way than it had been calculated in the previous year. One might wonder why the corporation was so urgently trying to get this legislation through. As the President of the Export Development Corporation admitted to the committee, if the corporation used its own definition of the ceiling, the total of loans committed would still not be above the $600 million ceiling the corporation asked to have increased back in 1971. How ridiculous can you get? They came to this parliament in 1971 asking to have the ceiling increased from $600 million to $850 million. This year they asked that it be increased from $850 million to $1.5 billion, yet they admit they were still not over the ceiling which existed in 1971.
Let us consider another odd thing. In the 1972 report we find significant qualification by the Auditor General of Canada. The Auditor General pointed out that the corporation was involved in the provision of financing to the extent of $485 million for the purchase of a replacement aircraft without seeking a parliamentary appropriation.
3382

April 17, 1973
Export Development Act
That qualification is made after the Auditor General describes a certain transaction involving the Canadian Commercial Corporation. To show you how arrogant this corporation, the minister and this government is, the chairman of that board has the audacity to then state that the Auditor General has misinterpreted the facts. The board does not even believe the Auditor General who has been empowered by this parliament to check on what they are doing.
When I ask what the rush is all about, I think it is significant to realize that the Auditor General's report for 1972 is still not before parliament. Members of this parliament will be extremely interested when they read the description of this transaction in the Auditor General's report. This bill should not be ramrodded through this House before we have an opportunity to review what the Auditor General has to say in his report about this fancy transaction. I would point out that, while the country of destination in this deal is Venezuela, the Bank of Nova Scotia is involved with a company, BNS International Bahamas Limited, which is the actual borrower. I would also point out that of the $28 million involved in the deal, $25 million has been advanced, and that over 25 per cent of the total amount of money put out by this corporation in 1972 under section 29.
Perhaps one of the most interesting things which transpired in the committee hearings was that when asked what, under the new formula, would be the total amount of contracts they could sign if this bill should be passed, the president of the corporation admitted it would be $2 billion. They have roughly $1 billion signed now. If this act should go through they will have roughly a $2 billion capability so far as signed contracts are concerned. I have indicated that there are very few companies in Canada receiving the benefit of this money. The majority of the companies are actually foreign controlled. So, one would ordinarily expect that after the quack-quack-quacking Mr. David Lewis did during the last campaign concerning corporate welfare bums there would be a strong protest at the committee hearing over the fact the government was getting ready to give $1 billion of extra financing to a few corporations which were lucky enough to have the inside track.
Here is what happened. While the Export Development Corporation witnesses were in attendance there was not one question from an NDP representative. Their financial critic sat through the entire hearing doing nothing but his daily crossword puzzle. There was not a question. So, here you have it. In his book the leader of that party, at page 116, lists what he calls various rip-offs totalling $955 million. At other places he lists various rip-offs, LIP grants and things like that, and yet when members of that party have an opportunity to do something of a concrete nature they just do nothing. I feel that the people of Canada should understand this and should note the insincerity of their position, and also the insincerity of the minister's position when he indicated that he seriously intended to deal with the foreign ownership question in Canada with his Bill C-132, yet at the same time he allows a corporation to give, with absolutely no reference to ownership, tremendous financial assistance to such corpo-

rations as General Motors, MLW-Worthington and many others.
In dealing with the question of risk, during the committee hearing the question was asked of the president if, for example, he wished to sell the $17i million worth of paper the corporation had placed in Argentina, what price would they get. I must admit that the president was very candid. He did not think there would be a market. So I asked him, if he could find a buyer what would be the likely discount. He indicated that they had a deal in respect of financing in Turkey and they were offered 33 cents on the dollar. This is the type of paper the corporation has been signing to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars.
I should like to list, in summation, ten positive things which should be done before this corporation is allowed to continue with its champagne exploits. First, we believe that the administration of the corporation should be thoroughly reviewed. There are very nasty rumblings of tremendous frictions within the ranks of the corporation, including senior personnel. We believe that under this heading there should be a thorough investigation as to the security which is actually being taken with regard to each deal the corporation ends up financing.
We believe there should be a review of the effect this type of financing is having on the underdeveloped countries or the other countries to which we are giving the financial assistance.
We believe that the corporation should be required to report to a standing committee of this House of Commons at least twice a year. The United States counterpart is required to report to the Congress in the United States twice yearly. Surely, it is not too much to expect that there be the formality of this corporation appearing before a committee of this House in a similar manner twice a year.
We believe that the corporation has only given lip service to raising a relatively large portion of its financing from the private sector. At the present time there is less than $50 million in short-term loans. The United States counterpart, on the other hand, has been able to raise every 90 days substantial debenture money from the private sector rather than relying on the treasury of the United States.
We believe the corporation should have more offices in order to assist exporters to deal properly with the corporation across this country.
We further believe there should be a sector set up within the corporation with a ceiling of perhaps $1 million per deal which would be designed to assist small businesses to get into, and remain competitive in, the world export markets. The United States counterpart has a very successful sector in this line at the present time. They tell me they anticipate it will be the largest sector in their entire operation. At the present time they are able to give financing in amounts of less than $1,000 in over 100 countries in the world in respect of exporters who wish the facility.
We believe there should be guidelines established for the corporation concerning how high the ceiling should be in respect of financing in any country. There should be guidelines concerning some privilege to be given to companies in Canada which are not foreign controlled and
April 17, 1973

there should be guidelines concerning the amount of any single deal that will be entertained by this corporation.
We believe the chartered banks should be influenced and guided into more active participation in conjunction with the corporation than has been the fact to the present. The United States, the counterpart, requires in every deal a 50-50 participation with commercial banks. Our institution, the corporation, has shown no desire to do this. This corporation and this act should be reviewed in 1973 in a manner similar to the Gibson review of 1968.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have one final point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was saying that the United States counterpart enters into a 50-50 financing arrangement in respect of every deal. Finally, we believe the majority of the directors of the Export Development Corporation should not come from the public service but rather from the private sector.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Now, I have the green light again, Mr. Speaker. There is a certain hazard in having a seat in the "lobby of the Chateau Laurier". It sometimes happens that you are not seen although heard by the people who control the loudspeaking system here.
On this reading of the bill I have a few remarks to make with regard to the future of the Export Development Corporation, and I hope that these remarks will be noted against the time when parliament will be considering the role of this corporation again. We must realize that this particular bill has to do with only one section of the Export Development Corporation Act and not with the whole act. Unless my memory serves me badly, the minister concerned indicated that at some future date we will have a chance to look at the act again and to reconsider the purpose of the Export Development Corporation. It is against this future date, which I hope will not be too far away, that I want to address these remarks.
Before I begin with the Points that I want to make, I would like to make a remark or two in reply to a couple of the comments made by the hon. member who has just completed his speech. The NDP has been accused of being unconcerned with the workings of the Export Development Corporation, particularly with regard to the way in which it aids and abets the encroachment of foreign ownership in Canada. The point was made that the corporation tends to deal with the big companies and that therefore, since it tends to deal with big companies which in Canada are very often in foreign hands, the corporation aids and abets the encroachment of foreign ownership in Canada. This is a rather indirect and tortuous argument. I think it has been pointed out time and time again that it is difficult for the Export Development Corporation under sec-
Export Development Act
tion 29 to advance loans of any significance to Canadian industry through the medium of small companies because small companies are simply not in the business of dealing with capital exports on a large and international scale.
Listening to the speakers from the Progressive Conservative party makes one think sometimes that their view of the productive system of this country is that it is essentially similar to a nineteenth century general store. In other words, all you have to do is to help the little company in a small village and the local chamber of commerce will stop singing Rotarian songs, then somebody will charge off to Brazil or Zambia and take out contracts for capital machinery or what have you. That is not how it works at all. It gives the NDP some comfort at any rate to have to deal with or against members on the government side who are somehow in this century, rather than having to deal with members on your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, who are just beginning to perceive that the world did enter the twentieth century some 73 years ago.
At the very least we would like to tackle the problem where it lies. I am reminded of what Andrew Undershaft, the character in one of George Bernard Shaw's plays, once said about the Salvation Army: "They're great, their souls are in the right place and they are out to fight the devil, but they don't have his right address". In a sense that is what the Progressive Conservative party is up to. They are out to fight the devil, but they are knocking on the wrong door. When we come down to the question of who gets the benefits of the largesse of the Export Development Corporation, we find some homegrown enterprises of our own zeroing in for what they can get, and none more busily and effectively than Brascan Limited which is one of our very old multinational corporations. We know how big it is and we know that it is getting bigger every day.
It was pointed out clearly enough on second reading that the $26 million loan by the Export Development Corporation to Light-Servicos of Brazil was, in effect, a loan to Brascan, a Canadian owned corporation. What is striking is that Brascan has been availing itself of this relatively cheap money backed by the public of Canada while at the same time it was making rather a lot of money by itself. I want to point out here that we are not helping a small corporation in great need of funds. In the report for the last year we discover that Brascan chalked up a very respectable profit indeed. I quote from the business section of the Montreal Star. It might startle some members to my immediate right that some of us socialists over here read that section of the newspaper, but we like to keep up with them and see what they are doing. It reads:
Brascan Limited has chalked up 1972 year net of $97.4 million or $3.80 per share, against $83.8 million or $3.27 a share a year earlier.
That is not bad. The profit picture of Brascan for 1972 was good. It was better than the profit picture for the year 1971 which was also good. The article goes on to read:
Company said the increased earnings resulted from better utility income. Net electric utility income rose to $87.1 million from $70.5 million in 1971.
And where is the better utility operation to be found but in Brazil where it owns the major chunk of the electric generating capacity of that country. They have made a lot of money out of Brazil. Our own form of Canadian imperi-
3384

April 17, 1973
Export Development Act
alism is not to be ignored and is certainly very effective imperialism. Here is this little company, which is begging for funds, coming to the Canadian public for a substantial loan of some $26 million, while at the same time it is making rather gargantuan profits out of its operations in Brazil.
The article goes on to read:
The high level of economic activity of south central Brazil served by Light S.A., the electric utility, is reflected in increased electric sales-22.4 billion kilowatt hours ...
Company's Brazilian investment income in 1972 was $7.5 million against $8.2 million. During the year the Brazilian investment unit took on two major new ventures-meat packing and brewing.
It is into brewing in Canada, why should it not brew in Brazil? I take it that here they are talking about brewing alcoholic beverages, not just brewing business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I understand that perhaps there have been some developments which will have him back on his feet in about 20 seconds from now. The parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I have been in discussion with hon. members through the usual channels, and I think there would be a disposition to dispense with the private members hour today and to continue this fascinating debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: The usual channels agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed. [Translation]


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is agreement in the House that the private members hour be dispensed with today and that the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) continue his speech.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, it is a rare day when this house is caught in an act of flagrant agreement, so we should note it.
I was just going on to meat packing and brewing. Of course, we know that Brascan is involved in brewing in Canada and one of its major subsidiaries is a small firm called Labatt's Incorporated. We discover from more recent news items that Brascan operates in Brazil, and indeed has spread into meat packing in that it has taken over the Swifts (Brazil) meat operation, which again is no mean enterprise. I just want to put these points before the House so that we can understand that we are not dealing with an impoverished company, but with a very wealthy company which knows exactly on which side its bread is buttered, or at least where part of its bread is buttered, and can easily come to the Export Development Corporation for money.
It is interesting to see what has been happening over the past few years to the loans made by the Export Develop-

ment Corporation. When I look at the annual reports for 1971 and 1972, I find some very interesting figures. In the report for 1971 we are told that the total signed financing agreements between the EDC and the country of Chile amounted to some $24.68 million. This is not all the money actually lent, but the total of the agreements entered into. For some mysterious reason which I cannot understand the total signed financing agreements, as reported for the year 1972 and before, between the EDC and Chile, or between corporations and the E.D.C. amounted to $24.67 million. I just wonder if it is possible for items to shrink. At least it is obvious that this one did, but it is not so much the anomaly in the figures which intrigues me as what has been happening to the direction in which money is lent, particularly to South America.
If we go back to 1972 and compare the moneys advanced to Chile and Brazil over the years, we find that Chile, which is a relatively small country, signed agreements with the EDC in the sum of $24.68 million, whereas Brazil up to that time had only signed agreements in the sum of $13.17 million. But in 1972 magical things begin to happen. Chile is still at the same figure but Brazil has suddenly jumped to $62.4 million. Why the shift? What happened over that period of time? Could it be that the shift in lending patterns which we witness here has something to do with the political developments on the South American continent? Could it have something to do with the fact that Chile began to expropriate with, and without, compensation some of the international corporations involved in mining and development in that country? One is led to wonder.
One does not like to look for conspirators in these things, but one can be led to believe that there may have been some influence on the EDC which said, "Look here, Chile isn't a good bet any more because it has a Marxist president, and besides Chile has done the nasty thing of expropriating or nationalizing large American corporations in Chile. Brazil, on the other hand, is safe. Brazil has a fine, stable government. It is not a very democratic government but it is a very stable government, and we are going to lend our money there. Besides, we have Canadian friends who are operating there."
While I am on this point I want to underline one thing. We must not assume that the Export Development Corporation sits here in Ottawa waiting for customers to arrive from Brazil or Chile. That is not what happens at all. It is not the corporations or companies outside North America that come up to Ottawa to ask for a loan. As we all know, this has been stated and admitted. It is a matter of fact. It is the Canadian exporting company which arranges for the financing by approaching the Export Development Corporation. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here really takes place in Canada. The important part of it goes on in Canada and not in some far away country.
The Chilean situation is a particularly interesting one because, for one thing, the natural conditions of industry in Chile are very much like our own in Canada. It is a country which depend for its well being upon the proper exploitation of its natural resources, just as we do. As a matter of fact, much of the exploitation is like our own. It is an economy which is heavily dependent on extractive industries, mining in particular, and here I mention
April 17, 1973

copper mining. We also happen to be involved in copper mining. We have a certain amount of expertise, which is fairly vaunted when it comes to our ability to develop techniques and the machinery for mining. Chile has a great need for this expertise and the capital equipment involved. We could supply it.
Why is it that a South American country which received a very considerable amount of the loans extended by the EDC over 10 years from 1951 to 1972 finds itself suddenly cut off, and another country starts to receive the lion's share? We can certainly ask ourselves a very legitimate question. Are there political considerations that enter into the decisions of the EDC? When I say political, I hope the House will understand that I am not talking about our partisan political considerations here in Canada but major political considerations having to do with the view that the EDC has of the worth and value of certain regimes in other countries. There is no doubt that there has been a major political change in Chile. And it seems to me that there has been a major change in the assessment made by the EDC as to the worthiness of Chile as a recipient of the largesse of the EDC. What I want to put before the House is really very simple. It consists of two or three points.
First of all, we should not kid ourselves that the efforts of the EDC cost the people of Canada no money. Of course, they do. The EDC lends money at a very cheap rate. It uses the borrowing ability of this parliament to advance relatively cheap money to private corporations, and of course they avail themselves of it. As has been pointed out time and time again, particularly by the officers of the EDC and the Exporters Association of Canada, it advances money for ventures which the private money market would not necessarily support. Otherwise, they would go to the private banks, the chartered banks, to get the money. But the chartered banks say, "The venture you are asking us to support is too long term, and too uncertain for us to advance the money at low rates. We would rather not be involved in that at all."
Let us make that point quite clear. We, the people of Canada, are supporting certain ventures which are uncertain, which are perhaps risky, and it is costing us something. If it is costing us something there must be a payoff; there must be a benefit, and the justification given to us by the government is that it creates jobs in Canada. But we have to ask ourselves a very important question. Does it create the right kind of jobs in Canada? Does it create the jobs in the right places in Canada? Do we not have in this country programs that have to do with ridding ourselves of regional disparities?
If it is the case that the Export Development Corporation lends money to corporations which use it in the central provinces of Canada and not in the less favoured provinces of Canada, it seems that it is working at cross purposes with another agency of the government and that these programs might cancel each other. Perhaps that is an indication why some of the regional expansion policies of this government did not work, if one department tries to do something and other departments are working against it, in effect. Let us lay this clearly on the line so that the next time we look at the Export Development Corporation Act we will be able to read into it certain safeguards to
Export Development Act
protect the regions of Canada which need this kind of capital investment.
The other point that I want to make is that in this country we have often made very fine commitments to the developing world and then, when the occasion arises to make great speeches at university convocations or on the hustings at election time or even addressing banquets, conferences and meetings we have made the point that aid to developing countries should not be tied to our political considerations but should be freely given with the welfare of the recipient in mind. Let us ask ourselves if any consideration of this kind is brought to bear in the act which controls the Export Development Corporation. It is not. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is an arrangement to allow for the export of capital goods, and an arrangement which permits the expansion of Canadian corporations in Canada. Related to that point again, might we not aks ourselves if one department of government is working at cross purposes with another. We have the CIDA which has fairly explicit terms of reference and is involved in more or less the same kind of operation as the Export Development Corporation, so may we not have here two departments of government whose efforts cancel each other? This is something else which should be looked at when the act is before us again.
It would not do for me to fulminate against this bill, Mr. Speaker, because having made our point we are going to support it. We have decided, however, that we will support it on the clear understanding that certain questions will have to be answered, on the clear understanding that this whole act will have to be brought back at a fairly early date and that the kind of considerations I have raised will have to be brought to bear in future. I hear a thumping from the Liberal benches, Mr. Speaker, but I think there is an interloper over there.
If this is not done, Mr. Speaker, all the pronouncements that we make about being neutral in our involvement with the developing world are false. All the statements that we want to make to the effect that we are interested in seeing the third world develop in a way of its own choosing are also false. It is all very well to make general statements at convocation time or at election time, but when it comes to dollars and cents we operate with our self-interest in mind and not only Canadian self-interest but the self-interest of particular aspects of our community.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the last speaker, particularly those concerning Chile and some of the antics that have been going on in the Export Development Corporation and in the practise of other branches of government as well. Some hon. members may recall that I brought this subject before the House on second reading of this bill and asked questions the other day as well. There is very little doubt in my mind that economics are obviously not the only consideration taken into account in financing the sales of Canadian products abroad. It is quite clear that there are political considerations as well, particularly the number of jobs created in Canada.
On the one hand the government tries to promote good will in Latin America. I remember that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), with I do not know how many ministers and aides, went to Latin America a

April 17, 1973
Export Development Act
couple of years ago. There was much partying on both sides and a great deal of goodwill. These things are fine but they cost a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. I am not objecting to that, but I am objecting to the government spending the taxpayers' money when some branches of government are negating the whole thing by a piece of foolishness such as has gone on with respect to Chile.
I am not only referring to the minister's recent tour of Latin America, but to some things that have gone on in the past, even at the United Nations when entertaining Latin American countries hoping to build up good will in that area. I am in favour of that, and I remember too that when there was a terrible earthquake in Chile a few years ago with great loss of life and property, Canada contributed a great deal of aid. Chile has noted this and remembered it. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that Canada contributed the aid merely to help build future business; I do not think that was the intention of the government or of anybody in Canada but nevertheless it did create a good deal of good will in Chile.
So, what happens? There is one firm that I have referred to before in this House whose application to the Export Development Corporation was turned down under very strange circumstances. The corporation had earlier agreed to this particular loan but later refused it. I, personally, made a phone call to find out the details and was told by a senior official of the department that it was government policy not to make any further loans, directly or indirectly, to Chile. Of course, one wonders why because in the past the record of that country has been good. We have to deal with these matters on a very sound economic basis and Chile has very little credit anywhere in the world. That is true and it is probably for some of the reasons suggested by the hon. member who proceeded me.
I am aware that Chile's credit is probably not very good but other branches of government have not hesitated to extend loans to countries like Pakistan and others of questionable political value in southweast Asia. I do not know what the purpose is here. Apparently the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not even know what was going on when I asked him this question last Friday, I believe, because he suggested it was absolutely untrue that credit was being refused to Chile. As I have said previously, one hand of this government does not seem to know what the other hand is doing. Certainly, I think the activities of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should be more closely linked with those of the Department of External Affairs when loans are to be made abroad. Apparently the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not know anything about this and I think this is significant. Perhaps he would not have agreed to the sort of performance that has been taking place.
Sometimes, when one raises matters in this House, there is some effect. Whether what I am about to raise involves cause and effect I do not know; perhaps it may. I have learned, after making certain inquiries, that officials of the Chilean government are to be here, I believe this week, to have discussions with the Export Development Corporation and perhaps discussions at somewhat higher levels of government. They will try to arrange new terms of credit for Chile. I hope the minister can give us some

further information in this regard in a few moments. The information I was able to obtain was, frankly, second hand. I was not told this by the Export Development Corporation. Perhaps what I have been told is true and perhaps the minister can give us some information in this regard in a few moments.
Is the Canadian government as sincere and honest as it says it is because, as has been noted, governments, like Caesar's wife, must not only be pure but appear to be pure. Certainly, the circumstances surrounding this Chilean operation cannot help but leave the impression, or at least make people draw the conclusion, that some kind of sleazy international interference is going on and that perhaps our government, perhaps with some foreigners, is interfering in the internal affairs of another country.
In days gone by, and I had some responsibility at that time for export development being parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for trade and commerce, when the Cuban situation arose we never put any restrictions, to the best of my information and knowledge, on exports to that country, provided they were not in strategic materials. I do not think anybody in Canada agreed with the internal activities of the Cuban government, or with that government's foreign policy for that matter, but that did not prevent us from dealing with them.
Here, we have a somewhat different situation in that the government of Chile, or the presidents, was democratically elected. I have received letters on this subject saying that we are helping communist regimes. Mr. Speaker, they are there and they are there to stay, wherever they may be, and no amount of local or outside interference is likely to overturn them. Now, we find that we have established excellent trading relations with China and the Soviet Union and, to a smaller degree, with the Cubans. These are the sorts of things that sometimes lead to a lessening in misunderstandings in the present world and perhaps to cooling things off, if one wants to put it that way, Mr. Speaker. However, the kind of meddling I have spoken about cannot help but create a great deal of resentment not only in Chile but in Latin American countries; and the Latin Americans, as I am sure hon. members in the House who have visited those countries will know, are sensitive about any interference or domination from any government, particularly the United States.
It seems that a great many people are under the impression that sometimes we are a kind of puppet of the United States, and when that country puts pressure on us to do things we do them. I do not think our cause in Latin American will be helped with this kind of activity. It will not be helped one bit. I hope the minister, in a few minutes, will be able to tell us that arrangements are underway to re-establish Chile's credit, or that Chile's credit has been re-established in Canada and that assistance arrangements will be entered into. I will be glad to turn the floor over to the minister, in the hope he may be able to give us some information in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister I ought to inform the House that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to speak for
April 17, 1973

very long. There has already been considerable debate with respect to the amendments before us to the Export Development Act. There was considerable debate on second reading, and there was further and very comprehensive discussion in the standing committee.
I have listened carefully to the views of hon. members opposite and have reflected on the debate which started many, many weeks ago. It seems to me that many of the misconceptions which I noted in certain quarters when we debated the bill on second reading have been stripped away. There was, for instance, the misconception that the Export Development Corporation was making direct loans to Canadian firms, that is, was making direct loans to large firms and making direct loans to foreign-controlled large firms. I think hon. members will be aware, after the committee examination, that loans are made to foreign buyers for one reason: they are made when the foreign buyer wants to buy some capital goods and, if he does not buy them from a Canadian source, he will buy them from a foreign source. In other words, the purpose of Export Development Corporation direct loans is to place Canadian capital goods manufacturers on an equal footing with those of other countries.
Then, there was the question, how does the financing assist small business? To a large extent the participation of the small Canadian businessman is important. He fits in because he is supplier to the large or prime contractors.
It was also interesting to note, as pointed out in committee, that Canadian controlled firms and their employees were the major beneficiaries of these direct loans. It is true that a number of foreign controlled subsidiaries operating in Canada have, through these loans to foreign buyers, been the beneficiaries, or more accurately, their employees have benefited. Yet, 62 per cent of the value of direct loans made have been made to Canadian controlled corporations. Second, of course loans are only made to a foreign buyer if the foreign buyer's purchases include at least 80 per cent Canadian content.
I think the debate has also cleared up the misconception with respect to the ceiling. Having listened to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), it seems that he has not yet accepted the view of the auditor general. He referred to Note 2 of the annual report of the Export Development Corporation for 1971 and again to the same item in the 1972 annual report, and he noted that the language was different. He was quite correct. The alteration made in the language was to remove, as he himself indicated by quoting the words of the president of the corporation, what might have been a misleading statement in the earlier statement. That is a correction which the Auditor General of Canada has accepted, as I believe I ought to make clear. I therefore reject out of hand what I consider to be an irresponsible statement by the hon. member for York Simcoe when he used the phrase "the first little bit of illegality". I do not think that phrase is worthy of him in the light of the evidence which has been placed before the committee.
Reference has been made to the credit worthiness of the great country of Chile. Concern has been expressed that loans have not been made to Chile in recognition of the
Export Development Act
fact that repayments have not been forthcoming on schedule and of the difficulties which this has created. I should like to provide more information to the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and to the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) on this point. I cannot give any information at the present time as to when Chile may again be a full-fledged candidate. I would hope that arrangements could be worked out very shortly so that Chile may again take its position alongside other nations.
There may still be confusion in some minds as to the role the Export Development Corporation should be playing as an agency of foreign aid. I think we should distinguish clearly between foreign aid and foreign trade. Our foreign aid agency is CIDA-the Canadian International Development Agency. This agency has made many substantial loans to developing countries. The EDC is not an aid agency. It is an agency which is supporting Canadian trade-supporting the export of capital goods manufactured in Canada. And I may say its activities have been responsible for creating roughly 125,000 man hours of employment in Canada for Canadians. It is worth underlining that a direct loan of $1 million to a foreign buyer is the equivalent of roughly 120 man years in terms of the employment impact back in Canada. As I say, over the life of the Export Development Corporation, the figure of 125,000 man years of labour in Canada can be well supported.
The debate has been a lengthy one. There has been a comprehensive examination of the subject in committee. I believe the House is satisfied that the Export Development Corporation has been doing a quite remarkable job since it was established by parliament roughly four years ago. To those who wonder whether it is as effective as it might be, one should answer, I think, that in the nature of things no agency can afford to be satisfied with its progress. There is always more that can be done. But the record will show that the volume of export credit insurance has doubled every five years and that the amount of long term financing since the 1960's has increased from $60 million to $285 million a year.
It is my pleasure as minister responsible for introducing these amendments to move the third reading of Bill C-3 now before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Nowlan:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.38 p.m. the House took recess.

Food Prices AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


FOOD PRICES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way) that the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on April 2, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking to this resolution. The last three times I have been cut off with about five or seven minutes to go, and having prepared a speech I should like to put it on the record. I should like to detail, in the short time allotted to me, some reasons why the price of food has risen substantially and to suggest some areas we might look to which, with some modification, might bring some relief to the upward spiralling of food prices.
First of all, I do not think the producers can be blamed for the rise in food costs. There are many reasons for this. For many years there has been a steady migration from the land in rural Canada. My riding is one such area. Not only has there been, in the rural areas, the natural increase in population which had to be sent off to the cities but there has also been a consolidation of many farm units into much larger farms.
Whereas years ago there were many farms producing a variety of grains, along with beef cattle, cream, eggs, poultry and pigs, there is now a much more specialized approach and many farmers produce only one type of grain or a certain type of livestock. This trend will likely continue. Large production of livestock seems to be concentrated in large herds of cattle. We have the almost factory-type, hog raising establishments. Chickens and turkeys are raised in like manner. This has certainly changed the whole concept of farming and perhaps has changed the ability of the industry to respond to sudden changes in demand.
In the late 1960s the price of food was abnormally depressed by the glut of grain in the world market, especially in Canada. The frantic attempts by farmers to diversify, aided and abetted by many governments, caused an oversupply of eggs, hogs, chickens and turkeys, with disastrously low prices. This led to demands for the setting up of marketing boards to curtail supply and thus bring about market stability. When finally the surplus of grain was sold and the world market for grain expanded, Canadian feed grains rose in price. But the situation was aggravated by a fall-off in animal protein from the Peruvian fisheries which resulted in record feed prices for protein supplements which are fed to animals. Flax and rape-seed rose in price, flax to its highest point in 20 years, due to the demand mainly for meal.
The resulting rise in food prices has caused widespread cries for something to be done. I think food prices will remain at a new high for the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding chronic concern with the high cost of meat, the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
per capita consumption of meat has risen sharply across the board; there has been an increase from 60 pounds per capita to 90 pounds per capita in beef over the past decade. Similar increases have been posted for other meats, such as pork.
In the current context of increasing food prices there are many forces at work in the market. A notable one is the fact that Japanese food buyers, by buying pork in the market, have raised the price to the highest point ever. We exported approximately 110 million pounds of pork in 1972, with Japanese imports increasing from 20 million pounds in 1971 to 45 million pounds in 1972. The Japanese have been buying great quantities of wool, lumber, plywood, rapeseed and pork around the world. However, since April their buying has reduced, with a resulting decrease of 20 per cent in the price of pork, a decrease in the price of lamb and a drop of 20 per cent in the price of wool. It is expected that the Japanese will come back into the market in May. This increase in buying may have been the result of enormous amounts of surplus yen which the Japanese wanted to get rid of in order not to be accused of contributing to monetary instability.
There are many areas which we should consider in studying possibilities in food production and food marketing. I do not think food prices will go down, because there seems to be no way that food can be produced more cheaply. If we wish to maintain the required food production we must ensure that there is sufficient manpower on the farms. We have witnessed such an exodus from the farms in the last 25 years that it seems doubtful that farmers remaining will expand their production of food to the desired limit. I think the number of Canadians still living on the farm is down to about 7 per cent. Canadians will have to be more concerned about the viability of the farming community.
The farm population at present is barely replacing itself, and it seems inevitable that further concessions and inducements will have to be made before there will be an increase in agricultural production. These inducements should take the form of recognition that payments for livestock, machinery and other capital investment in earlier years represent a direct charge on the income of the farmer. This should be recognized in our tax structure. It would create a much greater inducement for young people to go back into agriculture than the conventional way of giving large sums in loans, which results in a young farmer being in debt till he dies. The recent tax changes were very inimical to the accumulation of the capital necessary to carry on farming. For the western grain farmer, the loss of straight line depreciation is keenly felt. Also, the loss of the basic herd concept is bad, and it was only partially rectified by a recent amendment.
There is another area which I feel has contributed to the rising cost of food and has not been fully approached. This is the area of government regulations in respect of grading, and health laws. These have acted to put many small processing and slaughtering facilities out of commission. I have had experience with health authorities. Some seem to be especially vigilant and often make conditions so unreasonable or expensive that the small butcher or slaughterhouse cannot operate.
April 17, 1973

One of the difficulties is that in areas where large slaughtering operations take place, health regulations must be rigid; but in small establishments more leeway might be allowed. Indeed, good and reasonable care is more important than elaborate equipment. I wish to give an example of this. A man who operated a small butcher's store and slaughterhouse told me he was put out of business because of grading regulations. He had to get the grader to come from 40 miles away, but could not afford to pay him the mileage involved. When you consider that those who sell meat, including chicken, must have it graded before slaughter, it is easy to see how this situation could come about.
This situation has meant the loss of local processing to rural communities. The animals are now transported hundreds of miles to the city and slaughtered, then the meat is returned to the rural community. This means additional loss of industry to the rural community and more expensive meat; and what is most important, the loss of industry occurs in the community where the livestock is grown.
Government grading may be important, but we have to recognize that it represents an added cost and the mechanics of it virtually put the small slaughterhouse out of business because of the impossibility of arranging adequate grading. The demand for protection for the consumer by grading and health regulations has markedly increased the cost of meat in small villages and has detracted from their self-sufficiency. As a result of putting the small slaughterhouses out of business, the checks and balances on large meat processing plants have been removed because there is no longer automatic competition.
Let me refer to an article in the Globe and Mail of April 10 which lists three main packing plant companies across Canada in which one can buy shares. This indicates that much of the industry has been centred in these three large companies. This is an important fact when we consider how small slaughterhouses acted as an efficient deterrent to the increasing charges associated with meat processing.
Mr. Speaker, I could not discuss the question of food prices without mentioning the effects marketing boards can have. Marketing boards must necessarily be restrictive in nature. They are designed to prevent overproduction. Those in charge must aim at supplying the market, and no more. Excess production is followed by a great many problems. Marketing boards tend to apply quotas. These become more and more rigid and, in the interest of so-called efficiency, tend to create larger and larger producers.
This concentration in the hands of fewer producers closes the door on new entrants, and when abnormal conditions arise with either production dropping unexpectedly or demand being greater than foreseen, shortages develop. In this regard, one must remember that on the small farm one needs a quota to produce milk, raise chickens, produce eggs, turkeys and even to raise pork. One can see how this is discouraging to anyone considering entering the industry. It is difficult, if not impossible, to acquire a quota at a specific time. This raises the question of whether, if we have marketing boards, they can manage things in a better way and how they will do so. I suggest much will depend upon the individual handling of a commodity. As marketing boards move away from the free
Food Prices
market and are not subject to any of the normal marketing forces, the problem of supply, price and the pattern of an industry will become more difficult to manage. Part of the reason for this can be related to the lack of guidelines.
These are some of the areas in respect of which I suggest we have to be careful when assessing the influence marketing boards can exert on prices. We must ask ourselves whether a marketing board should work in the interest of the producer or the consumer, and then we must decide where the saw-off should occur. These are some of the areas in respect of food prices that will have to be considered.
Generally speaking, wage and price controls have been successful in the short term, but often they are followed by periods of rapid inflation as controls gradually begin to weaken. Wage and price controls are initially successful because of the automatic squeeze on profits. This is a difficult situation because when profits are frozen, wages tend to rise somewhat. When wage and price controls become necessary, it is important that the government should maintain a reasonable economy so that the forces of inflation do not necessarily destroy the advantages created.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking on this important matter.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I avail myself of this opportunity to make a few remarks on the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices.
I am a member of the committee and I was much concerned by the study we carried out and which was to culminate in the presentation of a report at an early date.
I can assure the House that presenting a first report after such brief sessions is quite a feat. I realized that when you begin to look into the causes behind the rise in consumer prices, attending a few committee meetings is certainly not sufficient to reach conclusions.
There are several causes of the rise in consumer prices and when these causes are scrutinized at the respective levels of primary production, secondary production, processing, packaging, marketing and transport, one realises that so many factors influence consumer prices that a standing committee should be created, made up of experts who, jointly with hon. jnembers, would carry out control and research functions. In fact, hon. members should be on the committee in order to follow more closely all stages through which foodstuffs go from production to consumption.
Just to give you an idea of causes of rise in prices of farm products, for instance. People say that today the price of beef and other meats is spiraling. And they seek the reason for this at levels of production, slaughter-house and marketing. During the consideration in committee, I believe we forgot that there is something which influence even more the price of beef or other food in Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. I refer to the price of feed grains, a factor that no one had suspected so far.

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
During the study in committee, there was talk about control of production, wages and consumer prices. It is very difficult to talk about control of production when we see what has taken place, for instance, concerning feed grains. We saw that western farmers were being paid for not producing any wheat. And I do not blame them because, to a certain extent in all fields, what we are looking for is maximum profits.
Everything will be sacrificed in order to maintain the price of wheat. Over the past years we saw western farmers let thousands of bushels of wheat rot on the field for the only reason that if this wheat was put on the market, this would lower the price. It is useless to say that we want to fight the increase in consumer prices if the primary producers start by saying: We must first keep a maximum price for our products, even if we must destroy half of them. Worse still, when they thought that we would have too many products, they paid farmers not to produce.
Look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. The prices of chicken and butter are going up, but farmers have been paid to destroy their production. Farmers were being paid a 90 cents subsidy for each laying hen that they slaughtered, because there were too many eggs.
Five hundred thousand laying hens were slaughtered on this basis, and now there is a shortage of eggs and prices are shooting up. We do away with the producer, and then we grumble that wholesale and retail prices are going up. We will have to be a little more logical than that, Mr. Speaker!
I was saying just now how interested I was in the evidence brought before the committee; I was taken a back by all those stupidities I heard and I wondered whether a group of 22 or 24 members of Parliament might not try to take a more extensive look at the subject, instead of concerning themselves exclusively with the profits of the dealer who is there for the customer's sake.
Also, we are today witnessing the warning of the large corporations. Chain stores, large producers and meat packers are drawing up their lines of battle. The government is all for it, even among farmers. Rather than work towards a pitched battle, it should help farmers, and family farms, by making up for the lack of funds. That would prevent the dereliction of 40 per cent of family farms, as I have seen it happen in my constituency. The same thing has happened in the West, to make way for large agricultural industries. Prices will not be decided by demand, but by the producer. You either pay up or you close down.
Mr. Speaker, this is no way to help the population. As long as we fail to examine the source of this problem, we will not do more than we did in committee: review small aspects of the problem one by one in an effort to blame the businessman, the packer or the consumer's whim. One says: the customer is too hard to please nowadays. Basically, that is true, but that is not all. The customer used to buy sugar in one hundred pound bags and it cost then a lot less than buying it in six or ten ounce packages, or in fine, extra fine or extra coarse texture. It is evident that all this is reflected in higher consumer prices but if the client or consumer cannot benefit from modern technology, I think there is no need whatsoever to insist on improved techniques, automation and electronics.

We recognize the existence of that evolution, we also recognize that everything costs a little more, but I believe that there is something to be done, as I said earlier, at the level of the large associations which control production, in the same way as there are controls at the monetary level. Everything is imposed upon us and, at the end, we say: It is expensive. Prices are spiralling because the government has not taken the necessary steps to check that. Far from it, the government often promotes those price increases and we can see it interfere outside the field of consumption.
Let us take the control of Hydro Quebec and Bell Canada. But the oldest members are saying: Go ahead, approve the increase, we are for it. In fact, if we truly want to protect the consumer, all these organizations will have to be closely watched. They will have to be controlled by a standing committee of the House which at all times will be empowered to summon the officials of big companies and trusts and demand from them the reasons for such increases whether at the marketing or production level.
Instead of trying to stabilize prices through demand, this committee should determine for example a margin of profit for transportation, packing and marketing. I think this could be used as a basis which, without correcting everything else, could at least give some results. Instead of relying solely on competition, we could use a benefit basis.
At the committee, certain members have suggested absolute control over consumer prices. As the hon. members have already stated, we have had enough controls during the war and no control should be imposed on the Canadian population during peace time. I think Parliament, with a devoted committee which would work throughout the year, can impose its will on those who must supply satisfactory services to the citizens and live from their industry and trade. But at the same time, I think it is possible to impose conditions which, while ensuring adequate services, would allow them to live with largely sufficient incomes. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that my allotted time is exhausted.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative party believe that this country is in the grip of a cost and inflation crisis that can only be termed a national emergency and cries out for national leadership and strong governmental initiative. Old age pensioners and those on fixed incomes in both urban and rural communities in all parts of Canada are especially hard hit, not just by food prices but by the escalating cost of all essentials, namely, shelter, transportation, health and personal care, fuel-


John Mercer Reid: Energy costs.


Gerald William Baldwin: High government costs.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -and especially the high cost of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 17, 1973


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If my hon. friends want to dispute that there are grave disparities in some sectors of our economy, disparities that are readily apparent not only geographically but on an occupation basis as well, then that is obviously up to them. Our farmers are an excellent example of those caught on the inflationary treadmill which exists today. The higher costs to farmers of all of their inputs-their fuel, equipment, capital investment, all their maintenance and running costs, even their own food costs-have grown beyond belief in the last few years. These costs have accelerated in the last few months. Even though the price at the farm gate-by that I mean the selling price by the primary producer of his raw, fresh, unprocessed product-has risen. The farmer on this accelerating treadmill has never been quite able to catch up.
However, the farmer is not unique in this situation. The fisherman, the small manufacturer, the retailer, those in the service industries-everyone is on that escalating treadmill; and the harder the individual runs, the sooner he finds that his goal of a more comfortable existence and a more efficient operation is just as far beyond his grasp. Left far behind, without the means or ability to even run to keep up, but with the treadmill working against them as against all others, are those on fixed incqmes, those on pensions and the so-called working poor. Clearly, this situation has to be brought under control before further unfair disparities are created.
Against this background, and clearly because it was unwilling or unable to act in a constructive manner two months ago when conditions were slightly better than they are now, this government set up the food prices committee. Those of us on this side of the House in the Conservative party said at that time that this was an unfair and discriminatory move, that only one extremely complex industry was being singled out by the government for publicity and investigation at a time when obviously the whole consumer price index was rising, not just the food price index. We said that government action, not parliamentary investigation, was needed. We said at that time that it was a barefaced government delaying manoeuvre, and we were right.
This is why we in this party wish to dissociate ourselves from the first interim report of the committee studying food price trends. The report should deal with the whole problem of inflation, of which food prices are only a part. In recommending a toothless, awkward and obscure food prices review board as its main proposal, we believe that the Liberal and NDP members of the committee are certainly not facing the facts of life in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Such a body would only be unrealistic and administratively cumbersome and expensive. But, more important, it is unreal and unfair to deal with food prices alone when the basic problem facing Canada is the high cost of government and rising prices in all sectors of the economy.
I think it might be of interest to the House, and especially to the loud-mouthed individuals to my left, to find out just how the NDP were sucked in. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-I am glad to see
Food Prices
that she is in the House tonight-came to that committee with a preconceived idea of exactly what she wanted. I bear her no ill will for that. She wanted, and she has always wanted, a food prices review board.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: And so has our
party.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: But the Liberal chairman-I am glad to see him here tonight also-obviously fearful of his government's inactivity and the fact that that inactivity was starting to hurt, came up with the idea of a food prices monitoring board-that was the name of it-which would have no real powers but would look at food prices, would report to the minister and would be an information gathering body. The trap was set. The NDP grabbed at the bait. The deal was made, even though the NDP had been speaking about a food prices review board which would have the power to investigate, which would have the power to make a decision and which would have the power to roll back a price increase when the board felt the increase was unwarranted. All of this went out the window. What we have is a toothless, supposedly independent board but one which reports to the minister and is dependent on the minister for funds. Some independence! It is an advisory body only; it makes no decisions itself; it has no power to make anyone do anything.
In my own view, the powers originally requested by the NDP would be too great for such a body in any event. But this facade as presented to us is simply a toothless body, a charade, something like Dr. Young's Prices and Incomes Commission, which is designed to give the appearance that something is being done. Nothing could be done by this group. What it did, Sir, was to suck in the NDP. It really is a monitoring board, but simply because the name was changed the NDP agreed to it and apparently are going to be agreeing to it even tonight.
It will do nothing to alleviate any price increase. It has no power. Indeed, the recommendation is so vague, and the minister's reply that "a review mechanism will be announced before the end of this month" fits in so perfectly with his equally woolly-worded response, that it is no wonder that this procrastinating, dilly-dallying government would agree with the report as presented to us tonight. The Liberals agree with it because there is nothing in it, and obviously the NDP agree with it because they are afraid to disagree with the Liberals.
I just want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. There has been much talk around here lately about elections. If the government is looking for an issue to go to the country on, this is it. This is their golden chance, their golden opportunity. And by golly, Sir, I challenge them to do so. Look at how it fits in. They sucked in the NDP. They have got the Social Credit on their side. If they are looking for an issue in an election, why not this-a toothless, awkward prices review board? The NDP irrevocably committed themselves to it. The Social Credit has done the same. If the government thinks it is a good idea, then it has those two groups with it. We differ, and we are quite willing to meet this challenge on the hustings. If the government has

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
got the intestinal fortitude to back up this move, then all right, on this issue it must feel that it can clean the slate.
What is our position? Our main criticism of our colleagues' report must be that it attempts to centralize the inflationary problem as essentially one of food costs alone. This is discriminatory and unfair to the farmer whose prices have to reflect his diversified input, to the processor who has to pass along all his costs, to the packager whose final product sometimes includes a greater charge for the container than for the contents, to the distributor who has as a main expense his labour, his transportation and his warehousing costs, and finally, to the retailer who we were told works under a harshly competitive system that some of us wish explained in far greater detail.
Out of all this the Conservative party members can only conclude that the problem is not only rising food prices, but rising prices in all sectors of the economy, including the government. Food is an important and visible factor but is not the sole element in the rising cost of living. Food products are not the worst performers in today's marketplace. While food prices have increased 41 per cent since 1961, many other products and services have increased even more. For example, housing costs have increased by 46 per cent, health care by 50 per cent and local transportation by 78 per cent.
Our position is that we believe only a comprehensive, co-ordinated governmental package can adequately deal with the cost crisis this country is now in. This package must deal with an over-all economic policy. It must involve much closer liaison between government departments. It must co-ordinate and reform taxation, tariffs, transportation, agricultural and manpower policies in order to approach the problem in an over-all manner.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that, number one, there has to be a reversal of the present Turner economic, monetary and fiscal policies. Number two, there should be an immediate but temporary 90-day freeze on all income, including dividends, fees, wages, salaries and commissions, and on all costs and on all prices except food at the farm gate. We believe that during that 90-day period a comprehensive package program can be worked out. Sir, I believe my time is almost up. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke): That the motion for concurrence in the interim report of the parliamentary committee studying price trends in food be amended by
(1)	inserting after the word "be" the word "not" and by
(2)	deleting the period after "in" and adding thereto
"and that the said interim report be referred back to the said committee with the instruction that the committee recommend to the House that
(a)	its terms of reference be widened to include a study of all prices and costs, and not just food prices, and
(b)	the government consider the advisability of instituting an immediate 90-day "freeze" on all incomes, costs and prices, exempting only the price of food "at the farm gate", and
(c)	the government consider the advisability of taking measures to stabilize costs in the Canadian economy and to halt the rise in the country's cost of living, after the period of the 90-day "freeze".
I make one final point. If the government, the NDP and the Social Credit party firmly believe that a food prices review board is the answer to everybody's prayers in
|Mr. Lawrence.]
respect of the escalating cost of living, may I point out to them that it will merely be an advisory group. It will produce only information. Therefore, why in the world are we even continuing this silly business of having a parliamentary food prices committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has very serious doubt as to the procedural acceptability of this amendment. I am prepared to hear argument from hon. members, either in support of the procedural aspects of the amendment or in opposition thereto. I might say that my main reservation is that this appears to be an entirely new question, and I cannot think that that can be considered as an amendment at all. I will listen to hon. members, but I suggest they would have to do quite a bit of convincing before they would satisfy the Chair that this can be considered an amendment. Hon. members who may want to guide the Chair may, at the same time, give me any precedents that they can cite for this kind of amendment to a motion for concurrence in a report of a committee.
It appears that hon. members are reluctant to take part in a procedural debate. At the same time, I appreciate that there is a difficulty in that we are operating on a time limit and hon. members are anxious that everyone should have an opportunity to participate in the debate after which, by order of the House, there is to be a division at ten o'clock tonight. I can also understand why hon. members might find it difficult to submit arguments which would support the acceptability of the motion.
If there were any way that the Chair could accept the amendment, then because of the fact that we have been proceeding by consent, by unanimous agreement and under an order of the House I would certainly be pleased to prepare to accept it, that is, if there were unanimous consent that the amendment should be accepted despite its procedural difficulties. But I have to rule at this time, subject to discussions that may take place later between members, that this is a new question.
The motion before the House is one for concurrence in the report of a committee. Hon. members may want to go back to the original terms of reference, which are quite limited and, of course, the report which we have before us is based on those terms of reference which set up the committee. In the amendment that we have before us is an entirely new question, suggesting that the committee report be not concurred in but that the committee be instructed to consider a number of alternatives which were not referred to in any way in the original terms of reference given to the committee. For these reasons, I would think it would have to be a new question, and I do not see how procedurally it can be accepted.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with you: I could talk for half an hour on the procedural aspects of this amendment, but I am not anxious to deprive hon. members who have such great contributions to make. I would suggest to Your Honour that, while there may be hon. members who have slight doubt as to the procedural acceptability of this motion, their silence at this time is an indication that there is a desire to divide on this issue.
April 17, 1973

There are two issues before the House and before the country. One is the proposal contained in the committee's report, and the other is the suggestion that the committee should ask the House to recommend wider terms, including the provisions in the original terms of reference and all factors which are involved in the trends in food prices.
I think the country needs, the House needs, and even Your Honour needs, to have the House give a clear decision on this issue. I am sure Your Honour would like to know what this House feels about it and I think, under the circumstances, would accept the fact that silence is acquiesence and is, in effect, a demand that the House should have this opportunity. I could argue the technical aspects of this matter, but I would rather leave it at that for the time being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for only half a minute to explain my silence. When we arranged for this two-hour debate tonight, one of the things I agreed to was not to waste any time on a procedural argument even if an amendment were moved. That is the reason for my silence. I accept the views Your Honour has expressed, and if you were to ask the unanimous consent of the House to debate an amendment which is clearly out of order, I would have to say no.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Are you open now, Your Honour, for argument on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that in view of the fact there is agreement, we should try to complete the debate and it might be better that we do not hear further argument. I had the feeling that the amendment was out of order. It was a gallant attempt to introduce an entirely new question. There might be another opportunity for the House to consider it, and there might be a division at that time. I suggest that hon. members be satisfied with dividing on the main question, which is the one which will be put to the House at ten o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately withheld making the argument that I thought I should make. I made it quite plain that I was anticipating, by the silence expressed, that there would be acceptance of the procedure. I know there is very little silence. There is so much for the other side to be silent about, but they do not often take the opportunity, especially when they are answering questions.
Let me put this to the House: Is there not the possibility that when this House considers a report of a committee, it could recommend that the committee take it back and ask for wider terms of reference? That is what it amounts to. The original terms of reference stem from the House; the House is the repository of the authority. It has been suggested by a motion-I want to emphasize this to Your Honour and to members of this House-that all the factors involved in the trends in food prices be examined. Surely the question of wages, the question of transportation costs and every factor which is involved in any way in the question of the cost of food should be considered.
What my hon. friend has done in this admirable motion is to say to the committee, "Take it back and review what you have done. Then ask the House to give you terms of
Food Prices
reference which cover all the aspects, every concept, every element involved in the question of food prices. Do what you should do. Do what the House should have done in the first place".
I hear some rude noises from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I know that hon. members opposite are afraid to face this issue. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote on this issue. We think the country demands that this opportunity be given their representatives in the House of Commons to divide on the issue, and we think the committee should ask the House for wider terms of reference.
Some hon.. Members: Hear,hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would indicate to hon. members that if they want to have argument after a ruling has been given, then perhaps we will have to hear argument from all sides, not only from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence). But I realize that would be somewhat irregular. There is an hour before the vote, and if hon. members want to spend it in argument after a decision has been rendered, then that is their decision.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Peace River. I think that is one of the arguments which could have been submitted in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member, but he himself recognizes that what he has put before the House is a new term of reference and, therefore, a new question. Certainly, the House is entitled to consider a new question. However, if it is a substantive motion which is proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, then he has to satisfy the other requirement of the Standing Orders, which is that 48 hours' notice of any new question or new motion shall be given unless the motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and there is unanimous consent. That is why I asked if there might be unanimous consent to consider the motion, and apparently there was not.
For all these reasons, I would think it is not possible to accept a motion which in my view is clearly irregular, although I recognize well-intended, and a motion on which there might be a desire to divide. But I suggest, again, that perhaps that division should be limited to the main question. I believe there was also agreement among hon. members as to the order of speakers. I believe the agreement was that the next speaker would be the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier).


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of concurrence in the committee report and urge all hon. members to do likewise. The issue before us and before the committee has been a difficult, a complicated and multi-faceted problem, but I believe a start has been made toward its solution in this report. I say that partly because the report embraces the concept of a food prices review board. I recognize that in the recommendation of the report that board is to focus on the problem of food and I make no apology for supporting it on those grounds. The people of Canada have made it clear that while their concern ranges wider than the price of

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
food, nevertheless it focuses sharply on that question and I think it is incumbent upon this House to deal with it.
The prices review board recommended in the report is an independent board; it provides the framework upon which it is the responsibility of the government to construct, through legislation, specific and muscular powers dealing with food prices. It is true that the report does not contain any specific reference to powers with teeth, to powers for which we in the New Democratic Party have asked for some years. I must say that although members of my party on that committee tried to have established a board with teeth, we received precious little help from hon. friends to my right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Stick to the script.


Terrence Wyly Grier: However, I think it is significant that nothing this report says places obstacles in the way of the government's assuming the responsibilities that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) says that it must assume, and nothing in it prevents the provision of teeth. In her speech last week, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) told us in detail what kinds of powers should be given to that board. It is now up to the government and to the minister to respond. I say to the minister that this is no time for the establishment of a token review board; this is no time to back away from this concept; this is not the time to refrain from giving it the powers for taking the action that we all know is necessary. I urge the minister not to confuse caution with wisdom. In this case, the path of wisdom lies in taking action.
The powers which we of my party have sought for this board, and which we look to the government to provide, must include the powers of effective analysis, which involves an adequate budget, an adequate staff and adequate powers to require statements, material and evidence. I must say that I had some real doubt as to whether the special committee had those powers, but let me say that the board ought to have them.
I want to see this board holding hearings in public and making its recommendations in public. We should prefer that this board be empowered to take action on its own. However, if it will sit more easily with the minister, we believe that the recommendations of the board must be made public and that the minister ought to respond to those recommendations within a period of two or three weeks. As well, Mr. Speaker, the board must have the power to suggest a wide range of action, including in specific or selected cases the power to roll back prices. It must be given the power to provide the consuming public with all the publicity which up to now it has been denied, and the power to recommend that projected price increases not be proceeded with.
I suggest that there are real advantages to the approach involving a prices review board as against the proposal of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. In the first case, Mr. Speaker, it is intended that these powers be exercised selectively, that is to say, in such a way as to enable swift and searching examination of specific areas of the food industry in which corrective action can most quickly and effectively be taken. It follows that the prices

review approach does not penalize, as the wage-price freeze approach penalizes, the fair dealers, of which there are many in this country, and small wage earners who comprise the majority of our population. The prices review board approach does not legitimize and does not freeze the inequities which we all know exist in the system. It is all very well to freeze, but that only makes permanent the unfairness which we have already seen and which we all know exists. The freeze involves a crude, across the board measure which offers no hope for fairness or equity.
Moreover, I believe that a combination of public disclosure and, where necessary, corrective action taken by the board in a few well-publicized cases in which some element or other of the food chain, which may be a food processor or another part of the food industry, is not playing fair with the public will quickly break the so-called inflation psychology which is supposed to be abroad now and will assure the public, as it has not yet been assured, that we will not tolerate and that the board on behalf of the public will not tolerate a situation in which any element in the food chain is prepared not to play fair with the public.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham referred to the prices review board approach as being bureaucratic. I invite him to envisage the kind of bureaucracy required to support the wage-price freeze and the consequent policies which have never been spelled out but which have been alluded to by the hon. member. Let me say that if the prices review board involves some staffing, the wage-price freeze approach involves a gigantic bureaucracy. I think we would do well to acknowledge that we are facing a difficulty and complex problem which is not susceptible of simplistic solutions. I do not think the prices review board is the whole answer, but I believe it is a step-a most important step-in finally coming to grips with the problem of rising prices on behalf of all Canadians.
We have heard for some time from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and his colleagues about this wage-price freeze, but we have not yet been provided with any details of what it involves. Let me remind the House that not until the budget debate did this become the official policy of the Conservative party, when the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) apparently changed his mind. He talked in the budget debate about a freeze followed by consultations with the provinces which would lead, he hoped, to something which he calls cost stabilization policies. We do not know any more tonight than we knew then as to what is involved in these cost stabilization policies, or why we should expect from this nebulous process of consultation results which we have not received in the past from an equally nebulous process of consultation. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) last week talked about meaningful policies to fight inflation. Perhaps some of his colleagues know what those are. Certainly, we have not heard about them from the hon. member's party.
Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the then Liberal government offered this country 60 days of decision, and it took us a couple of years to recover from them. Now the Conservatives are offering us 90 days of dithering, at the
April 17, 1973

end of which we will be in the same position we are in today.


David Lewis: Worse.


Terrence Wyly Grier: I suggest that it is irresponsible for a party to ask anyone to support such an empty proposal which it has placed before us in the last couple of months, a proposal so bereft of detail. It would be irresponsible for this House to adopt or support it. That proposal is so bereft of detail that, leaving aside today's high pork prices, it is far too expensive a pig in a poke. Therp is a vast accumulation of evidence to show that price-wage freezes simply do not work. When you take the freeze off, prices go up. Ask the boycotters in the United States, where the food boycott started. Ask the residents of Detroit who go to Windsor to buy their groceries. Ask the residents of Texas who go to Juarez in Mexico to buy their meat. Mr. Speaker, that is no solution.
This leads me to give my impression-because I want to be careful not to attribute motives in this House-of the approach taken by the Conservative party to this committee from the very beginning. As the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham reminded us, it has been consistently negative. His party has accused the government of trying to duck its responsibilities and expressed doubt all the way through as to whether the committee could accomplish anything. This negativism, it seemed to me, was carried over to their contribution to the committee itself. It was reflected, among other things, in their constant discouragement of attempts to get the committee a staff to enable it to examine the kinds of questions we all agreed needed to be gone into.
I did not get the impression that members of the Conservative party were making a serious effort to persuade other committee members to their point of view. In any event, they did not reveal that point of view in any formal way until the end of the committee hearings nor, in my judgment, did they seriously attempt to adduce evidence in support of it. I can assure the House there was very little evidence to support it.
Now they take the view that the government did not have a policy. So what? That is not new. But surely the committee afforded Members of Parliament an opportunity to try to construct a policy, instead of falling back on empty and sterile accusations of a political nature such as we heard again tonight. Therefore, it has often seemed to me that some members of the Conservative opposition are more interested in making food prices the political issue which the member for Northumberland-Durham promised it would be, than in trying to find answers for the Canadian people.
It has seemed to me, too, that some commentators in the mass media have shared or even fostered a general feeling of futility about the committee's work and, indeed, until a few days ago, about parliament itself. That is their privilege, but it has not made it easier to come to grips with a problem whose solution has so far eluded all Canadian governments of whatever stripe. If the accusation of futility is too harsh, I say they have encouraged an expectation that something sweeping and dramatic can be
Food Prices
done, an expectation which in view of the acknowledged complexity of the subject is not a fair one to hold out to the public. There is no shortage of simplistic, dramatic suggestions. But are we after theatre, or solutions? For theatre, I give you the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. For solutions, Mr. Speaker, I give you a prices review board.
If the Canadian public is expecting trom parliament or from the committee, or from any party, miracles in connection with rising costs, and rising food costs in particular, they will be disappointed. None of us can offer that. But we have an obligation to try to put some fairness, some equity, some justice into the entire system under which food is provided to the Canadian people. And I am prepared to broaden this to the whole element of prices. If we can get the government to approve a food prices review board set up to take effective action, we will have taken a bigger step toward fairness in costs, and food costs especially, in the last three months than parliament has taken in the past three decades.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. Before I go further, I should like to comment on the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence); or perhaps I should refer to it as the amendment which was ruled out of order.
Unlike the speaker who preceded me, I shall not refer to the thespian-like qualities of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, but the argument was the very one which the committee faced a week or week and a half ago; and this, indeed, was the decision of all members of the committee with the exception of the Official Opposition. We felt we were given certain terms of reference and had the responsibility to follow them. It would be easy politics to go beyond them, not so much for our own party, which surely would stand with the government, but for two other parties at least. Yet they at least were sufficiently responsible to recognize the character of the terms before us and to follow through and do their best to confront the trying problem we faced. Also, in making reference to the amendment which was ruled out of order by the Chair, I should like to say that if the opposition cannot draw up an amendment, how could they possibly draw up wage and price controls and make them work effectively?
Public concern about the trend in food prices in Canada is certainly no secret. It has been ventilated in the press for many months, for long before the committee began its sessions. It is experienced by every citizen, rich or poor, from a small family or a large family, in rural Canada or in urban Canada. Weekly they go to stores and in most cases when they buy food products they must pay cash. When there is the kind of inflationary trend which the entire western world faces, nothing focuses more on this problem that we all must try to cope with, and all parties are honestly, in their own way, making an effort to do that or suggesting ways in which they feel it should be done. But surely there is no more central focus than when people go to buy food and see prices creeping up. No one denies this, certainly not members on this side of the House.
The committee held intensive meetings, between four and five meetings a week for more than two months. I am

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
sure all members can appreciate the workload involved, especially since all sorts of other committees were meeting in an attempt to meet problems facing this country and to resolve them. It is a very heavy workload shared by members on all sides of this House. To say that a committee of this kind if futile begs the question. All countries in the western world have tried desperately to find a solution, but none of them has yet done so. Surely, the concentration shown by the members of the committee represented an honest effort, and I believe the recommendations the committee made were the very best possible in the time allowed. It was certainly not a futile exercise. We did learn some hard facts, and this is what I should like to discuss in the next few moments.
First, wage and price controls. We had before us during those intensive meetings over a period of eight or nine weeks representatives of anti-poverty groups, consumers' associations, of labour and business. There were wholesalers and advertisers and, in addition, representatives of government. And not one of those people who appeared before us suggested the solution they wanted involved wage and price controls. There were one or two witnesses who said perhaps price controls were the answer. They said, "Price controls, but we know that won't work; it must be both". Sitting on that committee as well as ourselves were members of the Official Opposition. Not one of the representatives of the groups I have mentioned advised us that wage and price controls were the answer. Even if it were within our domain to do so in conformity with the directions given us by parliament, how could we possibly come forward, as a responsible committee, with a recommendation of that kind when not one group said we should?
Wage and price controls have been tried in two countries to which Canada is very close. They have been tried in Britain and they have been tried in the United States. In both cases they have been hopeless failures. In Britain they have led to massive strikes. They have forced the nation almost to its knees already, economically, and placed it in jeopardy not only internally but in trying to compete in world trade. If that is a problem in Great Britain, with its small size and heavy concentration of population, imagine what would happen if there were similar repercussions here in Canada, with our small population and vast territory, particularly since we depend so heavily on trading and exporting in order to survive while maintaining our standard of living.
In the United States the attempt to control prices on a temporary basis was a hopeless failure. The three-phase system is now in its first phase. When the controls were lifted only a month or so ago, we found that in fact the consumer price index for food had risen, not by fractions of a point but by four points in one month. Yet the Official Opposition suggests that temporary wage and price controls are the answer. They should know better. It is a phrase which might easily appeal to a public which is preoccupied with its personal affairs, jobs and families, and which cannot find time in which to stand back and study the situation in depth. But anyone who has even a shallow knowledge of the subject knows that price controls of this kind cannot work and that we should not jeopardize the nation by doing anything as irresponsible as adopting them.

A temporary freeze of the kind suggested could give rise to a number of other repercussions which would be extremely serious. Later in my speech I will touch upon the real hardship caused by high food prices to people who must live on fixed incomes, people with large families, to people living in poverty, compounded by the constant inflationary factor we face. One difficulty is this. If wage and price controls are imposed on a temporary basis, the primary producer might well be encouraged to withhold supplies. This might have the effect, later, of forcing up food prices still further.
Who are the people who would not be able to buy these goods if they were being sold on the black market illegally? Why, the poor, those with large families and those on fixed incomes. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more dangerous or irresponsible, anything that has less backing in world experience or which our committee heard more opposition to, than wage and price controls.
When you suggest that you can have wage and price controls but that you do not apply them at the farm gate, that again is a facetious argument. Because if your control begins at the top, it will work its way down to the bottom. The middlemen will say to the farmers; "We don't have the money to pay your prices", and this will hurt the farmers. It just does not make sense.
In our arguments before the committee and in our discussions it became obvious that part of the increase in the cost of food in Canada in the last year has indeed been a result of increased prices paid to the primary producers. But members on all sides of the committee agreed that that was not unfair. If there is any group in Canada that earns less or has a lower average income than any other, it is our farmers. Our farmers work long hours. They are dedicated people. In fact, they represent the principle on which this land has been built. So I do not argue, and I do not see how anybody else can argue, that they are receiving more money unfairly, even if it is reflected in the increased price of food.
With regard to the processors, because of the time limit that was put upon the committee to bring down an interim report, we were only able to talk with associations. I am satisfied that we do need more discussions with these groups, and I believe that this is in the making. The processors argued, and all evidence before us suggested, that their profit margin was somewhere between 1 per cent and 7 per cent. That certainly is not a profit margin that is considered excessive.
In the case of the retailers, their actual net profits range between 1 per cent and IV2 per cent and that certainly is not acceptable although I do believe there are many problems, which I will talk about in a minute or two, going on at that level which may in fact affect food prices.
There are several areas involved here. Volume discounts are one area which I hope the special or independent review board will consider. For instance, I know one wholesale company will offer, according to the volume taken by the retailer, as much as 15 per cent discount. In shipping and selling their goods to retailers in Canada, if those large retailers make up the principal part of the people they are selling to, you can imagine how that 15 per
April 17, 1973

cent discount in fact disadvantages the small, independent retailer. In fact, it may bring about pushing that person out of the market place, and meanwhile still be reflected in higher food costs to the general public. Then there are cash discount payments. In other words, if large retailers will pay their bills immediately to the wholesaler, they are given a discount. Yet in practice, even when they get this discount they do not pay the cash on time. There are advertising gains and exchanges so that you have a few people in the market place competing against each other, each of them forced by the other to stay in this very expensive game of grabbing public attention. The price of this may well be passed on to the consumer unnecessarily.
There is also the simple kind of business scheme, bonus trips based on amount of sales, and costs like that which run up food prices. I look forward to investigating that in the committee, and hopefully the independent review board that I am optimistic the government will appoint will also examine the situation.
We have also learned there are world shortages of food commodities. There is especially a very high demand for feed grain, grain and beef and these are all interrelated. People are willing to go out and buy steaks, not only in the United States to which we export a considerable amount but here in Canada, for $9 or $10 a time. This simply means that there is both demand and shortage. It takes three or four years to increase your stock of beef. Prices increase and people on limited income and large families in the poverty area simply cannot have that part of their diet which is nutritious.
We have seen Canadian incomes go up in the past five years some 50 per cent. I can remember that there was some discussion in this House at an earlier time about the fact that taxes have gone up in the last five years. So they have. But higher taxes reflect the fact that incomes also have gone up 50 per cent. Instead of people spending about 25 per cent of their income on food, as they did five years ago, they now spend about 19 per cent. Those higher incomes have gone to people along the food chain, as they should justly. All of this is reflected in higher prices.
Transportation costs have gone up for all of us, the producer as well as the wholesaler and the retailer. This is a general trend. But our real crisis is for those people, the poor, the large families, the people on fixed incomes, where increased costs have not gone from 25 per cent to 19 per cent but perhaps from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. This is a very real crisis indeed, and I think the government must face up to it.
I would like to note, before talking about several areas where it has been faced up to, that the party opposite sitting as government in another House, where apparently there is such concern for the poor and those on fixed incomes, has deemed it proper to impose a tax upon one of the largest populations and wealthiest provinces in this country which will hit hardest those people with the least money. This is an energy tax which they claim will eventually not be visited upon poor people. We have a system difficult to understand, and especially the poor have difficulty understanding it. I remember how we were attacked for our tax forms. I say it is the most regressive action I have seen by a provincial government for a number of years. I have followed the course of events as a
Food Prices
journalist, and I do so now sitting as a member of this House.
In contrast to increasing a sales tax which hits hardest at the poorest, imposing an energy tax which is a regressive tax on a basic service, the government has attempted to take strides in certain directions. I think they have taken some very positive strides. There is always more to be done, of course, but we have increased pensions, and raised the exemption level for income tax. Hopefully, we will soon have an announcement from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) regarding family allowances and other general plans to help the people in this country who need it most.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I talk briefly about the committee's recommendations. The review board is not the "be all and end all;" it is not the final answer. But it is a chance for people, especially those who pay cash for food, when they see something they think is wrong to go to somebody and find out whether it is wrong or not. It is going to be part of an education process. It is also, hopefully, going to be a part of finding out who the offenders are and where they are. It is a chance for government to be answerable to people and for a responsible group to say, "yes, that is fair," and, "No, that is not fair."
The members of the NDP have some concern about putting teeth into legislation. The members of the government party felt that to pass a resolution or to put forward recommendations to be brought back to this House to roll back prices simply does not make sense. You simply cannot handle this problem legislatively the way our country is set up.


An hon. Member:: Why?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Because of the constitutional breakdown between municipal, provincial and federal responsibility. I say it is just not possible, and I have yet to hear any constitutional expert come forward and say it is possible. If that is the stand of the NDP, I invite them to bring this person forward so he can tell us about it. If we are going to have a review board, and if it is going to be effective, then I am pleased that within the recommendations is the suggestion that there be an opportunity given to the review board, whether through the vehicle of a standing committee or a special committee, at a hearing open to the press, to focus attention on those offenders and exert in this way leverage upon them to fall back into line. With this kind of publicity and confrontation, in the business world you just do not fight it; you back off.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the nutrition recommendations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Although the Chair might find itself ready to listen to the hon. member, other hon. members wish to participate, and in view of the limited time I do not think I can give the hon. member an extension.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I should like to make a few remarks after having heard all kinds of views, mostly divergent. I care-

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
fully listened to several speeches. At one time. I became aware that hon. members were saying that Progressive Conservatives did not make any contribution, that Liberals did not have any new ideas, that social Credit did not have any serious propositions to make and that the NDP was satisfied with saving the government's life.
Mr. Speaker, what is important is not to discuss the particular subject under consideration, namely the report of the special committee but, perhaps, to wonder why we had to set up this committee, why the government or hon. members were lead to recognize the importance of the committee and to what extent the committee will suggest anything concrete and worthwhile for the consumers. I know that Canadian consumers are very worried and expect this committee, a creation of Parliament, to suggest corrections, the committee made the following recommendation:
That the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to establish an independent Food Prices Review Board equipped with such powers as are necessary to review prices, and that it report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The hon. member who had the floor before me declared that we were not to expect this committee to have the powers to bring back the prices of past years. Then it seems that there are doubts about the efficiency of the committee, that one wonders if the consumer will finally benefit from decent food prices. Surely, all essential products could be affected.
As I said a while ago, why is such a committee necessary today? I do not think that I am wrong when I say that almost everybody expected the difficulties now facing us. And this does date back to yesterday; I think that even the government realized the danger when it referred to the fight which it has led against inflation for five years, there was therefore a danger. It was impossible to solve the problem due to a lack of proper measures, but this brings up today to recognize that as far as food is concerned as well as in all other fields, appreciable increases occurred as a result of hundreds of factors. I will be brief but will surely not be so bold as to say that this government is responsible for that problem. Surely, some circumstances and reasons explain why prices have increased. On the one hand, it will be said that this is because of the unions and on the other hand, that this government did not apply adequate measures.
We must still recognize that we are in an extremely difficult situation, and this is why the committee is prepared to make recommendations to the responsible minister. We recognize also that we are all in the same mess because of a host of factors, and later on, of course, we could blame Tom, Dick or Harry.
What matters for the consumer is to find a solution. I remember that, the other night, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) said that the committee would have to check and analyze, for instance, the often misleading publicity aimed at the consumer. I think that this is one of the excellent recommendations that the committee has retained. And I think that in such a field much need to be done. Moreover, it is what were doing those who some time ago were in favour of the inquiry on advertising which often prompts the consumer to spend much more than necessary.

On the other hand, I think that people expect results from that committee, and it is important to ask ourselves what exactly will be its powers and if it will limit itself, for instance, to making recommendations to the minister?
Will they be as decisive as they were about the Bell Canada rate increases? Will the committee that studies this question even report on why prices have gone up? I suspect that the consumer will be justly disappointed.
I therefore think it is important for the committee to have the power to look into the reasons behind the price increases, but if someone at a higher level decides to say no to that, whether because the reasons are inadequate or because of an increase that is excessive for the consumer, that will be that, and things will not go any further.
A suggestion by the Progressive Conservative party, namely a freeze on food prices, and a general price freeze, was rejected out of hand. This suggestion, which deserves some attention, might have been submitted to the government-I know that the government looked into it in any case-and they could have imposed a price freeze two years ago.
With regard to the 90 cent hind quarter of beef, large companies selling meat would certainly be glad to see prices frozen at that level. I consider that it would be doing the consumer a disservice to freeze prices now, without undertaking to bring them down to a reasonable level.
We have no right to reject this suggestion without giving it serious thought. We know very well that a 90-day price freeze might be acceptable without there necessarily being a wage freeze, but we also know that a long term price freeze would bring about a wage freeze.
There are all kinds of difficulties involved, but how can the government reject such proposals without examining them thoroughly, when it has found no way of stopping abrupt price increases that are putting the consumer in real difficulties? And the proof of this is that the government is relying on that commission to improve the prevailing situation.
I also listened to a proposal made by the hon. members belonging to the Social Credit Party of Canada, involving compensated discounts. At first sight, that concept might fascinate the consumer because of the prospect of reimbursement to them of 25 per cent of retail prices. But nothing was said of the way in which such a compensated discount can be granted. We know quite well that if the government implemented such a policy manufacturers and dealers would naturally take the biggest bite into the cake.
The retailer would therefore be far from receiving the 25 per cent discount proposed by Social Credit. I therefore conclude that consideration of a measure involving so many problems is premature as far as benefiting the consumer is concerned.
In view of the government's position, we must fall back on the committee and rely on it to a great extent because it will be able to scrutinize prices and make recommendations.
In the circumstances, the public is clearly expecting action. It recently reacted by boycotting prices, refusing to buy some types of meat. This action did have some influ-
April 17, 1973

ence and, of course, is distasteful to many. It is also fraught with the danger that, in the long run, this would result in prices rising still more as dealers could readily, in view of such instability, transfer their business or dealings outside Canada.
Therefore, this reaction from the public is quite justified, because they feel they are being exploited to a certain extent by dealers or by methods likely to increase prices. Well, the retailer is not necessarily the one who makes the biggest profit with these prices which have reached an intolerable level.
I expect a lot from this committee and so does the consumer.
I admit that all the problems we have had during the last few years, though they were expected, could not be avoided. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether this committee will reach the objective and I hope it will get into action without delay, and make recommendations so that the minister may take efficient steps to prevent this increase. And I think that the solution we are looking for and that no one has found to date is to bring prices back to a reasonable level on par with consumer income.
I suggest that this is our aim. And of course this will require much co-operation from all hon. members and understanding between parties. We will have to aim at a common objective for the sake of society rather than restrict ourselves to criticism. I admit nevertheless that each hon. member tried to make his own contribution. Perhaps some hon. members showed too much partisanship but, in general, I suggest that they have tried, by giving their views, to find a solution likely to safeguard the consumers' interests.
I therefore hope that the committee, in view of the difficulties which we know, will bring something positive to consumers. And the greatest deception which could befall consumers would be that the committee, which is now being publicized in every newspaper, and that study, which is being made by Parliament, would have no aftermath, for the consumer still has great hopes. Yet that is what would happen were the committee to confine itself to recommendations which would not result in efficient measures.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, even at the best of times, even when there is no inflation, unemployment or poverty the price of anything is always too high in the opinion of some people and too low in the opinion of others. To the farmer, for example, the market price of his produce is always too low and the wages he has to pay his hired hands are always too high. To the hired hand the wages he receives are always too low and the prices of the groceries he must buy are always too high. It seems that even in the best of times no one is ever satisfied, but that is human nature. Because we do not live in the best possible circumstances but live at a time and place in which the government has been causing considerable inflation, unemployment, and poverty, the Canadian people are highly dissatisfied, and rightly so.
Food Prices
Last month in a debate in this House I mentioned some of the ways in which a government can cause unemployment and poverty. The Canadian people are completely justified in complaining about these policies and demanding the eviction of the government that sustains them. The Canadian people are also very upset about this government's inflating the money supply to fill its budget deficits and thereby causing a terrible inflation of prices which affects not only the price of food but also the prices of land and housing and in fact of all consumer goods. During the housing debate, when the rising prices of land and housing were discussed I put the blame for the paper money inflation where it belongs, on the federal government and its Bank of Canada. But this government does not listen and it continues to inflate the money supply, as evidenced by the Bank of Canada's own figures in its weekly financial statistics.
Both parties of the coalition government say that they want to force manufacturers to disclose more information about their products. Perhaps the government should print a disclosure on its own paper money which would warn the holder that its future value is questionable. Perhaps some hon. members think I am not serious when I warn of the dangers that lie ahead on the government's course of paper money inflation. These hon. members should study history. Then they would see what disasters paper money inflation has brought. One example is the destruction of the French economy after the paper money inflation that began in 1789. The collapse into chaos led to the rise of Napoleon who, despite all his vices, learned from the very conditions that brought him to power never to tamper with the soundness of his country's money, which was gold coin. More recently we saw the destruction of the German economy after the paper money inflation of 1923. The collapse into chaos and the rise of Hitler who, like Napoleon, unfortunately enjoyed the support of the people because the people considered even these dictators preferable to the chaos that followed the paper money inflation and economic collapse.
Genuine Conservatives can rarely find points of agreement with Lord Keynes, but I have found one. In 1919 Keynes wrote:
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
A similar remark was attributed to Lenin to the effect that the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. We must learn from history. We must stop this paper money inflation before we too relive the disasters of the past.
This is part of the problem of high and rising food prices. The other part of the problem is monopoly. Before I say very much about this I should perhaps define the word because many people are confused about its meaning. Lord Coke's definition of monopoly is most clear. He said:
Monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the state, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group.
In a paper entitled "1776 to 1984: The Decline and Resurgence of Monopoly", Yale Brozen, professor of business

April 17, 1973
Food Prices
economics at the University of Chicago, elaborates as follows:
When Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations," there was no doubt in the mind of anyone that monopolies were the result of governmental power. Few felt they could flourish absent government support.. . They were difficult to maintain despite the use of governmental power. Competition kept breaking out in spite of governmental attempts to suppress it. ...
The very word monopoly was ... a label for a special privilege granted by the monarch-the privilege of being the sole supplier of some commodity or service. The royal grant of a monopoly was usually made to the subject of a monarch who, for some reason, the monarch felt deserved enrichment, and it was cheaper for the monarch to award such a privilege than to make a direct grant from the royal purse.
Crucial to the understanding of monopoly is the realization that monopoly has nothing at all to do with the number of firms operating in an industry. It has to do with whether or not the government is restricting competition. Sometimes there is only one firm in an industry simply because that firm is more efficient than any potential competitor and continues to offer consumers lower prices than any potential competitor thinks he can match. This situation is not a monopoly because the government is not restricting anyone from entering the industry and competing with the existing firm. Anyone who is willing to bet his capital that he can operate more efficiently than the existing firm is free to try. In contrast, although there are 363 licensed taxi cabs in the city of Vancouver, there is a taxi monopoly. It is a monopoly shared by the owners of the 363 taxi cab licences, because the city government will not issue any more licences. These monopoly profits are now so high that taxi cab licences recently changed hands at $30,000 each.
Some time ago this federal government introduced a so-called competition act which, it said, would bring greater competition and thus benefit consumers. If a private enterprise were to make a statement as outrageously false about one of its products, all its directors would go to jail. The competition act would not have repealed the Vancouver taxi monopoly or any other monopoly anywhere in Canada. If passed, however, it would have given the government arbitrary powers for which there is no place in a society supposedly governed by the rule of law, arbitrary powers to enable the government to restrict competition on behalf of its friends.
It is interesting to note that the legislation which creates monopolies in the food industry, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, specifically exempts these monopolies from the Combines Investigation Act. What is the combines law for, if the government is going to suspend its operation every time it wants to create a monopoly for some of its friends? One of the arguments that the government presented on behalf of its so-called competition act was that the present combines laws were inadequate. But it is obvious that any inadequacy lies simply in the failure of the government to respect the law. Of course, even if the government's so-called competition act had been passed by parliament, it would have had no more effect on these food monopolies than on any other monopolies.

In May, 1971, the Consumers Association of Canada presented a brief against the establishment of marketing boards. They said:
From the point of view of consumers it is dangerous legislation which allows such sweeping power over a total industry to rest in the hands of a small group of people however selected, and however well intentioned . . .
That a producer-controlled agency which has sought national marketing legislation because of an inability to successfully manage its own production capacity could be given control over other sectors of the food industry ... is to consumers a horrifying prospect...
When, however, a national marketing body, able to control all supplies of a commodity, is exempted from the provisions of the combines act, the consumer ... is powerless to protect himself except through the time-consuming and very unsatisfactory political process. This is a situation which cannot be tolerated.
But the government ignored consumers and went ahead to grant monopolies over the supply of food. I agree with the Consumers Association of Canada that this is a situation which cannot be tolerated. The government is exploiting defenceless consumers of food in an attempt to get the vote of those inefficient farmers who want to be protected from competition.
According to an article in the Vancouver Sun of March 3, 1971, Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, called for greater controls on Canadian farm production and marketing. He said:
Cut-throat competition just doesn't work. It's murder on profits.
I think he was referring to effective competition. Effective competition is indeed murder on profits. It's supposed to be. It is the purpose of effective competition to ensure that producers earn their profits by providing consumers with the best products at the lowest attainable price. Free enterprise does not guarantee anybody a profit. Socialism and other monopoly systems provide unearned incomes to the friends of the government, but free enterprise certainly does not.
Whenever the government interferes with people's freedom to compete in a free market, it favours one group- inefficient producers-at the expense of two groups: consumers and efficient producers. Inefficient farmers claim that they want marketing boards as a means of smoothing out price fluctuations. But planning production so as to smooth out price fluctuations is a task that is performed by the competent, competitive farmers themselves. What the inefficient farmers really want is a quota system of allocating production so that they can be protected from the consumer, who buys the best product at the lowest price and who has no interest in supporting hobby farmers.
Now, there is nothing wrong with hobby farming, any more than there is anything wrong with yachting. Some people get their pleasure out of yachting, while others prefer hobby farming. The consumer rightly objects, though, when called upon because of a quota system, to subsidizing the hobby farmer. Why should the government, by restricting competition, force the consumer to subsidize the hobby farmer any more than the yachtsman?
Sometimes we hear the hobby farmers say that they want a fair price or a fair rate of return. But there is no such thing as a fair price or a fair rate of return to the farmer or to all farmers. The more efficient farmer will
April 17, 1973

always enjoy a higher rate of return than that enjoyed by the less efficient.
What is the result of marketing board monopolies? A constituent of mine tells me that one day last year as he left Vancouver, the price of cut-up frying chicken was 59 cents a pound. A day or so later, in Los Angeles, he saw that the price of chicken was 29 cents a pound; less than half the Vancouver price. In California there is free enterprise; in British Columbia there is a chicken marketing board. By the standards of inefficient British Columbia chicken producers, California producers are unbelievably efficient. But those of us who understand economics are not surprised; ever increasing efficiency and lower prices are the continuing consequences of geniunely competitive free enterprise. In British Columbia we are forced to pay twice as much for chicken because the government denies freedom of enterprise in chicken production.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are really only two types of politic-economic systems: first, the presence of free market competition and, second, the absence of free market competition, that is, the presence of restrictions. There are basically two types of restrictive systems. The first is the state socialist system, in which the state owns the means of production and the bureaucrats and politicians own the state. The bureaucracies are protected from legal competition because freedom of enterprise is denied. The other is the corporate socialist or fascist system, in which private ownership is maintained in name but the state is exceedingly powerful. The state uses marketing boards or variations thereof to protect members of select groups from competition.
The difference between the two is that the corporate socialist system features nominally private ownership of the means of production, although final control lies with the state through the marketing board; it fixes prices and grants or withholds quotas. Perhaps the freedom of the Canadian people is presently threatened more seriously by corporate socialism than by state socialism.
In contrast, the foundation of the free system is simply that if someone thinks he can produce goods or services more efficiently than those already in the industry, he is free to risk his labour and savings; he is free to compete. Competition-to make a long story short-will result in ever increasing efficiency and lower prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Pursuant to the special order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Food Prices


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Wednesday, April 18, 1973