1973-09-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
September 5, 1973-Mr. Reynolds-Bill intituled: "An act to amend the Income Tax Act".
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has asked that this bill stand. In fairness to the hon. member I think I should indicate that the Chair has reservations about the procedural acceptability of the bill proposed by him. I think I should warn him that my reservations have reference to the possibility that this bill might well affect either the balance of ways and means or the financial initiative of the Crown. I am sure that in drafting the bill the hon. member realized the difficulty that confronted him. I am not now, of course, making a ruling on it, but whenever the hon. member is prepared to have the bill moved for first reading he should at that time be prepared to convince the Chair that the bill is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Mr. Reynolds:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall do so.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many judges are there in Citizenship Courts in Canada and (a) what is the remuneration paid them (b) what are the qualifications for appointment?
2.	What are the locations of the Courts and how often do they sit?
3.	Are there any vacancies to be filled at the present time?
4.	Are any new appointments contemplated at the present time?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
Fifteen, (a) In the range $14,988 to $20,421. (b) The statute specifies none.
2. Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Sudbury, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. The Courts sit daily or less frequently depending upon the volume of business.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Godin: 1.	In January 1973, under the Opportunities for Youth Program, how many citizens in the constituency of Portneuf were considered as "resource persons" called on to state the priority needs in the constituency?
2.	What is the name and address of each such person?
3.	Were they consulted by the liaison office and, if so (a) how many times (b) on what dates?
4.	Have members of this first group been fired recently and, if so (a) on what recommendations (b) by whom were they replaced (c) what are the names and addresses of such persons?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
While resource persons are not chosen on the basis of the federal constituency in which they reside, a Local Advisory Committee for the County of Portneuf was established in March 1973, and consists of seven members and three consultants.
2.	The names and addresses of those persons who were named to the Local Advisory Committee established in March 1973 are as follows: Monsieur Gaston Briere, Service aux etudiants, Commission scolaire regionale, Tardi-vel, Pavilion administratif, Donnaconna (Quebec); Monsieur Herve Frenette, cultivateur, 34, rue Saint-Fran^ois, Cap-Sante (Quebec); Monsieur Jacquelin Genois, direc-teur, Polyvalente Saint-Raymond, 400, boul. Cloutier, C.P. 1077, Saint-Raymond (Quebec); Monsieur Michel Ingels, directeur, Service social de Portneuf, 324, rue de l'Eglise, Donnaconna (Quebec); Mademoiselle Martine Langlois, etudiante, 3050, rue de la Chapelle, Portneuf (Quebec); Madame Yolande Dussault, directrice, Centre culturel de Donnaconna, 245, rue Royer, Donnaconna (Quebec); Monsieur Luc Walsh, 105, av. Jacques-Cartier, Donnaconna (Quebec).
The following persons are attached to the committee as consultants: Monsieur Pierre Guy, Conseil regional des loisirs, 310, rue de l'Eglise, Donnaconna (Quebec); Monsieur Raymond Beland, Service social de Portneuf, 324, rue de l'Eglise, Donnaconna (Quebec); Monsieur Gaston Frenette, policier, Cap-Sante (Quebec).
3.	They were consulted frequently but no records were kept of the dates of these consultations.
4.	None.

September 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of York North, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for OFY grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of OFY projects?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Statistics on applications submitted for funding are available on a provincial basis, and not by constituency, for 1972 and 1973 only.
2.	A list of all projects funded under the 1971 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and type, and in order of project number, not by constituency. Information includes the project title, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants, and the name and address of the project representative. A list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department. A similar list of all projects funded under the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program is being compiled.
3.	See answer to Part 2.
4.	No tabulated records exist for OFY applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years.
5.	See answer to Part 2.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for OFY grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were the applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of OFY projects?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Statistics on applications submitted for funding are available on a provincial basis, and not by constituency, for 1972 and 1973 only.
2.	A list of all projects funded under the 1971 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and type, and in order of project number, not by constituency. Information includes the project title, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants, and the name and address of the project representative. A list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department. A similar list of all projects funded under the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program is being compiled.
3.	See answer to Part 2.
4.	No tabulated records exist for OFY applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years.
5.	See answer to Part 2.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of York-Simcoe, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for OFY grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also sucessful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of OFY projects?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Statistics on applications submitted for funding are available on a provincial basis, and not by constituency, for 1972 and 1973 only.
2. A list of all projects funded under the 1971 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and type, and in order of project number, not by constituency. Information includes the project title, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants, and the name and address of the project representative. A list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project activities, amount of the
September 10, 1973

grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department. A similar list of all projects funded under the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program is being compiled.
3.	See answer to Part 2.
4.	No tabulated records exist for OFY applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years.
5.	See answer to Part 2.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of Ontario, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for OFY grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of OFY projects?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Statistics on applications submitted for funding are available on a provincial basis, and not by constituency, for 1972 and 1973 only.
2.	A list of all projects funded under the 1971 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and type, and in order of project number, not by constituency. Information includes the project title, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants, and the name and address of the project representative. A list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department. A similar list of all projects funded under the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program is being compiled.
3.	See answer to Part 2.
4.	No tabulated records exist for OFY applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years.
5.	See answer to Part 2.
Order Paper Questions CANADIAN RECIPIENTS OF ROYAL HONOURS


Mr. Coates: Are accurate lists of living Canadian recipients of Royal Honours maintained and (a) if so, by what department and are they available to the public (b) if not, for what reason?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Records have been kept of the names of Canadian recipients of orders and decorations conferred by the Sovereign, extending back over many years. Whenever information comes to hand about the decease of holders of such honours, the records are amended but deaths are often not reported nor found in obituary notices. Hence, the records are necessarily incomplete, (a) Until 1972, records of honours were kept by the Secretary of State Department but are now held in the Honours Secretariat, Government House. Information is supplied to the public in response to specific inquiries concerning holders of these honours, (b) See answer to part (a).


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has any consultations taken place between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Transport to provide for the influx of tourists which will take place as a result of the establishment of the Gros Morne National Park in the Province of Newfoundland and, if so, what action has been taken?
2.	Has any consultation taken place between the federal and provincial governments as to future needs of harbour development in the Gros Morne National Park area and, if so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (1) The Department has not been in consultation with the Ministry of Transport. Parks Canada will be providing interim camping and picnic facilities to meet tourist needs while permanent facilities are being developed.
2. Consultation has taken place regarding the landing areas and associated staging facilities within the boundaries of the proposed National Park. Parks Canada will maintain these areas and facilities and will consult with local fishermen regarding any necessary improvement.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	In light of the recent contract for $42.6 million awarded to the Boeing Co. by the U S. Navy to construct hydrofoil ships for use by NATO, were the Canadian Forces ever approached to use the hydrofoil now in dry dock in Halifax for such purposes?
2.	In light of the need by NATO for such hydrofoils, is any consideration being given to recommencing the hydrofoil construction program?
3.	What are the names of the leading engineers who worked on the design team that built the Canadian hydrofoil?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, with what companies are the above engineers now employed?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The contract referred to is for a Patrol (Hydrofoil (Missile) boat which is part of a three-nation (Italy, Germany and the United States) program within

September 10, 1973
Orders for Returns
NATO. In 1970-71 Canada was one of the contenders to provide such a craft based on the HMCS Bras d'Or design but the U.S. craft was chosen because of its lower cost. While considering the gun/missile boat program NATO nations also looked into the use of hydrofoils as anti-submarine craft. HMCS Bras d'Or was offered as a test platform for a NATO project group. While some six nations expressed interest none have agreed to supply the funds required for such a program.
2.	Not at this time.
3.	Messrs. F. H. Buller, J. R. Uffen, R. W. Becker, B. V. Davis, G. L. Oates, S. Morita and M. J. Callow.
4.	All of the above engineers are employed by the DeHa-villand Aircraft Company of Canada Limited in Toronto except Mr. B. V. Davis who is with Hydronautics Research and Consultants Limited in Halifax.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Carter: 1.	Does the government regulate beer and alcohol advertising on radio and television?
2.	How much money was spent on such advertising in each of the past five years by the government?
3.	If the government does not regulate such advertising, does it intend to do so, and if not, for what reasons?
4.	Has the CRTC studied, is it studying, or will it study the possibility of banning alcohol and beer advertising and, if not, for what reasons?
5.	Does the government intend to issue directives in this respect?
6.	How many (a) automobile accidents (b) deaths, have occurred in each of the past five years in which alcohol was involved?
7.	What is the established percentage of mental patients in hospitals, psychiatric wards, and medical and surgical wards whose presence there is related to alcohol?
8.	What is the estimated percentage of arrests caused by alcohol?
9.	What is the federal expenditure on promotion of alcohol and beer?
Return tabled.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-PURCHASE OF STEP VANS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	(a) How many new step vans have been purchased by the Post Office Department (b) where and in what numbers are these vans located?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded and what were the competing bids?
3.	Was there consultation with (a) the Postal Union (b) the Letter Carriers Union before the decision was taken to purchase the vehicles and, if so (i) on what date did the consultations take place (ii) with whom (iii) did the unions approve of the decision?
4.	Have there been any complaints about the vehicles and, if so (a) what is the nature of the complaints (b) from what source did they originate?
Return tabled.
[Mr. Richardson.)



GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Marshall: 1.	What jobs will be available in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in connection with the Gros Morne National Park?
2.	What are the necessary qualifications for each of the jobs?
3.	Has consultation with the Department of Manpower and Immigration taken place with regard to the provision of manpower retraining courses for applicants for the jobs and, if so, what action has been taken?
4.	Has consultation taken place between the federal and provincial governments to ensure that residents of the area will be given every opportunity to acquire these jobs and, if so, what action has been taken?
5.	Will the jobs available under federal jurisdiction be subject to Public Service Regulations?
6.	Will the jobs available be subject to language requirements under the Official Languages Act?
7.	Will concessions in the park be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, how will they be advertised?
8.	What are the conditions which applicants for concessions in the park will have to fulfil?
9.	Will service by concessionnaires have to be provided under the terms of the Official Languages Act and, if so, what are these terms?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully refer the parliamentary secretary to order paper questions Nos. 2,271 to 2,280 inclusive which ask for the names of lawyers on the list maintained by the government of those selected and approved to do government legal work. I first asked for this information by order paper questions about five months ago in early April, and when the requested information was not forthcoming in the answers I again sought the information by means of the order paper questions to which I draw attention today because they have remained on the order paper unanswered for almost three months.
This is the third or fourth time I have risen on a similar point of order and asked for some indication from the parliamentary secretary of when answers will be forthcoming. I have been given no valid reason so far why this information has not been furnished. I conclude by saying that surely the parliamentary secretary must be by now in a position to indicate to the House when these answers will be given. Anything else can only indicate questionable skeletons in the government's pork barrel legal closet.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to starred question No. 2,346 which has been on the order paper in my name since June 21, 2Vz months ago. It asks for the names and lines of responsibility of any staff that might be accountable to the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism, if indeed he has any staff.
September 10, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
(English]

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister dealing with the combines investigation going on in Montreal as a result ot the 2'A cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to advise the House whether the government is requesting a roll-back in the 2'A cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline by the 500 Montreal service stations and, if so, will a statement be made in this regard in the very near future?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that as a result of an apparently collective decision by the retailers in the Montreal area there has been an increase, or proposed increase, at the retail level. As I indicated to the House last week, we do not have jurisdiction to control prices at the retail level, but jurisdiction does exist, of course, against any collusive arrangements resulting in any unreasonable or unjustified increases in price. It is on the basis of the Combines Investigation Act that action has been taken. The Combines Investigation Act does not include the power to roll prices back without due judicial proceedings.


ALLEGED ORDER TO GULF STATIONS IN WINNIPEG TO INCREASE GASOLINE PRICES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, let me go to another area, seeing that the government is prepared to allow things to stay as they are. Can the minister advise me whether he is aware of the fact that in Winnipeg non-independent Gulf stations were ordered to increase gasoline prices by as much as four cents per gallon? Has the minister contacted Gulf in this regard and has he requested Gulf to roll back that increase?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch with Gulf this morning and was advised that the Canadian Press report was not a factual report.


REPRESENTATIONS BY GOVERNMENT TO OIL COMPANIES AGAINST RETAIL GASOLINE PRICE INCREASES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary is this: In view of the concern that has been registered by everyone with respect to the increases by retailers, has the government made any direct representations to the major oil companies about holding the line on retail gasoline prices? If so, what has been their response?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, given the structure of the industry and the fact that in a very substantial number of cases the retail level is determined by independent operators, the companies have taken the position that while they can have some control upstream, if you like, from the retail level, they cannot control the retail level itself, as, indeed, I pointed out to the House last week.


GASOLINE PRICE INCREASES-POSSIBILITY OF WIDER POWERS FOR PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the increases in gasoline prices proposed in western and eastern Canada, is the minister considering giving wider powers to the Prices Review Board in order that gasoline may be investigated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the report that the hon. member for Hamilton West referred to respecting western Canada apparently is not an accurate report. With regard to the Montreal situation, a combines inquiry is in process. As to whether the powers of the board would be increased, I would have to take that under advisement. That, of course, would not be my decision.


OIL-REQUESTED ABOLITION OF OTTAWA VALLEY LINE PENDING POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary further to the question of oil and the proposed pipeline to eastern Canada. Pending the decision on the construction of an oil pipeline to Montreal, is the government prepared to remove the Ottawa Valley line and permit the movement of western Canadian oil or offshore oil by truck and boat past the Ottawa Valley so that real competition ensues and the consumer benefits from lower prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that the direction of lower prices has been reversed from east to west to west to east and, in fact, over one million barrels of crude moved last week from the Ontario region into the Montreal refinery market.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIPELINE FROM TORONTO TO MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION IN LIGHT OF OPPOSITION BY QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. As Premier Bourassa is now opposed to the building of a pipeline from Toronto to Montreal, has the government now withdrawn the idea of constructing that pipeline as announced last week by the Prime Minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be seeing representatives of the Quebec government this week, as, indeed, I will be seeing representatives of the Alberta government,

September 10, 1973
Oral Questions
for the purpose of discussing this matter. The basic position I have taken with the Quebec government is that if they can provide absolute assurance as to security and price in the Montreal market we will indeed reconsider the decision.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As the premier has stated openly and frankly that he is opposed to the building of the pipeline, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there was any thought of consultation and was there any consultation between the government and the province of Quebec before the announcement was made, and has that project now been withdrawn, as the national media have told the Canadian people?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there were indeed consultations with Quebec officials, although not with Premier Bourassa, last July as a result of the energy analysis in which the security situation in the Montreal market and the Montreal pipeline were discussed. As I have indicated, the project remains the only really viable way of protecting the Montreal market unless the Quebec government can show absolutely that it will be protected by international contract. We will wait to see that.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister on the same subject. He may see fit to answer it instead of leaving it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was the Prime Minister who made the statement last Tuesday. As I read the statement and listened to him, he made a firm statement that the oil pipeline will be extended to Montreal. Is that still the policy of the government or has there been any change in policy since last Tuesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer I would give would be exactly the same as that just given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, either in a brief reply now or in a statement on motions, to inform the House exactly when consultations with the Quebec government took place before last Tuesday, what was the nature of those consultations, and what was the nature of any agreement, if an agreement was reached?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I referred to that in a previous answer. There were discussions on the subject in July. I think it is fair to say the position of the Quebec government is consistent with its present position, namely, that it was opposed to an extension into Montreal. We felt there was not sufficient evidence that Montreal could be protected in the position they have shown. I think it is also fair to say they have taken that position publicly since then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on the last supplementary for the moment in any event so it can recognize the hon. member for Champlain . ..
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).)
[ Translation]
. . . and complete the first round of questions. We will then return to this matter if hon. members want to do so. For the moment, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) can ask his second supplementary question.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is for either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the Quebec government made it clear in July that it was opposed to the idea of a pipeline to Montreal, and in view of the statement by the Prime Minister that the federal government intended to build one, what change has there been in the situation to justify the minister reneging on the statement made by the Prime Minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the statement made the other day was subject to discussions with the province and with industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As we pointed out, the purpose of building a pipeline would be to protect the Montreal market in relation to security and cost. If they can achieve that by international agreement, I would agree that the concept should again be reviewed. However, at the moment they have shown us no evidence whatsoever that they can protect their position, both from a security and cost standpoint, in light of international events.
[ Translation]


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- DISCUSSION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Prime Minister a specific question arising from those of the previous speakers.
Could he tell us whether he has met recently the Quebec premier or exchanged correspondence with him in connection with the federal project promoting the construction of a pipeline to carry western oil to Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just indicated to the House, the discussions were held between his employees and provincial officials.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- POSITION OF QUEBEC
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate to the House whether the Quebec government formally voiced its disagreement in connection with that policy announced last Tuesday by the Prime Minister?
September 10, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated that the Quebec government did so in July and again last week.
Oral Questions
of the economy to subsidize the total economy, which is what the hon. gentleman's proposals would mean?


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


DOMESTIC WHEAT-ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN PRICE TO WESTERN PRODUCERS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board arising from the statement he made over the weekend, one which has given rise once again to confusion among those engaged in the grain industry, particularly in western Canada. Could the minister explain the reasoning behind the additional 50-cent increase which he announced and which has been offered, really, to western producers to sweeten the pot?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would rephrase the question. When a member asks a minister to explain the reasoning behind a decision he is really asking him to make a statement on motions. Maybe that is what the hon. member wishes to do. On the other hand, it may be he wishes to put the question in other terms.


Jack Burnett Murta: I will rephrase my question. I should like to ask the minister why he considered it necessary to make this announcement concerning the additional 50-cent increase in Regina on the weekend and not in the House? To my knowledge, to this date he has never made a statement to the House.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I hope to take the opportunity of the debate on the subject matter which will shortly be before the House to make a more elaborate statement this afternoon. The exact levels in relation to an agreement on prices for domestic wheat were subject to further discussions with farm leaders as well as with the Wheat Board. Those discussions took place in Winnipeg and Regina on Friday.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will the proposed ceiling and floor the minister has talked about be in effect for the seven years he has mentioned in the House? Further, will the measures he proposes be brought in by way of legislation and, if so, when will such legislation be brought down?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would wish to discuss the matter further with my colleagues, particularly with the President of the Privy Council, in connection with the precise timing, but I believe a portion, at least, of the stated policy should be established by legislative enactment. I would hope we might find a relatively early period in the somewhat full parliamentary schedule when this could be done.


Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to ask one further supplementary arising from the events of the past few days. Why does the government consider it necessary for one segment


WHEAT-REQUEST THAT INITIAL PAYMENT BE INCREASED IN LIGHT OF HIGHER DOMESTIC AND EXPORT PRICES
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since the hon. gentleman has announced a higher price for domestically used wheat, and since the price on the international market is better than it has been, will he consider increasing the initial payment to farmers on wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board will, no doubt, be considering its over-all policy throughout the year with regard to the interim payments at least, even if it might not be appropriate to change the initial payment at this stage.


DURUM WHEAT-ASSURANCE THAT BENEFITS OF SUBSIDY WILL BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS OF PRODUCTS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to his policy concerning the pricing of Durum wheat, a policy which means that at present prices the producers wll be subsidizing the domestic market to the tune of three or four dollars a bushel. Has the minister held discussions with the processors and manufacturers of pasta and other products of Durum, and has he received definite assurances from them that the benefits of subsidy will be passed on to the consumer?


Otto Emil Lang: I did not enter into discussions directly with those manufacturers. The over-all pricing practices certainly relate the prices of these products to the price being charged for wheat. I might add that I take issue with the hon. member's suggestion that there is something in the order of a $3 differential. The actual differential from the world selling price is certainly significantly less than that figure. Of course, in neither case is it a subsidy by the producers involved because what the producers are getting is a firm seven-year assurance as to the floor, which seems to me to be extremely good business for them in return for some limit at the ceiling now when prices are at record level.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offend the rules of the House by entering into a debate, but I respectfully suggest that the actions of the minister come close to causing me to do so in that he has refused to make a statement to the House as to policy. As a final supplementary I would ask the minister when the government is going to be able to assure the House that in protecting the interests of the consumer it is not merely tying the producer down to a price that will assure excess profits for the manufacturers and processors of Durum wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.

September 10, 1973
Oral Questions


DOMESTIC WHEAT-SUBSIDY TO MILLERS-EFFECT ON WESTERN FARMERS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, since the House has had a variety of explanations from the minister concerning this matter I should like to find out whether or not this is the final one. Three weeks ago it was stated that there was a reduction in the subsidy to millers from $1.04 a bushel to $1. The next step was an increase from $1 to $1.25 and then it went up to $1.75. Now we have a revised version, not given in parliament but in Regina or Winnipeg. Would the minister say whether or not under this latest plan the farmers of western Canada will actually be subsidizing consumers to the extent of 72 cents a bushel?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the latest world price for wheat that I know of is $5.62 a bushel, so there is no relationship between the hon. member's figure and any other. The policy of the government has been to try to work toward orderly marketing of both domestic and international grain. I know that at least some of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman would agree that if we could get a $3.25 to $5 international grains arrangement we would be doing very well indeed and the producers would be very happy with that. The government has introduced this form of price level for a seven-year period for domestic wheat, that 10 per cent or so over which we have some control. At the same time, because of the rapid recent rise in prices and the importance of bread in the diet, we have introduced a consumer subsidy which will be in the order of about $100 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the simplicity of the question required a simple answer. Is it not a fact that under the revised scheme, which is a revision of a revision of a revision, the western farmer will be taken for a ride to the extent of subsidizing every bushel of wheat used in Canada for flour to the tune of 72 cents?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; the right hon. gentleman is entirely incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. gentleman and then I would hope to recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong I want to be corrected, but I want the truth, not the antithesis of the truth. What is the reduction in amount that each and every farmer will receive per bushel for wheat consumed in Canada under the revised version that has now been produced? I want to know how many cents per bushel. Is that too difficult?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the right hon. gentleman that the floor of $3.25 is about $1.25 higher than the best average price ever received for wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Nielsen:: Answer the question.


Otto Emil Lang: This will offer very significant protection to producers, to such an extent that the Canadian Wheat Board has preferred this protection for seven years rather than five.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement of the minister is completely misleading.


CANADIAN COASTGUARD
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that negotiations between the Canadian Coastguard College and St. Francis Xavier University over the past two years have led to approval in principle of the establishment of a degree in navigational science, is the minister reconsidering the transfer of the Coastguard College academic programs from Cape Breton?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have different proposals before us which we are studying now, but in none of those proposals will the Coastguard College at Sydney be degraded in one way or another in terms of numbers or quality of teaching.


Robert Muir: This is an old song up to the present time, but time will tell. Has the minister indicated when he will be available to meet the delegation from Cape Breton on the retention and expansion of the Coastguard College on Cape Breton Island and, if so, on what date will such meeting take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly to the question. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys will, I am sure, appreciate that the question is hardly in order but, the question having been asked, the minister should be given an opportunity to reply.


Jean Marchand: I will check my agenda and tell the hon. member tomorrow.


Robert Muir: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister will not hear the hon. member, I will listen to him.
September 10, 1973

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether the enactment of Bill C-133 has benefited Canadians? Could he indicate at the same time if Quebec municipalities have been provided with information on how to take advantage of that new legislation?
[ English]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part is yes. There have been consultations and discussions with the Quebec Housing Corporation and we trust through them with the municipalities involved. Also, there is a distribution of material on the amendments to the National Housing Act in Bill C-133 that is available and has been sent to municipal leaders, housing group leaders and others. The extent they have been taken advantage of would depend on the particular program involved. As the Prime Minister has indicated, at this point we are disappointed at the reaction we have had from the provinces to the land assembly provisions. On the other hand, we are anxious that the assisted home ownership provisions be used as widely as possible, not only in Quebec.


CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS-POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES BY DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the minister indicate whether the municipalities which will benefit from that new legislation will be entitled to assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the implementation of those community programs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, municipalities can take advantage of the land assembly provisions, the neighbourhood improvement provisions, the repair and rehabilitation provisions. I hope that municipal leaders, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada, will take notice of these provisions and use them as effectively as they can.


OIL-PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-ACCESS TO QUEBEC MARKET FOR OIL DISCOVERED OFF ATLANTIC COAST
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has said he will review the position with regard to a pipeline to Montreal if the
Oral Questions
government of Quebec can negotiate an assured supply of crude oil for the Quebec market. In this policy of the minister's what provision is there for access to the Quebec market for any oil discovered off the Atlantic coast?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the best assurances we could have, in view of the problem of insecurity in eastern Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not my question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -would be to discover a substantial supply of economic oil off the east coast. Of course, until such a find is made this remains a hypothetical question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the insistence of the minister that the government of Quebec negotiate an assured supply, which presumably involves a firm contract over a significant period of time in the future, to avoid a pipeline, what provision is there in the minister's policy for any access to the Quebec market for oil discovered off the Atlantic coast?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As soon as there is any oil off the Atlantic coast worthy of any consideration we would, of course, make arrangements for that in the policy, but, as the hon. member knows, at the moment there is no commercial find there that can be exploited and we do not know how many years away we are from such a find.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one other supplementary question. What assurance is the government prepared to give to any company that would build a pipeline from Toronto to Montreal with regard to continued access to half the Quebec market? What is there in the present policy of the government to assure the pipeline builder of half the market regardless of what oil may be discovered off the Atlantic coast?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is a range of assurances that could be given and it is a matter of negotiation. Among others, there is the requirement that a specific degree of throughput be refined there. The exact terms would be a matter of negotiation between the government and whatever consortium would happen to build the pipeline.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that there are to be increases in old age pensions and family allowances next month, and in view of the minister's statement that the government will treat veterans with fairness, may I ask if the minister is now in a position to indicate precisely what steps the government will take, having in mind in particular veterans who are on the war veterans allowance?

September 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As I indicated to the House last week, the government is in the process of taking the necessary steps, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister now in a position to state definitely whether it is proposed by order in council to raise the ceiling on permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act or whether there will be some other adjustment in the amount being paid to war veterans allowance recipients?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to announce government policy until it is government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister make an announcement in time so that any improvements for the war veterans can be effective in October, as they will be for the other groups to which I have already referred?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I hope to be able to make an announcement in sufficient time.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is reported that the Food Prices Review Board is sending out some 80 researchers today to gather the facts on rising food prices. Would the Prime Minister tell the House on what evidence or research the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board has been saying over the last month or so that there has not been any price gouging in food?
Right Hon P. E. Turdeau (Prime Minister): I will have to inquire, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, but the Chair has considerable doubt about the procedural acceptibility of the question. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Stan Darling: My question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. As a member of the Special Committee on Food Prices I listened for four hours last Thursday and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member should not forget that when I seek the floor the hon. member should give me an opportunity to indicate why I have risen. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question. Perhaps he should do so now.


Stan Darling: Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether any thorough or direct research on food prices has been done in the last several months by the board or by the department arid, if so, when can we expect this research to be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the department is researching into this kind of matter on a constant basis. So far as the board is concerned, I will have to inquire.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has been seeking the floor for some time to ask a supplementary. He will be recognized at this time.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- DISCUSSION WITH ALBERTA
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the question on the Montreal pipeline I asked last Tuesday. It is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that with respect to his answer of last Tuesday he has been caught out so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, has he had any discussion with the province of Alberta and approval by that province to make this policy work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am anticipating a meeting with the Alberta representatives this week. We have had discussions in general terms following the energy analysis and I have spoken to my counterpart on the telephone about it. We will be discussing it further this coming week.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister suggested to the provincial energy ministers that, before any more fluffs are made by these rapid announcements of the Prime Minister without being properly prepared by the minister, he would like to meet with them to try to get a basis for a national oil and gas policy established before any more goofs like this are made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, without
accepting the description of the hon. gentleman, I would say there has been very continuous consultation, particularly with Alberta, on these questions. I will look forward to seeing them again this week. I am not sure whether a general conference would be the best way to arrive at a co-ordinated policy.
September 10, 1973

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is related to Mrs. Plumptre's announcement, after the food prices committee met the other day, of research into food prices. In view of the fact the House has had no estimate given to it of the annual cost of the Food Prices Review Board, in view of the fact that it must have been a government decision to send out these researchers, and in view of the fact that Mrs. Plumptre announced that it is an expensive operation, can the Prime Minister tell the House today what the estimated cost of this latest research project of the Food Prices Review Board is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking the kind of information that is normally sought by a written question on the order paper.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the prosecution of railway workers now under way for disobeying a statute, will the government follow the same procedure under the same section of the Criminal Code and charge Tom Kent, the President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, under the same section of that act?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take that question as notice.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no need for the minister to take the question as notice. He already has the documentary proof in his hands provided by Mr. Kent himself as late as June of this year. The minister of Regional Economic Expansion knows all about it and the Minister of Transport is also aware that the legislation has not been carried out as passed by the House in 1967. Two committees of parliament have supported my contention in this regard. I will lay charges against Tom Kent if the government has the guts to do to Tom Kent what it is doing to the railway workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and then the hon. member for Charlevoix.


BEEF-POSSIBLE TERMINATION OF EXPORT CONTROLS IN LIGHT OF LIFTING OF PRICE CONTROL BY PRESIDENT NIXON
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the President of the United States has lifted price controls on beef, is the Prime Minister considering terminating the controls on the export of Canadian beef to the United States at this time or within the next couple of days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have this under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture intimated in the House that as soon as price controls in the United States were lifted export controls in this country would be terminated, will the Prime Minister be making an announcement this week so that Canadian producers will not suffer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is exactly the matter I said was under consideration.

[ Transla tion]


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- EFFECTS ON PROPOSED SUPERTANKER PORT AND PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the answers concerning the construction of a pipeline for the province of Quebec seem much more unspecific and hesitant today than last week, is the right hon. Prime Minister aware that the representations made by Quebec are mostly due to the fact that the political program of the Quebec Liberal party was in fact based on the construction of a superport for tankers and the development of the petrochemical industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that we are going back on what we said previously. If the hon. member will just look at my statement in last week's Hansard, he will note that at the very beginning of my announcement concerning the pipeline, I said that the government would soon need to have consultations about this matter with representatives from the provinces and the industry.

September 10, 1973
Oral Questions


SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN ON VANCOUVER ISLAND-EMERGENCY PLANS IN LIGHT OF CONTINUING STRIKE BY SOME RAILWAY WORKERS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the continuing rail strike in British Columbia, has the government any emergency plans to get feed grain to Vancouver Island to solve the very serious problems of the poultry and dairy industry in that area?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, the only hold-out situation is in the city of Vancouver proper and certainly not in British Columbia generally by any means. Prince Rupert is open, and I am hopeful that by the time this day is over the situation in Vancouver may be clarified. In that sense the hon. member's question may, hopefully, be premature.


SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN ON VANCOUVER ISLAND-REQUEST THAT EXPORT SUPPLIES BE MADE AVAILABLE AT DOMESTIC PRICES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact there is already feed grain on Vancouver Island meant for export, will the minister give the Wheat Board a directive to sell this feed grain already on Vancouver Island at domestic prices instead of export prices in order to solve the very serious problem of the poultry and dairy industries?


Otto Emil Lang: I will not purport to give the Canadian Wheat Board such a directive. It has already on its own initiative been making grain available which had been intended for export and holding it where it seemed that it was needed for the domestic situation, but of course it has to protect the grain producers as well in terms of the prices it charges.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to a previous question. In view of the government's constant refusal even to consider the building of a Toronto-Montreal pipeline for several years and right up to the present time, is not the reason for the present change in policy solely to try to get NDP support for its non-policy in fighting inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since the veterans in my constituency are disturbed by persistent rumours that the veterans hospital in Victoria is to be transferred to provincial and regional authority, can the minister reassure the House and the veterans of Victoria that the views of the rank and file veterans and patients will be given first consideration before a final decision is made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that normally a question such as this should be on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment. If there is an answer which the minister can give quickly he will be recognized for that purpose.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that before any contract is signed with the municipality or otherwise that the guaranteeing of the veterans' well-being will be looked after.



HOUSING


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has the minister, following the increases in OAS and GIS payments, developed measures, either independently or in co-operation with the provinces, to contain and discourage rent increases in order to protect the recipients of these pensions from having their slight increases appropriated by landlords, which has happened often in the past? If so, will these measures be made public soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in respect of those properties owned by CMHC there has been a rent freeze in effect since early this year. In respect of those under the control of the provincial housing authorities, in which we bear part of the cost of any rental subsidy, most have been under a freeze for quite some time. Having regard to those that are privately owned, of course we have no direct authority over them and any control would rest with the provinces.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN FINANCING OF STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would he advise the House whether his inquiry into alleged irregularities in respect of the financing of student
September 10, 1973

co-operative housing is complete and, if so, is he now in a position to make the results available to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I expect to receive that report this month.



TREFANN COURT URBAN RENEWAL, TORONTO-SCOPE OF GRANT FOR SECOND PHASE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the announcement of a $2.1 million grant toward the second phase of the Trefann Court urban renewal eliminate the rehabilitation of existing housing as alleged, and did the approval include all or any part of the financing applied for by Trefann Court Homes Corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the latter part of the question is no. The Trefann Court Homes Corporation application for, I think it is some 16 units of housing, is a separate application, and approval of phase two has relation to urban renewal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would bring to the attention of hon. members that we have gone beyond the time allocated for questions. I had hoped to recognize two or three more questioners before moving to orders of the day, but if hon. members have many supplementaries I will have to call orders of the day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is really part of my previous supplementary which I think the minister overlooked. I asked whether or not the terms of the phase two renewal program really make adequate provision for rehabilitation of existing housing or whether in fact the proposal put forward by the government eliminates that possibility, as has been alleged in Toronto?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, phase two which has been approved does so. There are discussions with the province of Ontario now under way as to the application of the newly approved neighbourhood improvement proposals in respect of the Trefann Court area, so that the rehabilitation sections, by which grants and loans of up to $5,000 can be made, would apply in the Trefann Court area under the newly passed legislation. It is that course I hope will be pursued. I will be meeting with the Trefann Court people this evening, I believe, to discuss the possible application of these provisions to that area.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon, following which, as I am sure hon. members would be anxious to proceed with the motion to be discussed today, I will call orders of the day.
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS



APPROPRIATION BY UNITED STATES OF FUNDS FOR PAVING HAINES-HAINES JUNCTION LINK AND ALASKA HIGHWAY TO TERMINATION IN CANADA

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would ask whether he is aware of any legislation which has been passed by the Senate of the United States to appropriate some $58 million for paving of the road link between Haines in the State of Alaska and Haines Junction in Canada and on up from Haines Junction to the termination of the Alaska highway in Canada? If he does have such knowledge, will he tell the House whether the Canadian government is now negotiating or intends to negotiate with the government of the United States in respect of the expenditure of these funds on the construction to be undertaken on these highways?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the steps undertaken by Congress but, according to the reports I have been given, the position of the United States is not yet final; as soon as that country is willing to negotiate with Canada in this regard, we will be happy to discuss the matter with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Generally speaking, when questions are asked in the House about wheat and the production of wheat they are asked on behalf of the three prairie provinces where, as we know, there is a great deal of wheat produced. Many of us also know that there is a great deal of wheat produced in the province of Ontario which has an Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. I would like to solicit an answer from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to my question which I direct to this minister as the Minister of Agriculture is absent today. Does the same offer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I will be finished in a minute, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly indicate his point of order? The hon. member is now doing what hon. members try to do from time to time. After the question period hon. members rise on so-called points of order for the purpose of asking questions they would like to have asked during the question period. I appreciate that the hon. member for Huron feels he should ask an important question, but the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth and other hon. members who were anxious to ask questions are in exactly the same position. I regret very much that the hon. member is in that position, but I suggest to him that this is not a point of order. If he will indicate what his point of order is I will make a ruling.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I would simply like to find out, and if I have to rise on points of order in order to stand and speak for the Ontario wheat producers I intend to do so, whether

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
Ontario producers are to receive the same offer, and has a deal been made with the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board?


Mr. Speaker:: I will make my ruling that this is not a point of order and call orders of the day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister said "yes". He nodded his head.;


Mr. Bell:: Let the record show that the minister said "yes".



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House has no confidence in the adequacy of government measures to deal with the cost of living as such measures were announced to the House by the Prime Minister on September 4th, 1973.
He said: Mr. Speaker, within minutes of notice of this motion being presented on Friday, we all learned that today was not destined to be an exactly suspenseful day because of the Leader of the NDP indicated his party would continue to support the government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Notwithstanding the non-shock of that information, I trust that our motion will provoke a stimulating day, and I am confident that such continued enlightenment will lead us shortly either to renewed suspense or the necessity of a formal coalition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to hear the comments the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will make later in the day. If he is logical and maintains his most recent attitude, he could easily support our motion. Naturally, I do not expect him to do so but, in default of being enlightened, we may perhaps be amused by new acrobatic feats, turn-abouts, contorsions and pirouettes.
Just over a month ago, the minister called the press to explain that he had erred once again, this time in predicting the amount of tax income and, consequently, the deficit. The good news, on that occasion, was that, thanks to his errors in calculations, he would have less to borrow to make up the deficit and, as a result, this would have a salutary effect on rates of interest and inflation. In addition, he informed the press that he had asked his colleagues to put a brake on their departmental expenditures, that being the best way of fighting inflation. The impres-

sion was, Mr. Speaker, that his colleagues would treat his recommendation exactly as they have his previous ones. [English]
The minister maintained his average of being partly right and mostly wrong most of the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then, he left for what I am sure was a well-deserved rest and recuperation shortly after, leaving behind him a deficit reduced by some $500 million in expenditures as a result of increased tax revenues and leaving the government in what he called "the right posture", which was that of exercising restraint in government expenditures. Alas, the minister hardly had time to get out of his clothes and into his bathing suit when his policy became unstuck. As a result of an unrelenting and highly visible increase in consumer prices, and as a result of highly vocal public protest, the minister's colleagues in Ottawa abandoned the minister's posture and rejected his advice. From then until now, the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) seemingly have passed from his hands to those of his master economist, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We all recall how he conquered inflation for one day only a few years ago.
Of course, in tandem with the Prime Minister is that father of organic union, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). It is doubtful that the advice and the person of the Minister of Finance would have been abandoned were it not for the fact that it was becoming very clear that parliament would have to be summoned to resolve still another crisis of mismanagement. Otherwise, there would have been no hurry. But because of the rail strike and the need to call parliament, there was not only the need to do something, there was a need to do something in a hurry. As a result we got that makeshift, hodgepodge of measures proclaimed by the Prime Minister last Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The subsidy on wheat for domestic milling, having been reduced in July, was raised by the Prime Minister and I understand has been changed several times since then. Increases in family allowances promised for the future were brought into effect rather quickly and the quarterly adjustments to old age pensions, which were said to be impossible to implement by the minister concerned, were in fact brought into effect. Never mind that the measure with respect to wheat and bread prices would, it was said less than a month ago, create a frenzy of speculation and fluctuation in grain markets.
The prize-winning reversal by the Prime Minister last Tuesday was the announced intention to carry western crude into Montreal through western pipelines extended from Toronto. What this government had determined not to do, that is not to build that pipeline,-on Tuesday they determined to do-perhaps. But, it would be a very foolish man who would invest in any decision by this government in the belief that such a decision would last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 10, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Obviously, any decision of this government has approximately the same life span as a gnat. But whether this policy stays or goes, or whether it is repudiated and returned again in the days and weeks ahead, that particular decision does stand as a permanent monument to this government's bogglement in reacting to the present crisis on the one hand, and to this government's contempt for the rightful interest of the provinces on the other hand. Because of this government's previous opposition to such a proposal to build a pipeline to Montreal, this latest turnabout caused alarm and resentment in many other provinces. There was no previous consultation, despite what they may suggest, which indicates not only this government's indifference and disdain for the interests of the provinces, as I have said, but it also indicates that this decision was made, as has become the custom of those gentlemen opposite, off-the-cuff and in an atmosphere of political expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We certainly need a national energy policy in this country, but the reason for this new energy policy escapes me, unless it was indeed for some political reason related to the government's very keen self-interest in survival. Surely, Sir, this reversal in decision could have been the subject of consultation with the provinces. But this reversal and this decision does tell us what many of us have already suspected, that the recent government conference with the western provinces was meant simply as a short-term public relations measure. If anything could have been learned from that conference, even by those as slow to grasp matters as members of this government, the lesson was that the western provinces would expect, as a matter of right, to be associated with and partners in the making of decisions on national policy where those decisions had a direct bearing on the affairs of those provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Gall is not exactly a polite word, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been able to think of a better one. I have long been impressed by the gall of some of those opposite on the front benches. But I thought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) exceeded himself recently, and that is saying something, with his statement that the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had failed to consult the federal government adequately with respect to their own oil refinery projects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as Newfoundland is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the federal government presence there has been constant.
In the case of Nova Scotia, the federal government has shown itself to be a determined partner in its development.
As for Quebec, the projects of that province have been discussed openly for months. Therefore, this accusation of inadequate consultation would rather turn itself back against the minister himself and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who have given Quebec a half hour's notice of
Cost of Living
the reversal and change of the federal energy policy, and as far as we know, have not advised at all either Alberta or the other provinces concerned.
[ English]
But the country ought not to be distracted by this spectacular example of federalism by fiat. We ought to observe the massive, total arrogance but above all we must continue to focus upon the substantive issue. What has all this reaction by this government accomplished?


An hon. Member:: Zero.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, just consider what the Prime Minister did not say last Tuesday. He did not observe that the country is to endure another round of wage increases, work stoppages and strikes and increased pressure on costs and prices. No one could disparage the efforts of those who have the bargaining power to do so for making an effort to keep afloat on this rising tide of uncontrolled inflation. No one could blame anyone for taking whatever refuge he can from an uncontrolled and unchecked period of rising prices and a gutless government determined only to ride out the storm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But there are those in Canada who have no powerful trade union or trade association, who have no levers to pull, who have no means of adjusting their incomes to meet the demands of increased prices and rates of interest. They are the great majority of working Canadians and their families.
Mr. Speaker, this government is not kept here by public-confidence; they are not maintained in office by faith and trust in their policies. They are not kept here because events have proven them right in their judgment and in their management of the country's affairs. They are kept here, Sir, for the political convenience of a group of members in this House. As long as they are here, the members of this government will keep improvising policies of political convenience. And the real losers, Sir,-


An hon. Member:: Are the Conservatives.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The real losers are not the members of my party who may lose motions of confidence from time to time. The real losers are the Canadian people of ordinary means, because the ordinary Canadian cannot ride things out, Sir. This is a tragic situation, all the more tragic because there is an alternative.
I have spoken many times on the serious and dangerous growth of inflationary psychology in Canada. Nothing fuels and feeds such a psychology so much as the posture of a government that nothing can be done or, on the basis of recent events, that very little can be done. Our fundamental concern from the outset has related to the danger of inflationary psychology taking deep hold and spreading rapidly throughout the country. This, Sir, is not simply an economic condition that can be approached with computers, slide rules and mathematical equations. Inflationary psychology is a social problem. I hesitate to call it a social disease, because that term has another generally accepted

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
meaning. However, in a very real sense inflationary psychology behaves like a disease.
When you are faced with an epidemic of a contagious disease, you do not just fiddle around with selective innoculation. Certainly, you give treatment to those already hit by the effects of the disease, and we have recommended support measures to do this. We continue to support these. But you must also make a massive public assault on halting the spread of the disease. Nobody likes to be given needles. I know that and have always conceded that a great deal of public support would be necessary for the implementation of a comprehensive program of price and income restraints. As the danger of inflation psychology mounts, however, I believe that more and more Canadians are now in a frame of mind to give that support and receive the needle, and join in a program to restore the economic health of this country. Initiating such a program is something that the government has not done and shows no intention of doing.
Sir, why are so many industrialized countries resorting to programs of price and income restraint. Why have they been doing so for some time with varying degrees of success? Why are they doing so if traditional trade-off and counter-cyclical approaches to economic policy are still appropriate and, above all, still sufficient? Surely, these other countries have adopted these programs in an endeavour to achieve at least some stability in their economies. They recognize that the traditional approaches have given us the boom-bust cycle over and over again, with each boom bringing worse inflation than the one previous and each bust bringing worse unemployment. In boom times, what good is a five-figure salary when it is eroded by two-figure inflation. And that is where we are rapidly moving today, Sir, to a two-figure inflation.


Erik Nielsen: I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is nearly asleep. He is bored.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are not looking too lively yourself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are into another spiral now in Canada. What has been the government's response in 1973, as it remains locked into this traditional approach? The government's response has been to increase taxes on those companies producing food, on those companies transporting food and on those companies selling food. This, of course, increases the price to anybody buying food. The government's response has been to push mortgage rates on homes to over 10 per cent. You look at that kind of policy and conclude that we could well change the title of the Minister of Finance to minister of flat earth and other absurdities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How can anybody seriously consider the policies of our Minister of Finance and say to all those other countries, "You are all out of step but our John."
Now, we have the International Monetary Fund, in its annual report released yesterday, urging nations who are cooling off their economies through the use of their federal budgets and control of money and credit to supplement these anti-inflation tools with price and income controls. I wish to take a minute to read from their report.

After emphasizing the difficulties of controlling inflation, at page 6 the report reads:
-In any case there seems to be a growing belief that the task of dealing effectively with inflation will require national governments to use a wide range of policy instruments-to buttress fiscal and monetary policies with other policy measures, such as incomes (including prices) policy, regional policies, manpower policies, and the like, depending on the particular circumstances. Such a viewpoint reflects (a) the disappointing experience that many countries had in relying solely on fiscal and monetary policies to handle the problem of inflation in the past several years and (b) an increasing recognition that the problem may stem, at least in part, from specific features of the economic structure or economic process not clearly related to the level of aggregate demand. Many countries have in particular been making use of incomes policy as a supplement to the instruments of demand management; this seems generally sensible and appropriate since it provides a possible way for countries to achieve a better reconciliation of their aims with respect to resource utilization and price stability than otherwise would be realized.
I believe that our Minister of Finance was going to attend a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in order to provide some leadership.
The fund report then goes on to say, and it is nice to see a factual appraisal of this for a change, that the United States decision to drop mandatory controls too early in the game was a mistake. I have expressed the same opinion for some months and indicated that we could learn something from the United States experience.
The slogan mongers who are in the apology business have invented a phrase about "the disastrous U.S. experience". They have vigorously peddled this questionable gem as a rationale for inaction. The principle seems to be: If your argument is to throw out the baby with the bath water, then it is certainly better not to bathe the baby at all.
Sir, there are some who honestly do not understand what we have been proposing and there are others who have chosen not to understand what we have been proposing. There are some, even, who have chosen to misrepresent what we have been saying.


An hon. Member:: Are you listening, little David?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will take a few moments to review the essence of our approach
First, let there be no misunderstanding. We have never represented a so-called freeze as the be-all and end-all, no more than a dentist would represent the freezing of a tooth as the treatment. Those who suggest we are presenting a freeze as a policy to combat inflation are misrepresenting our position.
Our position is to put into place an economic stabilization plan incorporating for a temporary period strict mandatory controls of prices and incomes. The time we envisage for such strict temporary controls is in the order of 18 months to two years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Including food.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) finally woke up. If he wants advice on this subject, I
September 10, 1973

will be glad to give it to him. However, I have very little time and I would like to finish.
In order to put such a program into effect, a short-term freeze on prices and all forms of income is needed at the outset. This is a period for consultation, for setting the range and limits for the controls period and for putting the necessary monitoring and enforcement agencies into place. It is a preparation and stage-setting period. The freeze period should be as short as possible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Except at the farm.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I always made it clear that we do not include the price at the farm.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to find members opposite are now listening to us. Perhaps they will now look at what we have been saying. We have talked about 90 days because we feel that must be the maximum time taken in this preparatory stage.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Except at the farm.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We would certainly want to see it as short as 30 days if that could be done, but we have used 90 days as an outside figure, one which we believe could be fulfilled.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Except on food prices.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Except, as I have always said, food at the farm gate. The Prime Minister w'ould know that if he paid attention to what I say. I am on a strictly limited time. I wish to emphasize that we have never put our position forward as any kind of a magic wand, any more than the international monetary fund put it forward as a magic wand. We have never said it would completely halt inflation and we have never denied the international aspects of the problem. We simply say that a comprehensive program is the fairest, would command support and would do better in the long run than ad hoc policies of relief patched onto a traditional approach of tight money and economic slowdown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Our program envisages, and indeed presumes, judiciously balanced monetary and fiscal policies. It presumes exemplary self-restraint on the part of the government and governments generally in relation to their own spending and aggrandizement.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: How about the $4 billion deficit?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is nice to see the Minister of Finance awake. I hope he is going to defend his budget today because he presented it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Our approach presumes additional measures to increase the supply and availability of goods and services that are in tight demand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Like we have done.
Cost of Living


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker, not like they have done.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let's hear about it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It presumes other actions to take the heat off wage and salary earners, particularly those on low income, so they can escape the vicious circle of trying to keep up with inflation. Steps to take this heat off have always included my plan for the indexing of the personal income tax system, a plan that will be proclaimed into law any day now, thanks to the conversion of the Minister of Finance following a not too successful election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the same vein, removal of the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials would take some of the edge off the soaring cost of housing. Removal of the federal sales tax from all clothing, not just children's clothing, would also be a positive contribution to easing the inflationary pressures bearing down on wage and salary earners. A comprehensive initiative of this nature would go a long way toward cooling off the inflationary psychology that is on the rise in this country today.
Our plan does not require a massive new bureaucracy. Surely, most of the talents and resources that would be needed are already present in the federal public service. There is the Department of National Revenue and its local administrative and auditing staff, the Department of Agriculture's resources and experts, the skills and expertise within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, at least I assume they are there, and the analysis and computers in the Department of Finance. All that is missing is the will and determination to marshal these talents and resources in order to deal with this matter of very urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What the government offered through the Prime Minister's announcement last week was not a policy. It is a mutation of obsolete and discredited approaches to inflation, a mutation based on expediency and survival. It is a tactic, not a policy. It is a ruse rather than a plan. Therefore, since my time is up, I take pleasure in moving:
That this House has no confidence in the adequacy of government measures to deal with the cost of living as such measures were announced to the House by the Prime Minister on September 4, 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) he should not have felt constrained by time. Because of the importance of the subject matter, he was entitled to all the time he could muster in the House. If he ran out of energy and impetus, I can understand it, but the House would certainly have been willing to let him continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
6380

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living


John Napier Turner: When the question was put to me by the hon. gentleman last week, I made it very clear that I very much welcome the opportunity, as I am sure the House does, to take part in a debate involving the state of our economy and the particular problem of inflation that confronts us.
May I say at the outset that I find it rather interesting, ironically, that the Conservative party should be condemning the adequacy of the new measures announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week to help deal with the problem of inflation, and at the same time supporting each and every measure as it comes in turn before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: From the tenor of the hon. gentleman's speech this afternoon, it should be apparent that what the debate is all about at this stage is price and wage controls because that is clearly what the Conservative party has in mind for the country when it calls, as did the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday, and today, for a comprehensive assault on inflation. I believe the new measures announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) further extend and reinforce the major thrust of the past two budgets. Those budgets were aimed at moderating the impact of the rising cost of living on the Canadian people, tackling the basic issue of inflation by increasing supply and at the same time stimulating strong and balanced growth of national output, of jobs, and of the real income of Canadians.
Because of the nature of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, I want to deal with the conta-geous problem of inflation, one which continues to be of great concern not only to those of us who live in Canada but to the citizens of every other industrial country in the western world. It can only be considered, however, against the perspective of the developing economic picture both here and abroad. Looking at the Canadian economy, first, in terms of national output, I think we are entitled to put before the House the fact that over the course of the past nine months the Canadian economy has grown at close to a record rate, in fact, at a rate which was obviously unsustainable. The moderation in the rate of the growth of national output during the second quarter of this year, as reported by Statistics Canada, last week better ensures continuing expansion in line with its long-term potential. Over the course of the first half of 1973 the economy has grown more quickly than at any time since 1966 with real national output expanding at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 9.2 per cent.
Let us turn, now, to the labour force. As a result of this rapid upsurge in economic growth, the number of new jobs created for Canadians during the first seven months of this year has increased by 411,000, a record rate of increase in employment and one which far surpasses that of any other industrial nation in the world. In July, the year-over-year rate of growth of employment in Canada was 31 per cent greater than in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l


John Napier Turner: The substantial
number of new job opportunities opened up as a result of sharp economic growth has also produced a record expansion in the size of the labour force, which in the first seven months of this year was up by 4.3 per cent as compared with the average in the same period a year ago. This rate of increase is almost 60 per cent above the average yearly rise between 1973 and 1975 projected by the Economic Council in its last annual review. The substantial expansion in employment has led to a sharp reduction in the number of Canadians without work. Indeed, in July the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment was down to 5.2 per cent and with respect to those without work seeking full-time jobs the rate was 4.8 per cent.

Obviously, unemployment at the level I just mentioned is still a subject of concern. However, to bring this problem down to fair proportions it should be recalled that today's unemployment rate would be appreciably lower without the extraordinarily high input of Canadians onto the labour market, input which far exceeds the rate which could be expected with the normal increase in the number of Canadians old enough to work.
It is to be hoped that the trend of the unemployment curve will be downward although monthly variations can be expected. Those variations are often caused partly by sharp and erratic changes in proportion to the movements of a mass of young people old enough to work and who join the labour market or leave it. We have had an example of this in July when for reasons still undetermined a substantial reduction in the proportion of young people from 14 to 24 belonging to the working population and the comparable reduction in the proportion of employed people occurred. In the statistics of the next few months some discrepancies may be expected due to the economic disruptions caused by the railway strikes combined with disputes within other major industries.
A shortage of certain categories of labour occurred in several regions of this country while the unemployment rate is still unsatisfactory in many low growth areas. A number of federal programs are still aimed at solving these chronic problems and mainly during the winter months. The government has already announced expenditure programs amounting to $100 million under a new local initiative program and a federal program providing for the employment of a large proportion of labour. Furthermore, $275 million are always available under the winter employment fund to help finance investment projects providing employment at the provincial and municipal levels.

I turn, now, to personal incomes, spending and savings. The strong growth of production and employment has brought about a substantial increase in the personal income received by Canadians and, in turn, a very large increase both in the amount of their spending on consumer goods and services and in the amount of their savings. By the second quarter of this year, personal disposable income, that is, the income available after payment of direct taxes, was up 13 per cent as compared with the level a year ago. Far more significant, however, is that the real increase in the income at the disposal of the average
September 10, 1973

Canadian to spend or save, the real increase, that is to say the amount available after taxes and after discounting the rate of inflation, was up by 6.7 per cent in the second quarter as compared with 1972, and over the whole of the first six months it was up by 6.2 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall:: The land is strong!


John Napier Turner: This very substantial increase is the result of a combination of factors: the significant reduction in personal income tax for which provision was made in the budget of last February, the large increase in the number of Canadians with well-paying jobs, and the growth of national productivity.
I recognize, of course, that not all Canadians have shared equally in this growth of national income. The measures before the House are aimed in particular at helping those who have not done as well because of the adverse impact of inflation. As I have said, one of the principal objects of the budget brought down in February was to help those who are not able to help themselves, either because they have left the work force, or because they are on welfare, or because they suffer from a disability over which they have no control, or for other reasons. It has consistently been the purpose of the government to minimize the effect of inflation in the lower and $ixed income groups, those who are least able to defend themselves against the erosion of their purchasing power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: However, in considering the economic situation generally, I believe I am entitled to put certain facts before the House for the consideration of hon. members, since it is critically important to understand and appreciate that despite the erosion of incomes, a process which particularly hurts those on lower and fixed incomes, the great majority of Canadians have experienced a further substantial improvement in their real standard of living over the past year. And this, as I say, despite the increase in the cost of goods and services.


John George Diefenbaker: Where have you been?


John Napier Turner: It just happens to be the case.

During the second quarter of the year, the amount allotted by the Canadian people to the purchase of consumer goods and services exceeded by almost 14 per cent that of last year, for the same period, which, in view of rising prices, is still a real increase of 8.6 per cent.
Despite the strong increase in consumer expenditures, Canadians managed to save at an almost record rate of 8 Vi per cent on their available incomes after taxes.
Let us consider now, Mr. Speaker, our country's foreign trade. The strong growth of domestic demand for domestic products was more than equalled by an increase in the demand for Canadian products abroad, while our exports value has shown during the seven first months of 1973 an extraordinary growth of 25 per cent as compared with last year's figures for the same period.
Cost of Living
The increase in our exports of goods and services, combined with the decrease in our imports enabled us to improve considerably our balance of payment position for which the deficit, on an annual seasonally adjusted basis, decreased from $1,400 million for the first quarter of this year to $412 million for the second quarter.
Let us consider now, Mr. Speaker, investments and housing. The strong increase in domestic production in order to meet the demand in Canada and abroad has brought along a considerable growth of investments to enable a further development of our production capacity and to meet social needs of the Canadian people.
The last semi-annual survey forecasts an overall increase in private and public investments of 13 per cent during 1973, that is more than the 9 per cent expected according to investments forecasts at the beginning of the year.
It is expected that business investments, except for housing, will increase by 19 per cent, which means an increase of 5 per cent over previous forecast.
A particularly significant fact is the increasing trend, from 9 to 19 per cent, of capital expenditures foreseen by Canadian manufacturers; this increase certainly reflects the reaction of manufacturing industry to the recently passed legislation on corporate taxes in order to strengthen their competitive position.
There is every evidence that housing starts in 1973 will reach a new record for the third consecutive year. During the second quarter residential construction has progressed in value at the exceptional rate of 19.3 per cent. Housing starts which totalled 284,000, in annual figures, at the second quarter, have increased to 304,000 in July.
Let me now turn, Mr. Speaker, to consider more directly the question of inflation, which as the OECD has pointed out in the July Economic Outlook is the most serious economic problem confronting western industrial nations at the present time. As that report indicated, the unprecedented simultaneous upsurge in virtually all of the industrial economies has been one of the most critical factors behind the outburst of inflationary pressures around the globe during this period. This simultaneous economic expansion of all industrial countries in the world, which at the same time has compounded world demand, has produced an explosive growth in worldwide demand for both agricultural and industrial commodities, at a time when supplies of many of these commodities were already below normal due to a variety of factors.
Looking at the supply problem, this is particularly true in the case of agricultural products as a result of a sharp decline in production of many basic commodities last year because of adverse growing conditions in many countries. The consequence of a massive increase in international demand for food and for industrial commodities at a time of limited supply has been a sharp increase in the price of such commodities. These sharp increases in prices have, in turn been the major cause of the substantial rise that has taken place in the cost of living in Canada and in every other industrial nation.
6382

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
For Canada and the United States, the problem has been compounded by the substantial appreciation which has taken place in the relative value of the currencies of a number of other countries as a result of uncertainty- uncertainty over the United States balance of payments position and uncertainty over domestic political developments in the United States. This worldwide upsurge in simultaneous economic growth, combined with the fact of inflation itself and uncertainties surrounding the international monetary system, have had the further adverse effect of sharply increasing the cost of credit-that is to say, interest rates-in every western country.
Within the past several weeks the problem of inflation has been further intensified by the adverse effect of the United States freeze and United States policy of export controls, both of which have had a harmful effect on prices in Canada, as well as by the disruption in supplies of many commodities caused by the rail strikes in this country.
As a major international trader, a country heavily involved in world capital flows, Canada has inevitably been more vulnerable to these global inflationary pressures than most other countries.


Mr. Grafftey:: Blame the world.


John Napier Turner: Whether the hon. gentleman admits it or not, there is simply no way in which we can effectively isolate ourselves from such forces and at the same time still expect to reap the considerable benefits that have come to us from international capital flows.
Despite our exposure to these forces, the fact is that Canada's price performance record, both over the long term and more recently, compares extremely favourably with that of other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I think I am entitled, with the indulgence of the House and with Your Honour's permission, to put these facts before the House. Let us just look at what these facts are. Throughout the 1960's Canada, together with Germany, experienced the lowest rate of increase in consumer prices of all the western industrial nations. Between 1970 and the middle of this year, the increase in the cost of living in this country was the second lowest among the eight leading industrial nations, namely Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Italy and Holland.
In the 12 months ending in June, the rise in the Canadian consumer price index ranked third lowest among the eight nations. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) some time ago mentioned the yearly increase in food prices in Canada and said it exceeded in June that of the other seven nations. That does happen to be true, but the increase in Canadian food prices over the period mid-1970 to mid-1973 was lower than that of any other of the seven countries except for Holland.
The increase that has taken place in the level of interest rates in Canada is certainly not a welcome development and is something that every member of this House deplores, regardless of partisan or political considerations.

Again this is part of a worldwide pattern, although interest rates in this country have not gone up nearly as much as in other countries, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom'and Europe.
The fact of the matter is that short-term interest rates in this country are anywhere from three to five points below those prevailing in the United States and Europe, in sharp contrast to the historical record of generally higher rates in this country. The volume of credit has also continued to grow rapidly. The Leader of the Opposition talked about a tight money policy, but, as I say, the volume of credit has continued to grow pretty rapidly, perhaps too rapidly. He knows as well as I do that bank loans have increased at an annual rate of 24 per cent in the second quarter, and the total money supply has increased at a rate of 15 per cent. That is not a tight money policy and the hon. gentleman knows it. If indeed there is any risk, the risk is on the other side.
The fact is-and I hope hon. members will recognize this-that if we in this country allow interest rates to get loo far out of line with those abroad, we run the risk of an outflow of funds and a reduction in the supply of capital available to finance continued expansion of the Canadian economy. Such an outflow would also tend to reduce the exchange value of the Canadian dollar and increase the cost of all imported goods, thus putting further pressure on prices in Canada. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to blame the lowering of the value of the dollar on rising interest rates, but that is not the case.
It has been suggested that we should try to isolate ourselves from international capital markets, access to which has generally been of great benefit to Canada. Some members of the opposition have suggested that we should impose some form of foreign exchange controls. In my view, controls of this nature are no answer: they would distort our capital markets and jeopardize economic growth. They would invite the danger of damaging retaliation by other countries and they would be extremely difficult to administer effectively so as to prevent leakage of funds through all sorts of loopholes.
I am well aware of the fact that Canada's relatively favourable price performance is of small comfort to Canadians who find themselves faced with sharp increases in the price of food and a number of other goods. I receive as much mail as anybody else, including the Leader of the Opposition and I understand and sympa-. thize with the feeling of anger and frustration experienced by many Canadians in this situation and their understandable concern that the government should do something-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -even if they are unsure of what that something should be. I want to assure the House that the government is prepared to adopt any measures that it is convinced will be of some lasting benefit in stemming inflationary pressures without at the same time endangering our prospects for the continued strong growth of production and employment. But we are not prepared to adopt policies that offer the prospect of
September 10, 1973

fleeting and temporary advantages at the risk of heavy, long-term damage to the economy as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You will adopt any policy to stay in office.


John Napier Turner: There is one school of thought that for a period of many months has sought to persuade Canadians that the magic "something" that would waft away the international inflationary pressures besetting our economy was the imposition by the government of a freeze on all prices and incomes, followed by some undefined system of continuing controls for an indefinite period of time. The hon. gentleman today did add a little more precision. With every speech there is a little more precision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I added no precision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Then ne said, in response to an interjection from the Prime Minister, that of course he was exempting food at the farm gate, whereas the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) admitted in debate that if you are going to try to control food prices at the wholesale or retail level there is no way in which you could avoid controlling the price of food at the farm gate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gillies:: Would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) give me the source of that quotation?


John Napier Turner: I will indeed, but I must confess to the hon. member that I have great difficulty in sorting out his opinions pro and con.


Thomas Miller Bell: Put up or shut up.


John Napier Turner: I hope you will give me some extension, Mr. Speaker, in view of all these interjections.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The rules apply to everyone in the same way.
hdr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): The Conservative party, once as vehement an opponent of this school of thought as any to be found anywhere in the country, became a late convert only last February. I hesitate to say that political motivation was behind that conversion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Since that time, the Official Opposition has been pressing its proposal for the imposition of a wage-price freeze in Canada at every opportunity, with all the convert's typical zeal. Unfortunately for the Conservative party and fortunately for the country, the number of Canadians who still believe that a general freeze control program is the proper remedy for the kind of inflationary problem we are facing in this country at the present time has drastically reduced within recent months to a corporal's guard.
Cost of Living


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I seem to recall that when President Nixon announced his reimposition of a 60 day freeze in mid-June, the hon. member for Don Valley told an interviewer that he was thinking of moving a motion to have the House of Commons congratulate the President of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: I appreciate this attention, Mr. Speaker, but I would appreciate it much more if the minister would give the sources of his particular quotations.


John Napier Turner: I want to assure the hon. gentleman that like everything else referring to the president it is on tape and we will be able to reproduce that.
In fact, nothing has more discredited the idea of a price freeze under existing circumstances than the action taken by the U.S. administration which led to a drastic cutback in the supplies of many products, particularly food products, and resulted in a further very sharp increase in the prices of many goods, especially meat. On June 28, the Wall Street Journal reported in a lead article:
The nation's food production machinery is starting to grind to a halt under Phase 3Vi.
The adverse consequences inevitably made themselves felt severely here in Canada as well as in the United States, and are still being felt. President Nixon himself acknowledged the seriously adverse effects of the freeze on July 18 when he asserted on television:
The freeze is holding down production and creating shortages which threaten to get worse, and cause still higher prices, as the freeze and controls continue.
I would be interested to know, as I am sure many Canadians and members of parliament would, whether the hon. member for Don Valley is still thinking of moving a motion to have the House congratulate the president on following the policy which he and his party continue to advocate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
cent in Canada. Food prices in the U.S. rose at an annual rate of 18.2 per cent, significantly more than the 14.5 per cent in Canada, despite the rigorous control freeze program covering food during that period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If many members of the House still have any lingering doubts about the ineffectiveness of a controlling program in containing inflation, I would draw their attention to the report from Washington late last week that in August, at a time when the freeze was partially lifted in support of phase 4 of the program, U.S. wholesale prices increased, seasonally adjusted, by 6.2 per cent over the previous month of July. That represents an annual increase in wholesale prices in the U.S. under a control program of more than 75 per cent taken over the year. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition even today still tries to convince Canadians that we can contain inflation in this country simply by following the U.S. example and by adopting our own freeze control program.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I should like to point out further that during the period from last November to July when the United Kingdom instituted a freeze, followed in May by a control program, consumer prices rose 6 per cent in Great Britain, the same increase as was experienced during the same period of time in Canada.
Again I want to go on record regarding the response which the government has made to this worldwide contagious problem of inflation. Although we have undertaken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I find this rather embarrassing. There were consultations among the parties. The NDP approached us about extending time for the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) and the Creditistes. We felt very strongly that, since only a limited amount of time was available, I should stay within my time and we should stick strictly to the rule. I hope that since the Minister of Finance is only reading something he said many times before, he would get someone else to read it for him later.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: -the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I not only ask that you follow the rules, but I also ask you to recognize that there is only one opposition party left in the House as of Friday afternoon.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is the first time that I can

recall that in a major debate on the economy introduced by the opposition the Minister of Finance was not given some opportunity to finish what he had to say.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member for York South, on behalf of the government, will finish the minister's speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please? I just want to suggest to hon. members that we are, in fact, operating on limited time and I would hope that hon. members would agree at least to give all hon. members who are recognized their full 20 minutes. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, our position on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is governed by three factors. The first is


An hon. Member:: Fear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -our rejection of the proposals, the irresponsible and unworkable proposals made by the Conservative party. I noted that, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition had the modesty to assure the House and the people of Canada that the Conservative party was not suggesting that their measures could halt inflation. For the first time, he had the decency to say that to parliament and to the people of Canada. I think that should be underlined. He said that the proposals he made, which consist of a temporary short freeze of 60 days or 90 days, or even 30 days-he mentioned that-and a short temporary longer period of restraint, would fight the inflation psychology? For the life of me I cannot understand the logic of that.
It seems to me that to say to the House or to the various sectors of the Canadian economy there will be a freeze for only 60 or 90 days is to feed inflation psychology and make the situation worse when that period is over. It seems to me when you say to the people of Canada or any sector of the economy that you want to restrain-that was the word used by the Leader of the Opposition and not control-for a few months you feed the inflation psychology and permit everyone to "rev" up and, when the eighteen months are over, go to town on everybody concerned. There is no sense or logic in this, and I find a lack of honesty in the proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The second factor that governs our position on this motion is that the government has presented to parliament, in response to our demands, a number of measures which are of benefit to Canadians and to
September 10, 1973

Canadian families. We are convinced that before anyone should even contemplate bringing this parliament down the increase in old age pensions, the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling on the escalation of other pensions and the substantial increase in family allowances must become law. To cause the dissolution of parliament now would mean that these reforms would die on the order paper and be delayed for many months at least, if not forever. This in my view would be a tremendous disappointment to millions of Canadian pensioners and to millions of Canadian families. We simply are not prepared to play this kind of reckless political game.
I note the Hansard reporter is finding some difficulty in hearing me because of the noise from the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: Isn't that a shame! Are you saying anything?


David Lewis: I think-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order? I believe the hon. member for York South, and all members who have taken or may take part in this debate, should be given an opportunity to make their speeches without undue interruption.


David Lewis: I think, Mr. Speaker, that Hansard should show that the suggestion that the increased old age pensions and family allowances must become law was greeted with laughter by members of the Conservative party.
The third point that governs our thinking is our conviction that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are willing to make basic changes which are needed to end the corporate rip-off, even as it affects the cost of living. We are convinced that it is possible to do much more than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced last Tuesday to protect the Canadian consumer and the Canadian producer from the corporate profiteering which is now taking place at the expense of the Canadian people, but I believe the Conservatives are just as unwilling to do this as are the Liberals and perhaps even less willing.
Ever since this parliament was elected, we in the New Democratic Party have been faced with Hobson's choice. We decided to accept our share of responsibility to make this parliament work as effectively as we could for as long as we could. I say without any fear of honest or objective contradiction that our party in this parliament has produced substantial benefits for the Canadian people which are important to every Canadian family.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Such as rampant inflation.


David Lewis: We believe that the measures the government has taken, mainly in response to our demands, have been welcomed by the Canadian people and give some hope of relief to many sections of the people of Canada. They give some hope of success. They involve making available to the Canadian consumers an additional $350 million or so in increased incomes and in subsidies for the remaining 3 'A months of 1973.
This is not insubstantial. We believe these measures should be enacted into law. This is particularly true in the area of petroleum policy. For the first time this government has agreed, even though there is now danger of its
Cost of Living
reneging, on the removal of the Ottawa Valley line for petroleum products which was imposed on Canada by the last Tory government. For the first time the Liberal government has accepted the idea of a two-price system and a national marketing board. All these things are important to the future of this country.
I want to repeat what I said in this House last Tuesday when commenting on the Prime Minister's statement. Everyone now agrees, including members of the Conservative party, that the problem of rising prices is a complicated one, partly influenced by international supply and demand factors, partly by deficiencies in the world monetary system. This is largely aggravated by the monopoly power of the large corporations, most of them multinational. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is why I cannot accept these simplistic, inadequate and ill-defined slogans produced by the Tories.
In order to really get at the roots of the problem, we will require long-term changes, not only in our own country but in the world economy. To play politics with the issue, as is now being done by some members in this House, to pretend that there is a simple, quick solution to this problem, is to abdicate all pretense at honesty and to abdicate our responsibility as members of parliament.
This is not to say, as we have said on many occasions, that we are powerless. In addition to the increases in old age pensions and in family allowances, in addition to the subsidies announced for bread and milk, in addition to action in areas of oil and gasoline, we have proposed other policies which in our view could be of immediate value to reduce the rise in the cost of living as well as the hardships which people of Canada feel as a result. I believe they are practical and honest policies instead of gimmicks.
We have suggested on a number of occasions selective controls that can and would work in areas which have a significant impact on consumer expenditure, and in areas where specific action could bring needed relief to consumers. Secondly, we have urged that in order to implement these selective controls we must have a new Prices Review Board, which members of the Conservative party have voted against and opposed. We must have a new Prices Review Board with jurisdiction over all commodities and with the power to impose price ceilings or rollbacks in cases of excess corporate profit or gouging of the consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We have asked time and again, and the government has this authority, that the federal government direct all federally chartered financial institutions to allocate a certain proportion of their annual investment to housing at much lower interest rates than the present usurious rates under which Canadians are suffering.
We have proposed an excess profits tax to discourage or penalize the corporate gouging which is now taking place, as I will show in a moment. For families on welfare we have urged the federal government to assume 100 per cent, or at least 75 per cent, of the cost of increased welfare payments under the Canada Assistance Plan.

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
I say to you that these measures, when joined with measures of adequate support prices for the farmers of Canada in order to increase the supply of farm products, would have an immediate effect on the cost of living, would assist the people of Canada without storing up immense dangers as soon as the so-called freeze and controls, now proposed by the Conservative party, are lifted.
We are convinced that these are fair and practical proposals that would work. They require action in my view to curb the power and the profits of corporations, many of them multinational, which are taking advantage of the present crisis atmosphere which they themselves did much to create.
It is important to note that, as far as the NDP is concerned, at a time when most Canadians are feeling the pinch, corporate profits have been soaring at an unprecedented rate. This is an area that only New Democrats are willing to attack, but it is a crucial area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Let me put as quickly as possible some of the profit figures on the record. In the area of food, Weston, in the six months ending August 30 had an increase in profits over the same period last year of 63 per cent, with an increase in sales of only 17 per cent. B.C. Packers had an increase of 125 per cent in their profits and a sales increase of only 25 per cent. Silverwood Industries in the second quarter had an increase of 107 per cent and an increase in sales of only 10 per cent. Maple Leaf Mills in the six months ending June 30 had an increase of 111 per cent. Dominion Stores had an increase in the second quarter of 92.6 per cent with a 13 per cent increase in sales.
Let me put certain figures on the record in respect of banks, Mr. Speaker. The Toronto-Dominion Bank for three months ending July 31 had a profit increase of 50 per cent; the Bank of Montreal 46 per cent, the Bank of Nova Scotia 14 per cent, the Royal Bank 26 per cent and the Banque Canadienne Nationale 78 per cent. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the increases this year are on top of an increase in 1972 over 1971 of more than 20 per cent for all the banks in Canada. In the five years from 1966 to 1971 their profit increase was a total of 85.3 per cent, higher than in any other segment of the Canadian economy. For that reason there is no excuse for increasing the interest rates, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has permitted, thereby increasing bank profits.
Gulf announced an increase of four cents a gallon at their controlled and owned retail outlets. Despite this announcement it had a second quarter increase in profit of 67 per cent over the same period last year. Not only do these oil companies rip-off Canadians through depreciation allowances, tax deferrals and government handouts of every kind, but they also gouge the Canadian people at the pump, and this is where action is needed.
Let me speak for a moment about the field of housing, because every Canadian who wants to own a home is now suffering. The Cadillac Development Corporation for the first six months ending June 30 had an increase of 45 per cent in profits after taxes. The Campeau Company enjoyed an increase of 65 per cent after taxes. Monarch Investment Limited had an increase in profits of 110 per cent. Malborough Properties Limited had an increase of

284 per cent in profits, and Canadian Interurban Properties Limited enjoyed an increase in profits of 182 per cent. I say to you that these are unconscionable and ought not to be permitted by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have cited some increases in profits in the fields of food, housing, banks and oil and gas only as examples. These increases in profits have a direct impact on the expenses of the Canadian consumer, and only action to stop this profit gouging will assist the Canadian consumer. This is clear evidence of a corporate ripoff, and is clear evidence of the need for an excess profits tax or other measures to end this callous profiteering. I do not say it would end inflation. I have never suggested that for the proposals we have made, but it would produce some fairness and equity for our people. This is also clear evidence that selective rollbacks which we have suggested are both possible and practical and ought to be imposed by a properly constituted Prices Review Board.
I am watching the time, Mr. Speaker, and I see that I have only about three minutes left. Let me in those three minutes deal very quickly in a little more detail with the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The fact is that there was a freeze in the United Kingdom in 1961 and in 1966. There was a freeze in Australia in 1962 and a freeze in Denmark in 1963. There was a freeze in the United States in 1972. In every case these policies failed and not only failed, Sir, but the results of these policies were disastrous for the people of those countries after the controls were removed. They have not worked and they will not work, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, they are totally unfair; they lock into permanent position the inequities of present income distribution.
Had the Conservatives had their way, the freeze for the farmer-despite what they say about stopping at the farm gate which even they know is a sham-would have taken place many months ago. Where would the farmers be now in light of the increase in international prices? Had the Tories had their way, imagine the situation we would have been in with the railway strike. The railway workers would have been frozen into their inadequate wages. As a political necessity, the Leader of the official Opposition even moved for an increase in the wage rate provision of the bill that was presented to this House.
The fact is that we have not suffered and are not suffering now from cost-push inflation, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the cost of living for the past number of months has barely kept up with the increase in the wages and the wage demands across this country. It is not the worker who is responsible, it is not the farmer who is responsible and the policy presented by the Conservatives is directed at punishing the worker and the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We reject that kind of approach, Mr. Speaker, because it is unfair and unworkable. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to tell this House and the people of
September 10, 1973

Canada how he would freeze prices on imported foods- fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, bananas, and vegetables like lettuce and tomatoes as well as tea, coffee, cocoa and sugar. All of these are imported. How would the Leader of the Opposition impose a freeze on the price of these imported foods that enter into the cost of living of the Canadian people? How would he impose a freeze on the cost of imported machinery or on the price of homes? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
Is it agreed that the hon. member be granted extra time?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, some years ago we had a premier out west by the name of William Aberhart who had this to say to the people of Alberta: "If you have not suffered enough, it is your God given privilege to suffer some more."

Mr. Speaker, having heard the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), I would be inclined to repeat exactly the same thing.
Last evening, I say a film shot in some Canadian mines as well as in certain Chilean ones. In Chili, three years ago, President Allende spoke almost in the same terms as the leader of the New Democratic Party this afternoon: against profits, for nationalization.


David Lewis: I did not refer to nationalization.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, last evening, I heard President Allende of Chili speak against large corporations and in favour of nationalization. The largest Chilean mines have been nationalized, but I learned yesterday that Noranda Mines Limited received 22,000 tons of ore from Chili to be refined in Noranda bacause Chili is not equipped to do it. Such is the socialist democracy in Chili.
Mr. Speaker, I have only 20 minutes, but the democratic socialism of Chili is the same as the democratic socialism advocated in Canada. I'll come back to that later with evidence, comparisons between profits gained by Chilian corporations before and after nationalization, to show clearly to the NDP leader and his colleagues the unreliability of their promises.
Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a non confidence motion. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) could have suggested a better way to spend this day, for instance, by passing a measure to better family allowances as well as higher pensions for those on fixed incomes, to improve the consumers' purchasing power and to discuss it objectively.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Leader of the Official Opposition for inviting us, quite politely and with a smile, to support his motion. And yet, he should have thought of that when he was in the Eastern Townships and stated-I
Cost of Living
think he was accompanied by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey)-in Magog and Sherbrooke: a vote for Caouette is wasted. It is only a protest vote. It is only a useless vote. When you vote for the Social Credit Party, you are wasting your time. And today-look at the Leader of the Official Opposition smile-he is asking us to vote in favour of his motion which reads as follows:
That this House has no confidence in the adequacy of government measures to deal with the cost of living as such measures *were announced to the House by the Prime Minister on September 4th, 1973.
What does he suggest? Nothing. What does he do? Nothing. He Drotests, just as he accuses us of doing outside parliament. We protest and he says that the votes we get are wasted.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consequence, the Leader of the Opposition is hard to beat. I have been watching him quite often on TV since last election. The CBC invites him on both English and French networks. They invite him on radio for interviews and press conferences. When journalists-there are some in the gallery-ask the Leader of the Opposition: What have you to offer as against what the government is proposing? He tells them frankly: I suggest a comprehensive policy. But what is a comprehensive program, Mr. Speaker?
And if they ask the Leader of the Official Opposition what attitude he will adopt, he answers: a comprehensive attitude. But when asked what he thinks about the future of his party, he says: We hope it will be comprehensive.
When asked about the cost of living, what he would do about bringing it down or keeping it from increasing, he says: We are going to introduce a comprehensive program. That is the word I have heard him say almost every day over the last year. But comprehensive as to what, one does not know.
The government offers the farmers $1.25 more per bushel of wheat. When he is asked how much he is going to give, the Leader of the Opposition says it will be something comprehensive. But about milk at $1.05 more per hundredweight for dairy producers, when asked how far will you go, he says we are going to study that in a comprehensive way.
Mr. Speaker, will the price freeze be comprehensive? Is that his program? I understand that his motion is right, when it says that the government is not going far enough; it is clear that it is not going far enough, but how far are' they willing to go? That is what we do not know.
Therefore, I would rather settle for a better pension, increased allowances than not knowing where I am going. That is what the Leader of the Opposition should know.
Mr. Speaker, tonight we shall see him again on television, and he will say: Parliament was not comprehensive. The New Democratic Party, the Creditistes do not understand anything.
Mr. Speaker, when we proposed to increase the old age pension to $200 per month, at 60, the Leader of the Opposition voted against it. He was not very comprehensive, he did not understand then. The New Democratic Party says: We have led the minority government. The NDP also voted against granting pensions at 60. We would like to see that included in the progressive conservative motion.
6388

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
When we asked for interest-free loans to the provinces- something we are still asking for-to alleviate somewhat the situation in which the provinces find themselves, they voted against our proposal. When my colleagues and myself asked for interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada, which is our financial institution, the leader of the opposition objected, as did the NDP and the Liberals. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) voted against it.


John Napier Turner: Oh, oh.


Mrs. Sauve:: They are not understanding.


David Réal Caouette: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker: I ask interest-free loans to fight against inflation. The Liberals, as the minister said-and she is right-are not much more understanding that the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, interest-free loans to fight inflation, this is why we are here, and I will give you an example.
Only 15 days ago, the Quebec premier went to the United States to borrow $100 million for the James Bay project, at a rate of interest of 10 per cent, for 25 years. This means that 25 years from now we shall have paid $250 million for interest payments alone and that we shall still owe $100 million on the capital. On what is this loan from the Americans based?
Mr. Speaker, they say: We must go to the United States. If the James Bay project was not profitable, premier Bourassa could not even borrow a quarter from the United States. On what is the loan based? On actual value, on the natural resources represented by James Bay. If the accounting was done by the Bank of Canada instead of by the Americans, the Quebec government, like that of other provinces in the same circumstances, would save $250 million in 25 years.
Newspapermen will not mention that. They will mention the motion, which contains nothing. That is absolute non-sense. Indeed it says that the government does not go far enough. We know that, as a matter of fact everybody knows that. It is requested that that motion be adopted, but no alternative is offered.
Mr. Speaker, we advocate loans without interest from the Bank of Canada. The assistance we give to India is in the form of new loans without interest for 60 years.
At the present time, the Bank of Canada is authorized to make available loans to Canadian provinces up to 25 per cent of their budgets, under sections 13 and 20, but for six-month periods only. Mr. Speaker, what can a province do in six months? It is being placed in an impossible situation. That is why it does not deal with the Bank of Canada. But if the words "six months" were to be replaced by "25 years", all the provinces of Canada would ask the Bank of Canada for credit according to the possibilities of developing their natural ressources. This is beyond the government's comprehension.
Mr. Speaker, we are eagerly looking forward to the awarding of these pensions suggested by the government so as to provide a better fate to our old people. But such a

pension should be paid to the 60 year olds, and even if the spouse has not reached that age he or she should be eligible for it.
The law provides for higher family allowances but soon these will not be sufficient.
Mr. Speaker, to keep on paying production grants when we have already too much production, this is not the problem. We find it in the field of consumption where the purchasing power is not sufficient to permit the acquirement of already existing products. This is what we Credi-tistes are suggesting and advocating.
When I or my colleagues are talking about the Bank of Canada some find it funny but we will have to come to that. Parliament will come to such a solution as it has been compelled to increase pensions above $100 a month; yet we made everybody laugh here when we were advocating them.
Some of my colleagues will be elaborating on the Tory motion; there is no party line about it. Those who will want to vote for it will be free to do so, just as those who will want to vote against it, but the point I want to make is that this motion represents a loss of a day for the House, a day that we could have used to discuss family allowances or other fields of Canadian economic activity. Indeed the problem is economic. We could have discussed that issue seriously instead of losing a day, waiting to have that opposition day after the normal resumption in October. But no. The leader of the opposition announces and informs us two days in advance that the non confidence motion in the government will be there.
I am not confident that the government will solve the present problem. No. I have no more confidence in the Tories who were in office before and did not solve the problem of inflation or unemployment in Canada.
Inflation, Mr. Speaker, we know we have plenty of; the only thing is that inflation is not in the pockets of the consumers but in government taxes first of all and that same government will suggest tax increases. And as the tax increases are reflected in prices, prices will go up again. Whether there is a freeze or not, prices will rise and the consumer will pick up the tab.
The Creditists are logical when they ask for new credits, not credits or money taken in the pockets of Canadians but new credits based on the real wealth of Canada, at the Bank of Canada. That is where we can find the credits which are necessary for the development of our country, to enable us to deal effectively with inflation, with the rise in the cost of living, and to give new structures to an economic system which would help the population instead of penalizing it as is now the case.
Mr. Speaker, we will not prevent the increases in old age security pensions or in family allowances but we suggest that the government-the Minister of Finance in particular-seriously consider the solution put forward by the Creditists that credits from the Bank of Canada should establish some balance between the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer and the tremendous production in Canada. We would then have economic security with fullest personal freedom.
September 10, 1973


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in what I had expected would be one of the most important debates on which this parliament might embark. I have discovered, having listened to three previous speakers, that that is not to be the case.
I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party who has a penchant for going around the country asking people to be honest in their approach. I find it far from honest for a man to stand up and say that a party that has espoused a program of income policies is dishonest and playing cheap politics when most countries in the world today that are fighting inflation are using everything they can, including an incomes policy. Indeed, it was totally dishonest of him, in reciting the record of inflation in various countries with income policies, to say that they do not work, as the country with the lowest rate of inflation in the world, Australia, happens to have an incomes policy at present. It is not a question of honesty one way or another.
The leader of the New Democratic Party talked about increases in profits and so on, and said there is no cost-push inflation in the economy. Most people would say that the evidence of the existence of a large cost-push inflation in this economy is the fact profits have gone up as high as they have. In many instances, high profits are a result of administered prices-the very thing you want to stop with an incomes policy.
I also want to say that I find he has a peculiar interpretation of the way parliament should work. The New Democratic Party does not believe the Liberal policies are working effectively, but says they cannot vote against them because they do not like ours. That is not a decision for the New Democratic Party. It is a decision for the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: The leader of the New Democratic Party said today that his party does not believe what is being done about inflation in this country and the way in which the economy is being managed is adequate, appropriate and effective. If that is the position they want to take, that is fine. However, they should not weasel out of it by some theory of parliamentary responsibility, that it is their job to keep parliament here. It is not their job to make that choice. That is a job for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: In his speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) gave us the same interpretation of inflation and the operation of the economy as he has in the past. He talked about the fantastic rate of growth and the increase in jobs and the percentage rate of increase. He forgets that only two and a half or three years ago, we had 7.2 per cent unemployment in this country, the highest rate in the industrialized world. If the government had not done anything, and it did practically nothing, one would have expected some type of growth to take place in the Canadian economy because of the increase in the rest of the world.
Cost of Living
The minister found it strange that we would support the measures the government brought forward as a type of anti-inflationary policy, and then be opposed to the way in which they are approaching the whole situation. Of course, we support the proposition that people who are being hurt, and suffering severely from the ravages of inflation be assisted. Since the government has no policies to cope with inflation, the Canadian people need support and help.
If this government or this country thinks that the way to solve the problem of inflation is to constantly change our social security benefits, we are in for terrible trouble indeed. Even more important, the people we are trying to protect will never be protected properly. There has never been a time in the history of this or any other parliament when we have been able to change our pension and social security programs rapidly enough to take care of the people who are hurt badly in situations of this kind. Of course, we support those propositions, but I want to make it clear that in doing so, under no circumstances do we think that the government has any policy, program or understanding of what inflation is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: There is one other point I wish to make before I get into my main speech. There are statements being made in this country, some of which can be terribly harmful for all Canadians in the future. The proposition being seriously advanced as we approach the last quarter of the 20th century is that we may have serious economic problems and there is nothing that can be done about them. The proposition that we cannot do something about our monetary and fiscal policies or exchange rate policies to deal with a problem like inflation is a charade, a canard. Putting that proposition before the Canadian people can only do the nation great harm.
It will do us great harm if, when there is an issue that needs to be faced in this nation with worldwide ramifications, we sit around and say that nothing can be done. As I read through Hansard of the 1930's, I believe the approach of this present government, namely that nothing can be done, is exactly the type of approach they would have taken during the worldwide depression at that time.
Surely, we are not prepared to accept the proposition that there is nothing a government can do to work out the economic problems which may beset a nation in a particular time. Indeed, much of the progress that has been made in the world in the past 25 years has been as a result of the fact that governments' have accepted the responsibility of full employment and reasonable price stability. At the end of World War II, the great fear in this country and throughout the industrial world was of unemployment. Governments decided that never again would any nation have to pay the price of worldwide depression, and they used monetary and fiscal policies to prevent one. In the past 25 years, we have had increased growth and prosperity for most people. The problem now is to keep that growth and full employment along with reasonable price stability.
I cannot accept for a second the argument of the Minister of Finance that the fact the real standard of living for Canadians has increased means we do not have to do
26454-40A

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
anything about inflation. We can pay the price of 2, or 3 per cent inflation for full employment. However, when you get a rate of inflation that may well be 8 or 10 per cent in the next year, something has to be done about it, and something can be done about it with proper policies.
There are choices that can be put forward to the Canadian people on how to deal with this inflationary situation. One thing we, as a responsible parliament, cannot put forward is the proposition that we should not do anyting. The government's policy is to sit and wait, hoping that inflationary forces throughout the world will go away. The government hopes worldwide inflation will end and eventually something will be worked out, prices will fall, they will be in a better situation politically and perhaps the country will be in a better situation. That has to be the road to disaster. There has to be a recognition of a responsibility, which certainly any central government has to accept, of maintaining price stability.
The second choice, a choice which the liberal administration seemed to approve two or three years ago, is to fight inflation to slow down the economy. Obviously, inflation can be stopped in Canada if we are willing to accept the proposition we should raise taxes, reduce purchasing power and have a high interest policy. There would be no money available for small borrowers or for housing. Of course, this would slow down the economy. We could cure inflation through policies of that sort, but they are totally unacceptable. The price we would have to pay would be far too high.
The third thing we can do is accept the fact we have a responsibility toward inflation. We can use monetary and fiscal policies and exchange rate policies and supplement them with an incomes policy in order to get the expectations, about which my leader spoke under control. We can. recognize, for good or ill, that something is wrong with the way in which we have been managing the economy of this country, not only during this inflationary period, but over the past three or four years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: The fact is that one really cannot accept the proposition that a country as wealthy as Canada must accept an unemployment rate Of 7.2 per cent, as was the situation two years ago, or that today the rate of inflation should be rising at one of the highest rates. As we all know, statistics can be used to support whatever argument one wishes to make, but recent statistics do suggest that the rate of inflation in the United States is substantially lower than it is in Canada. A few years ago, the rate of inflation in Canada was a good deal lower than it was in the United States. This, again, negates the argument that there is nothing we can do about the inflationary forces operating in our economy.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his department must recognize that great changes are taking place in world conditions and in the relationship between our economy and the economy of the rest of the world. We must shape our policies accordingly. The practice of the past 20 or 30 years, of saying we can operate the Canadian economy most effectively by an almost total reliance on a

continental approach will never work in the same way from now on, and again I say this in no negative manner. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we are so tied in, when it comes to economic policy, with policy-making in the United States that we do not really exercise an independent policy at all. When the United States devalues its currency, as it did some time ago, the Canadian dollar is devalued at the same time-against some countries it has been as much as 30 per cent. Did the Canadian economy need to be devalued by that amount in our \ domestic circumstances? The question is not whether we should float with the United States dollar because of the advantages of that relationship, but whether that float is operating in absolutely clean and appropriate fashion. People around the world ought to know, when they look at the balance of payments figures for Canada, that the Canadian exchange rate is reflecting changing trade patterns. Similarly, it is necessary for us to re-examine our monetary policy.
The Minister of Finance made much of the fact that short-term rates are low. But long-term rates are high. We shall not halt the inflationary trend until action is taken to deal with high rates of interest, particularly as they affect the key industry of housing, or restrict the flow of money to farmers and fishermen, for example, who need resources in order to operate effectively. We need to examine the causes giving rise to such large short-term capital flow; we need to determine whether this situation is good for the economy. It is hard to make a case for the Canadian economy being better off as a result of the heavy amount of short-term capital flow taking place over the past years. In Canada, one can predict changes in interest rates by noting what the Federal Reserve Board does in the United States. It is, no doubt, important to watch this relationship closely, but it might well be the case that the monetary policies which Canada needs are quite different from those required by the United States.
The solution is, of course, a short-term interest equalization tax. Such a tax is not unusual. Most countries in the world have adopted this device as a means of maintaining independent economic policies. In developing fiscal and tax policy it seems to me we should make sure that whatever is done will lead to the benefit of all Canadians and to the expansion of the economy. We have asked the. Minister of Finance many times to tell us what has been the effect of the cut in corporate income tax from 49 per cent to 40 per cent, its relationship to Canadian investment and its use by parent firms operating outside Canada. We were never given that information. The point I wish to make is that the Canadian economy, as it is operating today, has greatly changed as compared with ten years ago, or even five years ago, and policies must reflect that situation.
We must find some way of supplementing monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies, geared to ensuring full employment without inflation with other programs. Many countries are adopting incomes policies at the present time. The position taken last February by the Progressive Conservative party was that in a contemporary economy a large degree of "cost-push" inflation would exist. It is still present in the Canadian economy. We are often reminded that 25 per cent of our GNP is generated outside the economy. The fact remains that 75 per cent is generated inside the economy, and it is possible to design an incomes
September 10, 1973

policy which would set the permissible rates of increase in wages, prices and profits in such a way as to curb inflationary pressures. We simply cannot permit prices to rise when there is no competition in the marketplace, and the only way of attacking this situation is through an incomes policy. I find it strange that the government would not recognize the need for such a policy at this time.
There is no way in which the Conservative party or, indeed, the people of Canada, can accept the proposition that there is nothing which can be done about inflation. To take this attitude is wrong. If the government would only provide leadership in devising new and constructive policies to deal with fiscal arrangements, exchange rates and so on, the people would be more than willing to support an incomes policy, particularly if the administration opposite would also moderate its own expenditures and order its priorities more carefully. And, I may add, if it showed much more exactitude in the forecasting of its deficits and surpluses-the problems could be dealt with more expeditiously. We apparently had the incredible situation last year of operating with a deficit in the middle of a high inflationary situation because the forecasts were apparently not correct; we did not know where we stood. There needs to be a great improvement in the operation of our economic forecasting machinery.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the issue we are debating today is this: can the government do anything about inflation, or is it enough to say: Don't worry; we shall make adjustments in the social security programs; the real income of Canadians has risen, and inflation does not present any particular problem. As I listened to the speech made by the Minister of Finance, I had the impression that neither he nor his colleagues had been in touch with the people of this country; that they feel, in fact, no problem is facing us. Mr. Speaker, one does not have to look up statistics to realize that a major problem exists in the Canadian economy today. More important, one does not have to be very seriously involved in the interpretation of economic events to know that the major inroads of inflation can be countered only if the government takes the necessary steps to re-examine its policies with respect to monetary matters, taxation, the exchange rate, and if it has the good sense to consider an incomes policy. Surely, Canadians must not have to live with 8 per cent inflation for much longer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Because Of his background in economic subjects I have tried for many months to listen to him. I sympathize with him because once again I find he has proved the adage that it is difficult to sound sensible and like a Progressive Conservative at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: That is pretty weak.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. gentleman began with the promise that he was going to give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cost of Living
Turner) some advice about how our economic policies should be developed. He had a little trouble, as does his party, in knowing which quarter of the century he was in, because he thought he was in the fourth quarter of the century. Then, in the course of his advice to the Minister of Finance, he clearly, indicated that there was a solution to this problem of inflation that the world is facing. I quote his advice to the Minister of Finance which was "to find some way". At the same time, he gave some other advice to the government, which so far as I can see was to advise us to have high interest rates as well as low interest rates. Presumably, the high interest rates were designed to assist the Canadian dollar, and low interest rates were advocated because they are much more popular than high interest rates. So, the hon. member indicated we should have both at the same time.
This, of course, reminds one of the history of the hon. member, and that of his party, who suggested a little earlier during the budget debate that at the same time as we turn up the fire under the kettle we hold the lid on. As I recall his criticism, I believe he only asked for an extra $1 billion deficit, whereas his colleagues upped it to $2 billion in the speeches that followed. The fact of the (matter is that the world is in the grip of a rapidly rising price situation. The fact is also that the most significant factor is the rapid rise in the price of food. That is true in this country and it is true in other countries as well.
There has been growing talk of an inflation psychology. I suggest most seriously to hon. members, and to the people of this country, that a good portion of the rise in the price of food should not really be treated as an ordinary price rise similar to that which has taken place in every other sector over a period of time, or indeed that is taking place even now. A good portion of the rise in food prices is an overdue adjustment of income to farmers in Canada who produce grain and meat for market.
It is of particular importance that these adjustments have taken place. Adjustments of a similar magnitude compared with other price rises need not and will not take place in the future, but the adjustment that has taken place to date is overdue. I say that because it is important that other sectors in this country should not believe that they somehow have to try to catch up to the over-all price increases that are taking place in this country; including the increase in the price of food. This would be an attempt simply to take back for the more protected-those on higher incomes-all the gain that has been made by giving farmers a better income return, as well indeed as other gains being made under this Liberal government by the low income earners in this country.
The figures, even at a relatively brief glance, indicate what has been happening in the food sector of agriculture.
I refer to such figures as the percentage of total family expenditure on food compared to total expenditure, which decreased from 21 per cent of income in 1964 to 17.6 per cent of income in 1969. I refer to the further fact that from 1967 to 1971, the food price portion of the consumer price index increased by approximately 11 per cent, while the total consumer price index increased by 16 per cent.
Nor does that tell the whole story. Within the food price index a significant number of elements, such as workers in food processing, transportation, selling, retailing and so

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
on, were themselves receiving a fairer average increase in return for their effort. The person who was left without adequate return was the producer of grains and animal products, particularly of those products over which this country has least control because of the importance of the international market.
Therefore, it is an important fact that a good portion of the recent food price increase represents an overdue increase in return to the producer of animal products, grains and meat, and it is good that this has been so. But it ought not to be taken back by demands made in other sectors, particularly those with the highest level of protection, through wage gains. Again I emphasize that I do not include those in low-paid fields. Whether through wage negotiations or as a result of additional government assistance, such as an increase in family allowances, I hope we will be able to protect them better and better in terms of the distribution of income in this country.
During this period of difficulty for the producers we have over the years been taking certain action to assist the income of farmers. We made a beginning, and we hope to continue to improve this beginning, towards making more secure the outlook of the producer of agricultural products. Let me remind hon. members that in 1969 we fixed the domestic price for wheat at $1.95Vi, and this at a time when the price in the world was dropping below that figure. It dropped approximately 30 cents below that price for a time.
During this period of time, the Canadian consumer was asked to pay this modest amount more for his wheat products which he purchased on the market. Then, two years ago, we introduced the two-price system, with an additional $1.04Vi for every bushel of wheat consumed in Canada, in order to bring to $3 the return to the Canadian grain farmer on his domestic wheat. In this way, we had a continuation of the payment by the consumer over international prices of some 20 cents to 30 cents and a payment from the treasury, in the form of assistance to the income of farmers, of $1.04 Vi.
Recent price increases in the world have brought wheat prices beyond that level, and now seemed to be an opportune time to look at giving more additional security to the grain farmer in relation to his wheat sales in the domestic market. Again, I emphasize that I am talking about the domestic market, which perhaps involved only one bushel to eight or one bushel to 10 in relation to the volume of export wheat we ordinarily handle. It is this 10 per cent or 12 per cent which we have under our own control on which we can give some protection to our wheat producers.
At the same time, we can give the consumer some immediate or short-term relief against further increases beyond any level that anyone might have dreamed of several months ago. We can do so by offering to the producer a $3.25 floor on the basis of No. 1 CW wheat in Thunder Bay, which again is much higher than anyone might have dreamed of several months ago. I should remind hon. members that until this year, as shown by the Wheat Board annual report, no total return to farmers on their wheat had exceeded a $2 figure, and we are putting
into this seven year arrangement a floor of $3.25 which will therefore be a transfer from the consumer to the producer at any time when world prices drop below that level.
Our specific proposal is that the arrangement for several years for spring wheat, and consequently for related wheats, will be in the range of $3.25 to $5, a floor and a ceiling. This is an arrangement which, if it were offered to us and available to us on an international basis, would be considered to be very good indeed for our Canadian farmers. In the case of Durum, because of the current special world price situation, we propose to enter into the arrangement with the same floor of $3.25 per bushel, recognizing the long-term close relationship between spring wheat and Durum, but a ceiling of $7.50 per bushel.
In order that not all of this be passed on to the consumer, as it was about to be had we not acted earlier this month, we propose to pay to the producer through the Wheat Board in the case of the bulk of the wheat produced in the Prairies, and in another manner direct to the producer or indirect, $1.75 per bushel on the grain consumed in Canada. The Wheat Board therefore will be pricing spring wheat throughout the seven year period at $3.25 to the millers, Durum at between $3.25 and $5.75 depending on the world price, and the treasury will pay up to $1.75 in all cases where the price of wheat is higher than the maximum limits. This $1.75, which amounts to a total of approximately $100 million at its maximum, is a direct consumer subsidy designed to hold the price of bread at present levels and avoid unnecessary increases due to the price of wheat, and will be paid to the producer because of the agreement which gives him the range of $3.25 to $5 on spring wheat.
Hon. members have asked about the manner of putting this into effect and about security. It is my hope and expectation that at an early point in time we can come before the House of Commons with a bill to set up for the seven year period the treasury payments which are involved in this program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is because it is a seven year program that it is so attractive to our producers. It is part of our over-all program in assuring step by step additional income and security to our producers of grain and animal products.
In our recent August 3 announcement of a feed grain policy for Canada, very important commitments to a storage program and to a guaranteed price program were included. Hon. members are well aware of our view that a major grain stabilization program is essential to give long term security to our farmers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a statement the other day, indicated at a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of agriculture that additional stabilization programs on other products will be discussed because it is true that the most important thing for a producer of animals and for meat production in this country is the assurance that prices tomorrow, the day after and the day after that, will be at reasonable levels which take into consideration the costs and the risks of the producer. No one should really suggest that today in this country meat is over-priced so far as the producer is concerned. In fact, with feed grain and protein prices

September 10, 1973

being where they are he needs at least this amount. But what he needs even more than a fair return at present is an assurance that his return in the future is secure. If it is, he will stay in the business of producing animal products for this country in the best way he can. This is a sensible program of action.
As with the program on oil and gas announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), it is always important to move forward in a certain way, and then to discuss matters that are involved with the provinces. That is what we have done here. We acted directly and immediately with that part of the program on which we could act, and then we proceeded to consult the provinces with regard to the longer term parts of the program. We are criticized on the one hand for acting without consultation, but hon. members opposite should imagine what they would have said if we had talked about consultations and meetings without having acted on a program.
We have acted on a program to deal with the problems of people who, like the farmers, need income adjustment and whose income adjustment should not be counted as part of the over-all price increase in the country. That is the way in which this government will continue to move in dealing with the problems of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a different kind of speech on this occasion, and having the privilege of following the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) I hope I will be excused if I devote most of my time to endeavouring to interpret what he had to say. It is very difficult to understand. Of course, he was able to convince the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) by his statements last fall when together they got into that form of philosophical discussion that resulted in a union then, and has since become a rather unusual union. I was very much interested in the speech of the leader of the NDP. He wrapped himself in the garments or righteousness, and he was able to place before the House the concept "if you would see perfection, see me". I always like to hear him debate because he is able to speak with clarity and with an unusual ability to get around facts, but at the same time to leave the impression of being entirely logical without possessing that quality.
I immediately want to give high marks to the Minister of Justice for that philosophical discussion that took place a few days after the election when he sought converse with the Leader of the NDP, not to convert but to understand. Apparently, as a result of that discussion, he was able to bring about that unity that has prevailed throughout the ensuing days. Some day I will deal with the leader of the NDP and shall read some of the sonorous statements he uttered with leonine gestures concerning what he would do with the government if it did not do what he wanted. The government has not done these thing but now, following a meeting with the pride of lions in the causus, the lion has become an adoring lamp. He does not like what the government is doing, but "my goodness we are going to support it". He even ancitipated what Her
Cost of Living
Majesty's Loyal Opposition was going to advance and issued a pronunciamento on Saturday to the effect that they would stand with the government. Nothing to equal that has been seen since the days of Damon and Pythias. He votes with the government not because of what the government is doing but because only in joining with the government is there survival for the NDP.
Now, I have a word for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I have great admiration for his facility of speech, for his ability to read the most difficult financial terms and for the fact that he is equally proficient in both languages. I greatly admire his ability to say that they have not done anything, but certainly have plans in mind for the future, and then say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) does not know what he is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note that there is some applause. "He doesn't know what he is talking about". They borrowed 40 per cent of his ideas in respect of the economy during the last three months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What is the government solution as enunciated by the Minister of Finance? This reminds me that the government's attitude concerning the soaring cost of living is analogous to the driver of a fast moving car going downhill who finding that the brakes are not working, opens up the door and endeavours to put his feet on the roadway to slow down the speed. There is nothing in their policy which will meet the problem. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) was able to analyse the situation with a clarity and with a knowledge of economics which was unanswerable. Therefore, the Minister of Justice did not find it necessary to deal with it. The Minister of Justice says his policy is an excellent one. Which policy-the one enunciated 8 days ago, the revised version of five days ago or the revised version of the revised version of Saturday in Winnipeg?
What do western leaders say concerning this policy? Well, I have here a quotation from the leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan, but possibly it would arouse the antagonism of the leader of the NDP in this House. He said according to a recent press release:
"I am disappointed that the first areas of price controls seem to be agricultural products.
"I understand and appreciate that these prices should be controlled. Consumers should be protected from soaring food prices but it shouldn't be at the expense of the farmer."
Usually, the leader of the NDP is willing to control everyone but labour. He goes on to say:
"If farmers are subject to ceiling on their prices, they should have selective price controls on their costs-
They applaud that in the NDP and vote for a government that is not doing it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Lest anyone think that the views of Premier Blakeney might be regarded with some suspicion, I now wish to quote the words of the leader of the Liberal

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
party in Saskatchewan, Mr. Steuart. He is one of the proteges of the Minister of Justice. He says:
"I can't see that the farmer should in any way subsidize any food commodity.
"For years and years the western farmer was forced to sell his grain for Canadian consumption as well as world-wide consumption at whatever price he could get on the world market. And we were told for years and years that that was the way it was.
"The world market was a dollar and a half, it didn't matter what the farmer's costs were, he had to take a dollar and a half.
"Now for the first time since World War II, for the first time in over a quarter of a century, the farmers are getting good prices for their commodity.
"And so we're sort of seeing a backlash where people are saying 'well we better put ceilings on these prices.'
"And I say no."
That is the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice consulted him. He did in the last election with tremendous success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He won his own seat in the province. The question continues:
"And I say no. We're not putting ceilings on anything else. If the federal government wants to subsidize food prices, I say good. .. .
"But in no way should the western farmer or any farmers in Canada be asked to subsidize it."
What does the Minister of Justice say to that? What about this subsidy? The first hint of a subsidy, I think, was about five days ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Back in July.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but this is the revised version. They were going to hook the farmer for about $1.70 a bushel to subsidize the consumer. That is what the plan was.
Finally, there was the alteration outside the House of Commons of what he said on Friday, and I had questioned him on this. He said he was giving us the full story, but now there is a revised version. Under the plan as it is today, the western farmer producing wheat will be subsidizing the consumer of Canada by approximately 67 'A to 72 cents a bushel. That is wrong. Any subsidy should be paid by the people of Canada as a whole, and not by the farmers of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice enunciated with great gusto an illusory plan, not yet achieved, for a seven-year sale in advance. What is the experience we have had with him up to now? The government is going to put a ceiling on the farmer's wheat. That is what the Liberal party did during the last war. It restored the Wheat Board, having let it die, so it could put a ceiling on the price of wheat, and the farmer could not get the price that would otherwise have been available. Now the government is going to do it directly and put a ceiling on the farmer's wheat.
Has the minister forgotten the unholy mess his government made-not him, because he is merely a puppet of the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-in connection with the sale of our wheat all over the world at prices below the cost of production? That has been going on for the last several years; and the minister cannot deny it, as he sent a letter to his constituents and forgot to delete that part. Wheat was sold to the U.S.S.R. at a price lower than the cost of production. I am referring, not to a political record but to a government document issued in connection with customs operations, exports by commodities. It shows that they sold wheat to the U.S.S.R. at $1.73 per bushel when the asking price, on contract, in Vancouver at the time was $2.96. They sold wheat to the People's Republic of China for $1.97 at a time when the asking price was $2.92.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: They sold wheat to Cuba at $1.75 when the asking price was $2.90. They got rid of the farmers' wheat at a price below the cost of production. Now the individual who initiated this says he has a new plan on behalf of the farmers.
Let me refer to other sales. They sold wheat to the U.S.S.R., again at $1.72 a bushel when when the going price was $2.97. They sold wheat to Cuba for $1.72, and to North Korea for $1.54. Isn't it strange how all these people got in on this deal? This has been going on. The minister and the government have been blind to the fact that there has been a population explosion all over the world and food should be produced to the geatest possible degree. We should also be able to expect governments, realizing the facts known to people all over the world, not to dump farmers' wheat at prices below the cost of production.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They were giving their friends a good deal.


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned this historic letter the minister wrote to his constituents, dated March 2, 1972. In this letter he sets out the record in respect of the parliamentary speech index so that all may read and all may know. Then he makes his own observations in handwriting. In this letter of March 2, he said he was attending a Minneapolis farm forum. That is where representatives of agricultural organizations in Canada and in the United States gather. He asked the Americans why we in Canada were selling grain below the cost of production, and then said we were ready for reasonable prices if they said the word. The farmers of western Canada were taken for a ride in respect of 400 million to 500 million bushels because of this policy of dumping our wheat all over the world at prices below the cost of production.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister wants us now to forget. Let me mention one other thing. He has now arrived at the point where he is able to look seven years ahead.


An hon. Member:: That is two years better than Russia usually does.


John George Diefenbaker: What was his record when he was only looking a year or so ahead? Has the western farmer forgotten the Lift program? When it was introduced, I suggested that the only individuals who would get a lift
September 10, 1973

would be the western farmers, in the posterior; and that is what happened. The minister went all over the country and suggested a cut-down on production. He said this was necessary as there was no possibility of selling. At the same time, there were hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat stored-and they dumped it at fire sale prices all over the world, at the expense of the farmer. Was the minister right in respect of the Lift program? I suggest that was the greatest hoax and deception ever perpetrated on the western farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now the minister says, in effect, that this is all in the past, he has a new vision, he has seen the light. I suggest it was not a new light that he saw; it was the heat he found developing in western Canada that forced him to alter the unalterable. He enunciated a policy on Friday, he went to Winnipeg, he saw, he heard, and he ran. Now he has a policy developed under those circumstances and says that all we have to do is take his advice and the western farmers should fall into line.
Where are our wheat stocks today? Let me refer hon. members to this statement:
The Wheat Board have not sold any wheat past December as apparently all available stocks have been allocated and they want to have some idea of the outturn and grades of this year's crops before making further sales.
The minister cannot challenge that statement because it comes from his seatmate's company, James Richardson and Sons, Limited. It is a wonder he did not let his seatmate whisper to him, telling him what the situation was. The statement goes on to mention that ships have been waiting, and so on. Let us go on to another matter in connection with the advice and the impenetrable mess that has been made of this situation. Farmers are again being taken for a ride. Until the last couple of days, and the revised version, the farmers' wheat was to be sold at $3.18 a bushel to the millers. Unsatisfied with having trimmed them under the Lift plan, he now wants the, wheat farmers to subsidize the consumer. Let me tell him that in the last election there was one Liberal member returned in Saskatchewan. When the farmers realize this new policy, there will be a reduction to the minimum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Bye-bye, Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: You have said that before.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The right hon. member could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Cost of Living


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is rising on a question of privilege.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I said no, and I said it as the member for Madawaska-Victoria and because the Leader of Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) refused to extend the time of the Miniter of Finance (Mr. Turner).


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate because I will have the opportunity to complete some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who was unfortunately interrupted when his time expired.
Although the government is constantly considering contingency measures to control prices and incomes, it has always concluded that in present circumstances, such controls would not bring any improvement and on the contrary could be disastrous.
Besides, the American experience in this connection is significant. The main cause of the inflationary pressures facing us is this worldwide unbalance between supply and demand, especially as far as farming products are concerned.
This problem cannot be solved effectively by the imposition of prices and incomes controls in our country. Controls do not encourage an increased production, on the contrary, they often have an opposite effect.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of the long series of government policies has been to encourage an increase in supply through expansion of our productivity in an effort to get to the root of the inflationary problem, to ease the pressure of rising prices on the budgets of Canadian families, particularly those on low and fixed incomes, and to prevent any efforts that may be made to exploit inflation by profiteering at the expense of the Canadian people. These policies are not band-aids, as the Conservative opposition describes them, but carefully selected, co-ordinated and comprehensive policies aimed at best achieving the objectives I have just outlined.
The budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) of last February, together with that of the previous May, were designed to contribute in a major way to maximizing the supply of goods produced by our nation and minimizing the adverse impact of worldwide inflation on the Canadian people. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) chooses to characterize the budget of last February as a "sick joke". I would like to remind the House that when the Minister of Finance forecast in the budget that real growth of the Canadian economy this year would be in the order of 7 per cent, the Conservative leader and members of his party also thought that was a joke.

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Macln-nis) rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion, as I have on a number of occasions previously, with respect to the reading of speeches. Where the member is reading figures or statistics from a prepared document, that is all right; but if he is reading some nonsense that somebody else put on paper for him, then I think it is time we used the rule that speeches should not be read in this House.


John Napier Turner: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) should apply the same rule to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) wants me to do for him? Does he want to get up on the point of order that I raised, or does he have some that he wants to raise himself? I am raising the point of order with respect to the speech that is being read now.


An hon. Member:: "Respect" is a good word.


Donald MacInnis: Thank you; "respect" is. Respect of the rules would mean that he should put aside the paper that somebody else prepared for him, and not read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a point that has been raised many times in this House, and I think it is a valid point. Hon. members are entitled to refer to notes they have made. I think the point is quite valid.
[ Translation]
The Chair would ask the cooperation of the hon. parliamentary secretary if possible, and suggest that while referring to his notes, he abide by the rules and address the House without reading from a text.
I recognize the parliamentary secretary.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I willingly accept your comments, but allow me to read these few notes in English for the simple reason that I wanted the opposition members to understand what I was going to say. And if members of the opposition want to make speeches in French, I shall gladly listen to them even if they read their speeches.
I should also like to refer to my notes. Of course, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) handed me a few notes in order that I may complete the remarks that he wanted to make. When one wants to quote figures and statistics accurately, it is important to refer to notes instead of saying just anything in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue, if possible. The Conservative leader and members of his party also thought that was a joke. They doubled up with laughter when the Minister of Finance warned that there was a risk of the economy overshooting the target and aggravating inflation, a risk that was considered worth taking.

Throughout the course of this year there has been very substantial growth of national production, of jobs and in the real income of Canadians-but the Conservative opposition rejected the forecast of these developments. They proposed a further substantial increase in government spending, further tax cuts costing another $700 million or more, an increase in the federal deficit of 2 Vi times, with the cash requirement doubling to $4 billion, and a continuing massive increase in the money supply.
For the particular benefit of the Conservative leader, let me outline some of the major steps adopted or proposed by the government over the past 16 months to maximize supply and minimize the impact of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, let me proceed with my remarks in French.
Through budget measures we have reduced personnal income tax by the equivalent of 12 to 13 per cent in February and we have also granted a special exemption of $650 to $1,000 to the blind and disabled people. Thanks to all those measures we have increased the so-called weekend take-home pay.
We have abolished the sales tax on all children clothing; we have also abolished the sales tax on soft drinks and food. Moreover, we have abolished the excise tax on certain toilet articles and cosmetics. We have also imposed a temporary reduction in tariffs of roughly $1.4 billion on many products. In addition, by adjusting the equilization formula $190 million have been made available to the provinces which enable them in many cases to reduce their school and property taxes. We have indexed the old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement since January 1972. In October those pensions will be significantly increased.
In October, the family allowances will be also temporarily raised to $12 a month, not taxable, for each child and, in January, to $20 even though it will be taxable. The Canada Pension Plan will be fully indexed as will be all federal civil servant pensions and others paid by the federal government.
Moreover, several provinces have granted or are considering granting soon a significant increase in their payments for social welfare and it should be remembered that the federal government pays 50 per cent of all social welfare plans in Canada.
We have reduced taxes for manufacturers, thereby creating many jobs, an unprecedented number of jobs during this and last year.
The government established a Food Price Review Board and we hope that it will bring about very good results.
We have imposed temporary controls on exports of beef, pork and a few grains in order to prevent any increase in prices and, overall, a shortage of these products in Canada.
We also increased the subsidy to wheat production from $1 to $1.75 in order to prevent a rise in the price of bread, which was unavoidable. We will pay subsidies of 5 cents by quart of milk to all the provinces that will accept to maintain or reduce the price of milk for a period of at least one year. We asked the oil industry not to increase the cost
September 10, 1973

of its products before January 30, 1974, except in the event that imports would increase and provided that this step be approved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). The government also announced the implementation of a program designed to prevent the rise in prices of oil products in Canada, if the latter were to increase in foreign countries as a result of shortages.
[ English]
Mr. Speaker, the cost of implementing the measures that were announced in August and September is estimated at $322 million for the fiscal year 1973-74. Taken together, I believe all these measures adopted over the past several months add up to one of the most intensive and far-ranging programs of action adopted by any country for dealing in a workable and realistic way with the kind of inflation we are now experiencing, and moderating its impact on Canadians.
The type of inflation facing us at present is caused by the simultaneously strong demand everywhere in the world for a limited supply of goods. No one country standing alone can turn back that tide. While the Conservative leader wants to assume the vain posture of a King Canute by commanding the worldwide inflationary tides to recede from our shores, the interests of the Canadian people demand that we as a government concern ourselves with economic realities.
As the Minister of Finance has said before, we are doing everything reasonably possible to maximize our own supplies and in the process are increasing national output, employment and incomes, while at the same time minimizing the erosion of incomes of those who stand to be most hurt by inflation.
It is important that we ensure that our rate of inflation in Canada does not exceed significantly that of other leading industrial nations for any extended period of time. That puts a heavy responsibility on all Canadians, individually and collectively, to avoid pressing for excessive increases in prices and incomes in a vain effort to obtain protection against inflation. The result of such a course could only be an accelerating spiral of costs and prices that would intensify inflation, jeopardize Canada's international competitive position and impede the growth in future of production and employment.
We have been down that rocky road before and I do not believe many Canadians want to travel it again. I hope that we Canadians have enough plain, ordinary common sense to avoid that destructive course and, instead, to work together to achieve the goal of a steadily improving standard of living that we all can share.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, as it is close to six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Cost of Living AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to address myself to two themes which are one and the same, namely, the production of food and the cost of food, how they are related in this country and what we may or may not do to meet the needs of Canadians. Surely that should be our purpose. Our problems with regard to prices and inflation are related to our supplies of food and whether Canadians are doing what is sensible and logical to meet the circumstances which we face.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said this afternoon that escalating prices in Canada are due to the international scene. He can say that if he wishes, and thereby avoid the real issue of what we do on the Canadian scene. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). He stated what we should do and outlined the circumstances surrounding the present economic situation in Canada. At the end of his remarks I still did not know what he or his party would do to meet the circumstances which we face.
If we want food at reasonable prices, we should produce more food.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The Americans have received the message and have changed their policy to all-out production. This has been stated by Mr. Butz, the United States Secretary of Agriculture. This has also been quoted in Time, which is like Pravda for the present U.S. administration: it is the magazine which tells the official story for the United States, just as Pravda tells it for the U.S.S.R.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, like Watergate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is a mess. The U.S.S.R. has its own Watergate, only the details are not published. The article I have referred to reads in part:
The greatest obstacle to increasing output is not technical but psychological: the farmer's traditional fear that if he grows everything he can, he will only produce a glut that will depress prices.
The article is absolutely right. There is no technical bar to producing all the food Canadians could possibly use, at very reasonable prices.
I want to compare what is being done in the United States with Canada. They have established a policy to pay $2.05 for every bushel of wheat that American farmers produce in the next crop year. They have released all acreages held back as a result of programs to restrict production. In other words, the message is out: All-out production.
What is the Canadian policy? Today the minister in charge of the Wheat Board finally announced a policy which he has been germinating for the past 48 hours, or possibly the past week. I have followed the newspaper releases each day. When I heard him enunciate this policy I thought that he and his advisers must have been in an aircraft headed toward Regina, and while travelling between here and Regina they outlined the policy they

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
were going to announce on their arrival. It increases or decreases as it goes along.
But what is the policy? For approximately the 10 per cent of Canadian wheat production going into the domestic market they will guarantee a price of $3.25 a bushel. In order for the farmer to get this, he must sacrifice part of the price presently being offered on the international market. Nothing is said about the total production of western Canada. If the farmer produces to his maximum, will he be guaranteed $1.75, $2, $2.25 of any other figure on the total production he may produce for the international and national market? No. This government has given no clear signal to the farmer that they want him to produce the maximum wheat, barley, hogs or cattle for the Canadian consumer. They are dodging and hedging. If the government wanted to serve the Canadian consumer, they would give a clear signal for all-out production.
A ceiling has been imposed on Durum. The farmer has been told he will be paid a certain figure. He has been told he will have to take so much less than the price for Durum on the international markets. The minister said today this was not as much as I had said, that it was only a couple of dollars. It does not matter: That is only a matter of degree; the principle is the same. The government wants to chisel the farmer at one end and the consumer at the other. What conversations have they had with those who produced and processed Durum wheat and its chief product which is Pasta? Unless some commitment is made by manufacturers and processors, the ceiling on the price of Durum is nothing more or less than a gift to those who process it.
In my city of Saskatoon the price of pizza has increased. You will find prices have gone up. What action has been taken to see they are reduced? Precious little. How much of the milk subsidy will find its way into the hands of the farmer and of the consumer, and how much will find its way into the hands of the processor? This rests with the provincial governments. It will depend on how effectively they can deal with those who process milk.
I want to take some of my scarce time to quote from what was said on a CBC program by the United States Secretary of Agriculture. I do so for the benefit of those who sit to my right. When he came to Ottawa on August 2 to confer with officials of the Canadian government, Mr. Butz said:
I think it was a mistake in the first place to impose ceilings on meat prices. I think our people in the United States have learned a very important economic lesson, and I hope people in Canada have learned the same lesson, that is, in a biological industry you don't get more by paying less.
That is what we did. We tried to get more by paying less, and the net result was that we liquidated our stocks of chickens and were slaughtering pregnant sows. The way to get food at more economical prices is to produce more and guarantee the farmer against price reductions when he does produce greater quantities. That is the real answer if we want more food.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board have been saying that the price of food ought to be raised to the consumer; that it is about time. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board

says the government is sympathetic to those whose wages are low, but those earning higher wages can afford to pay more for the food they buy. They are separating Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to do something for those at lower income levels, we should see that they are provided with food; that if they cannot afford to buy it they can get it anyway. The food stamp program in the United States makes us in Canada look as though we were a bunch of pikers. They do provide food for those whose incomes are low. They are trying to make sure that people in the United States do not suffer from malnutrition. It is a disgrace that here in Canada, with all the productive resources we have at our disposal, people should suffer from malnutrition. They do. And we do nothing about it except bring in programs which increase the price of food.


William Heward Grafftey: You voted for them.


An hon. Member:: They were your suggestions,
remember?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All right. You will have a chance to speak when your time comes. Controls have been placed on Durum wheat, bread wheat. I note that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is in his place tonight despite the fact that they raised this question earlier today. Why have they not placed ceilings on soybean prices, since they have placed a ceiling on the price of wheat? The increase in the price of soybeans has been much greater than the increase in the price of wheat. A year ago the price was $3.39 a bushel. As of September 7 it was $10 a bushel. And soybeans are one of the most important sources of protein we have. The government never concerned itself about the price of soybeans, yet the very farmers in western Canada whose wheat is subject to a ceiling are buying soybean meal for their chickens and hogs. No action has been taken to place a ceiling on the price of corn. The price a year ago was $1.50. On September 7 it stood at $2.45. No action has been taken to bring this basic cereal under control.
The government has put into place a feed grain marketing policy and the Wheat Board, which is following that policy, has stated it will no longer use the commodity markets in Winnipeg as a means of setting the price for tja.rley- Officials of the commodity market say that in these circumstances the market will no longer be able to function. What, then, is to be the method of pricing flaxseed, rapeseed and rye? The government has a responsibility to ensure a viable marketing system. It is not discharging this responsibility because the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has failed to make a statement in the House outlining his policy and the way in which it will operate. In my opinion, the reason he has not made a statement is that he does not know what to say.
The present situation is such that I defy anybody to say with certainty whether the Wheat Board is still an independent body or whether it is being dictated to and run by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the grains group which sits behind him. It is a serious thing not to know what kind of pricing and marketing mechanism will be in effect. In terms of rapeseed and flax we could find ourselves in the position of contracting sales in
September 10, 1973

the absence of a posted price. The ordinary producer would have no way of finding out what the price should be. He would be operating from a position of weakness, with no bargaining power whatever.
This is the direction in which we are heading as a result of what the two ministers I have mentioned have done, or are failing to do. And what action does the Minister of Agriculture take? He simply tries to keep a low profile. He tries to keep out of sight while we subsidize to the extent of $1 a bushel every bushel of barley that goes into the market east of the Ottawa River. At the same time, those who represent the Quebec farmers claim they are being overcharged for feed grain.
Somebody is ripping off the farmers of western Canada and the feeders of eastern Canada at one and the same time. We deserve better than this from the marketing mechanism. We did have a good marketing mechanism but it is being destroyed piece by piece by those who should be responsible for it.
I am not going to vote for the motion that has been put before this House because I have no confidence in the people who sit to my right. The hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley (Mr. Horner) said when the feed grain policy was announced that he agreed with it. He is on record in the Star-Phoenix as agreeing with the government's policy, which will cost the western farmer $1 for every bushel of barley he sells. The minister of agriculture of Alberta said he had some reservations about it, and I know what his reservations are. His only reservations are that the guys in Quebec are going to get the same deal that he gets, and he wants the guys in Quebec to be shafted.
Why should I support people who refuse to agree to orderly marketing for rapeseed or flaxseed? Why should I support people who are not in favour of orderly marketing for western grains and whose policy is as ambivalent as that of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not as clear as yours.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mine is very clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I very much regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time appears to have expired.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, if a sample survey were carried out throughout Canada to discover which is the most important problem for the population in every Canadian province, I am sure that we should come to the conclusion that inflation is.
But the other problem we are faced with results from the fact that this government firmly believes inflation to be truly a gift from God. We have a government which, for many months, has been unable to come up with a policy to control prices and incomes.
A number of people have discussed all the ins and outs of these problems, but I repeat that the Canadians who are affected by this inflation resulting from the poor administration of this government are those in the low-income
Cost of Living
bracket: senior citizens, pensioners, farmers, including those in the east.
[ English]
It is very rarely, Mr. Speaker, that I put letters from my constituents on the record, but I am forced to put one on from a Mrs. Parker who lives at R. R. 4, Mansonville, Quebec. She writes:
Dear Mr Grafftey:


John Napier Turner: This will be good.


William Heward Grafftey: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had better listen, because he is not informed about this:
Just a note to give you an idea how the grain feed prices stand. Oats, barley, wheat are $6.50 per hundred pounds, corn, cracked, $7.20, calf grow, $7, scratch feed, hog grower, laying mash $8. In some cases its a mark up of 100 per cent in the last six months, over-all the mark-up is about 100 per cent over the last year.
The co-op tells me the brokers are having a heyday. Perhaps some questions should be asked about the difference between what the western growers are getting and what the eastern cooperatives pay the brokers. It may be a shocker-
Dora S. Parker
If hon. members opposite would pay attention, I should like to inform them that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has time and time again proposed, among other things, a reserve feed bank for the eastern feed grain farmers.


An hon. Member:: We have not heard about that.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members have not heard about it because they have not been listening. They do not choose to listen. We proposed in detail how we would come to grips with the problems of the eastern farmer and economic guarantees of the western farmer. But hon. members opposite and to my left just do not choose to listen.
[ Translation]
I was interested in hearing the leader , of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) this afternoon. Indeed, it is true that with the leader of my party I made a tour of the Eastern Townships and spoke with Canadians belonging to every political party: Liberals, Creditists and Progressive Conservatives.


An hon. Member:: You spoke to our electors!


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, we spoke to your electors who as a result of the poor administration of this government are truly destituted. Such is the case of eastern farmers, pensioners, senior citizens, the real Creditists who would like to see the policy of our leader applied, namely price and income controls, which would be a comprehensive program and policy and I would suggest to the leader of the Creditists to take the opportunity to get acquainted with the policy of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
I am sure of one thing, and that is that the Quebec Creditists do not approve of a Socialist-Liberal coalition. We do not have a minority government at the present time but a real coalition and people in Quebec as everywhere else in Canada will not approve of such a coalition for as long as Canadians remain in poverty.

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
I would like to say also at this time that I am very glad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is in the House tonight because, ever since his appointment, all his forecasts have been wrong.
[ English]
There is one thing, Sir, that a very simple poll across this country would teach us, and that is that the number one domestic issue facing Canadians today is infaltion- mounting prices. We are faced with a Liberal-Socialist coalition that just refuses to act. We are faced with a government that blames everybody but themselves. They appoint a chairman to some commission, give her $40,000 a year-which surely solves her inflation problem-and who does she blame? Aided and abetted by the government, she blames the people.
I am going to talk about another matter. When prices go up, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) blame the provinces. In addition, the Minister of Finance likes to blame world conditions. This reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the little kid in school who never studied for his exams and flunked. But he said, "I'm all right because everyone else flunked, so that's okay." I listened to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) this afternoon and I must say it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of hon. members opposite to prattle day in and day out in this House about nonsense to the effect that since the rest of the world is not doing too well, we are okay too; that just because everybody else is flunking, we have to flunk too. It is not necessarily true that everybody else is flunking. They have an incomes and prices policy in Australia, and so far as inflation and rising prices are concerned, that country has one of the best records in the world.
How about this continual comparison with the United States? It seems absolutely erroneous to me. We will not necessarily apply in detail or in general the same policies as does President Nixon. There is a big argument, and if the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) would only listen he would know that we have said time and time again that one of the reasons their controls at one stage did not work is that they lifted them too soon.
Conditions today are not the same as when they applied the controls or lifted them in the United States. I submit to the right hon. Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance that it is a phony, an erroneous argument and that he is comparing apples with pears. If the minister would just throw aside some of those self-satisfied statements and documents with which he presents us all the time, he would admit to us that he is comparing apples with pears most of the time.


John Napier Turner: No, with lemons.


William Heward Grafftey: Why is there a need for a prices and incomes policy? I do not have too much time at my disposal this evening, nor do other members.


John Napier Turner: Take all the time you want.
[Mr. Grafftey.)


William Heward Grafftey: The clacks do not want the truth. Why is there a need for a prices and incomes policy? Its harmful effects on the distribution of income within the state and within the world are evident. I have recited its effects on people with fixed incomes, on pensioners and farmers. Its harmful effects on the labour-management bargaining process and on the pricing mechanism of the state are obvious. Its potentially harmful effects on a state's trading policies are obvious.
I wish the Minister of Finance would stop saying that if we had prices and incomes controls they would automatically harm our trading position. They would not, and he knows it. It is an old-fashioned argument that might have been applicable 100 years ago, but is certainly not applicable in contemporary conditions. It is a distortion of economic growth patterns. It has an emotional impact. Once we know that the inflation psychology is rolling, it continues to roll and very few things can stop it. We have said time and time again that a freeze followed by controls is not the be all and end all, but it is certainly something that deserves on its merits to be tried.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: It has been tried in the United States.


William Heward Grafftey: You are prattling the same nonsense as is the Minister of Finance. This is not a comparison. Inflation has become a psychological, social and political problem and no wise government refuses to deal with it as does this government. A wise government cannot ignore excessive inflation as this government has.
The only reason that we have any measures in front of us here this week to at least partially deal with the problem is the rail strike. Because of this government's mismanagement of the rail strike, parliament was recalled. I cannot help but pay tribute to an outstanding Canadian at present not in this House. Under the government of the right hon. gentleman to my right at the time when the hon. Michael Starr held the labour portfolio, we did not have rail strikes. They were properly settled in those days. Mr. Starr got the parties together. Not once under the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did we have to recall parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: But we had to recall parliament under the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) because we had piecemeal policies-too little too late. Then the NDP became excited. They said that this will be the big chance to attack inflation because they had been back to their ridings for a few weeks and they heard the people talking. What do we have? We have a few ad hoc, piecemeal measures which satisfy the NDP, but they are easily satisfied by the present government. They will soon see, if we get out of here and go back to the people, that what we have been dealing with in terms of government measures this week and last week will not satisfy the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 10, 1973

[ Transla tion]


William Heward Grafftey: I note, Mr. Speaker, as I have often noted before, that for five years under the present government we have been setting new unemployment and inflation records. This is simply due to the fact that the present government has no policy regarding prices and incomes.
[ English]
There is an area of finance or economics. I must make a confession to you, Mr. Speaker; I am not well versed in it-but I will only tell you what the people tell me. The right hon. gentleman alluded to it this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: What has happened in the last four years? The right hon. member for Prince Albert told us that they had a Lift program in the west. They told the farmers not to plant wheat. Within the last three or four years eastern farmers have been put on milk quotas. The government told the farmers three or four years ago to take it easy because we had huge milk surpluses. At the expenditure of millions, almost billions of Canadian tax dollars, the government told the farmers not to grow wheat and not to produce milk products. Three or four years later, I am told by people in my riding that one does not need a college education to determine that we are now faced with skyrocketing dairy product prices and skyrocketing bread prices. What kind of sense is there in such a policy?
Will the government come forth today and express to us and then to the Canadian people what in the world they have been doing in the last five Years? This underlines ably one of the things I have been saying for years about the present economy. The Liberals call themselves socialists not in a hurry, the NDP call themselves Liberals in a hurry, and what we get in this country so often is half socialist, half free enterprise measures that do not work. What is more, the government wastes billions and billions of Canadians' tax dollars. How long will we have to call this a minority government? How long will the people of Canada be faced with this Liberal-Socialist coalition?


John Napier Turner: Wait until the next election.


William Heward Grafftey: I cannot wait for it. We are ready.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: As I have said, the finance minister and then the Prime Minister rise in the House and say that they cannot do anything about wage and price controls that this is a federal state and consultation with the provinces is needed. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said. One thing that a price freeze will do is to give us the 90 days or whatever is needed to consult with the provinces. What does the government do? They go straight ahead where some people fear to plunge. Trust the present government! What do they do? They apply anti-inflationary measures not within federal powers, without consulting the provinces. The principles and policies to encourage increased food production and reasonable returns to farmers are subject to federal-provincial agreements. They know that.
Cost of Living
The removal of the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan is legally subject to agreement by the provinces. They know that. There is no time for consultation. Increased social assistance to the poorest families in Canada is entirely dependent upon the financial ability of the provinces. The 5 per cent subsidy per quart of milk and the equivalent reduction on a package of powdered skim milk would only be paid when and if provincial marketing boards agreed to maintain or reduce the cost of milk for at least one year.
Then we have this situation. The federal government must reach agreement with the provinces and industry to extend pipeline facilities so as to enable Canadian oil to be shipped into Montreal. What a beautiful one that is. It was mentioned last week by the minister. However, it is off again this week. We are told they are backing away. What a silly way for federal government to act in a federal union such as Canada without even consulting the provinces. There is this whole list of things in which consultation is needed if we are to have a reasonable degree of control in this country.
[ Translation]
This is exactly the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition regarding price and income control. It is obvious.

When all the shouting is over-and I am sure there are some who feel I shout a bit too much-someone will ask: Why an incomes and wages policy? Again it must be repeated that virtually all western economies today have some form of incomes policy. This government will paralyse the economy for the sake of power. We can act in only two ways. One is by using fiscal and monetary policy alone and putting many thousands of Canadians out of work. The present government did that a couple of years ago. I am sure they will not do it again. Then there are fiscal and monetary policies and an incomes policy as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition and this party. Members opposite do not listen, in any event. They know how they are going to vote. Members to my left have decided, and should not even participate in the debate.
In conclusion, let me point out that during the last three days the Leader of the Opposition was in my part of the world. People on fixed incomes, farmers and pensioners came out in their hundreds to tell the government to get things moving. People are suffering because of the government's policy. They told the Leader of the Opposition, myself and the press who were present that inflation and the high cost of living composed the number one domestic issue facing this country. Everywhere we went they had the same thing to say. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert alluded to it this afternoon.
What a mockery of parliament it is for the leader of the NDP, before the debate gets under way, to be in such a hurry to support this government. He reminds me of a man who says, "I have made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts" Is this a debating chamber, or a rubber stamp? It is a rubber stamp. The young and the old in my riding who have been following public affairs since they

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
were small say they have never seen a party push to the government so quickly and say, "We are with you fellows" before the debate even gets under way.
What does this mean? It means this is a Liberal-Socialist coalition. It has not been finalized because they do not want to see the leader of the NDP in the same cabinet as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).


An hon. Member:: No way.


William Heward Grafftey: No way? You are with them every day, in every way. The people of Canada want a wages and incomes policy. They want the government to announce what it intends to do about inflation. They want a government that will act.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, this House is asked to approve or disapprove of measures introduced by the government to deal with the cost of living. The debate indicates approval of the measures which have been introduced. Therefore, the question surely is related to measures not introduced.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote the speech for you?


Harold Thomas Herbert: It is a little homework I did myself. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has made clear its position-a 90-day price and income freeze. This will give them the time to consider other measures necessary to control inflation. But the 90-day period has long since expired; so what are the results of these lengthy deliberations? Another 90-day freeze so that the official opposition can continue its deliberations.
Let us be honest. The party opposite has always been and continues to be completely barren of positive, constructive ideas. It is popular at the moment to speak of a price freeze. The cost of food has spiralled and every one of us has felt the effect in our pocket. Many people are being hurt. The government is attempting and must continue to attempt to alleviate this suffering.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to the alleged alliance between the NDP and the Liberals. Let us look at that statement for a minute. Anyone who listens to the radio, watches television or reads a newspaper knows what the NDP is suggesting. Their ideas are communicated for everyone in the country to receive and judge. This is logical. They know it would be a miracle indeed for them to be in a position to govern in the foreseeable future. But in a minority government situation they are using their small force in the best manner available to them.
If everyone in the country hears, so does the government. Newspaper reports suggest government agreement with two out of four major NDP proposals. If the old age pension increase from $100 to $105 were introduced solely at the prompting of the NDP, would this make it any less desirable? Did the loyal opposition vote against it? Quite the contrary. The Tory party has supported the measures introduced by the government despite its power to amend, decrease or increase as it wishes.
Even today the opposition motion which is before us is a negative motion and not a positive one. I will come back to the Tory party in a minute, but I wish to direct a few

remarks to the NDP. I have always respected the left-wing parties for their ideological approach to living and for the honesty of their conviction. Trying to argue against socialism to a socialist is an interesting but seldom rewarding experience. What I have not appreciated is what is, in my opinion, dishonesty in the use of statistics. True, everyone plays the game, but the NDP are directing their statistics at the very people who are likely to be most misled by them.
I refer specifically to recent references to company profits. If company A made a profit last year of $1 million, and this year a profit of $2 million, its profits have increased by 100 per cent. Using just the percentage increase clearly implies that this company is prospering and in fact might be accused of profiteering. However, if this company needs a profit of $10 million to provide a 5 per cent return to its investors, then its profitability position in the current year is almost as disastrous as it was in the preceding year. May I suggest to the leader of the New Democratic-Party (Mr. Lewis) that he will lose all remaining credibility if he continues this line.
Let me read an extract from an excellent column by John Meyer in that Tory newspaper, the Montreal Gazette. I still read the Gazette although its clear intention is the defeat of the Liberal government. Mr. Meyer writes:
The practice of reporting profits in terms of the percentage of their improvement over the preceding period can be misleading. A food store chain, for example, was subject to man-in-the-street interviews by the CBC a few days ago because its profits had doubled. Individuals were asked at random what they thought of this. Predictably, their replies were extremely critical of the company. The clear implication was they thought it was profiteering.
What wasn't explained is that in the period with which the comparison was made, profits had been extremely low and, even when doubled, they were still under the accepted level of return. Food store chains are, of course, all the more vulnerable, being held responsible as they so frequently are for this increase in food costs. Some food stores have invited criticism through sloppy tagging of products but they ought not to be so wrongly condemned because their profits are returning to acceptable levels.
The food store chains are the most visible targets, because of food prices, but almost all businesses are vulnerable to uninformed scrutiny, by legislators as well as by the public. Businessmen are beginning to feel the full impact of what has been a common complaint for years, that profits has become a dirty word.
One thing should be abundantly clear: a construction company's objective is not putting up skyscrapers, an underwear manufacturer's objective is not to keep everybody warm, and a food chain's objective is not to abolish starvation. A company has but one objective, that is, to make money. What is there to be ashamed of in that? A man or a group of persons invests in a company and risks the loss of their investment for one reason only, the making of a profit to give them a reasonable return on their investment.
Let me read again from John Meyer's article as follows:
-there has been the sharp rise in manufacturing profits through the first and second quarters but, more often than not, only limited reference to the dangerously low levels from which they rose. Manufacturers had an average profit of 4.2 cents from each sales dollar last year which is still less than that earned in any of the best three years of the sixties and a full cent less that the 5.2 cents on the dollar reached in 1964.
September 10, 1973

Also speaking in respect of chain stores, so long as we have fierce competition between Loblaws, Steinbergs, A & P, IGA, Dominion and others we do not really need to fear excessive profiteering. These same food chains, by the very efficiency and size of their companies, have materially contributed to stable food prices in the last few years. In concluding my comments to the NDP may I reiterate that a company exists to make a profit. The average man wants to work for a profitable company. Let us not try to continually make "profit" a dirty word.
Let me now dwell for a few minutes on the situation in the United States. We must consider it obligatory to watch and learn from the experience of other countries. The experience of Britain and the United States is surely such that we can learn from their mistakes. The following relevant comments come from the U.S. News & World Report:
-American companies are embarked on a vast program of expansion and modernization, placing orders in record amounts for machinery, office equipment, trucks, and new factories and offices. Those demands come at a time when industry is loaded with unfilled orders and when shortages of skilled manpower, materials and productive capacity are spreading. That's a situation, economists point out, that naturally fosters higher prices
From the same article I read the following:
Around the world, foreign nations, whose economies are booming, are bidding against the U.S. for raw materials that are increasingly difficult to get-copper, rubber and tin, jute and hemp, lead, zinc and iron ore
Still later in the article it is stated:
-"56 per cent of the over-all wholesale- price index is set in world markets," so that, in a sense, the U.S. is now "importing some inflation" from other nations where pressures under wages and prices are even more intense than there.
The United States is a country of 200 million people. Is there any suggestion that we in a country of just 20 million people cannot be affected by these same pressures? The article continues:
"The poor anchovy catch off Peru has been disastrous" . . . "If anchovies-an important animal feed-don't show up somewhere (the U.S.) may be in for years on inflation of soybeans."
Let me read additional comments concerning the situation in the United States:
Baby chickens wer e being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands by producers who said they would be unable to get enough money for chickens at market weight to cover the rapidly rising cost of feed.
In the next column of the article it is stated:
The spectre of widespread shortages of steaks, pork, chickens and eggs in the months ahead was raised, in turn, by one major American producer of livestock meal Cost of this basic animal food was said to be rising too high for the processor to sell it under present ceilings.
Processed fruits and vegetables appear to be facing the same price squeeze. Canners are just now starting their packing season, and find prices of raw fruits and vegetables up sharply because of smaller crops caused by bad weather, while retail prices are frozen at last year's level. Inventories of can goods are far below normal because of increased demand
Later the article reads:
Controls which hold prices below the levels which market conditions would otherwise generate for any sustained length of time are bound to create shortages, and thus the necessity for some
Cost of Living
means of rationing to substitute for the rationing function normally performed by prices in a free market economy such as ours.


An hon. Member:: Maybe they will renew your subscription.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Maybe they will give you one free. Any government of this country that did not avail itself of the experiences of other nations would be negligent to the extreme. The Tory party should now tell us what are those magical measures it would introduce after its 90-day think session. I suggest it would be another 90-day think session.
One answer is clear. One encourages increases in production of all items in short supply. This week we bought 25 pounds of tomatoes for $1. I wish we could live on tomatoes. We were able to buy 25 pounds of tomatoes for $1 simply because there has been a good harvest and an oversupply at the present time. Secondly, we should try to get help to those most in need, the pensioners and those with large families. Help is being provided to the elderly by way of the increase in old age pensions and to large families by the increase in family allowance payments. It is interesting, to note that only one-quarter of our old age pensioners draw the full supplement; that is, only one in four over the age of 65 has no income whatsoever. Almost half of our senior citizens have incomes which make them ineligible for supplementary payments. This is a statistic of which the elderly citizen can be proud. For those on welfare, the provinces who religiously guard their jurisdictions are being encouraged to increase welfare payments, with the federal government picking up 50 per cent of the tab.
In housing, I am keenly watching the use that is being made of the various measures introduced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). Excellent assistance programs for homes for the elderly and low-interest loans for low-income families have been adopted. Is there going to be extensive use of these programs?
I have listened to the tirades of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, but I have learned very little.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have only stolen about 40 per cent of their policies, that's all.


Harold Thomas Herbert: If one thing is needed at the present time, it is emotional control. I believe the government has sensibly avoided responding to what could be termed a popular move:-an incomes and price freeze. This in itself has taken guts in a minority government position. The motion before the House deserves a clear and resounding nay.


Mr. Alex Patterson. (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. member in this House is aware of the fact that we are now engaged in one of the most important and urgent debates we have faced in this parliament. The problems that we are confronting in Canada- and not only in Canada-are such that they require the intensive application of the mental capacities of every member and all other agencies throughout our country. This is necessary if we are to solve this great problem that we have been discussing today, namely, inflation.
It is the inability of the great masses of the people of Canada to obtain, not the luxuries that are available to the

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
wealthy but the necessities of life, a decent home, adequate clothing and nutritious food, that add up to inflation. We have usually thought of poverty, frustration and despair as conditions of people in the underdeveloped nations of the world. Often we have offered a few dollars to assist them in their quest for a decent standard of living. Canadians are presently faced with the fact that these conditions are becoming a stark reality to an increasing number of our own people who are totally unable to stretch their eroding dollars to get a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food in their stomachs.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that members of this House should recall one cold day last January-January 12, to be specific. It was a Friday. On that day my leader stood up in the chamber and asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what he and his ministers were planning to do about the tremendous rise in the consumer price index. In particular, he asked the Prime Minister if he had instructed his ministers to prepare a series of interim emergency measures to halt or at least reduce the erosion of Canada's purchasing power. The Prime Minister's reply is recorded at page 227 of Hansard as follows:
If the leader of the opposition is thinking about price and wage controls, the government has already stated its position on that question, that we have contingency plans which we will bring into action if necessary but that we would give no advance notice if we were going to do so.
If hon. members care to check the Hansard index under the heading "Price and Wage Control-Contingency Plans" they will find 21 other references to those contingency plans between January 12 and June 6. The index ends there, but I am sure if we had a recent one we would find more references to those contingency plans.
I wonder what the government is really trying to do. What are the contingency plans? What is it that they have been keeping up their sleeve to bring out in the case of an emergency? I would suggest that if we have not reached a state of emergency at the present time, then my understanding of the word "emergency" is rather uncertain. I believe today, Mr. Speaker, that the government is endeavouring to fool the people of Canada into believing that it is responsible and competent while it knows right well that it has failed to deal with the problems and has proven itself both irresponsible and incompetent.


Some hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: As for the contingency plans, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the government does not have any. They are mythical plans. In this respect, I am reminded of the words of a popular song of not so long ago. The writer could very well have been the Prime Minister, and the singer possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). The song goes like this:
Don't be afraid; it will not harm you. It's only me pursuing something I'm not sure of; across my dreams with nets of wonder I chase the bright elusive butterfly of love.


John Napier Turner: That is beautiful.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I would suggest that these nebulous contingency plans that the Prime Minister keeps referring

to are even more elusive for the Canadian people than the "elusive butterfly of love" in the song.
Here we are, in the middle of the month of September, nearly nine months after the Prime Minister's first reference to these contingency plans, and the government has failed to produce anything. The government may have laboured during those nine months, although this is questionable, but the fact is it has produced nothing. Prices continue to rise at an unprecedented rate. The government's $40,000 a year Beryl Plumptre tells the people of Canada that they do not need to buy food, and the House of Commons giant killer, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), seems to have difficulty in bringing his own group to the point where they are prepared to exercise their responsibility and show by their actions what they have been saying for months and months, that this government does not deserve the confidence of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: Note what one columnist wrote concerning this situation. In the Montreal Star of August 15, W. A. Wilson quoted one deeply despondent Liberal who is, he tells us, a figure of consequence in the party. Referring to the hon. member for York South, this renowned Liberal said:
He can't put up with us much longer if he wants to survive himself. He'd be better off to kick us out and pick up the Liberal votes in Ontario especially.
Then Wilson writes:
-with a sudden outburst of bitterness, this great Liberal exclaimed, "This is not an accident-it's just drunk driving."
There we have it, Mr. Speaker. It was on the same day last January to which I referred earlier that my colleague the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) told the Prime Minister that it would take months and months for the government to bring the problem of increases in food prices before parliament in any meaningful way. What was the Prime Minister's answer? He said:
No, it will not take months if the opposition has a clear position on it, which is doubtful.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Prime Minister does not have any answer to the problem. He is looking for the answers. I would suggest that the leader of my party has set out in very clear terms what we believe and what we are convinced would take us at least on the road to a constructive solution to the problems facing the country at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: Every sector of the nation is reeling under the impact of spiralling prices, but most of all those on fixed incomes and those on pensions. I do not know what one hon. member was trying to prove today when he spoke about senior citizens being well taken care of, and so on. If we listen to the pleas that come to our ears and read the letters that come to our desks, we find that the senior citizens are facing problems they have never faced before. It seems that even though increases thave been granted, they are not keeping up with the increasing cost of living. We think of those on fixed incomes who find it
September 10, 1973

almost impossible to make ends meet and to put on the table food sufficient for the needs of themselves and their families.
Many Canadians who were industrious and thrifty in their working years and made some preparation for their retirement years now find that what they thought was some security is only enough to keep them from benefiting from the various programs now instituted to care for those who were unable, for various reasons, to make any provision for the future. The understandable soliloquy of some of them is, "We might as well have spent it as we earned it, because we are no better off than those who are fully dependent on assistance programs".
Why is this? It is because the government has allowed the dollar to depreciate to the point where it bears no relation to its former value. The low-income families, the working poor, are bearing the brunt of inflation. The nation has just experienced a crisis as a result of actions by a group of individuals who, as a result of insecurity, frustration and despair withdrew their services as they fought a losing battle against the galloping increases in the cost of living which were not offset by even a corresponding increase in wages, let alone provisions which would enable them to participate more fairly in the higher standard of living enjoyed by many others in the community.
The middle-income group is finding that what was an income sufficient to meet their basic needs and to assist in contributing to the general well-being of the community has been reduced to the point at which it can barely maintain them in decency. To many of them, the hope of paying for a home has become an illusory dream. Every sector of our economy and of our society is reeling under the impact of the inflationary spiral.
Many letters come to our attention. Allow me to refer to one lady who wrote to me about her problem in meeting the situation and in endeavouring to cope with the increased cost of living. This woman pleaded for action and asked me if I would make xerox copies of her letter and give a copy to everyone in parliament. I appreciate her zeal. I did not do that as I realize every member of parliament gets such letters. She is representative of a host of our citizens who do not know which way to turn. So I urge the government to be serious on this issue. The food prices spiral is crucial and there are plenty of examples to show that.
What about interest rates? We have had four increases in the interest rate on mortgages since the beginning of this year. Think, also, of the price one must pay for gasoline. Every two or three weeks the price of gasoline goes up two, three, four or five cents a gallon. Four months ago in Ottawa one could buy regular gasoline for 39 cents a gallon. Now you cannot get a gallon of regular gasoline for less than 54 cents. That is about a 38 per cent increase in four or five months. One could go on with such examples but I think I have said enough.
On Tuesday, September 4, my leader, commenting on the Prime Minister's ineffective plan to combat inflation, referred to the Minister of Finance and his budget proposals of February 19. My leader said that the proposals really
Cost of Living
were a sick joke. Many things which have happened as a result of government action or inaction constitute sick jokes which have been perpetrated on the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister announced on September 4 that further government wheat subsidies would forestall a further price increase of about five cents a loaf in October. Within only a few hours of the Prime Minister's statement, sources in the milling industry were hinting that bread prices would go up anyway. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is in charge of the Wheat Board admitted only a day or two later that no agreement had been made with the milling or bakery industry. The two ministers should get together and make sure which story they want to tell the people of Canada.
Then the statement was made regarding gasoline prices and within hours of the statement the price of gasoline had jumped by three cents a gallon at a set of pumps not more than five or six blocks from this chamber. In Montreal, on Friday, just three days after the Prime Minister announced his controls, the Union of Retail Gas Merchants voted to raise their price by three cents a gallon. So we can see how effective-I use that term advisedly, although perhaps I should say "ineffective"-government statements or controls have been in this particular case. The leader and other members of my party have indicated clearly the position that ought to be taken if these problems are to be resolved.
There has been much discussion and controversy over the suggested freeze of prices and wages followed by a period of selective controls where required. The speaker who preceded me pointed out that the implementation of controls similar to those of the United States would not bring beneficial results. I suggest that according to statistics as of January, 1973, inflation in the United States had been reduced to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent and the accelerating trend in wage increases had been halted and even reversed slightly. In addition, these results were achieved while unemployment decreased from 6.1 per cent in August, 1971, to 5 per cent in January, 1973, and output growth advanced from 2.7 per cent in 1971 to 6.5 per cent in 1972. I think that is a better record than this government has been able to achieve.
The Food Prices Review Board must be given some power immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: This must be done if there is to be a solution to the problem of increasing prices. It is interesting to hear the cries of the party to my left, as just the other day the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 to give the board some teeth, including the power to roll back food prices. As well, the leader of that party has very quickly made an about-face and in the last couple of weeks has been crying for similar action. Where were they some time ago when their voices were needed in order to implement a program such as this? They were determined to sustain in office a government that was not committed to the program they wanted. It seems that they are satisfied with very little on a great many issues in order that they may swing their vote behind the government and

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
retain it in office. Apparently they have changed their view; they have repented. Possibly a deathbed repentance is better than no repentance at all.
So, Mr. Speaker, one wonders, as one remembers the steps taken by the Prices Review Board in sending out these gentlemen, or ladies, as the case may be, across the country to investigate, if that action is to be any more effective than other actions the government has proposed up to the present time. I doubt very much that these results will be very much better. So as we look at the situation I say that the Canadian people, surely, have a right to expect more from this government and from the $40,000 a year girl and others who have been engaged to help her in this particular matter.
May I suggest that if there ever was a time when a motion of non-confidence was appropriate, it is the present time. I wish to read the motion into the record. The leader of my party moved:
That this House has no confidence in the adequacy of government measures to deal with the cost of living as such measures were announced to the House by the Prime Minister on September 4th, 1973.
I suggest that the motion is worthy of support by all members of the House, including Liberals. Surely all those in the opposition parties will support the motion, because I believe the people of Canada expect action now.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) this afternoon and I think he showed a peculiar, a curious conceit in suggesting that those who disagree with the motion are those who support a policy of no action at all. I want to make it clear that my quarrel with the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is a substantive quarrel based on a very serious disagreement about the substance of the proposals put forward.
I am frightened when I hear people who know so little cheer so loudly for a policy. When I hear them speak in the House, my fears of their ignorance are verified. I am not impressed by a party whose members in the House of Commons are of and speak for the business and professional and better-off groups in the community-who are themselves, as I suspect most of us are, in the top 1 or 2 per cent of the income groups of this country-calling for incomes policies and wage controls. Well they might, Mr. Speaker; they have made it. My concern and the concern of my party is for many other millions of Canadians who have been treating each other fairly in the marketplace and neither deserve nor need to be controlled.
My leader and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) have presented some aspects of the policy which our party believes is the answer to many of the problems of rising prices. We talked about fair incentives to the farmer greatly to increase the supply and production of food. As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said, surely that is the basic and best approach.
On many occasions we have advocated that the Food Prices Review Board be given teeth. It should not only be given the power of investigation, which it has, but power

to impose cancellations or roll-back of price increases which are unjustified by the facts. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) say the same thing. Perhaps he does not know that in another place last Thursday his party voted against such a motion moved by myself.
We called for subsidy programs to assist those on low and fixed incomes. We are modestly gratified to see the government has brought forward some programs along that line. We have called for controls on supplies and production of energy resources in this country. Although it is not entirely clear, it appears the government is moving in that direction. Our policy might well be summed up as favouring selective controls where they count, not indiscriminately across the board. There should be a prices review board with real teeth, assistance for those on low and fixed incomes and a program of supply management for food and other scarce commodities.
Reference has been made today to the types of inflation from which this country has been suffering. I commend to all members of the House, particularly those of the Conservative party, an article in the Globe and Mail by a distinguished Canadian economist, Vincent Blader. I do not, in the limited time at my disposal, intend to quote from the article. But he does point out that the kind of inflation to which wage and price controls would apply is not the kind we are predominantly suffering from at this time. I suggest the hon. member for Don Valley could do well to read that article.
It is apparently considered unfair and unrealistic to suggest the inflation we suffer from in Canada is related to worldwide problems. I wonder if members of the Conservative party are aware of the world commodity index published in The Economist two months ago which points out, among other things, that the index of food prices worldwide rose more in one year, between June 1972 and 1973, than in all the years from 1972 back to June 1949. That is perhaps cold comfort when we are talking about Canadian policies, but I suggest it is somehow not unrelated to the problems we are discussing today.
The hon. member for Don Valley seemed disappointed that members of this party insisted on dragging into the debate experience in other parts of the world. I suggest that experience is very real. The hon. member suggested the experience in the United States with price and wage controls was not sufficient evidence that we ought not to proceed with them. Well, we have to take our experiences from where we can find them.
There are two countries in particular currently pursuing policies of price controls. One is the United States, to which reference has repeatedly been made. That has not been an experience which would fill this House of Commons with assurance that it should be followed in this country. Second, there is the experience in Great Britain. I think it is instructive. The members of the Conservative Party urged the Prices Review Board to study prices and wage controls in other countries. They did so in Britain. I quote from a document produced last week as a result of that study:
Many statistical studies have been made which have sought to estimate the divergence between actual wage and price movements and those which would have occurred in the absence of the
September 10, 1973

policy. The results-though differing somewhat depending on statistical techniques used-suggest at times a short-run small positive effect, at times a short-run small perverse effect, and at other times no discernible effect-
The same document notes:
Despite the freeze, the food price index rose by about 9 per cent between November 14, 1972, and April 17, 1973, and is continuing to rise rapidly-
In the identical period the food price index in Canada, in the absence of any controls, rose by 8 per cent. That is not an excuse for the 8 per cent but it seems to be a useful comment to make about price and wage controls.
The hon. member for Don Valley twitted the government and this party for changing its mind from time to time. When last speaking on this subject I quoted from a document with which the hon. member had something to do. I want again to quote from that document because it is the most serious and objective study on wage and price controls ever undertaken in this country. It was undertaken by a Senate committee of which the hon. member was study director. I quote:
-the lengthy historical track record of direct controls and income policies is, on the whole, very bad. They have had a particularly nasty habit of letting down those who trusted in them just as inflationary pressures were mounting to their peak. They are often spoken of as though they were the ultimate, completely dependable weapon against inflation-one that governments can always use effectively if they dare. But the record suggests, on the contrary, that they are no such thing-
It is clear that to use the controls suggested by the hon. member for Don Valley would amount to nothing more than a futile attempt to sit on a lid that is bound to come off. I suggest it beggars credulity for the hon. member for Don Valley to say that because they are doing it in other countries, notwithstanding the evidence of his own study we should do it here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: It is all very well to call for action to protect the inflation expectations. I am not so sure that all forms of action necessarily have a therapeutic effect. If someone has a headache, you do not remove his appendix. Freezes and controls are being suggested as a means of breaking inflationary expectations. If the Tories are so concerned about those expectations, why have they refused to support giving the Prices Review Board the teeth to break those expectations?
Those who advocate price controls should know that, by their Very nature, in a free society controls can only be maintained at best for a brief period of time. One member said the trouble with the American program is that they had to relax the mandatory controls. The reason was that the American people demanded that the controls be relaxed. I suggest it is folly to suggest mandatory controls will be acceptable in this country for the period of time suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Tories have twitted this party about the way it is going to vote on this issue. I remember a time not very long ago, maybe ten years, when the Tories sat across the way with a minority government. They were looking for support and they were not too fussy where they got it. Before they start making moral judgments on the votes of others, they should remember when they were in that
Cost of Living
position. This debate is more of a political opportunity for them than a serious effort to deal with the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: I do not see why I, as a member of parliament, should give them the opportunity which the people of Canada denied them last October. I am not here to do a job for the Tories. They can do their own work.


An hon. Member:: You are doing a job for the Liberals.


Terrence Wyly Grier: I am here to do a job for the Canadian people who sent me to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: A few taunts from the Tories will not detract me from this purpose. We are satisfied that as a result of our efforts in this chamber, the Canadian people have been presented with more useful legislation that would have been the case had either of the elderly parties been given a majority. I realize it is almost impossible to persuade the Tories, or perhaps even the media, that our motives in this debate have something to do with the real issue. Nevertheless, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our concern here is to do a job to arrest inflation and not to play politics with a proposal the very advocates of which do not know its implications.


Mr. Fred A. McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: If I might be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue the analogy of ten years ago which was used by the hon. member who preceded me in this debate. My reading tells me that the opposition of that day voted against the government because of political conviction in what they considered was the best interests of the policy they had supported as a party over a period of years. They did not hide behind any excuses for their vote on that day; the voted for Canada and their political convictions which is more than those on the extremely left of the House can claim at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I am particularly concerned in this debate with the economics of agriculture because it seems to me to have been one of the items on which great emphasis has been placed by the government. I wish to start by recalling a meeting which I attended and at which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) appeared as minister of agriculture in support of the Conservative party some ten or more years ago. He enunciated a philosophy at that time which was that this world of ours had advanced in its quest for a decent standard of living at a pace never before known in history. And this included food. He predicted that there would be in this world in the foreseeable future a shortage of protein and a shortage of carbohydrate.
It therefore becomes contingent upon any party in Canada to encourage agriculture in its production, to guarantee that it will come to its aid in times of overproduction and make agriculture one of the main forces of this country once again, as it once was. The hon. member

September 10, 1973
Cost of Living
went on to say there would be occasional surpluses in agricultural production, but that scientific preservation of food and new processes which had been introduced made it possible for mankind to preserve those surpluses for distribution when and where required. If you will produce it, said the minister of that day, the private marketing forces of Canada can sell it, and if they cannot, the government will come to their aid. We were looking at a long-term requirement.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this speech was delivered in a constituency part of which is now the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria. During the last ten years agricultural production in that area has dropped almost 20 per cent under the administration of the government. I might say, also, that the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) was not elected to this House in 1972 on the basis of the agricultural policies of the present government.
There has been a very distinct change in the policies of government during the ten years I have mentioned. In 1971 the minister of agriculture addressed the Canadian Horticultural Council at its winter meeting. He said at that time that the government of the day stood for cheap food. He also told the farmers that if they could not exist in the face of world competition as the cheapest source of supply of any given food demanded by Canadians, they would have to suffer the economic consequences. If you cannot become efficient enough to compete, he told the farmers, then you shall go broke.
This was in contrast with the policy of the Conservative Party which recognized that Canadians were dependent, first, upon a local supply of food and, second, upon the importation of food. They designed a structure for the protection of the Canadian producer containing a flexible duty set-up against the influx of dumping of food by any means by any country where there was a surplus. In contrast to this, when food arrived from foreign countries in competition with the Niagara peninsula and was dumped at disastrous prices, no dumping duty was imposed.
What happened? Peach farmers did not set out additional peach trees. Production declined. When apple juice was dumped on this continent, with Canada as the gateway to the southern markets of the U.S., no dumping duty was imposed though no country in the world could produce apple juice at the price at which it arrived. It had to be dumping; it had to be subsidized shipment because it scarcely covered the cost of freight, let alone the cost of production. But apple producers were not compensated under any program of government. They were told, instead, "We have a cheap food policy; you suffer it out, boys." So the producers did not plant more trees. They did not renew their orchards. The decline in apple production will become more evident as the years go on as a result of the neglect of that situation.
When the potato industry found itself in world competition, in pursuance of which governments around the world subsidized the shipment of potatoes to traditionally Canadian markets, the minister of agriculture said, "I'm sorry. We can't help you. We can't take your surpluses off the market because it might cost the consumers a few dollars. We might take off too many and the price might go up." Well, Mr. Speaker, the production of potatoes went
iMr. McCain.]
down again by almost 10 per cent from 1971 to 1972 and it would have been much cheaper for the consumer to have had the production of 1971 to market through the 1972-73 seaon. This is economic mismanagement in the most unforgiveable fashion because it abuses every man who works on the farm and every consumer who eats a bite of food. Across the board, it has been a most short-sighted policy.
If the government had taken a look at the graphs in respect to farm income, it would have found that it was declining at just about the pitch of Niagara Falls. If the government had taken a look at the cost of input of agricultural requirements, it would have seen an incline similar to that of Mount Everest. And as the net income of farmers declined, the exodus from the farms began to accelerate with the aid of the task force on agriculture. This was the task force which recommended the removal of two-thirds of the farms in agriculture today, to be completed by 1980.
Tell that to the consumers, because that is the very policy which also contributed to the shortage of food. That is part of the policy which contributed to the shortage of potatoes in Canada in the middle of May, though the supply would ordinarily have lasted into July. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that anybody in the House should vote for economic idiocy and blindness of this nature? As production declined, prices were bound to rise as supplies also declined.
Instead of having ARDA-and I use this as a comparison-we had the imposition of a plan upon the Canadian farmers which retired land from agriculture in a mandatory fashion. They either bought land and retired it from agriculture, or they rented it and put it out of production in agriculture, a combination which could not help but eventually arrive at the store counter where the consumer would suffer as the farmer had suffered.
The economic management was like a planned disaster. The capital position of the farmers declined almost annually for ten consecutive years under Liberal management. While part of that capital loss has been replaced in the last crop year, there are farmers who will be paying income tax on the money they pay for mortgages for the next 20 years to come as a result of the financial mismanagement of this government.
I say to those to our extreme left, many of whom come from agricultural areas, that if they vote in support of this government's economic management in agriculture, if they vote in support of this government's consumer prices, then their vote is diametrically opposed to all of the principles they have ever enunciated.
There is a reptile, I am told, which sheds its skin on an annual basis and then turns around and swallows it so as to leave behind no trace of its presence. It could very well be that the only trace of the party to our left, if it continues to move in its devious ways, may be the echoes which may still be vibrating through the canyons of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 10, 1973


Fred Alward McCain: I grant you, Mr. Speaker, there is an element of food shortage on a worldwide basis; there is no question of that. But it has been precipitated by Canada's participation in an idiotic food policy and perhaps that of other countries in the western hemisphere. But the government of this or any other country is supposed to be capable of analysing internal problems and predicting the outcome of its policies.
A casual glance at the graphs of this country indicate that there was a meeting of the ways wherein the food supply would not meet consumer requirements. This has been shaping itself for the biggest part of the last ten years under Liberal management of the economy in the food world. It came to the point where we had a Food Prices Review Board. These two parties, which undoubtedly will again vote together tonight, began to embark upon a witch-hunt to find out whose fault it was. Was the food shortage the fault of the producers, the processors, the wholesalers or the retailers?
Statistics were placed before the food prices committee which showed that agriculture was a poor economic opportunity, that processing was less than average in its profit picture in Canada, and that wholesaling and retailing had the small end of the profit margin in regard to dollars turned over and capital invested. So you might say that from the sod to the cellophane, agriculture was a very poor place in which to invest money. In a vain effort to lay the blame anywhere but on itself, the committee embarked upon a witch-hunt led by the Liberals and the NDP. I submit that in the agricultural policy that this government has followed, the witches are on the opposite side. They ran a collision course with reality, and as a result the consumer has paid in an undue and unnecessary fashion.


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


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, without reflecting on your sense of justice and fairness, and in all deference to the Chair, I wish to point out that it had been mentioned to Your Honour at the beginning of the afternoon that three or four members of our party wanted to speak in this debate, but unfortunately only our party leader has been recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I very well understand the point raised by the hon. member. If he will look at the representation of the various parties, he will realize that the Chair-not necessarily I, but also those who chaired the sitting today-has tried to be fair and to balance things. At any rate, the Chair tries in general in each debate to allocate in all fairness the time allotted to hon. members.
Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Cost of Living


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday September 11, 1973