1973-04-10

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House about my discussions yesterday with the Hon. Russell Train, Chairman of the United States President's Council on Environmental Quality. Mr. Train is the cabinet level adviser to the president on environmental matters.
Among other things, I drew Mr. Train's attention to the impressive list of studies being carried out by the Canadian government and industry to ensure the protection of our northern environment, especially in respect of the Mackenzie Valley corridor.
We had an exchange of views on the protection of the boundary areas of our coasts, especially protection from oil spills. Mr. Train and I agreed that on the Pacific coast, in the Georgia Strait-Puget Sound-Juan de Fuca Straits area, a better understanding of the marine ecosystem is essential for the effective management and protection of these waters. We arranged to meet soon with United States scientists and other experts to start a comprehensive and detailed joint study which will provide the basis for programs and other measures to protect and enhance the environment of this area.
Since my meeting with Mr. Train last July a joint contingency plan has been prepared which will be effective in the boundary waters of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts as well as in the Great Lakes. The contingency plan for the Great Lakes has been in effect for over a year, and on several occasions it has proved highly successful in containing and cleaning up oil and other hazardous substances. Within a few weeks we shall have a Canada-U.S. agreement which will bring fully into effect similar joint plans on our two coasts.
Mr. Train and I reviewed at length the serious problems of high water levels in the Great Lakes. There are, of course, very severe limitations on what can be done to lower these levels. The fact is that the lakes are full as a result of record levels of precipitation, and the only means of affecting the levels is by controlling the outflows from Lake Superior and Lake Ontario. The International Joint Commission is at present considering a plan to increase storage in Lake Superior, and will hold public meetings on this plan in May.
Mr. Train asked me for my views on several proposals now before the U.S. Congress to increase the outflow of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago. I replied that Canadians would doubtless object to any proposals which would amount to an export of water from Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: I asked Mr. Train about progress on the U.S. side in implementing our Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality. Mr. Train was well aware of the concerns which have been expressed about the timing of the U.S. programs. He undertook to provide further details about the flow of U.S. federal government funds this year and next year for the construction of municipal sewage treatment projects in the Great Lakes basin. I reported that on our side, with the co-operation of Ontario, the municipal sewage treatment plant construction program is ahead of schedule. This is the result of our research efforts which have substantially reduced the capital cost of phosphorous removal facilities and speeded up construction. Mr. Train assured me of the determination of his government to meet its commitments and schedules under the agreement, although he suggested there might be some slippage in timetables.
We discussed the proposal to raise the Ross Dam in the state of Washington, which would result in the flooding of the Skagit valley upstream in British Columbia. I conveyed to Mr. Train our determination, and the determination of the British Columbia government, not to allow the Skagit Valley in Canada to be flooded. I also made clear our desire to seek a negotiated settlement which would take account of the legitimate rights and interests of the Seattle City Light and Power Company. Mr. Train said that his government's position was that a valid contract exists between Seattle City Light and Power Company and British Columbia, and that any solution must be arrived at within this context. We both agreed on the desirability of bringing the parties directly concerned to the negotiating table at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to thank the minister for his statement. I want to make it clear that we in this party are very cognizant of the importance of ongoing discussions such as have taken place over the past day with the President's adviser on environmental matters meeting our own Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). Having said that, however, I think that in part of the minister's statement questions are raised rather than answered.
I refer to the minister's remarks on the discussion that he had with Mr. Train on the Mackenzie Valley route. He did not say in his statement to the House just what the implications of those discussions were or what he really
3128

April 10, 1973
Environmental Affairs
said to Mr. Train. The minister is reported in the press as having said that the Mackenzie is our "trump card"; presumably this is in connection with using the Mackenzie corridor as an alternative to the tanker route.
The minister goes on to say, as reported in the press, that he personally does not think that these great oil tankers will be moving in the critical areas off the west coast, but there is no indication in the statement he made today why he believes that. I would remind all hon. members that it is very dangerous for ministers to make statements indicating that a danger that the public is aware of is not in fact a danger. I would remind the minister that statements along the same line have been made in connection with the Skagit River flooding problem. Now we have further similar statements made by the minister with respect to the threat to the west coast by tankers. Apparently the minister is of the opinion that this probably will not take place, but there is nothing in the statement to indicate that Mr. Train agreed with this.
When the minister talks about using the Mackenzie as our trump card, it must indicate, if that is government policy, that a decision has in fact been made by this country that we are going to have a transportation corridor down the Mackenzie. I remind all hon. members that this is not really consistent with the position taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), that there is in fact no decision and that Canada awaits an application to the National Energy Board. Hon. members will recall that a motion was moved by this party to have this matter referred to a parliamentary committee of all parties in order that a cohesive policy could be worked out and presented to parliament rather than to leave us dependent on what are perhaps only the pious hopes of the minister whose aim is to placate those people on the west coast who are concerned about the potential pollution problems along that coast.
The minister referred to the Skagit Valley. Some months ago this was considered by the government to be a dead issue but it keeps recurring. It is quite clear from the minister's statement that the American position is that British Columbia and the city of Seattle have a binding agreement, but there is no suggestion that the Americans have agreed in principle with our position that the valley should not be flooded. In consequence, the negotiations that will take place are very much up in the air and we do not know for certain what the outcome will be. When the minister talks about the contract between British Columbia and the city of Seattle and the legitimate claims of compensation by Seattle, it should be remembered that there is some serious question about whether that contract, whether the agreement and whether the IJC order are in fact legal and binding. I would hope that this government is not, by the use of loose wording and sloppy comments, putting the country or the province of British Columbia into the position where it will be impossible, when dealing with the Americans on the subject, to raise as a defence to their exaggerated compensation claims the legal defence that in fact the IJC order is not valid and, as a consequence, the agreement subsequently signed is not valid either.
The minister also referred to the Great Lakes Water Quality Treaty and indicated that Mr. Train said there

might be some slippage with respect to the United States meeting the deadlines regarding the regulations that they must meet, as mentioned yesterday, by April 15. I hope that there will be some assurance from the government today that the Canadian position is that the regulations which were in fact supposed to have been ready are ready and that there is no delay so far as Canadian participation in the preparation of these regulations is concerned.
Lastly, I want again to emphasize the importance that my party puts on ongoing discussions. I thank the minister for his statement but I end with the warning that statements made in the House of Commons ought to be consistent with statements made outside the House of Commons. It ill behooves the government or any member of it to make statements that tend to lull the citizens into an acceptance of a position in which they do not have to continue to maintain vigilance in areas as important as the pollution threat to our west coast.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party in the House welcome the interesting statement made by the Minister of the Environment regarding his meeting with Hon. R. B. Train, Chairman of the United States President's Council on Environmental Quality. I should like to tell the minister that such meetings in our opinion are very essential if we are to obtain a united approach to our joint international environmental problems. Some of the comments made by the minister were extremely interesting. He covered ten specific points. There is not enough time to go over them in any detail, but I must say he has given us just enough information to make hon. members start asking questions about the depth of the talks he had with Mr. Train.
To begin with, he mentioned the discussion and the turning over of information to Mr. Train in connection with the Mackenzie River Valley. I suggest that the minister ought to level with the House and turn over the same type of information to hon. members.
We have not received in detail the context of the studies that have been done on the Mackenzie, and we should like to know whether the minister indicated clearly to Mr. Train that this could be the alternative to a tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia. It is time that members of the opposition were taken into the minister's confidence. It is time that we had a full and open discussion on where Canada is going with respect to this problem.
I might mention another interesting point. I noted that there was talk about an exchange of information regarding the east and west coasts of Canada, what they are going to do to control oil spills and so on. This is good. I suggest to the minister there is one very important factor that must be taken into consideration if we are to prevent oil spills, and that is the setting up of some type of traffic control system on both the east and west coasts. It must be a very efficient control system that will go a long way toward eliminating the numbers of shipwrecks that take place resulting in disastrous oil spills which affect the ecology and marine life of both the east and west coasts of Canada.
April 10, 1973

Another point that certainly warrants comment is the fact that Mr. Train asked for the minister's views on several proposals now before the United States Congress to increase the outflow of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago. Our party views with apprehension any suggestion of increased Canadian flows to any river in the United States. It means a further export of Canadian water before any discussions are entered into. I was pleased to hear the minister say that the Canadian public would probably not look upon it with favour. I agree with him. Parliament and the people of Canada must jealously guard this great natural resource and ensure that we do not make any more mistakes such as we made with the Columbia River treaty when we gave away a tremendous power potential for peanuts.
There is another point in connection with the clean-up of the Great Lakes. The minister used the term, "slippage in the timetable." I suggest to the minister this is not the only timetable where some slippage has taken place. We have had some slippage in our timetables as far as environmental problems in Canada are concerned. I suggest to the minister that we very carefully examine not only the water pollution problems in the Great Lakes but the problems relating to air pollution. There is a vast amount of air pollution drifting into Canada and an exchange of pollution in the international boundary area. This must be taken into consideration and some satisfactory solution worked out at a very early date.
I wish to make some comment on the Skagit. I come from British Columbia and, as the minister indicated, we do not want the Skagit Valley flooded. I think it has been made clear to the American authorities that under no consideration will we go along with the raising of the Ross Dam and the flooding of the Skagit Valley. 1 urge the minister and the government to take a much firmer stand and to tell the American authorities that under no consideration are we going to allow the dam to be raised and a further chunk of Canadian territory flooded.
I welcome the minister's statement. I hope we will have further clarification of what he has said today.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for informing us of his conversations with Mr. Train, the American government representative, about the Canadian environment.
Mr. Speaker, before making any comments, I should like to point out to the minister that I was given the English version of his statement at 1:45, and that when I came to the House at two o'clock I was sent a polite note that reads as follows:
We regret to inform you that the French translation of this statement has not reached us in time for us to let you have a copy.
Please rest assured that we will take steps to prevent any reoccurrence of such a delay.
And I have just been given the French version at 2:15.
Mr. Speaker, an Official Languages Act has been passed in Canada by the federal parliament and I consider that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should instruct all his ministers to issue their statements in both official
Family Allowances
languages. If a statement is in French, there should be an English translation to accompany the French text, and vice versa. In this way, there would be no problem about two official languages. Before we speak about the environment, we should deal with the matter of the two official languages. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Prime Minister instruct his ministers to that effect. I have nothing against either of the two languages, on the contrary, I should like to see them both respected, first of all in parliament, because it is we who passed the act.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the environment on our east and west coasts and in the Great Lakes, and also to air pollution, I consider that it is in the interests of both the United States and Canada to come to fair, not "lion's-share" agreements by which the Americans would take their responsibilities, and Canadians would follow suit in order to protect the environment in our country and, incidentally, in the United States.
I feel that studies, discussions and talks which took place during these past few days specifically tend to halt pollution of Canadian territorial waters, of the Great Lakes as well as of the air. I urge the government to pursue the debate, not indefinitely and to no purpose, but in a manner likely to solve the problem and allow to depollute water and air and thus protect our population.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege at this time because I have just been informed that members of the press gallery have been excluded from the government lobby. I just want to say I hope no attempt will be made by anybody to prevent members of our party from having the privilege of meeting members of the gallery in our lobby. We have found that the opportunity available to members of the gallery to meet members of our caucus in the lobby has not been abused, and we certainly do not intend to raise any objection to their continued access to our lobby.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
Since the inception of family allowance payments in 1945 the consumer price index has more than doubled to its present level of 145.7 per cent and as a result the mothers of this country have lost the race between population and inflation. As an interim measure to tide us over until a better system could be developed, family allowances have not only failed to close the gap between 1945 buying power and present buying power but have also failed to increase in step with the constant escalation in the cost of living. So it is obvious that motherhood has lost

April 10, 1973
Great Lakes Water Levels
its battle with inflation. I therefore move seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That the government come to the aid of motherhood in its fight against inflation by reintroducing the family income security program into the House no later than the end of this week, and, further, that it restore the buying power of the family allowance for all Canadians to bring it in line with the 1973 consumer price index.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


HIGH WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning an urgent matter which has already been touched upon in the statement made by the Minister of the Environment, that is, the growing damage being caused in the Great Lakes area by high water levels in that lake system. I hope the hon. member opposite whose job it is to shout "No" to every proposition under Standing Order 43-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly indicate the terms of the motion so that the Chair may inquire whether there is unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43?


An hon. Member:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Terrence Wyly Grier: I will, Mr. Speaker. I move seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the government make Canadian forces personnel available to assist the municipalities in constructing protective works at no cost to the municipalities involved, and further that the government offer emergency short-term funding, to be shared on a 50-50 basis with the provinces, to pay for the cost of such works.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that persistent representations to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) have not resulted in the elimination of the discriminatory aspects of unemployment insurance regulations as they pertain to fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That a special reference be made from the House to the committee that these regulations be immediately reviewed with the aim of eliminating discrimination against fishermen which is now placing thousands of fishermen unnecessarily on welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FOOD PRICES
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 3,1973-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):
That the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on April 2, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the procedure of the House today. I can say that there have been discussions among representatives of all the parties in the House, including one of the representatives of the independent members, and I think you will find that there is agreement on two points. The agreement is, of course, subject to the debate itself being allowed.
The two points are, first, that the motion be moved and that the debate take place not now but after the oral question period and, second, that the time limit on speeches in today's debate be 30 minutes for the first spokesman for each of the four organized parties and 20 minutes for all other speakers. I believe you will find that there is agreement on these two points.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may recall that when the motion was originally put there was some doubt on the part of the Chair on a small though perhaps important point of order but one which in the view of hon. members might be overlooked. In any event, this aspect of the matter might be looked at briefly when we reach the item on the order of business after the oral question period.

April 10, 1973

Is it the wish of the House that we proceed with routine proceedings, then go to the question period, and then return to motions for the purpose of putting the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. When the minister says that he hopes to persuade the United States to abandon Cherry Point as a terminal for the tanker route down the west coast from Alaska and to go farther down to California as the terminal, can the minister say whether he made it clear to the hon. Mr. Train that the Cherry Point terminal is unacceptable to Canada, and that this terminal must be abandoned as a necessary basis for any co-operation with interests in the United States in transporting natural gas from Alaska via a Mackenzie valley pipe line to the United States mid-west?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, at our meeting yesterday we discussed pollution problems and environmental hazards along the boundary between Canada and the United States. We did not discuss oil and gas policy as such.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the minister says that he hopes to persuade the United States to abandon Cherry Point as the terminal for the tanker route from Alaska, does this mean that the government of Canada has decided to take the position that the elimination of the Cherry Point terminal should be a condition prior to any co-operation or agreement regarding the use of a Mackenzie valley pipeline for the transmission of gas from Alaska to the United States mid-west? Has the Canadian government taken such a position?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that Cherry Point is now adequately supplied with oil through the Trans-Mountain line from Alberta, and I believe this should always be the case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish the minister would answer the question, but I think he did when he said no. When the minister says that he hopes to persuade the United States to abandon Cherry Point as a terminal, does that mean that the Canadian government has already agreed to the construction of a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie valley to transport gas? Or is the position of the Canadian government still that frequently enunciated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, namely,
Oral Questions
that this is a decision that must be made by the National Energy Board? In other words, does the minister know what he is talking about?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition posed two questions. The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question, namely, whether I know what I am talking about, is yes.


ADEQUACY OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST POTENTIAL OIL SPILLS OFF WEST COAST
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Having in mind the criticism in recent days by the head of the Science Council of Canada, Dr. McTag-gart-Cowan, of what he calls the snail's pace progress being made by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment to protect the west coast of British Columbia from potential oil spillage along the tanker route to Cherry Point, which is within 18 miles of my riding, is the minister satisfied with the protection that exists, or will he pay heed to the warning issued by the head of the Science Council within the last four or five days?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will ever be completely satisfied with the measures that we are taking, but our performance recently on the west coast relative to the spill from the freighter Irish Stardust was much better than that with respect to the Arrow with which Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is familiar.


MEASURES TO SECURE ABANDONMENT OF CHERRY POINT OIL TANKER TERMINAL
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell the House whether the government intends to take further measures, possibly along with President Nixon, to change the Cherry Point terminal, and will he tell the House why the government agreed to a contingency plan that does not definitely eliminate the most significant danger of the TAPS tanker route, which is the Cherry Point terminal?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member for Vancouver South is aware that there is a great deal of traffic already moving through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and through the waters about which we are concerned off Cherry Point. Some of the vessels in that area now are carrying oil and have done so for the last 50 years, so we are concerned about contingency measures there now.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of the Environment, but can he tell the House upon what possible basis he was able to say to the public through the press that the Mackenzie is the trump card and, further, that he does not see any real possibility of tankers moving in the critical areas off the west coast, unless he has some sort of agreement in principle or otherwise from Mr. Train?

April 10, 1973
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should clear our statements of policy with officials from the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the hon. member for New Westminster has a supplementary question, but perhaps he might allow the Chair to complete the first round of questions and return to this matter in a short while. I will then recognize that hon. member for his supplementary.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Communications arising from his announcement last Friday that the government has decided to suspend the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission approving increases in rates and charges by Bell Canada. Can he now inform the House when the government expects to announce its final decision on this matter?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, by an official ruling adopted yesterday by the Cabinet, the decision has been suspended for a 90-day period for the purpose of study.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister says the suspension is for 90 days. Can he assure the House that he will within that period make a final decision, which I hope will be to rescind the order of the Canadian Transport Commission?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that in so restricting the suspension of the decision, the government has implicitly undertaken to take a decision, whatever it may be, within 90 days.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final short supplementary question. Last Friday when the minister made the announcement he made no suggestion of any time limit in respect of the suspension. Will he inform the House why he is now talking about a limit of 90 days for the suspension rather than giving himself enough time to make sure he can complete the studies he requires?


Gérard Pelletier: I did not mention any date in my statement on motions, Mr. Speaker, but the legislation provides that a decision cannot be delayed indefinitely. When the government suspends a decision, it must change the date set by the commission itself for another specific date.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
In order to take the opportunity of the forthcoming visit of Chancellor Willy Brandt in Washington next May 1 and 2, has the Canadian government invited the leader of the government in Bonn to come to Ottawa during that trip?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, such an invitation was not sent.


David Réal Caouette: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Does the right hon. Prime Minister not believe that this would prove a marvellous opportunity for Canada to tighten its business ties with Germany and to make the greatest possible use of the vast possibilities of the Federal Republic of Germany?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I share the admiration of the Creditiste leader for that prominent socialist leader in the world today. He has surely played an extremely important part in his country and in Europe. The Canadian government would like to welcome him one day. However, we do not want it to be in connection with his visit to the United States and this is why I answered to the Creditiste leader that we had not invited him on that occasion.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase in interest rates announced by Canadian chartered banks following a similar increase by the Bank of Canada which brought about this action by the chartered banks, will he take the first opportunity on motions to explain to the House the apparent inconsistency in government policy, on the one hand proposing lower taxes to stimulate the economy and on the other authorizing the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates, which will lead to a parade of generally higher interest rates resulting in slowing down the economy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there is no conflict of policy at all. The Governor of the Bank of Canada made it quite clear that the monetary policy of the bank would continue to be expansionary. I will be glad to deal with the subject, as I said to the hon. gentleman's colleague, at the meeting of the committee on finance of the House of Commons when it deals again with my estimates next Monday night.


April 10, 1973


BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE INCREASE-EFFECT ON PRICE LEVELS
Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In reading his answers to questions yesterday on the matter of the increase in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada I gained the impression that the minister does not believe it will cause a contraction of the economy. Is it his position that the increase in the bank rate will have no effect on price levels in the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the increase in the bank rate and the subsidiary action by the chartered banks in raising their prime rates will, of course, do something to the cost of borrowing money.


George Harris Hees: It sure will.


John Napier Turner: But we will still have the cheapest money in the world compared with the United States and all the major countries of Europe.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the answer of the minister suggests that the policy is going to be inflationary, is it the position of the minister that we cannot control inflation in this country by raising interest rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would rather use the word "expansionary" than "inflationary". The hon. gentleman ought to take into consideration that if the present expansion in loan requests reflecting the expansion of the economy were to continue at the earlier rate of interest, this might well have involved over-expansion of the economy which the hon. gentleman was so worried about the last time he put the question to me on January 26.


SUGGESTED REQUEST BY MINISTER TO CHARTERED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the four leading chartered banks have followed the example of the central bank by increasing their prime interest rates, and in view of the fact this will undoubtedly stimulate a further increase in the cost of living, may I ask whether he would undertake to attempt to persuade the banks not to make any further increase in their lending rates and, if he is unable to persuade them, would he undertake to bring in legislation to re-impose the 6 per cent ceiling on bank loans which one of his predecessors, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, took out of the Bank Act a few years ago?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not give that undertaking. I want to say to the hon. member that, in view of the very heavy demand for credit in response to the expansionary economy in Canada and of the international situation in respect of interest rates, had the present interest rates not adjust-
Oral Questions
ed to these market forces the expansion in money supply might well have added to the inflationary cost of living about which the hon. gentleman is so rightly concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I point out that there are perhaps five or six members seeking to ask supplementary questions on this subject. We will try to have as few as possible for each member, but for the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and then the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INDUCE CHARTERED BANKS TO REDUCE SERVICE CHARGES IN LIGHT OF INCREASED PROFITS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that bank profits have increased substantially since the 6 per cent ceiling was taken off, and their profits last year were over 20 per cent higher than the previous year, would the minister use his good offices to persuade the chartered banks to reduce the service charges they are now levying upon their customers as one means of keeping down the cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I was talking to the President of the Canadian Banking Association prior to the increase in prime rates on Monday I asked him to relay to the presidents of all chartered banks in this country that I consider it important that credit not be reduced to Canadian-owned small businesses in this country, nor to those areas of the country that are growing at a slower rate than some other areas, and particularly that the spread between deposit rates paid by banks against money deposited with them and the interest rate charged by the banks on money lent by them should not increase. I am happy to observe that the banks have all indicated that the spread between their prime rate on loans and their deposit rates, either for savings or chequing accounts, has not increased, so that profits obtained by the banks can in no way be affected by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but it seems to me questions being asked at this time and the answers given by the minister are more in the form of a debate than questions and answers. I would hope that the questions might be briefer and the answers also.


BANK INTEREST RATE INCREASES-EFFECT ON UNEMPLOYMENT-FORMAL COMMUNICATION INDICATING MINISTER'S POSITION
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the answer the minister has just repeated is a very vital one for us in Atlantic Canada. In view of our concern about the impact of the present move of the central bank with regard to the interest rate and the concomitant potential impact on unemployment, can the minister say whether any formal direction or communication has been issued to the Bank of Canada or to the Canadian Banking Association indicating the minister's stand, and would he be prepared to table any such documentation?

April 10, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, no formal communication in that sense was made and nothing, therefore, can be tabled.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that 1969 government policy is beginning to show its head again and as it had such a detrimental effect on slow growth areas, can the minister indicate what guarantee to the slow growth areas in Canada there is that the policy will not have a very serious effect on unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Since I cannot accept the preamble, I ask the hon. member not to accept the conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North and then we will try to move to the next subject or perhaps go back to the first question and allow the hon. member for New Westminster his supplementary.


BANK INTEREST RATE INCREASES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT HOUSING INTEREST RATES WILL NOT BE INCREASED
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing whether he will assure the House now, because interest rates are one of the ingredients that have added considerably to the cost of housing which has gone up 100 per cent in the last five years, that there will not be any increase in rents, first, on uninsured direct loans out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, second, on all loans which are insured by CMHC to protect Canadians in the purchase of houses?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate payable under the insured loan provisions of the National Housing Act is set out in the act by legislation, not by the minister or the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be argumentative and I appreciate what the minister says, but would he be prepared to see written in the legislation a guarantee to the nation that there will not be a considerable increase in the cost of housing at this time when we are in a national crisis?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If it is the type of amendment that it appears the hon. member is suggesting, it would result in no insured loans being made at all.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the statement he made in the House today and in view of the continuing pressure by the United States

administration to commence the tanker route, will the minister now consider inplementing the 100-mile provision of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act on the west coast to assist him in his negotiations?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my impression of the hon. member's question is that he is asking that the Arctic waters pollution provisions be implemented on both our coasts. Were that to be done, it would of course, intersect some of the world's major shipping lanes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the statement the minister made today, can he give us some indication of when the government will take a definitive position with regard to alternatives to the TAPS route because at present there is no assistance being given to U.S. authorities to change that route?


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN ESTIMATES FOR CANCER AND HEART RESEARCH
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which I wish to direct also to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare reconsider his estimates for the present year, in consultation with the Minister of State for Science and Technology, with a view to making a substantial increase for cancer research and at least a small contribution to heart disease research since the present government has about the worst record in the western world in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since reports often remain a dead letter and are ignored, could the Prime Minister say whether he intends to follow through with the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I have understood the whole question, including the premise, but in answer to the question itself, we do intend, of course, to follow through with the recommendations of the commissioner. Furthermore, we always consider them carefully and we are very pleased in fact that they spur many people on concerning the application of the Official Languages Act.
April 10, 1973


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the statements that have been made by the chairman of Air Canada to the effect that the lack of direction and clear enunciation of government policy is causing a great deal of hardship and difficulty in the administration of Air Canada, is he prepared to make a statement on motions at a very early date to clarify this important matter?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it was impossible for me to discuss this matter with the chairman of Air Canada. He is out of the country and has been for about ten days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: He will fly back, I am told, by Air Canada tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I will then have an opportunity to meet him and discuss with him the report of the newspaperman, not the statement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the minister indicate to the House whether he has received a draft set of policy objectives which was forwarded to the minister by the chairman of Air Canada, and can he indicate to the House the nature of his response?


Jean Marchand: I have many communications with the president of Air Canada, many of them on policies, and this is what we are studying now. I made an announcement in the House the other day that after we had assigned the German and Chinese routes to the companies, within a few weeks we will be in a position to make another statement concerning the future designation of routes. This is based on discussions with Air Canada, and in particular its chairman.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it the minister's intention to bring to the House a new set of policies, policy objectives and guidelines for the operation of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I intend to keep on co-operating with these two large companies which are CP Air and Air Canada in order to assign international routes in an equitable manner for the greatest benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Vegreville of the Minister of Transport. In view of possible conflict between the minister's department and the top management of Canadian air carriers, can the minister say whether, from the government's
Oral Questions
point of view, Canada's air carriers are conversant with what is expected of them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not admit the premises . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Richmond.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Last fall the government announced its intention to acquire land on the Toronto waterfront for the purpose of creating a waterfront park.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Edgar Walker: Now that summer is fast approaching, can the minister tell the House, and particularly the people of Toronto, what progress has been made and whether Torontonians will be able to enjoy the park this coming summer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, considerable progress has been made in the establishment of the Macdonald park.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I had a very successful meeting yesterday with the mayor of Toronto, the chairman of metro Toronto and the provincial minister involved. All of the property is under acquisition by the federal Department of Public Works. Part of the park will be available for the public of Toronto this summer, and we will be having a public information meeting in the mayor's chambers on Monday night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and/or his colleague the Minister of National Defence. In view of Canada's rather unhappy experience in Viet Nam in peace supervision and the lengthy, extended role of Canada's peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, would the minister advise the House in what way those forces might be affected by what appears to be an upsurge of civil unrest in the island of Cyprus?

April 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, there is a great difference between the role we have undertaken in Cyprus and that which we have undertaken in Viet Nam. In Viet Nam we are not engaged in peacekeeping but in peace supervision. In Cyprus, we are engaged in peacekeeping in the traditional sense.
As I understand the situation at the moment, most of the problems that have arisen recently in that island have arisen within one community rather than between the Greek and Turkish communities, so it has not affected the operations of our forces so far in any way that we can discern. In Cyprus we are not faced with hostilities between the two communities, but just within the Greek community itself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister distinguish between civil unrest between the Greeks, amounting perhaps to a good shooting war among themselves, and the struggle between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our forces are there really to stand between the two communities. It could be, if there is further trouble in Cyprus, that the trouble will expand and our forces could be affected, but I was merely explaining that so far there has not been an outbreak of violence between the two communities between which our forces stand.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment closed down the whaling industry at Blandford, Nova Scotia, last year and to date these men are unemployed, what is the amount of compensation to be paid on an annual basis to the workmen affected, and when will this compensation be provided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that normally this kind of question ought to be placed on the order paper, but if the minister has the information available he might as well give it to the hon. member and to the House now.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a task force has been at work, has visited the three whaling stations on the east coast which are closed down, and is in the process of making recommendations with regard to compensation to plant owners and alternative sources of employment for the workers.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question that is supplementary or related to an earlier one. About five or six weeks ago I asked the Minister of National Defence whether he would review with his colleagues the question of rent increases for Canadian Armed Forces married quarters, with a view to attempting to hold the line with respect to inflation. Has he had an opportunity to review this matter and can he give us some word about his conclusion?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have carefully considered rent increases for permanent married quarters and, generally speaking, they are consistent with the rates in what is called "civy" street, or the private sector.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that yesterday I, as a Member of Parliament, was barred from hearing an address by an assistant commissioner of the RCMP, in what has been described as a talk focusing on labour unrest produced by subversive elements, and in view of the further fact that this talk was given to a private group primarily consisting of businessmen, will the minister assure the House that a copy of Assistant Commissioner Draper's address will be made available not only to myself but to all members of the House?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the matter. This was a conference on industrial security. I have just received notice of the hon. member's question, and I will be pleased to do what I can for him.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister concerns other papers, apparently classified confidential, which were given to private businessmen but not to representatives of labour or Members of Parliament. I refer the minister to a paper given by Mr. R. Bourne entitled "Government Security Organization." Will the minister also assure members of the House that they will get a copy of that paper?


William Warren Allmand: I will do my best to provide that paper as well. As far as I know that paper did not contain anything that was classified. It contained matters that were public knowledge, but I will get a copy for the hon. member and look into the other part of the question as well.
April 10, 1973


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
The government having decided to suspend to Bell Canada rate increases for 90 days while it reviews the question and ask certain questions, and as Northern Electric seems to be a subsidiary of Bell Canada, can the minister tell us whether in the course of that special inquiry the government will ask questions about Northern Electric to find out what its profits are-which seem to be considerable?


Gérard Pelletier: will consider the question, Mr. Speaker, but off hand I would say the answer seems to be negative since, as far as I know, the Northern Electric Company is not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. lean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the hon. minister tell the House whether the Canadian Transport Commission will examine the consolidated accounts of Bell Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I will look into the matter
and advise the hon. member at a later date, Mr. Speaker. [English]


CONGRATULATIONS TO PEOPLE OF ROSS RIVER ON BUILDING TELEVISION STATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Will he send a wire or message to the people of Ross River to congratulate them on their initiative in building their own television station despite technical experts' opinion that it could not be done and despite the fact that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has ignored them?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the hon. member is referring to, but I hope he will inform me-


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the reported discrimination in regard to television and radio time by the CBC against two million Canadian senior citizens, would the minister take a look at this problem?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my colleague, and while the CBC is not under my jurisdiction, I will certainly forward the member's remarks to my colleague, the Secretary of State, and we will discuss that point together.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Reluctant as I am to believe that even this government could be so arrogant as to vote against motherhood, can the minister tell the House if it is his intention to reintroduce the family security plan before the session ends?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question of arrogance. If the hon. member had been in the House over the last two months he would have heard me state very categorically several times that it was the intention of the government to introduce legislation on this subject-


Some hon. Members:: When?


Marc Lalonde: -during the course of this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: And may I say I hope he will support it when it comes before the House.


WAYS AND MEANS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who will recall that following his budget of May, 1972, he tabled notice of a ways and means motion relating to the reduction of corporation taxes on profits from manufacturing and processing. Can the minister assure the House that the notice of ways and means motion that he proposes to put before the House on the same subject, following completion of the bills now before the House, will be in the same terms regarding corporate tax reductions on profits from manufacturing and processing?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I replied to the hon. gentleman previously that he would just have to wait and compare the texts.

April 10, 1973
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to an earlier series of questions and is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In reply to a question about tanker routes addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on February 23, which appears on page 1591 of Hansard, I received the following answer:
Whether they-
Meaning the United States of America.
-should go to another point farther down the United States coast is a matter for the United States itself to decide.
Today we hear the Minister of the Environment suggesting that the United States should be directing its oil farther down the coast. I should like to ask the Minister of the Environment if this is a change in policy?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it makes a lot of sense for Canadians to want that oil, if in fact it ever moves down the west coast, to move to California which would be its principal destination.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Several weeks ago I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that when the work of tax offices was checked in filling out individual income tax forms, 11 different results were found to have been submitted to the Department of National Revenue. Has the minister investigated this situation or is he taking any action in relation to the kind of service provided to individual taxpayers by tax offices of all kinds and natures in this country?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the department has monitored as far as possible the returns which appear to be coming from tax consulting firms. There seems to be no pattern of error in them so far, and the error rate generally is considerably lower this year than in the past. However, I am giving consideration to the desirability of having people who prepare tax returns for a fee identify themselves on the forms in future. I am not sure yet what steps might be necessary to do this but it is a possibility worth considering.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the minister's portfolio relates to consumer affairs, can he inform the House whether he is taking any action in the area of advertising by these tax offices which suggest that they can be of service to the Canadian population by accurately filling out tax forms?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already informed the House that I would be asking officers of my department to examine this kind of advertising to see to what extent it comes under the law on misleading advertising.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that some workers across the country are reporting every week and oftener at Canada Manpower Centres, the official government employment agency, looking for employment without success, it is necessary that he or she also search for work in other areas in order to qualify for UIC benefits and if so, how many searches, and has this fact been well advertised so that workers know that this is a new interpretation of the regulations?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question several times in the House before but to repeat, yes, there is a requirement not only to depend on the services of Canada Manpower or not only to depend on the services of union hiring halls where they exist, but to seek work beyond that so that no avenue is left unexplored. This situation has been made known reasonably well to workers across the country but I repeat it and hope it will be publicized again.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that applicants for employment are continually unsuccessful in securing employment at CMC offices, can the minister advise where a man or woman can find employment apart from CMC offices in a region where the unemployment rate is 20 per cent and higher?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the active search for work as a requirement of the act is not enforced as rigorously in areas where it is known that unemployment is that high. If the hon. member has a specific example of where this has been overstressed, I would appreciate the details so that I can take the necessary steps.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period but I was hoping to recognize two or three members who have not had an opportunity to ask questions or supplementaries in this or the last couple of question periods. The hon. member for Hamilton West.
April 10, 1973


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the peculiar position that employers are placed in with respect to how far back they must go in order to determine which of their employees are Canadians, landed immigrants or visitors. I know the minister was going to look into this and I wonder if he has an answer in order that employers may know whether it is six months before January 1 or just what the situation is?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the hon. gentleman that I would get an answer for him and make it known but I regret that I have been occupied since last Thursday. This is being researched and I think the answer is that we will not take any heavyhanded action against employers who employed people without visas prior to March 31, again unless there was blatant and knowing exploitation of the situation due to other factors.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding yesterday's meeting with the Atlantic premiers. In view of the conflicting press reports coming out of that meeting, can the minister tell the House if he has agreed to an upward revision of the westbound subsidies on a selected product basis?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we had discussions for a couple of hours with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. They asked for an increase of 30 per cent to 50 per cent in the subsidy for freight rates. We agreed together that this should be looked into by the federal-provincial committee on transportation in the Maritimes to see how we can apply this new principle and make a report later.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that Highland regiments attract recruits more easily than other militia units partly because of their traditional uniform, will the minister assure the House that he will reconsider the decision to force the Highland units to give up their cherished kilts and will he reinstitute the maintenance grants for Highland dress for those units?
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there is no regulation preventing the Highland regiments in the reserves from wearing the kilt.


HIGH WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE OF ARMED FORCES TO PREVENT DAMAGE
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister indicate what response, if any, has been given to the two urgent telegrams he has received, one from the township of Pickering and the other from a private citizens' group, respecting the pressing need for military assistance to avert the disastrous effects of not only high water levels but those combined with high winds to properties on the Pickering shore line?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have received the telegrams referred to. I would like the armed forces to be helpful in this flood problem, in fact I would always like them to be helpful in any way they can. I have offered their services and they have so far been declined by the responsible body which is the Emergency Measures Organization of the province of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Norman Augustine Cafik: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask supple-mentaries. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Norman Augustine Cafik: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have never done this before on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Don't do it now.


An hon. Member:: Nobody else has.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is extremely important to the people affected that at least the minister indicate to the provincial authorities that many members of this House regret the inaction of the province of Ontario in protecting the people of Ontario.


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


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1973

Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance arises from the answer given earlier in the question period to the effect that an increase in the bank rate might be inflationary. Can the minister indicate whether the government is now prepared to accept a temporary system of wage and price controls and, if not, can he indicate whether we are near the rate of inflation in which this emergency plan would be put into effect?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is no, and the second part of the question has been discussed quite often before in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to part of the answer given to me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister, deliberately or otherwise, reflected on my attendance in the House. I do not think the minister has the right to do that. I think my attendance here, Sir, would match his. Indeed, I have not taken time off this year to go skiing at Banff.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was not so much concerned about the presence or absence of the hon. member as about his attentiveness.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now revert to the consideration of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 3,1973-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That the First Report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on April 2, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with respect to the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices. My purpose in raising this point of order is not to seek to have the motion ruled out or that the subject matter of it not be dealt with; rather, I want to enter a reservation with respect to the form of recommendation No. 6 of that report which reads:
That the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make specific monies available to consumers groups to present briefs to various governmental boards where appropriate.
[Mr. Cafik.)
I make no comment on the substance of the recommendation. It seems to me that it touches upon the whole question of the financial initiative of the executive and it would be unfortunate if, in allowing this kind of language, an important principle of government were overlooked. If the recommendation could be put in the form that has been used in the two preceding recommendations, namely, that the government consider or give consideration to the advisability, etc., it would be better. If the final recommendation could be put in that form, instead of in the form in which it now is, there would be no objection whatsoever to allowing the motion to be dealt with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how serious the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is in raising this point of order, nor do I know how serious Your Honour was when you raised the same question a few days ago. In case there is any doubt about the right of the House to proceed with the motion to concur in the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, I should like to say a few words.
First, I suggest that the rules against the making of motions involving an expenditure of money all say quite clearly that there must be no direct instruction to the government to spend any public money. I point out that the report before us now, which was tabled on Monday, April 2, as set out in Votes and Proceedings for that day, ends with a section entitled, "Recommendations", and then these words appear: "The Committee recommends." After that introduction there follow six different paragraphs, and I suggest that each of those paragraphs is governed by that introductory phrase, "The Committee recommends." Therefore, one should read paragraph 6 not by itself, but with the introductory words, so that what is before us in paragraph 6 is the proposal that the Committee recommends "That the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make specific monies available to the consumer groups to present briefs to various governmental boards, where appropriate."
Just as the passing of this report by the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices did not put that expenditure into effect, so I submit that if the motion to concur in this report today were carried, it would not be an instruction that money be spent. Rather, it would be a recommendation to the government to consider that proposal.
However, Sir, it is usually regarded as desirable when matters like this arise to ascertain whether there are any precedents. Although I have not spent all my time since Your Honour raised this question looking for precedents, this morning I managed to look at a few that came readily to mind because they related to the reports of a committee of which I have the honour to be a member. For example, on Friday, February 23, 1973 as noted on Votes and Proceedings for that date at page 141, there is this entry:
Mr. Dupras, from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented the First Report of the said Committee, which is as follows:
Pursuant to its Order of Reference of February 15, 1973, your Committee has considered the Report of the Joint Study group on Basic Rate of Pensions, and has agreed to report it with the Committee's endorsation.
April 10, 1973

I have, Sir, in my hand a copy of the report of the Joint Study group referred to in that motion. It is a document of some 25 or 30 pages and clearly contains the recommendation that there be a substantial increase in the basic rate of war disability pension, plus a recommendation that there be an escalation of that pension year by year, plus the recommendation that war disability pensions continue to be income tax free. I happen to be a member of that committee and am one of those who joined in the unanimous endorsation of that report. The point is that such a report was laid on the table of this House and that no one objected to its being tabled, even though it recommended expenditures. Your Honour may say that no motion was moved to concur in that report. That is true, but it so happens that the report is now in the hands of the government, which is considering it.
However, let me go back to two previous reports of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. First, I refer Your Honour to Hansard of Friday July 7, 1972. At page 3860 it is recorded that, on the motion of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Monday, June 26, 1972, was concurred in.
The third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is to be found in the Journals for Monday, June 26, 1972, between pages 426 and 428. It is a rather lengthy report and contains a number of recommendations having to do with prisoners of war generally. One of the recommendations says that age requirements for former prisoners of war who were incarcerated for one year or more be removed from the War Veterans Allowance Act. Then follows this sentence:
The effect of this recommendation would be to provide War Veterans Allowance benefits to former prisoners of war, regardless of age or the theatre of war in which they served, who find that because of deprivation and hardships suffered, they are unable to secure or hold continuous employment.
Sir, that was a committee recommendation which clearly involved the expenditure of money. The traditional words that "consideration be given thereto" do not appear in the report. There is the simple language saying that the committee recommends that this be done. As I say, on the motion of the hon. member for Algoma, who was then chairman of that committee, that report was concurred in. No questions were raised because the committee had recommended something that involved the expenditure of money. Again, the passing of that report did not directly require that the money be paid. Actually, the recommendations contained in that report have not yet been brought before us in the form of a bill.
Let me go back to one more precedent. In this case, I go back to Hansard of Tuesday, June 23, 1970, at page 8495 where I find this entry. Mr. Lloyd Francis, of respected memory, the former member for Ottawa West moved:
-that the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on June 22, 1970, be concurred in.
Again, may I emphasize that this was a motion for concurrence in a report that had been tabled on Monday, June 22, 1970. That report can be found in Journals of Monday, June 22, 1970, from pages 1049 to 1082. It was a very lengthy report. It had to do with the recommenda-
Food Prices
tions arising out of the Woods report. There are scores of recommendations. I did not take time to go through and find out how many involved the expenditure of money, but there are literally scores of recommendations in that report which, if they were implemented, would involve the expenditure of money. A bill was later brought in and almost all of those recommendations were put into effect.
In that report which is found in Journals of Monday, June 22, 1970, there does not appear the traditional phrase that consideration be given to such and such. The main body of recommendations begins at page 1054 of Journals for June 22, 1970. The initial paragraph reads:
Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the following Woods Committee recommendations as modified in some cases by the White Paper and in other eases by the proposals made by the National Veterans Organizations of Canada be implemented.
I think we dealt with 146 or 148 of those recommendations. Some we approved, some we did not. However, the number of recommendations that were made and concurred in that involved the expenditure of money was, as I say, voluminous. Again, the passing of that motion in the name of the former member for Ottawa West did not bring these money payments into effect. It simply became the registered opinion of this House that this ought to be done.
I submit, therefore, that because there are so many of these instances, we are quite in order today in considering a report which merely recommends that certain things be done, among them being the recommendation that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make certain monies available.
I would certainly have no objection if the House could somehow agree that the words suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) be considered as there, but I would hope that no one would seriously suggest that because of the absence of those words, this report should be sent back to the committee simply for the purpose of putting in those words. My contention is that even without them, there are plenty of precedents to suggest it is appropriate for a committee to make a report recommending things that may involve the expenditure of money so long as it does not try in its report to word its proposal in such a way that it becomes a direct order.
I submit that since the recommendation in paragraph 6 is preceded by the words "we recommend", it is not a direct order and, therefore, the report should be considered as properly before us. If that is the case, I contend that the House should proceed with the motion to concur in the report that is now before us.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said that he was, in effect, filing a very strong caveat and a caution and that he was reserving the right on future occasions to raise this point. If we do proceed, I do not expect that this will be considered a precedent. I will not argue that at any length.
While I am not necessarily in accord with the terms of the report we are considering, I fully agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said. I would probably add two or three sentences to show that there are other precedents as well. Your

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
Honour will remember the occasion when, for the first time in this House, a member of the committee other than the chairman moved concurrence in a report dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was the Interdepartmental Oil Pollution Disaster Committee. This report was presented by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on December 16, 1969. That report included certain recommendations which could be construed as recommending or suggesting certain actions be taken by the government which would involve the expenditure of money. I quote from that report:
The Committee recommends that appropriate agencies of the Government move immediately to conduct research in the Arctic to gather information on the following:
There are several recommendations. One reads:
Your Committee also recommends continued research by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to establish the extent of the fisheries potential of Arctic waters.
There may be a case to be made that these recommendations are not in the same category as those we are considering today. I will not argue that. However, a point of order was argued in this House as to the right of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to move concurrence in that report. Your Honour considered that, ultimately made a very intelligent decision and the hon. member was permitted to move the motion. It was a very good decision, Mr. Speaker. I wish to point out that there was not one single suggestion that the terms of the report, the language in which it was couched and the fact that it recommended certain things be done by the government, which inferentially involved the expenditure of money, could in any way be a bar to the consideration of the report.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said there are a number of precedents. I argued before Your Honour on a number of occasions that all of this jurisprudence stems from Section 54 of the British North America Act and Standing Order 62. The operative word in those two provisions is "appropriation". I do not know how in the name of heaven this House ever allowed inhibiting jurisprudence which attempts to bar this House from the opportunity of debating simple recommendations which cannot, in any sense of the word, be construed as binding upon the government to spend one red cent of money. If the government allowed the motion to come to a vote, and if the House in its wisdom saw fit to approve the motion to concur, not one red cent of money need be spent.
A number of reports have been filed which include the words "we recommend" and involve the expenditure of money. In the limited time available, I was not able to ascertain whether they were reports in respect of which a motion to concur was made. In August, 1956, a report of the joint committee on the Federal District Commission was presented. It contained the following recommendation:
In view of the magnitude of the plan for the National Capital, and the amount of money involved in developing it, we recommend that the Chairman of the Commission be employed full time at a salary and with a status commensurate with those of a Deputy Minister.
That is one of many recommendations. It may be that these were never the subject of a motion to concur. I never examined them to that extent. The Journals are filled with illustrations where committees have made reports containing that recommendation. A recommendation is not defined as being an order. It is not defined as being an order in any of the dictionaries I have been able to consult this morning. I would quote, for example, from Webster's Dictionary, 7th Edition: "Worthy of acceptance or trial; urge the acceptance of". How in the name of Heaven that could be considered as constituting an order to the government to spend money, I cannot understand. I, therefore, urge the Chair and the government House leader not to try to inhibit debate, not to try to further restrict the already limited role we can play as we seek to have this matter examined in free discussion. If this report had been couched in terms which constituted a direct order to the government I would wholeheartedly agree with the President of the Privy Council. But the terms of the report being as they are, I, for one, if the report is debated, will discuss it as if it did not contain the restricting words which the minister has suggested it contains.
Finally, to cut short what could be a lengthy argument, I would refer Your Honour to May, on the British practice, as outlined on page 640 of the 18th edition:
Select committees may consider and report to the House resolutions recommending an outlay of public money for the purposes therein specified without the previous signification of the Royal Recommendation because such a resolution is regarded as analogous to those abstract resolutions by the House in favour of public expenditure which are in the nature of suggestions and are not in themselves binding upon the action of the House.
One day Your Honour might see fit to state a case in this context. It is a matter for the Committee on Procedure to consider, it is true, but it might be months before the committee has a chance to consider the question and report to the House, especially in the light of the situation with which we are faced at present and the problems with which many committees are confronted. I have it in mind that Your Honour might like to consider all the facts and state a case to the House at a suitable opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the advice and guidance they have extended for the benefit of the Chair. What the President of the Privy Council had in mind, I gather, was to register a caveat so that we might bear in mind the very interesting point of order which he raised and to which I alluded when the notice was filed and received at the table.
I must say I cannot agree with the point of view advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and, quite understandably, concurred in by the hon. member for Peace River. At the same time, I say right now that I will do nothing to prevent the consideration of this report at this time. I said, when the matter came before the House, that we were dealing actually with one of the many recommendations made by this committee. I am convinced that hon. members are anxious that we forget about the procedural aspect of this matter and proceed with our debate on the recommendations contained in the report.

April 10, 1973

Hon. members cannot convince me, however, that the Chair should disregard a practice which has existed over many years, probably for more than a hundred years. Hon. members may say that to recommend a course of action to the House is only a recommendation and that the government is not bound by it. My recollection is that just a few years ago, when the House adopted a report which recommended a certain course of action and when the government, in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, depending on which side of the House hon. members sit, did not take action as recommended-and I insist on that word-by the committee, there were suggestions that the government was in contempt of the House and that the word "recommend" could not be used in the sense given to it by the hon. member for Peace River, but that the course of action in question had become an order of the House to which the government was required to adhere. That is, I suggest, the difficulty when we come to the expenditure of money.
It is fundamental to the parliamentary system that financial initiative belongs to the Crown and I think it is going around this well-established practice to suggest that after a committee has recommended an expenditure of money the House can approve a report from the committee and then consider that an order has been made, which the government must obey, that certain sums of money in respect of which there has been no recommendation, should be expended. That is the problem. It is as simple as that.
Hon. members have referred to precedents. I have looked at precedents also, with the assistance of the Clerk at the table, and there are very few real precedents which would support the position adopted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Peace River. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to a very recent precedent, a precedent involving a recommendation for the expenditure of money which was included in a report of the Committee on Veterans Affairs as reported in the Journals of the House for June 22 and June 23, 1970. It should be noted that what we were considering then was a report which was dealt with by unanimous consent. The motion read:
That the notice standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West with respect to concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be considered and that the question be put on the same without debate.
That, I think, indicates why there was no occasion to raise the point of order. I do not intend to go into the matter further, but I still suggest to hon. members that there is virtue in respecting long-established precedents. It is a long-established practice of this House that recommendations coming from a committee and requiring expenditure of money include the traditional words that the government give consideration to the advisability of spending moneys, and hon. members should give serious thought to having these magic words included in their committee reports when such recommendations are made.
This having been said, we are dealing with only one aspect of this report, as I mentioned the other day, and I would think there is anxiety, a determination on the part of all members, to proceed immediately to the consideration of this very important report, and if hon. members
Food Prices
are satisfied, or half satisfied, with the comments I have made, I will now put the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on April 2, 1973, be concurred in.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of the Committee on Trends in Food Prices has been wishing that while we were drafting the precise terms of our report we had been able to benefit from your wisdom, because it might have saved us from straying into danger along the way. I do not think we ever forget to be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the impartial and fearless way in which you uphold the traditions and liberties of this House.
It gives me satisfaction to be able to move this motion to concur in the interim report of the Committee on Trends in Food Prices for a number of reasons. We have put in a great deal of hard work during the two months we have been working on the preparation of this report. But the thing that gives me satisfaction is that at long last we have raised the question of food prices and the whole system by which food is brought to the people in a manner worthy of the attention and consideration of this House. In my opinion it is not a moment too soon. All across the country people are desperately concerned with what is happening to food prices, and they have been told by authorities of all kinds that no end to the process is in sight. I am glad that we are able to discuss this report here, since people expect that we as a parliament are able to do something to prevent the everlasting escalation of the price of those things people must have to survive.
The members of this party are not displaying a sudden interest in this matter. Last June when food prices were rising twice as fast as the general cost of living, the New Democratic Party tried to get parliament to set up a special committee to investigate food prices. On behalf of this party, on June 1 last year I moved such a motion. The motion was debated for one day and then roundly defeated in a recorded vote. But by the late fall the picture had changed somewhat. Prices were still escalating, but a minority government had been elected and there was a much greater disposition on the part of that government to consider certain matters that it had not considered necessary to deal with before.
The position of the New Democratic Party was firm and solid. We had prepared a shopping list of those items that we considered vital to the Canadian people and on which we felt action must be taken by this administration if we were to be able to support it for the duration of the time the action was forthcoming. Very high on this shopping list of ours were some steps to stop the rising cost of living, particularly the price of food. At that time we specifically recommended that there be a prices review board. Again, this was nothing new for us; that had been a cornerstone of our policy on food prices for at least five years. When parliament met on January 4 of this year we

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
were very glad to see included in the Speech from the Throne the definite promise of a committee to make a special study of trends in food prices. That committee was set up, with an interim report called for within 60 days.
I am not going at this time into the various channels we went through and the various motions and amendments made to get the committee set up. Nor am I going into the problems which we encountered in the committee. At first there was a very great disposition on the part of a number of members of the committee to think it was nothing but a farce, a circus or a witch hunt; I believe those terms are accurately reported. But as time went on all members of the food prices committee began to feel that public and media alike were concerned and interested, not only in what was going on, but that there be a worth-while report recommending some type of definite action at the end of the interim period of 60 days.
From the outset the NDP members on that committee- my colleagues from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier), and at times Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman)-stated that we felt two particular recommendations should be included in the report. One was for a prices review board; the other was for immediate measures to put proper food on the tables of people on low incomes, people who cannot wait for endless studies or determinations of trends before action is taken to prevent deteriorating quality of nutrition for their families.
The result of our investigations in the food prices committee was to put both of those recommendations in our report, and I shall be dealing with them both. But first, I want to make the point that this is a majority report. Most of the members on the food prices committee are going along with the report. Apparently the Progressive Conservative members did not go along with it, although today no one knows, least of all themselves, exactly where they stand on the matter. Certainly, I am hoping that this day's debate will bring about some enlightenment in that regard.
Apparently the Progressive Conservatives were going to give us that enlightenment when the report was tabled, but the press conference that they scheduled was cancelled, presumably because they just had not been able to make up their minds what they wanted to say or had failed to restrict themselves to at least two or three points of view. They then issued three press statements-not one, not two, but three. Their first press statement was to the effect that they disagreed with the main report. They wanted a 90-day freeze all the way across the board, with no ifs, ands, buts or exceptions. Their second press report was to the effect they had suddenly discovered that it was not fair to leave farmers in their 90-day freeze, so they said everyone but the farmers ought to be subject to a 90 day freeze on prices. Their second press statement made it abundantly clear that their across the board freeze would leave out the farmers.


Mr. Atkey:: We did not say that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Well, I can see there will be lots of scope for elucidation and clarification in this debate, something I very much hope to hear as we go along.

Their third press statement was a little more-the word that comes to my mind is "wonky". They did not oppose the first report in total because they agreed that it offered protection to the farmers and they believed that the farmers should be protected. I am hoping that this debate will show where they really stand on this matter, if indeed they do stand at all. Sometimes I think there are about as many varieties of Tories as there are varieties in the famous 67 brands of Heinz.


Mr. Danforth:: You are wrong there too; it is 57.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I come now to the major cornerstone recommendation of our report, which is the recommendation that we set up a prices review board. I am going to read the recommendation that we made in our interim report:
The Committee recommends:
1. That the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to establish an independent Food Prices Review Board equipped with such powers as are necessary to review prices, and that it report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In its reports to the minister, the board could make recommendations concerning appropriate action to be taken.
In addition, periodic reports to the Food Prices Review Board may be referred to a standing committee of the House. The board shall have the authority to incorporate in its periodic reports, a request to appear before the said standing committee.
After a report is referred, the committee would have authority to call the board before it.
The point that I want to make is that, as far as we in this corner are concerned, everything depends not on the government merely accepting this recommendation, not on the government merely concurring with the fact that it is a good thing, but on the willingness of the government to introduce concrete legislation now to spell out the intent of the recommendation. I am going to indicate what kind of flesh we believe should be put on the skeleton of this recommendation.
I realize there are members of the committee who believe, investigation, publicity and moral suasion are enough in such legislation if it should be introduced, but we in our party have no confidence whatsoever in legislation of that type to deal with this particular situation. We have been through that exercise before. We remember the saga of the late unlamented Prices and Incomes Commission, a saga that can be told in precious few words: Three years, $3 million, an undetermined amount of paper and whitewash with prices and incomes going up at the end of the whole process. So we have no desire whatsoever to go through the exercise again of setting up a board which would merely depend on investigation, volumes of paper, whitewash and publicity, with the feeling that moral suasion would protect the consumer from elements of the food chain.
I want to say now that we are not going along with or giving sanction to that kind of legislation because it will not be worth the paper it is printed on. The people of this country do not deserve to be led down the garden path a second time, having been led down that path for awhile in the belief that the Prices and Incomes Commission was going to do something. We have no intention in this party
April 10, 1973

of accepting any such toothless wonder. We want legislation with teeth in it and we are satisfied that the consumers want such legislation.
My correspondence continues to emphasize the fact that people are expecting parliament to do something to halt this everlasting increase in food prices, and they know that more and more hands are coming in between the farmer and them to take handfuls of their consumer dollars. They want something done to stop this continual inflationary spiralling of the prices of those elements of food they must have in order to survive, and I give this warning to the government.
What do we want in this legislation? Let me name the points. We do not want a departmental committee or something under a departmental wing. We want an independent board reporting to parliament through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Again, I wish we could chop off the consumer affairs part and make it different from the corporate affairs part. The further apart consumers and corporations are, the better I would like it, and I have always felt that way. We want an independent board reporting to parliament through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in the initial instance it would be a food prices review board. Later on perhaps, we might add other items of necessity to the consumer.
Second, we want the board to have the power to investigate. We do not want all this clamping down across the board with controls on everything in the field. We want a selective approach to those items of food which together make up a balanced and nutritious diet for people. Those are the items to which attention should be given. There should be searching and swift examination in specific areas of the food industry where quick action can and must fairly be taken. We do not want another of those great, top-heavy bureaucracies loaded with armies of civil servants.
Third, we want the board to have the power to take action directly or the power to recommend appropriate action to the minister. The committee has opted for the second course, that is, the board having the power to recommend appropriate action to the minister. Henceforth, in this speech, I accept the committee's option of a board with the power to recommend appropriate action.
Let me now spell out what we consider to be appropriate action. Appropriate action in the view of the NDP should include: (a) steps to ensure that prices be not increased; (b) rollback where necessary for the public welfare and, (c) support prices and subsidies to the farmers where these are necessary to protect farm income. One of the things we were seized of all through this inquiry was the fact that there is a great spread between what the farmer gets at the farm gate and what the consumer has to pay at the supermarket checkout. The farmer now is just beginning to recoup a little of the loss he has sustained for many years.
We on the food prices committee, and particularly the members of our party, are anxious that in the powers of the board there should be the power to recommend to the minister action in respect of subsidies and support prices where necessary to protect the farmer.
Food Prices
Fourth, we believe the board should have the power necessary for effective analysis of the factors involved in food prices. This means that the board must be able to summon witnesses and require the production of papers, books, records, financial statements, agreements, contracts, leases and all other necessary documents and information.


Ronald George Atkey: And union contracts.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, and union contracts; the whole works.
Fifth, the minister should be required to announce within 15 days of receiving the board's recommendations what specific measures he plans to take. There should be no secrecy about the reports and there should be no delay in respect of them. There should be this statutory requirement.
Finally, these hearings must be public and reports and recommendations must be made public without delay. The board should also have the power to publicize information which may benefit the consumer.
I have not time to go into the detail these recommendations merit. What I want to do today is outline those recommendations which would constitute the appropriate action to be recommended to the minister. Anything less than those, in our mind, would not be useful and we will not support such legislation. We believe that these in essence are the basic legislative requirements that cannot be dodged. Food prices are still spiralling, and the government will pigeonhole and water down these recommendations at its peril.
It may be said that these things I have mentioned are not in the recommendations for a food prices review board. That is true, but I suggested that these recommendations represented only a skeleton. The teeth were not spelled out, but we recommended an independent board with the power to recommend appropriate action to the minister. I have detailed what we regard as appropriate action, and I have spelled out the teeth which should be put into the legislation. We believe that the function of the legislation is precisely to spell out the appropriate action the board must be able to take, and also spell out the powers with which the board must be clothed if it is to do the job of protecting the consumer in the matter of food prices.
I am not denying that this whole problem in respect of food prices is exceedingly difficult and complicated. Anyone who has been on the food prices committee does not have to be told that. The whole thing is a smooth, interacting chain from the farmer through to the supermarket checkout. This involves the whole food industry. Some of us are not looking for villains half as much as we are looking for those elements in the whole food chain that make this process of getting the food from the farmer to the consumer inefficient, wasteful and unnecessarily expensive.
We know from the people who came before us as witnesses that each sector believed that its operations were carried on efficiently, well and in a profitable manner, everything being equal, and that they were doing their full

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
share in the whole food chain. They feel that, and we know it; but while it may have added up to efficiency, efficacy and value to each particular sector and those people backing it, it has also added up to high prices for the consumer, unnecessarily high prices, and in some cases prices a way beyond the reach of a quarter of the Canadian people. These people simply cannot afford the kind of diet they should be having with the kind of prices they are having to pay now. We know that.
We know also that, although it is very difficult, new patterns must be set. We know that a start must be made on this, and we know that Canada is not the first country to try to make this start. I do not think there is any sense at all in taking refuge in the constitutional attitude and saying: we would like to do this, but of course the federal government does not have the power to do it. If you look back in history, not very far back either, you will find that there was a host of subjects on which the federal government had divided jurisdiction with the provinces. I could mention highways, medicare, housing, and many more. I know that, at the beginning, the same old arguments prevailed. They said: we would like to do this but of course it would be unconstitutional; we cannot touch it because the authority is mainly local, the initiative is local or provincial.
Yet, today we find that Trans-Canada and other major highways, medicare and housing, are being recognized increasingly as responsibilities which must be met on a three-way basis with the three levels of government participating. This has been achieved through negotiation, through devolvement of powers from one government level to another and, above all, through the will to do it. I suggest that if this government has the will to bring in legislation that will really deal with food prices, it can find ways and means of doing so constitutionally. To say that they cannot do so is no argument, and it will rnelt before any of the precedents that we care to examine.
If you look at the alternatives, the one that we are proposing is the only possible and workable one which offers any chance of action at this stage. The other alternatives are these: first, let nature take its course. No one, with the possible exception of one or two of the Cabinet Ministers, would care to defend such a course because we have seen that when nature has been allowed to take its course, that course is an increase in food prices over a long period of time. Second, there is the 90 day freeze. We have yet to hear from our friends to the right. Perhaps they will let us know today what they would do once the 90 day freeze was on, what they would do at the end of it, and what it would do. Surely, they have heard about Mr. Nixon's experience with the 90 day freeze, and surely they know that in the United States food prices are continuing to spiral. Surely, they are not anxious to put the Canadian people through another exercise in futility when we have had the experiment of our neighbours to the south clearly and plainly before our eyes.


Harold Warren Danforth: Has the hon. member seen the report from the south and the price index there?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker and I do not think they give us any confidence in
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).l
the approach of freezing inequities for 90 days, freezing high prices, and then going back to where we were before.


Mr. Baker:: You have not read the report.


Winona Grace MacInnis: We are not in
favour of the third alternative, moral suasion, either. I have already referred to the disastrous experience of the Prices and Incomes Commission, which really boiled down to moral suasion for the powerful and legal compulsion for the scapegoats, namely, people with low incomes in this case. If members on both sides of the House will think about it they will realize that the establishment of a prices review board which we propose is the only viable way to start. When we have done this and given it a good try, if we should find that measures involving income control were necessary, then O.K., there are other steps that can be taken. But please note that we shall continue to say what we have said from the start, that we are not going to allow any group of workers to be picked out, pilloried and victimized by having their incomes frozen. If incomes are to be frozen at all, then all forms of income should be put into the pot, namely, wages, salaries, rents, interest, and profits, the whole bit.


Walter David Baker: We agree.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You agree, but Mr. Nixon did not. He confined himself to wages, and that did not work very well.


An hon. Member:: Don't believe them, either.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do not and I do
not think we are going to hear very much later on, but I hope we shall.
I think that speed is of the essence in this matter because the low income people simply cannot wait. This is why I want to refer very briefly to recommendation No. 5 of the Food Prices Committee which we certainly consider to be a very important one. It reads:
That the federal government, in co-operation with the various provincial governments, consider the feasibility of co-sponsored programs to get proper food on the tables of people with low income.
The committee feels that programs must be devised to enable food to be made available directly to particular groups, primarily children, senior citizens, shut-ins, and the destitute.
This is an exceedingly important recommendation. I believe this opinion is shared by all members of the Food Prices Committee.
May I say what we in this party believe that this recommendation entails? We believe that it entails the encouragement of provinces and municipalities to increase welfare payments by an amount necessary to augment food allowances to provide welfare recipients with an adequate diet and that notwithstanding the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government would undertake to pay 100 per cent of the increase for this purpose. This is a subsidy to the low income consumer in particular which would match the subsidies which we have already outlined for the producers.
Second, this recommendation would aid volunteer organizations, such as missions, meals on wheels, senior citizens associations, and the like.
April 10, 1973

Third, it would provide funds to school boards, at their request and with the agreement of the provinces, for hot breakfasts or lunches.
I see that I have only a couple of minutes left and I have only been able to outline in the barest possible way the points which we believe are essential in legislation to deal with this problem and which we hope the government will be considering. I want to warn again that this is not a problem which affects only the low income groups. They need this special treatment to help them to survive in the interim because in the interim their children are growing and children who are undernourished in their early years, can never catch up either mentally or physically. These are things which should be attended to at once. But we are confident that a prices review board is the first step to sanity in providing consumers in general with the food they must have to live at a price which is consonant with its real value.
This report must not be pigeonholed. People across the country are waiting and looking for action now. They are waiting for legislation to deal with the matter now. If we could establish this board and start it functioning, the Food Prices Committee would have a life of much shorter duration because this board could do a much better, more effective and thorough job of investigating the food industry than we are able to do, however hard we may try.
I want to conclude with both a warning and an appeal to the government that the time for action is now. The consumers of this country are not going to be content with boycotts. They want action in an orderly fashion, and if they do not get it from this government they will try something else that is better, fairer and faster.


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who moved this motion, ended her speech with a call for action. She suggested that the consumers of this country were impatient and were demanding action. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member, who was an active participant in the committee and whose contribution is always welcomed, that she will not get that action out of this report.
The report which is now before this House completely negates the order of reference of this House. That order called upon the committee to report action in two months. There is nothing in this report that would implement such action. Indeed the only major recommendation of the report, that dealing with the prices review board, would be about as powerless and ineffective as the late, unlamented Prices and Incomes Commission.
I had difficulty following the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway because there were times when she seemed to be coming down on both sides of the argument. I can certainly understand the conundrum she is in, because obviously she is compromised in a very difficult situation. Deep in her heart she knows that in order to approach the whole problem of spiralling prices you cannot isolate food prices. It must be approached in an over-all context, and that has to include the whole spectrum of prices, incomes, salaries and wages. Wages and income are a major cornfood Prices
ponent of the spiralling cost of food, and so I can understand her difficulty.
This committee, which had been meeting for the past two months, was a good committee. It worked hard. It met on an average of twice a week, sometimes three times a week, from 9.30 in the morning until 12.30. It achieved something which is rather rare these days under the new rules. It achieved a degree of collegiality. Indeed, it can be said that a consensus was developing in the committee. That consensus was developing from a sense of complete and utter frustration, born of the inability to find answers to the questions we were directing to the parade of witnesses who came before us. Our complete and total inability to cut through the "PR" jargon of all the briefs was really the thing that united the committee more than anything else. But, Sir, I do not believe there was any consensus among the members of the committee with regard to this report.
This report represents only the views of the party to my left, the NDP, and their partners in coalition, the Liberals. It in no way reflects the views of the ten PC members of the committee who approached the matter from the point of view that in order to cope with the very serious problem of rising food prices it must be approached from the over-all picture. In order to come up with a mechanism, with a device that would be effective in keeping prices within acceptable levels, there should be an across the board freeze on prices and incomes. I say this because ever since the committee was first referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and ever since its establishment, the committee itself has had the effect of building up anticipation in the minds of the people engaged in the food industry in Canada that there would be government controls, or a freeze. That anticipation has been a major factor in the spiralling costs of food. Indeed, the price of food will continue to increase because that expectation will continue to exist until the government shows courage enough to take the necessary action.
Let us take a look at the consumer price index. The over-all index for November showed 5.1 per cent. For December it was still 5.1 per cent. In January it was up to 5.7 per cent; in February up to 5.8 per cent, and in March up to 6 per cent. For food for the same months, in November it was 9.1 per cent, December 8.6 per cent, January up to 10 per cent, February up to 10.2 per cent and March up to 11 per cent. If there was one common thread running through all the evidence heard by the committee it was that prices will continue to rise.
We heard evidence from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) which was contradictory to the evidence from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The first minister could not account for the substantial increases in the price of food for the month of December, January and February, because he admitted that the harvest factor, which had an effect on the price of food last year, was simply not a factor this year. But the Minister of Agriculture came before the committee and told us, "You have never had it so good. Food is still the best buy." The Minister of Agriculture went on to talk at great length about this. Then, he showed a certain contempt for the committee by not appearing on the next scheduled day when he was supposed to appear to con-

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
elude his evidence. Instead, he sent his deputy minister with a press release which tried to substantiate his contention that food is a best buy.
The Minister of Agriculture showed us three diets compiled on costs in the city of Ottawa on February 15; one a moderate diet, the second an intermediate diet, and the third a generous diet. I will deal with the moderate diet because this concerns the main point of the minister's argument. This moderate diet, which runs all the, way from stewed chicken for dinner on Monday to meat balls for dinner on Sunday, cost an average family of four $28.50 a week in the city of Ottawa. I sent copies of this diet to a number of consumers in my own province, and they all came back with the same finding. After having taken this list to their supermarkets, they found that the cost for the same diet in the province of Newfoundland was exactly a third more. So, the minister's contention that food is the best buy is probably a good argument if you are lucky enough to live in southern Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, but if you happen to live on the peripheries of the country, in slow growth areas, where unemployment is the highest, where costs are the highest and incomes are the lowest, then you can only conclude that the minister was speaking for a very small constituency when he made that statement.
Poverty is a factor in Canada. I am only sorry the committee did not have time to hear sufficient evidence on this. The Economic Council of Canada, in its fifth annual report, states that 1.5 million families, or 22 per cent of all family units in Canada, are below the poverty line. It sets out its guidelines as follows: a one person family unit will have the poverty line set at $2,013, a two person family unit at $3,355, and all the way through to a five person family unit where the level would be $5,368. The Senate Committee on Poverty also had a lot to say about this, and I would recommend its report to members of the special committee. The Senate Committee on Poverty found that the over-all poverty rate in Canada is approximately 25 per cent; this is virtually the same as the finding of the Economic Council of Canada.
We talk about food being the best buy. That is all very well if you happen to be in or above the middle income bracket, but if you happen to be in that unfortunate 25 per cent or to live in a slow growth, high unemployment region of this country, the proportion of your dollar that is spent on food is increasing. Steak has only gone up by 1 per cent, hamburger has gone up by 18 per cent, pork shoulder by 28 per cent and roast beef by 5 per cent. Eggs are a very important item in a stable, nutritious diet and in the past year the price of eggs has risen by almost 47 per cent. The menu proposed by the Minister of Agriculture is totally unrealistic and unacceptable, even to those who can afford it. If you want to have the ultimate in a nutritional diet for the least possible price, I suggest that you buy dog food which is the cheapest and possibly the most nutritious food on the market today. But who wants to eat dog food? I suggest to the minister also, who wants to eat meat balls and gravy?
The committee's major recommendation deals with a Prices Review Board. We believe that this should be the kind of action to flow from a freeze that would have to be
laced on all prices in Canada as a very first step. We
elieve this is necessary because all of the evidence indicates that prices will continue to increase.
The other recommendations of the committee are worth-while and we want to make it very clear that we support them. In order to present our own report however, we have to abide by this device of not concurring in the majority of recommendations because we did not support the principal recommendation which calls for what would amount to an ineffective Prices Review Board. In our opinion, this would be just as ineffective as the recent Prices and Incomes Commission.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) will have more to say about the second recommendation of the committee because this is basically the recommendation for which he argued. It calls for changing the Competition Act so that those areas of the act dealing with misleading advertising be put under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and become a separate act.
We agree with the third recommendation of the report which reads:
That the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation governing the nutrient content of foods sold to the consumer and requiring nutritional labelling because it is imperative that nutrition information be brought home to the consumer.
Everybody knows this is a fact. In this country nourishment is a problem of major proportions. There is evidence to indicate that there are children in this country today who are undernourished because of an inadequate diet; they are going to school on an inadequate breakfast. In the committee we heard a brief from the advertisers which supported the fact that advertising is not a major component in the high cost of food. The average percentage of advertising in the cost of food was between 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent, until we got to breakfast cereals where it rose to a whopping 11 per cent. The reason is product proliferation and the need for cereal manufacturers to sell this unnutritious junk food. Wheat germ has been removed from it and by the use of powerful and subtle advertising techniques children are induced to eat cereals which have no nutritional value whatsoever. There is no question in my mind of the need for the third recommendation of the committee.
The fourth recommendation deals with the media in consumer education. There is a definite need for that. The Croll-Basford Report resulted in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has been about as effective as the Prices and Incomes Commission. The Prices Review Board proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would be about equally effective.
There is a need in Canada today for a real consumers department and for a minister who is consumer oriented. The present incumbent seems to be oriented toward the corporate end of his portfolio. Perhaps a case can be made for a separation of the two levels of responsibility. Perhaps the corporate responsibilities of the minister should be returned to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) where they properly belong.


Walter David Baker: There is a conflict of interest.

April 10, 1973


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, there is conflict of interest. Perhaps we would then have a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who represents the best interests of the consumers of this country.
The fifth recommendation reads:
That the federal government, in co-operation with the various provincial governments, consider the feasibility of co-sponsored programs to get proper food on the tables of people with low income.
Who would quarrel with that recommendation? Everybody supports it. Anyone who has read the nutritional report of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which I think was called Nutrition Canada, and the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty, would be struck by the serious nutritional problem in this country. In this land of affluence there are families that are undernourished because of improper diet-not underfed but undernourished. There is no doubt that in areas of the country there is a need for dietary supplements. It is not necessary to have federal-provincial agreement on this because the provinces would welcome the initiative of the federal government in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, the sixth recommendation is the subject of procedural argument today and I subscribe to that notwithstanding the fact that it may have procedural limitations. As the minister's office is now constituted it is totally ineffective; the minister does not have the power to act, does not seem to have the resources to act and does not seem to have the heart or willingness to act. Perhaps we need to reread the legislation setting up the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and governing the conduct of the minister. We subscribe to this recommendation and in committee played a major role in having it incorporated in the report. We do not subscribe to an ineffective Prices Review Board which would in no way solve the problem of the rising trends in food prices. If there is a trend it is the continuing increases in the cost of food.
What do we recommend, Mr. Speaker? As a first step, we recommend a 90-day across-the-board freeze. If anyone wants to argue about the effectiveness of a freeze, I would recommend that they study the effects of the freeze in the United Kingdom and in the United States and that they compare the increases in the cost of living in these countries to our own. They would come to the conclusion that a freeze is and can be effective. We believe that a freeze is necessary first of all in order to halt the spiralling increase in the cost of food which is a direct result of the anticipation of some kind of government action in one instance.
Another factor of course, is world market conditions. We believe that a freeze is necessary because the government would then be able to consult with the provinces who have tremendous jurisdiction in this area. For example, there could be consultation in the area of rents and other areas which are directly under provincial jurisdiction. There has to be federal-provincial co-operation. In consultation with the provinces, given the freeze and given the necessary power to work out the necessary mechanism, the government could devise a truly effective prices review board, one that would not recommend action through the minister but one that would have
Food Prices
power to take effective action. That is where we quarrel with the major recommendation of this report. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway can argue all she wants. The fact is that the committee is recommending the establishment of an agency which would be no more effective, probably less effective, than the Prices and Incomes Commission.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


James Aloysius McGrath: Well, all you need to do is read the recommendation. It says that the government "give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to establish an independent Food Prices Review Board equipped with such powers as are necessary . . .". Necessary to do what? To review prices, I suggest. Ask any housewife in the country; she can review prices for you. She reviews them week after week as she goes to the supermarket and sees the weekly increase in the price of basic and staple food items. There you have the best review board in the country. I submit the consumers of this country are looking for action, and not for the sort of thing recommended here. They are looking for real action.
The boycotts in the long run will not be effective; they cannot be effective. The boycotts, nevertheless, are a manifestation of widespread consumer unrest in this country over the high cost of food and high cost of living. The government should pay heed to those boycotts and consider them for what they are, a manifestation of unrest.
What is this review board mentioned in the recommendations called upon to do? In addition to being given powers to review prices, it is to report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Then, the first recommendation reads:
In its report to the Minister, the Board could make recommendations concerning appropriate action to be taken.
What kind of appropriate action would be recommended? The government would not have to take such action. Given our present parliamentary situation, if that review board recommended that there be a freeze on wages, salaries and incomes in the country, do you think that such a recommendation would be supported by the NDP? Of course not! Consequently, if this board is to be effective and placed outside the realm of partisan political influence, it should be given powers to act on its own. We maintain that such a board could conceivably result from a freeze but, first, there should be a freeze. Then, the mechanism could be devised. That mechanism could result in an effective instrument being created and not in the ineffective sort of recommendations of this report.
We also look at this matter in the broader context. We feel that there should be a reversal of present economic, monetary and fiscal policies of this government. The government should introduce a real expansionist program. It should cut back certain sales taxes, particularly the sales tax on food, which is especially hard on Canadians with lower incomes. There should be a general reduction in such taxes. A case could be made for a general reduction in unnecessary government expenditures. We believe, Mr. 3150

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
Speaker, that this would provide the necessary thrust to lift the Canadian economy out of the unemployment slump in which it now is. That action would put cash into the hands of those who need it most.
Some of us may live in a cashless society, but you still have to lay down hard cash when you buy food in this country. That is where the poor and those on low and fixed incomes are disadvantaged. They do not have the necessary cash. Oh, sure, they buy their television sets on the never-never plan, and they buy their automobile on the never-never plan; but when they go to Dominion, or to Steinberg's, or Loblaws or any of the food chains of this country, they still have to pay cash, just like everybody else. Actually, they pay a disproportionate amount of their cash for food, because the kind of food they need for their diet has become more expensive. Cheap cuts of meat and hamburg have gone up by 18 per cent. They cannot afford steak. They do not eat it. They cannot afford roast beef; they eat the cheaper cuts of meat, and those cuts have gone up in price to the point where, in some cases, a meat boycott is mandatory because those people just cannot afford to eat meat.
We believe that a temporary 90-day freeze should be imposed on all incomes, that is, on all dividends, fees, wages, salaries, and on all costs and prices except those relating to food at the farm gate. We do not believe that you can impose these kinds of controls on the farmer because when the food leaves the farm and enters the hands of the processor, the inflationary process begins. That is where the inflationary factor begins to work, not at the farm itself.
We believe that during the period of the 90-day freeze the government could find the necessary time to come up with meaningful policies for fighting inflation in this country, inflation that has taken such a tremendously high toll of those on lower and fixed incomes. More important, we believe that if the subsequent hearings of the committee are to be meaningful, if that committee is to be effective, it can only do useful work within the framework of a freeze. That is why we do not support the recommendations, or the major recommendation, of the committee. That is why we, if this motion comes to a vote, will vote against it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) as well as to those of the member who just resumed his seat.
Mr. Speaker, since 1948, a few years after the Second World War, we have been hearing in this House complaints and laments from everyone about increases in food prices. We hear suggestions. For instance, two parties believe we should have a minister of consumers who have no money, as is the case now. Unemployed people get a mere pittance, people under social welfare get scraps and they think that the appointment of a minister of consumers would solve the problem.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to solve the problem is to give consumers a way of choosing what they want. That would

be the solution. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggests that we should set prices for certain products but not for others, that we should prepare diets to help the Canadian people eat better at lower cost. Mr. Speaker, is it up to a government or a political party to tell consumers what they should eat and should not eat. Should the government decide for the family? Is that what they should do? Should we not try to balance the consumers' purchasing power with industrial and commercial prices, with production prices. Not a word about that. The hon. member for St. John's East said a while ago there was an NDP-Liberal coalition to maintain the present system as it is.
On many occasions, we have submitted the Creditiste solution which is a compensated discount on retail prices following an agreement between the government and the retailers and this not by force but voluntarily. Under this agreement between the government and the retailers, they would grant a 20, 25 or 30 per cent discount on retail prices. Then the consumer would pay 30 per cent less and the retailer would not lose one cent since the discount would be refunded to him by the government.
This solution did not come to the mind of any other political party because we can see the liberal, progressive conservative and NDP coalition. Each time we introduce a motion aimed at improving the consumers' purchasing power, they close ranks against any solution proposed by Creditistes.
Yet they are more than willing to establish all kinds of new gimmicks with a bureaucracy worse than what we now have, to appoint a new minister of Consumers-as I said earlier-even though consumers have no money. Would this solve the problem? No!
Let us tamper with anything, let us attack business, the distributor, everybody but not the financial system which is sacred! Let us keep on imposing all kinds of taxes under the pretense of relieving the consumer. But exactly the opposite is happening.
Since 1948, prices have been increasing be it for food or anything else. Instead of subsidizing the consumer to buy products, we subsidize the producer to produce more to the point where we have an extraordinary volume of products of all kinds and consumers without purchasing power.
This is no solution, but what is suggested? Price controls. What would that do? Exactly what they did when we had controls. At that time, I was operating a small grocery and prices as well as on many of the products we were entitled to have. We were using ration coupons and we could not buy more than prescribed by these coupons and at controlled prices.
Mr. Speaker, there was also at that time the 2 cent discount on the quart of milk. But what did price controls give us? Black market. And this black market was not only practiced by big wicked financiers, big wicked producers or big wicked industries. Not at all. There was black market even within our cooperatives.
April 10, 1973

The New Democratic Party is aware of that. There are many co-operatives, in western Canada, and there was black market there just like everywhere else.
I recall that at that time I used to buy my butter in a co-operative of Nedelec, in Temiscamingue, in my riding, with ration coupons. I was entitled to one pound per coupon, which was the limit fixed by the government. The price was also fixed, but if I wanted more, I had to pay a little more, without coupon, and I bought as much butter as I wanted. It was a co-operative-not a Steinberg supermarket-that of Nedelec. The same thing happened everywhere else.
Some time later, I used to work in the automotive trade. Tires were controlled by the federal government, through the famous wartime Price and Trade Board. We could buy tires with rationing coupons at a price established by the government. Apart from that, we could get as many tires as we wanted on the black market, at $10 more per tire than the current price. And tires also used to be sold by co-operatives both in our region and in western Canada.
The price of cars was controlled by the government and established at $1,500. But if you went to a car dealer, you could get a car without coupon for $1,000 more than the current price. That is what the NDP would like to see. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would like the government to control prices of certain products only. It would be so much easier to free all consumers from such a terrible bureaucracy. But no, we do not hear anything about the consumer. When we do, we hear: They are paying too much. It is obvious that they are paying too much. But their solution is fantastic. The paradox is the following: Let us control consumer retail prices so they will not go up any more and let us help the farmer and the primary producer to keep them from going bankrupt. They also say: Increase the minimum wage. Increase subsidies to farmers. Increase the aid to wheat growers. Increase old age security pensions, pensions for bureaucrats and other pensions. Increase all that. Have strikes on top of that and then try to control prices. I am telling you, that is a very intelligent solution. To solve what? Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, we regret price increases but we hear from all sides: Let us increase salaries and profits. They center on those who are going to make a profit of 4 or 5 per cent and they say: For those who are earning only 90 cents an hour, let us increase their minimum wage to $2. They do not say that that is directly included in prices. No, they are not honest enough to say so. We do say so, Mr. Speaker. An increase in minimum wage will not save the consumer and the worker, but rather the national dividend added to their present salary, a dividend which does not go into prices but which comes directly from the Bank of Canada, a financial institution owned by the people of Canada. That is the solution.
Salary increases go into prices and then people shout: Prices have gone up, it is obvious, they are crying for a price increase. When you cry to get it, well, you have to suffer through it. If they do not want to face a logical solution, let us continue to fiddle about as we are doing now.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about the coalition of the old parties to tell people what they should or should
Food Prices
not buy. This has been going on for years. It was done in wartime and it is still done now. This is why we of the Social Credit Party of Canada are saying: the compensated discount at retail level would definitely solve this problem.
For instance, price increases in the field of raw materials development, price increases for finished products, price increases in the distribution sector are fantastic. A can of tomatoes, corn, beans, salmon or sardines costs today twice as much to produce, thus rising its retail price.
Mr. Speaker, is there a private members' hour?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is a convenient place for the hon. member to interrupt his speech or have his speech interrupted.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)- Finance-Meeting of federal and provincial Finance Ministers-Inquiry as to proposals respecting estate and capital gains taxes; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Grain-Suggested increase in subsidized price of wheat for domestic consumption; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-Grain-Wheat-Disparity between cost of hopper cars purchased by government and those bought by United States railway.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour was about to call private members hour, but I believe there have been some discussions as to the possibility of continuing with the debate we have been having this afternoon. May I put it this way. The arrangements today included considering the second reading of Bill C-21 in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). If there could be an understanding that this bill would be called either Thursday or Friday, my friend would be willing not to proceed with it today so that we can carry on with the motion before the House.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be agreement on this side of the House to that arrangement.


Mr. Bell:: Yes, we agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that there is agreement. The hon. member for Temiscamingue is recognized to continue his speech.
26087-53J

April 10, 1973
Food Prices


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member lor Joliette agree?


David Réal Caouette: The independent
member does agree.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumes consideration of the motion of Mrs. Maclnnis: That the first report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on April 2, 1973, be concurred in.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I resume the- outline of the solution advocated by the Credi-tistes for some 30 or 35 years. When we suggest the setting up of a compensated discount on retail prices, after agreement between the central government and Canadian retailers of course, so that prices might remain what they are, we feel that the retailer should be free and not forced to adhere to the agreement. If he did, he would become entitled to the discount decreed by the government. A Minister of Consumer Affairs or Consumers should not be appointed in Canada. The Minister of Finance could be used and that would create far less embarrassment than the present situation. Let us take a typical example. At the present time, any . . . member or any other Canadian can buy for $1,000 of Canadian goods at current prices. If he does not have the money, he borrows from a finance company. In such cases, it will cost him $200 to finance his $1,000; meaning he will have to reimburse $1,200 for $1,000 worth of merchandise. If that same buyer has $1,000 to pay cash, he will be able, in most areas of economic activities, to obtain a 20 per cent discount. If he is granted a 20 per cent discount, this means it will cost him only $800 to obtain $1,000 worth of goods at current prices.
Mr. Speaker, this represents a difference of $400 on a $1,000 purchase. It is a matter of a 40 per cent saving, or $400 on $1,000. Mr. Speaker, this solution would help the consumer and would boost his purchasing power without price increases. It would be entirely different from what we hear the other political parties propose. It's easy to tell the government: You are wrong, your are wrong, you are wrong. There are two or three New Democratic governments in Canada. Let us go and see if prices are different in the New Democratic provinces. A can of tomatoes costs as much in Winnipeg as in Montreal. And yet a New Democratic government has been in office for three or four years.
When I hear the New Democrats talk like that in the House, I say to myself they are a bunch of practical jokers. They are people who state principles, but who are incapable of applying them. So they accuse Ottawa. In the province of Quebec, a department wants to help consumers, while at the same time another suggests a tax increase and a third thinks that the minimum salary must be increased and that the establishment of an annual guaran-

teed income must be pursued, but not get financing where it must come from. Oh no! They get it by levying taxes, from the taxpayers' pocket. That raises prices still further. Then there are reports from commissions. As though we did not have enough commissions! We have the Food Prices Commission, and the commission to help producers form associations to protect their prices. After that, it is suggested that we have a commission to control consumer prices. The consumer will be told, as I said at the beginning: Do not eat bananas, do not eat too many apples, get sardines instead, do not go here, do not go there. There are controls and commissions for all these things. We also have the prices commission, and another commission to check if the prices commission is taking sensible action, and a third one to check on the checkers. So we build a pyramid of bureaucrats. And who pays for all that? The consumer whom we are supposed to be trying to help. It is a pretty comic set-up. They called themselves a Liberal-Progressive-New Democratic coalition, but all three have the same solution, and none of them has the courage to attack the financial system that has caused the economic chaos which, in turn, mirrors the chaos of the whole society. We are witness to the discontent of all classes of society and the uprising of young people against those in power, against the authorities. Why all this? These are the consequences of a system that refuses to serve them.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is a 20 or 30 per cent compensated retail discount, to be negotiated with the retailers. There were protests recently about the 4, 5 or 6 cents a quart rise in the price of milk. And people ask how we are going to feed children in poor families. With spruce or birch "juice"? It is not so bad in spring; there is always maple water, in the areas that produce it. But that does not solve the problem. Talking about milk, they say: The big dairies are the ones which are exploiting us; but they do not say that 25 years ago, you could buy a quart of milk for 12 cents. Oh no. Only them, a milkman would earn $35 a week. You could buy a milkman's truck for about $2,000; and gas for 22 cents a gallon; a tire cost $10. Today the milkman gets $125 or $150 a week. A truck which was sold about $2,000 now costs $5,000. All this affects milk prices to a certain extent.
The refrigerator trucks used for transporting milk were not very widespread 25 years ago. People drank fresh milk when it was not sour. They were sometimes forced to put in some gin. Mr. Speaker, things have changed since then. If we urged the New Democratic Party members to reduce the milkmen's wages and the price of trucks as well as the wages of people who work for Ford, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation or American Motors, they would cry shame. Nobody wants to admit that conditions have completely changed. I find we pay too much for milk but does the farmer get more? He gets more today than ten years ago when we were elected to this House. For his industrial milk, the farmer gets at least twice the price he received ten years ago. The price is $5.35 a hundredweight.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: It is $5.37.


David Réal Caouette: It is $5.37 a hundredweight. Mr. Speaker, I think they got $2.64 in 1960.
April 10, 1973

We do not talk about that. Someone said that prices must be controlled, and that means wage control, profit control, indeed control of everything as was done during the war and two years after, I believe. The prices were controlled because it was feared there would be a shortage of products and coupons were issued. So we would have to go back to the coupon system. If we make a selection of products, we will end up with coupons. However, some feel the coupon is more respectful of the human being? It is impossible to adjust the ration coupon to the hungry stomach. No, the ration coupon is printed and then you have to make do with what you can buy with it. But they do not understand that. Let us take the workers in the Noranda mine, working in the hole. Some eat four sandwiches for their meal, but others who work at the same place need only one. But, the NDP says: No, that is wrong, everybody must have equal treatment. Let us give one sandwich to everybody. Those who need four sandwiches will starve. You, little man, will be restricted to three; let us give three to everybody. You are not hungry but eat anyway, it is the government's decision.
Mr. Speaker, we lived through those hardships during the war; I do not want them during peacetime nor do my colleagues. What we want is an increase in the purchasing power so that the consumers can buy products which are made for them. It is as simple as that. During the war, the price of every product was controlled: jams, cars, meat, butter, tea, coffee, etc. What were the results? Everyone was bothered.
Mr. Speaker, the compensated discount to the consumer should not be financed by taxes. When we already have enough, it is not time to tax more. The compensated discount must be financed by the Bank of Canada. The governor can increase the interest rates; he has done it a few days ago. The governor will be given orders to support consumption. Instead of being maker of interest, debts, taxes, the Bank of Canada governor would serve the Canadian people and not the Canadian chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, that is the solution advocated by the Social Credit party. Some will still find this funny because the financial question overcomes them. Social Credit, it is said, will create inflation and so on. Inflation already exists, we have price increases and everything that goes with that. Social Credit is not applied in Canada but we have a liberal system similar to the conservative system of four or five years ago. The situation is the same all over Canada; premiers, prestigious and capable men fall on their kees in New York to sink the provinces and the country deeper into debt, and that is normal! Let them stand up as men before the governor of the Bank of Canada and tell him: Sir, you are an employee of the Bank of Canada belonging to the Canadian people; you shall do what we tell you and not what the financiers are ordering you to do. Then, we shall reach a solution. But we are all too much afraid to speak about it. Why? I do not know. Let us talk about everything except the actual reason for the Canadian people experiencing problems in Canada. The funny thing is that if a war was to break out tomorrow morning, there would be no more problems. The financial circles would be on the spot just as quickly
Food Prices
as guns would be available; the financial circles would be in attendance, quite manageable, and we would be short of nothing. We hear about pollution and the costs of a controlling it. The American people say that such an undertaking will cost a lot of money. If they spent to fight pollution half of what they have spent to land on the moon, the pollution problem would be quickly solved in North America. However, it was more important to fool away their time on the moon, where they could see nothing, than to create on earth a system allowing human beings to live as human beings should and can live in affluent countries. People are moved to pity, and rightly so, by the fate of underdeveloped countries, but they are afraid to be moved to pity the fate of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, time will come when people will see otherwise. People will turn to the Social Credit party to promote personal initiative, help private enterprise, develop our country to the utmost, find help for the Canadian people and all the others who need us.
Mr. Speaker, we will be witnessing in our country some difficulties experienced in many other countries. We will then be put into a strait jacket as in socialist countries where the government takes all decisions, where people are even afraid to state openly their views, where they are always afraid to be caught napping by the state police force. We will then regret having remained idle when we still had the freedom and the power to act. It will be too late because we will have refused to consider making the necessary changes.
Mr. Speaker, are we going to wait to be bombed before acting and looking for true solutions. We must not find solutions by creating new and worse problems than those we now have. Price controls would be worse than present conditions. We would restrict personal initiative and free entreprise, but public services would in no way be improved. The government would remain an organization working from 9 to 5, whereas the private sector employee must work 18 hours a day. Try and make a bureaucrat work until 11 p.m. and see how he works. He does so unwillingly, cursing the government.
Yesterday, in a dining room, people were moaning, saying how hard it was to work there, that it did not pay enough. Then, I said: When one is not happy to work somewhere, one goes to work somewhere else. It is that simple.
Those who were crying for a job go on strike after getting it. That is how clever the system of the New Democratic Party is, anywhere.
People cry for a job, but once they get it, they go on a picket line in order not to get back to work.
Mr. Speaker, when you reach such a point, you look rather silly. And yet there is everything in plenty to supply the whole population, to help everyone, parents, young people, children; all those, the Canadian family has plenty of. What is lacking in Canada? Purchasing power and nothing else. Is there a shortage of automobiles? No. What is in short supply? Services? No. Do we lack doctors? No, we have them. Are we short of lawyers, of farmers? We have everything.
Mr. Speaker, what is lacking is purchasing power. Therefore, why not study that aspect of the problem? The

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
basis of an economic system, to be rejected or accepted, is service to Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, consumers should be protected and if they are, if their purchasing power allows it, all other social classes will be saved. Obviously, the consumer encourages the producer. Who is the producer? The farmer, the worker, the whole population. Production should be financed by consumption; then, we would not have the type of problems we now know. We would not miss the obvious, or seek silly solutions such as spending our time setting up boards, as we do now. Setting up boards does not feed the poor in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Rouyn-Noranda. But it sure empties pockets, though, you may be sure of that!
Mr. Speaker, the Creditiste solution is plausible; as for controlling prices, obviously we will fight them with all our might and any control measure, regardless of the party that suggests it, will certainly not get the support of the Creditiste members. I ask my colleagues to do their utmost to prevent the "controllers" from taking over the very life of the Canadian consumers, the Canadian people.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has been useful in showing us the positions and, in at least the Conservative case, the lack of position, of the opposition parties in this House, The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) suggested there was something wrong with the order of reference to the food committee in allowing it, in effect, to deal essentially and primarily with the price of foods. Instead, he agreed its work should have been on a much broader scale. I suggest that this argument overlooks completely the fact that food prices have risen more rapidly in recent months than other components in the consumer price index. The hon. member for St. John's East also suggested that the very existence of the committee has somehow caused prices to increase rapidly in anticipation of control.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is an increase in prices in anticipation of controls the blame for this can be put solely and squarely at the doorstep of the Conservative party. Members of the Conservative party were the ones who, day after day in this House and in the committee, were pressing the government to disclose the details of its contingency plans in regard to price and wage controls. Second, it was the Conservative party itself which formally proposed that if it had been the government it would have instituted a freeze on prices and wages to be followed by more permanent steps. They had pretentions that they might at some point-something which is very unlikely-be forming a Conservative government. Certainly, if there has been any increase in prices in anticipation of controls it has been due to a self-realizing prophecy brought up solely by the Conservative party.
I want to indicate the contradictions and divisions within that Conservative party. Its members have now suggested that they would have instituted, if they formed the government, a price freeze, including a freeze on the price of food except at the farm gate. But a few weeks

before one of their principal spokesmen, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), said that they would be introducing "some price controls on all items except food." Surely, this is an indication of the lack of clarity in their own thinking as a party, and surely this is an indication of a lack of any clear position of what they would be doing as a party in the unlikely event they might form the government. I think what they have said in this House, in the committee and outside the House, really demonstrates essentially that they have not got any clear idea of what they would do about increases in food prices and prices generally.
Hon. members of that party have called for a 90-day freeze on prices and wages, but they have made very clear in this House today and previously, that they have not the faintest idea as to what they would do at the end of that period. They do say they would not apply their price freeze to prices at the farm gate. I suggest that if this approach were ever put into effect it would likely be a cruel deception and disappointment for the farmer. They say the freeze would not apply at the farm gate, but I ask whether this would not be a freeze in fact if the farmer could not sell at a higher price, if he wished to do so, since the middleman would not be willing to buy at this price in view of the fact the increase could not be passed on down the food chain, ultimately to the consumer. What better indication could there be of the lack of decision on the part of Conservatives in this respect? I think the Conservative position is nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is nothing but a blatant and desperate effort to score political points. This is proven by the fact that they admit the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices is constructive, and claim they agree with most of it, yet will vote against it. I submit that the report of the committee is worthy of the kind of support the Conservative party, in spite of its members' praise for the recommendations, is unwilling to give it.
As the minister who proposed the motion in this House setting up the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, I know of the many hours of deliberation, consideration and debate that was required to produce the report within the time limit imposed by this House. I believe, as I think most hon. members do, that it will be one of the more important documents of this parliament. There are several noteworthy points about the report. First of all, it is readable. It deals with the concern of Canadians over high food prices in language that all can understand. It does not hide behind the jargon of the experts. When the committee does not know the answer it says so. When further study and analysis is required, it proposes that it be made.
Second, the report is fair. It must have been tempting for some committee members to seek simplistic solutions to the problems of high food prices. I think it is a credit to the committee that it recognized that the factors and causes of the recent acceleration in food prices are complex and that it was not possible to seek out a villain or a particular group as the single cause.
The interim report clearly indicates that any comprehensive examination of the problem must deal not only with the primary producers, with the farmer and the
April 10, 1973

fisherman, but also with the food processor, the food retailer and the consumer; it must deal not only with the domestic market but also with the international situation; it must deal not only with the cost of primary production, the price at the farm gate, but also with the expenses of processing, transportation, packaging, advertising, wholesaling and retailing.
Third, the report is realistic. The interim report has some useful comments on the extent to which governments should intervene to control the operations of the marketplace. I was particularly interested in its finding that there was almost unanimous opposition among witnesses to the idea of imposing price controls on food products alone, or imposing price controls at all.
The committee in its report clearly recommends that controls are not a surefire solution to this problem. After all, controls, if introduced at the wrong time and without due regard for the fundamental factors governing food production, could well lead to situations of decreasing supply and in the long term result in the development of a food price upsurged even more widespread than we have faced over the last year.
I was also interested to note that the Conservative government of Alberta shared this concern and expressed its opposition to controls as a solution. It said in its brief to the committee it felt "that detrimental effects would result for the food industry and the consumer in the long run" from controls.
Fourth, the report is one with a conscience. It shows a real concern for those living on low incomes, for whom the recent rapid increase in the cost of food has created hardship. The government shares this concern. The interim report was tabled a little over a week ago. In that brief period of time, I have had some opportunity to begin discussing it with my colleagues in the government. I want to say that the government intends to make a positive and full response to each and every one of the recommendations set out in the report. Work is now under way within the government to analyse and examine the implications of all of the recommendations and to develop responses in terms of new activities or extensions of existing activities. While it may be necessary in developing these responses to modify details to meet the requirements of particular circumstances, I can say that the government is in full agreement with the main intent of each of these recommendations. I therefore, ask the House to concur in the interim report. It is the government's objective to place before the House as soon as possible comprehensive statements as to how the government intends to respond to each recommendation.
The committee listed the main reasons for the worldwide upsurge in food prices. I am referring to such things as crop failures in certain parts of the world, the disappearance of fish from waters off the west coast of South America and the resulting shortages of high protein meal, the floods that occurred in some parts of North America, the effects of livestock production cycles, the rapid rate of rise in the demand for meat and other factors that have been raised on many occasions over the past few months.
Food Prices
The committee noted, after looking at the rate of increase in retail food prices in 27 industrialized countries between 1967 and 1972, "the rate of rise in Canada was lower than in all but six of these countries, namely, West Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, Mexico and Italy, and was only marginally above the rates recorded for most of these leaders." Of course, the rise has been particularly rapid in Canada in recent months, but with the exception of food I think the record shows that few countries have had better consumer price performance than Canada during this period.
As I mentioned earlier, the committee has avoided the pitfalls of supposing that rigid price controls applied to food could be what is required. Instead, it has recommended a flexible review procedure. It has resisted the temptation to forecast how effective a price review operation might be. I personally think we can be hopeful that price reviews that are flexible and efficiently conducted can have salutary results. But I agree with the caution with which the committee has approached the subject. I also agree with the prominence it has given to the idea of concentrating as much on studies of efficiency of resource use in food industries as on investigation into the possibility that excessive returns are being received by some participants in the chain of food production operations.
Let me deal more specifically with the recommendations in the report. As I have just said, it is not yet possible to put before the House a detailed response to each recommendation; the government does require further opportunity to complete its work on them. A major recommendation of the report is the one calling for the establishment of an independent prices review board. Regarding this recommendation, I can now say that the government agrees there is need for a mechanism to review and examine the causes for particularly striking increases in staple items in the food budget of the consumer, and whose findings would be available to parliament through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This is an area where more facts could have a beneficial effect in moderating upward trends in food prices.
I would be less than candid, however, if I did not remind the House of the complexity of this issue. Indeed, the interim report of the committee has clearly shown that many factors underlie increases in food costs and that easy solutions in this field will not be found. But I do want to say that the government intends to announce its detailed plan of action for a review mechanism before the end of this month and, hopefully, within the next week or two.
In its examination of food costs, I was pleased to see that the committee did not overlook the importance of competition as a policy instrument that can have a key role to play in maintaining cost-effective markets for food in Canada. It is clear from the outline of the future workload of the committee that it intends to explore vigorously this aspect of the food situation over the next few months. As the House knows, the government has stated that it will be bringing forward a competition policy which will reflect the consideration that has been given by it to the many comments it has received from the public on the

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
original draft bill. The government will expedite its work in this regard.
I note that the recommendations in the report concern only those sections of the draft competition act appearing to deal directly with consumer protection, but I think there are other aspects of the proposed bill that are also of concern to the consumer and have a bearing on the issue of food costs. As the interim report notes, factors such as concentration in the food wholesaling, processing, packaging and retailing activities of the food industry and overcapacity in food distribution are areas where further examination is required by the committee. In its work on this recommendation the government will bear in mind what I believe is the main intent of the committee's recommendation, that is, an assurance that competition in the food industry will be improved to the benefit of the consumer.
Another major recommendation of the interim report dealt with the hardship caused to persons on low income resulting from increases in food costs. It is these people who suffer most from upsurges in food prices. They do not have the ability to weather a rapid increase in food prices without serious deterioration in their living standards. They are not in the position of some Canadians whose purchasing power has increased rapidly over the past decade in spite of the increase in the cost of food.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is already involved in cost-sharing with groups cited in this recommendation. This is a matter of shared federal-provincial responsibility. Through the Canada Assistance Plan, the Department of National Health and Welfare already shares with provinces the cost of approved programs such as meals-on-wheels for senior citizens and shut-ins who meet a needs test. Additional sharing is provided in respect of hostels which provide food and shelter for transients. Amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan regulations effective November, 1972, have provided for the expansion of financial support to day-care services to include, among other items, the cost of food. The legal provisions are there, and undoubtedly there is room for expansion and improved distribution of services under the existing provisions.
The government has stated its intention to introduce legislation on family allowances in this session. This was confirmed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) during today's question period. This legislation should improve the purchasing power of low-income families and disabled individuals and help put more food on their tables.
Adequate nutrition for Canadians is of special concern to the government, particularly the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The nationwide nutrition survey launched in October, 1970, is now being analysed. The final results are expected this October. This survey took into consideration the effect of low income on the nutritional status. We look forward to the findings of this study in guiding us on programs and policies to improve the nutritional status of Canadians. The Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to discuss these aspects of the committee's recommendations further, within the framework of the review he is now undertaking of the social
[Mr. Gray.J
welfare policy in conjunction with his provincial counterparts.
The remaining recommendations of the committee concern consumer education, the advisability of introducing legislation governing the nutrient content of foods and government support for consumer groups appearing before federal regulatory boards. I want to assure the House that the government is developing further programs in each of these areas and they will be announced as soon as work on them is completed.
To conclude, I wish to reiterate that the approach the government is taking to the interim report of the committee is that it will do its best to make a positive response to each and every recommendation in it as quickly as possible. I therefore urge this House to concur in the interim report of the special committee.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and I honestly wish I had not done so because his speech was the same threadbare type that we have been listening to constantly over the past few months. In his speech the minister embraced fully the interim report that has been put before the House. Why shouldn't he, Mr. Speaker? In most instances it contains almost word for word the testimony that he gave before the special committee.
It is no coincidence that the minister was able to stand up in this House today and tell us in how many ways the government was already acting on the recommendations of the committee. It may be working on the recommendations, but the fact remains that we still have high food prices and a high cost of living. Listening to the minister today bore out in no uncertain terms the contention held across the country that this is just a tired old government, without any ideas, without any initiative and it is time it was gone.
Why was the special committee established? It was set up because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the government had absolutely no other program or way to combat the increasing cost of living that was panicking everyone. Their answer to the people of Canada was to set up a special parliamentary committee. In my candid opinion, the members of that committee did everything possible to determine what the problem was, even working under the deadline with respect to this interim report. But, Mr. Speaker, the task was impossible: it just could not be done. The fact that the government has rushed to embrace this interim report is a good indication of why we could not make any progress in the committee.
People engaged in the food industry believed, because of the haste in which the committee was established and the confining of its terms of reference to food only, that the government was looking for a scapegoat. The briefs submitted to the committee bore that out; in almost every instance they were defensive. Under the circumstances I do not blame any witnesses who came before the committee. I would be tempted to do the same thing. That is why we have not made progress in the committee. The minister scoffed at us in the Conservative party for proposing a freeze on food prices and wages. He called it a control. He
April 10, 1973

said the people of Canada were not ready for controls, and castigated us for being divisive. This is absolute political hypocrisy. If it has any power and takes any action whatsoever, what in the world is a review board but a control?
What is most clear is that the minister does not understand the farmers of this nation. He said the proposed prices review board will be a control, but only on food prices. There will be no freeze on wages and prices, as we recommended. This means it will extend right back to the primary producer. What the Minister is actually saying is that the farmers of the nation will be asked by the government to bear the blame for the high cost of food.
The minister went on to say he was going to put the interim report before the cabinet for study. But nowhere is there to be found any thought of controlling the increases in the cost of living. That is what consumers are interested in and that is what this party is interested in. Hon. members opposite scoff at the freeze suggested by this party; to them it is laughable. The members of the NDP are against a freeze. They point to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to the United States, because the 90-day freeze in that country stopped the spiralling increase in their cost of living rising to three times that of Canada, in a period of one year, to the point where it is now two-thirds of the increase in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What happened after they took it off?


Harold Warren Danforth: I am talking about right now. Today it is only two-thirds of the increase in Canada. The NDP, through their spokesman, the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), derided control. Has the hon. member no concern for the consumer? The figures show that the action taken by the U.S. government resulted in a substantial saving to every housewife in the United States. To me, that is the name of the game. That is what 1 am interested in.
Here we are talking about setting up a prices review board. We have had many review boards in this country. I have reason to know. We have had problems with tariffs. We have had review boards to determine whether an import has hurt a Canadian commodity or Canadian industry. Do you know how long it takes these boards to make a report? It can take anywhere from 13 months to 18 months. If we are to have a food prices review board that will take 18 months to make a recommendation to the government, and then the government will take time to consider the recommendation, food costs will have risen out of sight before any action is taken.
The hon. member spoke about not having a price freeze and said she does not believe in moral suasion. But she talked about state control. She talked about government action to roll back prices. That is state control. She says that we should roll back the price of food and subsidize the farmers with taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, the farmers do not want subsidization; all they want is a fair return for their products. The hon. member also said we should subsidize the lower income groups so they could buy food with higher nutritional value. That is a laudable point. But again, Mr. Speaker, that is using taxpayers' money. Our policy is that we should reduce taxes. Let us get people working so they can buy their own food and
Food Prices
make their own choice. Let us not have a socialist state, with all initiative destroyed.
The hon. member also said that we must not touch wages. I am interested in that point. What part do wages play? Wages can be a multiplying factor. If there is a wage increase of 10 per cent or 5 per cent in an industry which builds tractors, the increase is passed on to the farmer and he has no way to meet it except from the sale of his products. If there is a wage increase in the industry which makes food containers, that increase will be reflected in higher food prices. An increase in the salary of the manager of a food chain is reflected in the consumer price. Every time railwaymen get an increase in wages, transportation costs go up and the price of food is increased. These increases are passed on to the consumer. I am not saying this is unjustified or wrong, but I think we should know the whole story.
I was disappointed when the CLC appeared before the committee and did not justify the part that wages play in the cost of food. Mr. Speaker, the committee's terms of reference were to investigate the trends in food prices. In order to conduct a fair and just review we must find the basic reasons. I think many committee members feel that in order to decide what is actually happening, we must have more pertinent information. I believe that the only way we can get this is to take any group of basic commodities used by the average housewife in this country and send out an inquiry from our committee to everybody who has anything to do with those foods, from the primary producer to the ultimate consumer. Pertinent and simple questions should be asked such as: How much does it cost you to process it or semi-process it? How much does it cost you to provide services? What is your selling price when you pass on these costs? Give us a list of your input in order that we may judge the part it plays in the food chain.
The food chain is a very very complicated business, Mr. Speaker. For a parliamentary committee to think it can examine the food chain in two meetings a week, over a period of two months, is absolutely ridiculous. I think every member was aware of this fact at our first meeting. This is why I feel we have not achieved anything. I cannot support this interim report because I do not believe it does the job we were asked to do. It is only an interim report, but on this very basis the government is ready to plunge into action!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: The interim report itself says the committee is not satisfied that it knows the answers. These are minor recommendations, temporary recommendations; they are not solutions. If they are, the committee is ridiculous. There is no man or woman in this House, Mr. Speaker, who does not fully realize that if every recommendation of this interim report were implemented, it would not make one percentage point of difference to the cost of food. The only people to be influenced at all would be those on welfare, and they would be given a great deal of purchasing power.
We were asked to study the trends in food prices, Mr. Speaker. In its report, the committee did not say a word
3158

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
about the very evident fact that wages have increased by 5 per cent, on average, over the last four or five years and will increase by 5 per cent this year and next year. This means the cost of food will increase by that amount as well, unless there is drastic curtailment at the producer end. There will be an increase in the price of food if wages go up. There is nothing in the report to say that, based on increased prices and built-in cost, the price of food would not continue to rise. There are just nebulous solutions put in there to relieve this government of responsibility for an economic program that has caused the highest inflation in the western world apart from two other nations.
This government points its finger at the United States. Mr. Speaker, housewives in this country would love to be submitted to the increase in the cost of living that is evident in the United States, rather than that in Canada. It is all right for the minister to ridicule this party because we asked the government to consider a plan that has worked, over one which no one is sure will work or how long it would take. Even the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who introduced this proposition to the committee, and may I say that she worked hard in the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is the best part of your speech.


Harold Warren Danforth: Even the hon. lady herself expressed tremendous doubt in her own proposition. If members opposite had been in the House to listen to what she said, they would know it would need a tremendous amount of legislation to obtain absolute government control in order to make this proposition work. Mr. Speaker, through its minister the government did not propose to bring in legislation; they said they were going to send this report to cabinet for study.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, I did not.


Harold Warren Danforth: The price of food continues to rise while these people study and study and study. If people in this country have an opportunity at all, hon. members opposite will soon have a lot of time to study.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this interim report, because I am convinced that it does not represent the best efforts that can be made by the committee. The committee had just started to work, to get an idea where it should hone in on the basic facts if it was to make a reasonable report, then it was faced with producing an interim report which, by the government's own action, had to be produced after only 60 days of study.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You wanted the whole committee to wind up in only three months.


Harold Warren Danforth: The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, was the absolutely impossible demand of this government for an interim report to solve the food problem in Canada, which just was not possible. That is why we have no faith in this committee. We knew, also, that this was panic action by the government to place the whole responsibility for controlling the increase in food prices on the committee. We could not even ask a question in this House during the past 60 days, Mr. Speaker, on what the government pro-

posed to do about the increase in food prices, because the answer would have been that a standing committee of parliament was studying the matter and was instructed to bring in a report.
In conclusion, I cannot support this interim report and I will not support it. But I hope the government in its wisdom will allow the committee to hold further hearings and that we will have an opportunity to study the problem in a businesslike way, so we can produce a report that makes some sense and has some justification to the consumers of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the committee hearings during the last part of May, in radio interviews I indicated at the outset the paradox of rising food prices. It was that probably everyone was to blame, and possibly no one. After almost two months of hearings, listening to many witnesses and reading letters and briefs, I have yet to change my view in that respect. Most assuredly, food prices are rising. We did not need a committee to tell us that. What we were endeavouring to find out was if there was, and to what extent there was, a villain of the piece.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and note that his party and members of his party on the committee accept five of the six recommendations of the first report. There is no such thing as a majority report. Mr. Speaker, when you consider that this was a 25-member committee composed of ten Conservatives, ten Liberals, three NDP members and two Credi-tistes, I think it is significant and commendable that the committee came up with a report containing six recommendations, five of which have won acceptance by all parties in this House.
The Conservatives indicate that they would impose a 90-day freeze. The committee as a whole could not accept that. In saying that, I speak as an individual member of the committee. It could not accept it because it would work to the detriment of innocent parties in the food chain. There are some who should not have their prices, wages, dividends or profits frozen. I submit that just automatically imposing a 90-day freeze on all prices would work to the detriment of innocent parties who are suffering from increased food prices. Therefore I could not accept that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
Although I would welcome a food prices review board, the adjective to be used in connection with such a board is "independent". I think that is the kind of board the committee would wish to see established. Is it better not to review prices, to review profits, to look at packaging, to look at what retailers have been doing, to look at what farmers are earning, and then to come up with sugges-

April 10, 1973

tions? That, I am sure, is what the majority of the members of the committee would want to see, and not an automatic freeze that could hurt innocent parties.
I listened, also, to the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). He seems to have a convenient memory. It was not the government which suggested that this committee should meet for two or three months; that was the suggestion of the official opposition. They thought we ought to wind up our work in three months. It was the amendment of the New Democratic Party which said that the committee should meet as long as necessary but should bring in an interim report within 60 days or within a two-month period. We worked hard and came up with an interim report.
The criticism we heard from the hon. member for Kent-Essex is the kind of criticism that is often levelled at a hockey player. For instance, if Phil Esposito at the beginning of the season scores six or seven goals within a certain period, your hear the critics say that if he keeps up that rate of scoring he will score 106 goals during the season. His final score might only be 70 or 75 goals. That is the kind of criticism the hon. member for Kent-Essex levelled at the committee.
I am not suggesting that we came up with all the answers or, for that matter, that the members of any one party came up with all the answers. We worked within the terms of reference laid down by the House; we tried to do our work within the framework of those terms of reference. I think it is unfair to set impossible targets for committee meetings to be held during a two-month period and then expect us to come up with all the necessary suggestions or answers that the hon. member suggested we ought to come up with. We are living in an age in which we witness what is known as the revolution of rising expectations. I think the hon. member was raising expectations inasmuch as he expected too much from an all-party committee of this House. He expected that committee, after two months of hearings, to bring down all the answers and all the necessary recommendations.
The hon. member for St. John's East criticized the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and seemed to equate what that minister had to say with what the committee in the final analysis had to say. The Minister of Agriculture was quick to point out, on behalf of the primary producers in agriculture, that food prices in Canada represent a bargain, and that as a matter of fact food prices in Canada have been too low so far as the farmer is concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not accept everything that came to us from the minister or from witnesses. In the committee report, on page 5-I sometimes wonder if members of the Conservative opposition have read the report-we find these words:
Impact of Food Price Increases
A significant number of Canadians have incomes so low that their positions were precarious at best even before the recent period of rapid food prices began. One major fact that has come out of the hearings is that the food price increases have turned some of these precarious situations into near-desperate ones.
We were endeavouring to make the point that perhaps for a large number of Canadians food prices are not too high, but that for an all too large and significant number of Canadians they are too high. It should surprise no one,
Food Prices
therefore, that if this matter comes to a vote I intend to vote in support of the motion. It is my view that we of the committee have done a good job of work. We were a 25-member committee which met anywhere from four to six times per week; we also met in the steering committee. All this work imposed a heavy work load on all committee members who read the briefs and letters which came over our desks or were presented to us. The hearings themselves were only the tip of the iceberg. There were briefs and letters from all Canada. We interviewed, and were interviewed. We talked and we listened. We had the benefit of advice from our special advisers. I think anyone who attended the committee's hearings would agree that each party used its research staff to advantage. How we did read! Letters, reports, newspaper articles, pamphlets, items-in fact, practically every type of written communication came to each member.
We shopped, watched, noted and debated. We saw the signs hanging in the retail outlets. We wondered if they were having a significant impact on food prices. Being the kind of committee it was, we had political gamesmanships surfacing occasionally, sometimes to the detriment of the committee's goals but never destroying its over-all effectiveness. We gained credibility. Two provincial governments felt we were important enough to request permission to appear before us. Representatives of the governments of Alberta and Manitoba appeared before the committee. Many others asked to come before us. In recent days some have even demanded the right to do just that. We were a better committee toward the end. Frankly, I was sorry to see what was called a minority report, especially for the interim report, because I felt we were beginning to gel. I think we can do it again.
We had press reports that were good, and some that were bad. By that I mean there were good comments and bad comments about our work. In many cases there was criticism that was justified. However, some of the reporters who criticized could have done a little more in-depth study of the report. I was interviewed by a reporter who in fact had not read the report. He did not know what was going on in the House of Commons. He did not know that we were today debating a motion to concur in the report. A little more in-depth study of what we said in our report could have made him a better reporter.
We did not tie down many sections in the report because we felt it should have a broad-axe approach. We tried to cover many areas. It is very easy for members of the opposition and the press to say on occasion that the report is toothless, complicated and obscure. Those are the kind of words that are easy to print and understand. It is more appropriate to read some of the editorial comments by people who have obviously done a bit of study. They are not all favourable. I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the London Free Press of April 5, 1973. It reads as follows:
Food committee: a positive effect.
From the majority report of the Commons committee on food prices and, indeed, from the minority report of the Conservative opposition, it is evident that Canada is moving toward greater government surveillance of key areas of the economy, if not government control.
3160

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
The way in which this surveillance is used will be the key factor in determining whether it inhibits and weakens the Canadian economy and living standards or whether it helps to produce efficiency, equity and economic vigour . ..
The general effect of the committee so far has been constructive, and its work will continue. It has brought groups together, illuminated problems and gathered proposals, and it may have laid the groundwork for a more effective effort by all groups in the food industry to stabilize and support the marketplace within a free economy.
At present that is the best way to fight the battle of inflation. Government price controls are cumbersome and costly in their application and they defeat the free market system while providing marginal gains for the consumer. They are a last resort, and the food economy of Canada is still a long way from such desperate measures.
One of the criticisms of the committee is that we studied food prices, and food prices only. There are four good reasons why we studied food prices. I am referring, of course, to the period before the terms of reference, because the terms of reference limited us to that particular aspect. We were limited to food prices because it is the area with which most Canadians are familiar. We could see the impact this was having. We could see that it covered the whole gamut of the economy. It dealt with capital costs, costs of operation, labour costs, transportation costs, advertising costs, packaging and retailing costs. We heard that when the consumer price index goes up, food is the item that pushes it up the highest. We heard evidence to the effect that when the food chains had their price war, this had the effect of levelling-off the consumer price index. Therefore, it seemed important to study this question.
We studied food costs because the average person goes to the store on one or two occasions a week and pays cash for the items he purchases. The shopper is aware of the fact that food prices are on the increase. I have heard the example of the increase in the price of shoes. It used to be possible to buy a good pair of dress shoes for $23. One chap wrote saying that in six or eight months the price had increased to $40. But there is no suggestion of a boycott in that particular area. There would be if we had to buy shoes on a more regular basis.
I think it is appropriate that we studied food prices. The setting up of a board, as suggested, could work as a pilot project for looking into all areas of the economy. It might be a good step forward in so far as setting prices that have a tendency to increase faster than they should because of excessive profits in particular areas.
This board has been called toothless. I hope it will not be. As I indicated, that is why we put in the word "independent." We wanted it to be independent of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, in fact, independent of government. We wanted the reports to be made public. We wanted them to recommend action to the government.
It has been suggested that after a 90-day freeze, the Conservative party would suggest something along the same line, a food prices board, but that the board would have authority to take action. I think that is passing the buck. It is not up to a board appointed by parliament to take action. It is up to a board to recommend action to the government. The government should have the guts to say yes or no to any recommendation brought forward by the
[Mr. Cullen.l
board. I do not think it is appropriate to simply slough off responsibility on a board.
The personnel of a board will have a lot to say and do as well as determining the effectiveness of the board. Can you imagine a board headed by Mr. Maxwell Henderson? I think a person of his calibre heading a food prices review board would be effective and would have more than the morals indicated by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The personnel of the board would have the opportunity to determine how effective it would in fact be.
If the board made a recommendation to the government and the government did not act on it, or ignored it, the board would have additional teeth. It would have the right to demand to appear before a standing committee of this House. Maybe some day there will be a standing committee on consumer affairs. That would be an appropriate committee to which this board could report if it were not getting the kind of co-operation from the government that it felt it should.
In our report we reached many conclusions and made six recommendations. One of our conclusions was that the primary producer was not responsible for this situation. I doubt very much if the committee will spend a great deal of time in the future dealing with the primary producer, be he farmer or fisherman. If there is a villain, we have to look elsewhere. Most assuredly it is not the fisherman. We heard evidence to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that the price the fisherman was getting ten years ago has increased, the price of fillets and other fish that come to the marketplace and to the retailer has increased substantially. The fisherman in this country is getting the royal Canadian shaft. Maybe we should be looking at that particular area. We could not find a villain, at least we have not yet.
Standardizing packaging and private labelling would assist in this area. We should stop talking about controls, because they are self-defeating; they have the effect of increasing prices. If we impose price controls, we can look to a black market situation. The lower income group is the hardest hit and these people must be to assisted in trying to cope with rising food prices.
Marketing boards were not condemned. We suggested they are needed for a stable market. They may tend to increase prices, but we submitted in our report that stability in the marketplace is worth it. It is difficult to evaluate what effect price wars have and whether there is, in fact, real competition when they occur. We heard from an independent grocer who saw the return on his investment fall from 15 per cent to nothing. All he took out of the enterprise were his wages for working a six-day week.
We were concerned about overcapacity-about the activities of those in the development field rather than in the food industry who decide to set up new shopping centres. They say to businesses which already have all the capacity they need: We intend to build a shopping centre here. If you wish to acquire space you may do so; otherwise we will bring in one of your business competitors.
As the hon. member for St. John's East has already indicated, we found there was overpromotion of breakfast
April 10, 1973

cereals and a few other food items. We were disappointed that representatives of the Chamber of Commerce did not appear before us. Spokesmen for individual Chambers of Commerce have since sent me letters and telegrams indicating their support for some of the views expressed by various businesses. I am sorry that officers of the Chamber of Commerce did not appear; I believe they could have made a significant contribution to the deliberations of the committee.
People who appear before a committee need have no fear. The only witnesses who need be afraid are those who are trying to hide something. Retail merchants appeared before us. One individual told us the amount of money he had invested, the wages he earned from his enterprise, the return he made on his investment, the number of his employees, the effect upon business of price wars and the effect of competition over which he had no control. I think there is a message in this report for each link in the food industry chain. Witnesses have a message to impart, and the committee provides an appropriate forum. If witnesses have something to hide, they certainly have something to fear.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time has expired. I simply conclude by saying that I enjoyed being chairman of this particular committee. I feel I received great co-operation from all members of the committee from all parties. And I do not mind a little political gamesmanship now and then.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, no one denies that the high price of food constitutes a major problem for all Canadians. Most members of the committee worked hard, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has said. They worked very hard to find out why food prices were rising so rapidly, with a view to producing an interim solution which would work and which would be acceptable to the Canadian people. The difficulty was that some members, for reasons known only to themselves, chose to close their minds to some of the real problems as illustrated by the evidence presented, mainly because they had formed preconceived solutions and they wanted to make sure that the problem was stated in such a way that it would fit the solution which they were already committed to proposing.
The New Democratic Party, by its own admission, has advocated a prices review board for many years. This was clearly stated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) in her address this afternoon. Indeed, in her party's minority report it was made very clear that this proposition had been part of the NDP platform for a great many years. All one has to do is go back to the Croll-Basford committee of 1966-67. What was the solution which the NDP was touting at that time? A prices review board. Mr. Speaker, that outdated solution dominated the discussions of this committee, at least as far as the majority of members was concerned. It was interesting to watch the reaction of the government members on this committee. For them, the issue was: Shall we join the NDP in voting for a prices review board or not? This was the crucial issue when it came down to the nitty-gritty of deciding on the kind of report which was to be presented.
In 1966, the government members on the Croll-Basford committee resisted such a proposition. Instead, they took an alternative route and recommended the setting up of a
Food Prices
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. History will judge whether that recommendation was wise or not. In 1973, on the other hand, the government members capitulated. After some fumbling around, after some strong reservations on the part of a few hon. members opposite, they capitulated. The coalition is complete as far as a food prices review board is concerned. So we are faced with a solution conceived as early as the sixties, completely irrelevant to the difficulties facing the country today. And efforts are being made to impose this outdated solution on the country in a manner which I suggest is inconsistent with much of the evidence which was presented to the committee.
In case supporters of the government should take some comfort from the rather vague wording of the first recommendation in the majority report of the committee, I would draw attention to the expectations so clearly articulated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It is no "Casper Milquetoast" lukewarm board which is proposed by that hon. member. Let us consider what she supports and what her expectations are. The hon. lady, who is in favour of this report, is expecting that this board would have the power to hold the line on price increases. Indeed, it would have the power to roll back prices. Moreover, the board would have power to determine support prices and subsidies to farmers-arbitrary power, I might add. It would also possess independent powers of investigation and analysis as well as the power to take corrective action or, at least, to require the minister to announce within 15 days the corrective action he proposes to take.
It is interesting to note that neither the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) nor the chairman of the committee saw fit to challenge or moderate the expectations of the New Democratic Party as expressed in the House this afternoon. The coalition is complete, no matter how cautious or vague the formal recommendation may be. Canadians now know what they can expect in the near future.
What is wrong with this recommendation? The position taken by my party is quite distinct from that taken by the NDP-Liberal coalition. We believe that the preconceived solution which has been put forward deals with only one side of the equation. It deals with prices. And in the food industry, which is labour-intensive, it is almost criminal to ignore wages in terms of a review mechanism. In my opinion, this is an absolute sell-out to the selfish aims of organized labour, the very power base of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: It is a sell-out by the Liberal-NDP coalition. If I may make a prediction, this coalition will forever be tainted with the inability of this board to do justice to the expectations of the Canadian people. Those expectations are very high. I am afraid they will be sadly disappointed by this ineffective, toothless board if it is set up in the way the NDP proposes and which the Liberal government has implicitly accepted.
What is even more important is that this recommendation has singled out food for special treatment. As I said at the outset, food prices are a problem. All members of the committee agree with that. But this preconceived solu-

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
tion singles out food for special treatment and ignores many of the other consumer items that Canadians must have and pay for. I refer to rent, various non-food items, appliances-a whole range of consumer products that are necessary in the day to day lives of Canadians.
In case hon. friends to my left have not seen fit to review the evidence that was presented to the committee, let me review some of it for them. I think it is interesting to draw on some of the briefs and try to make use of some of the material presented to the committee during the hours of hearings that were held twice and three times a week in January, February and March. The Canadian Food Processors Association had this to say.


Mr. Benjamin:: What do they know about it?


Ronald George Atkey: They know more about food than the hon. member does. They said in their brief:
-it is our opinion that it is wrong to single out food prices as the prime cause of the inflationary trend in Canada. To set up a mechanism to control the price of food without establishing controls for wages, raw produce, packaging, supplies, and all other cost components, would lead to disaster for the food industry.
The inflationary trend is evident in all areas of the Canadian economy, and price controls over all commodities and services, including rents, dividends, interest, taxes, profits, and government expenditures, would be necessary to completely control inflation.
That is our position, Mr. Speaker. In case hon. members doubt the wisdom of that particular source, let me quote Dr. Sylvia Ostrey of Statistics Canada who is, perhaps, a more neutral source. At page 12 of her brief Dr. Ostrey says this:

in the longer term the price increases faced by consumers for foodstuffs have been reasonably similar to those which relate to non-food elements in the family budget-
Hon. members may recall that Dr. Ostrey went back to the year 1961 and indicated that "since 1961 there has been a rise of 47.1 per cent for food and 41.7 per cent for non-food. Since 1967 the advances have been 25.8 per cent and 27.0 per cent respectively." I submit that this is ample evidence that concern for the cost of non-food items should be equally as great as that for food items, and this is where the committee in its majority report recommendation No. 1 missed the boat.
In case hon. members require further evidence, let me refer to the brief of the Grocery Products Manufacturers. At page 5 that organization referred to the increase in wage rates. They indicated that hourly wage rates were going up by 23 per cent more than the increase in the price of food, and something like 21 per cent more in terms of the increase in the price of non-food items. Wage rates-I am refering to take-home pay-increased substantially more than the cost of non-food and food items in the total cost structure of our economy.
The Progressive Conservative party has proposed that there be a temporary, 90-day freeze on prices and incomes in order that the federal government might have an opportunity to meet with the provinces, business, consumer groups and labour to work out, on a co-operative basis, without dictating the terms, a viable cost stabilization program. No one is going to dictate the exact terms of this program at the present time. The 90-day freeze would be

federal action which is required in emergency circumstances, a situation that hon. members know exists in view of the inflationary rates in our society today.
If hon. members to my left require further legitimate evidence of the necessity for a freeze, let me refer them to the brief submitted by the government of Manitoba, a New Democratic Party government, and in particular to the words of Premier Schreyer. He said this in the brief which was submitted to our food prices committee:
Obviously, controls would be an extreme step, and we recognize of course that they could only have a limited duration. Nevertheless, they would provide a temporary, partial solution to the problem of price increases while both federal and provincial governments formulated plans for dealing with this situation over the long term.
Those are the words of the Premier of the New Democratic Party government of Manitoba, which perhaps is a little more enlightened than the members to my left. With regard to the 90-day temporary freeze on wages and prices, let me make a final reference to the brief presented by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a neutral body, as hon. members opposite are well aware, which has been taking stands on matters of great economic import in this country.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association told our committee that "in certain circumstances a system of wage-price controls may become a necessary short-run expedient, despite their very real shortcomings and dangers," which we acknowledge. "The circumstances would involve a rate of inflation in Canada", the association said, "which is clearly and persistently in excess of the rates in our major competitor nations, principally the United States, to the extent that a national emergency is demonstrable". The association went on to say that "the major purpose of controls in such circumstances would be to declare a national moratorium on inflationary expectations, and during their term to implement other measures needed to attack the causes of inflation".
With respect, I think that the position taken by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is a reasonable one, one that shows some concern for the inflationary rate existing in society today. It shows that a degree of caution must always be exercised, and exhibits a certain wisdom regarding the present state of affairs in this country.
Should hon. members require further evidence as to the actual level of inflation in this country as compared with the country to the south of us, and as to whether or not we are appoaching an emergency situation, let me refer to comparative increases in the consumer price index. Let me take, for reasons which will become obvious, the year 1971 and particularly the month of August. The month of August, 1971, was when phase I of the economic stabilization program of President Nixon of the United States was instituted. Prior to the introduction of that program the annual increase in the consumer price index for all items in Canada was 3.4 per cent; in the United States it was 4.4 per cent, slightly higher. In February, 1973, a substantial period after the introduction of phase I, the annual increase in the comsumer price index in Canada was 5.8 per cent, whereas in the United States it was only 3.9 per cent.
April 10, 1973

Who are the hon. members that say the cost stabilization program of the United States is not working? Let me give them the figures relating to the increase in the cost of food. In August, 1971, the annual increase in the consumer price index for food in Canada was 3 per cent; in the United States it was 3.5 per cent. Then we had a government in the U. S. which acted deliberately and responsibly. In February, 1973, the annual increase in the price of food in Canada was 10.2 per cent; in the United States it was 7.6 per cent. Hon. members opposite and to my left suggest that the controls and the temporary 90-day freeze under the cost stabilization program in the United States have not worked. Rubbish!
The Progressive Conservative party has been challenged in this debate to provide the details of the cost stabilization program that would follow the 90-day freeze. As I have already indicated, I think it would be particularly dangerous for any government or party to specify at this time the details of such a program, when the very nature of a freeze is to allow consultation with provincial governments-which, after all, have a stake in the economy-with business, with consumer groups and with the unions.
If hon. members on the committee had done their homework, they would have realized that there were a number of possibilities for such a program. Some of the research documents prepared for the committee by our excellent staff discuss some of the alternatives, and all parties are free to read and discuss these as alternative approaches to a cost stabilization program. There is the normalized profit margin approach, which some members may be aware of. There is the General Motors approach, which might be attractive to others. There is the profit share approach, or there are voluntary guidelines with threatened sanctions.
There are a variety of programs, and I think it would be particularly inappropriate for a federal party, or indeed for the government, to specify openly what the long-term provisions of that cost stabilization program will be in advance of consultation. But what is necessary now is the initial dramatic and dynamic thrust of freezing prices and incomes to allow the conditions to develop for working out that program in a short space of time. That is our anti-inflation program, Mr. Speaker.
Some members opposite have suggested that the Conservative party is inconsistent in its approach to this committee by painting with too broad a brush. We have been in favour of the consideration of items other than food because we care about items other than food as well as food. Let me refer to the majority report of the committee to show how consistent we were and how inconsistent were some of the members of the committee who subscribe to all the recommendations in that majority report. We have in the majority report the second recommendation relating to the consumer protection provisions of the proposed competition bill. This recommendation applies to items other than food. It applies across the board to all consumer items. That is in the majority report, and it does not deal just with food. Then we have recommendation No. 4 which reads:
Food Prices
That broadcasters, in particular, and all media in general, be encouraged to continue, and to increase consumer education programs and articles. Consumer information must be made available to all segments of the population and the committee invites the media to undertake more investigative reporting of consumer protection.
We agree with that, Mr. Speaker. However, it applies not only to food but to other non-food items, across the board. Obviously, the committee did not see its own inconsistency in proceeding in that fashion. Let us look at the final recommendation, No. 6:
That the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make specific moneys available to consumers groups to present briefs to various governmental boards, where appropriate.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the scope is much broader than food. Some hon. members opposite do not appreciate that the problem is much broader than just food. Yet that is really the underlying basis of at least three of the recommendations to which they subscribe. This is an important aspect of the report which heretofore has gone unnoticed and shows the real inconsistency in the majority approach. On one hand they want to single out food, but on the other hand they want to paint with a broad brush. Our approach, when we saw the problem in the way it was described by some very competent witnesses, was to bite the bullet and paint with a broad brush, because that is what the Canadian people expected from us.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has apparently taken some comfort from recommendation No. 2 of the majority report of the committee which reads:
That certain provisions of the proposed Competition Act dealing with consumer protection ... be split off into a separate bill and enacted immediately, and not be tied in with the provisions relating to monopolies, mergers, etc., requiring reconciliation with broader policy directions relating to industrial strategy and foreign investment.
It really escapes me how the minister can take any comfort from that recommendation, when implicitly it amounts to a repudiation of the bulk of that infamous competition bill brought before this House a little more than a year ago. Essentially, what this recommendation does is take a minor portion of the bill, suggesting it is good, but hive it off from the rest of the bill which was so terrible. All of us did not want good provisions held back by the broader provisions of the competition bill which were disastrous and stand little chance of being enacted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I am highly honoured, this evening, to speak as a member of the committee that studies food price trends, and also as a consumer who has seen prices rising steadily for the last ten years.
I should like especially to comment on the recommendations the committee made at the end of its report and I quote:
1. That the Government give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to establish an independent Food Prices Review Board ...

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
What might these powers be? The board could examine food prices at the level of the producer, the wholesaler, the distributor and the retailer, processing, transportation, packaging and advertising costs, and also the relevant collective agreements.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) would have preferred to see a 90-day prices and wages freeze. What would this have achieved? We had controls like this during the war; the results were disastrous for the small wage-earners. Who do we want to protect today? The small wage-earners? During the war, a black market grew up alongside these controls and created a food scarcity when there was really no scarcity at all. And what happened? The low income families were the worst hit.
Moreover, the measure suggested by the hon. member for Kent-Essex seems impracticable to me, particularly because we are importing a very large amount of food products. At this time of the year, for example, almost all green vegetables and fresh fruits are imported from the United States. The hon. member for Kent-Essex does not tell us how prices controls would apply to imported food. To take an example: last week, Mexican tomatoes sold for 29 cents a pound because of an overproduction and an exceptional crop. I have never seen that for all the years I have been shopping. Therefore, how could we control the prices of tomatoes imported at such a low price?
We admit, however, that price controls on meats would eliminate in the short run an upward trend, but we think that in the long run, the food industry and the consumer would suffer adverse effects. Stock-breeders, at grips with rising supply costs and fixed prices of their products would be compelled to maintain the necessary levels of production and would find themselves in a rather precarious situation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would rather provide stock-breeders with an incentive in order to encourage them to produce more and palliate a certain scarcity of this product.

I should now like to speak about the boycott, of which we heard a great deal last week. The trouble with the boycott idea is that it is based upon an imperfect understanding of the economics of the situation. Boycott organizers have grasped correctly that the law of supply and demand provides that lower demand can also lower prices under certain conditions. They have failed to realize that this holds true only if the demand is reduced while the level of supply holds constant, and that it is the producer and not the consumer who controls the level of supply. The producer can control that supply by withholding livestock from the market until the boycott ends, or by simply exporting to the United States or to other countries where the demand remains high.
Worse still, an artificial and dramatic disruption of demand can actually backfire against boycott organizers and lead to higher meat prices a few years from now. If the producers become uncertain about the stability of the Canadian market, they can make production decisions the impact of which will be felt two or three years from now.


Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the second recommendation:
2. That certain provisions of the proposed Competition Act dealing with consumer protection (e.g. misleading advertising, bait and switch selling) be split off into a separate bill...
I fully agree with that provision. For my part, I wish some provisions of the legislation would ban once and for all misleading advertising, coupons, stamps, everything included in the packaging and which is not the product itself.
The third recommendation deals with the nutrient content of food. This recommendation is only worthwhile when included in the fourth recommendation. Of what use would it be if the consumer did not pay any attention to it? As you know, I am a consumer but I realize that as such I am a little responsible for the growing increase in food prices. In order to please the consumer, we are now offering on the market blanched potatoes, diced potatoes, french fried potatoes, frozen potatoes, plain potatoes-


An hon. Member:: Dried potatoes!


Albanie Morin: -dried, yes. Furthermore, all kinds of products under various forms from miniature to giant sizes are offered, but the consumer does not seem to realize that all these conveniences are paid for at a high price when she buys these foodstuffs.
A massive educational program aimed at the consumer is required but this will prove useful only if the consumer is willing to participate.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, after sitting for some 60 days, or two months, in the committee studying food prices it gives me some satisfaction to see that a report did come out of the committee, because we listened to a great many people with a variety of opinions and we made recommendations to this parliament. I make a point of saying we made recommendations to this parliament, not necessarily to this government. It is my hope, as a member of this parliament, that the government will bring before the House legislation and proposals that will enable the House to take, or to refuse to take, action as a result of those 60 days of hearings.
The terms of reference came from the government, it is true, but the recommendations came from the committee. Members of one or two parties in the House may say that they disagree completely with the recommendations of the committee. That, of course, is their privilege; indeed, it is their right. But I and my colleagues think the recommendations that came out of the committee are worthy of the consideration of the House and indeed are worthy of the consideration of Canadians.
There may be some here who may say, as do those to my right, that that is not enough; that there should be a 90-day freeze and that we should reach out and put a clamp on everyone, now. There may be others, such as those across the aisle, who may say that we should have done nothing; that somehow by manipulation of money we could avoid doing anything or taking any responsibili-
April 10, 1973

ty as a parliament. They hold before us the threat of a bureaucratic nightmare and try to scare Canadians into adopting a pose of rigidity and of refusing to do anything at all. These are the two opposites, the two poles, if you will. In my view, the committee chose a course in between and chose to recommend to the House certain actions which the committee thought, or at least the majority of its members, thought, could meet some of the needs and, hopefully, most of the needs of the situation.
So far as I sun concerned, in the 1972 election and since that time consumers have said to me, "Do something about prices." They said it in the 1972 election and I have since received letters saying the same thing. When I refer to consumers, I do not mean only housewives; I mean the wage earner who is buying a house, the farmer who is buying fertilizer and fuel for his tractor and other machines. People right across this broad spectrum of our society have been saying this, and I think that we should take notice of their complaints. When the consumer was saying this to us, the farmer was saying, "I want a guaranteed price, a fair price for the products which I produce."
I do not know if a great many people in the House understand the kind of experience the farmer has had in the last two and a half years in this country. When members to my right say that we should have a 90-day freeze, do they intend to freeze the price of hogs at 54 cents, or are they going to freeze the price at 46 cents? Are they going to freeze flax at $5.89, or when it goes down to $4.16? Are they going to freeze rapeseed when it hits $4.50, or are they going to freeze it when it goes down to $3.40?


An hon. Member:: You know the answer to that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not, because those hon. members have never given me the answer. And when they had the opportunity to put those grains under the Canadian Wheat Board and provide the farmers with some stability, they refused to do so. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be kidded in the House, and I was not kidded in the committee by some of the statements made there.
I support without any reservation the proposal for the establishment of a prices review board. We are not in 1943, we are in 1973, and a lot of things have changed since 1943. I do not know about the rest of the members of that committee, but as we sat and listened it became very plain, to me at least, that so far as food distribution at the retail end is concerned, in 1973 we are faced with what is essentially a monopoly position. It became plain to me that the same is true of the processing industry which has a virtual monopoly. We cannot deal with this problem by saying that these situations do not exist.
I recall the time when Federated Co-operatives were before us. I checked through the proceedings of that meeting this afternoon. I asked them about a situation concerning the number of retail outlets in part of the city of Saskatoon. Now, in the same area, up goes another retail outlet-a large one-erected by a Calgary developer. I asked this group whether the additional space was needed in that part of the city, and they said no. I asked them, who was going to pay for it, and their answer is recorded in the minutes of proceedings of the committee. They said the consumer was going to pay for it. They also said there was another little city in Saskatchewan, down in the
Food Prices
southwestern corner, where the same developer was constructing another outlet. The co-operative will be forced to move into that development and pay rent there because, if it does not, somebody else will move in and they will be faced with additional competition. Again, Mr. Speaker, the consumer is going to pay.
This evidence was put before us at the committee hearings. It was put before a commission in Saskatchewan several years ago. What are we going to do about it? I suggest that the committee is frank when it advocates a prices review board which can undertake a continuing job of investigating what is happening in the food industry as a total system. 1 do not think you can single out one particular sector at one particular time and say that this or that is the truth unless real investigation has been undertaken and you know what is happening.
The first job a prices review board can do is to find out what is happening. Our party has said plainly that after that happens, we expect such a board to have the power to make recommendations, and we expect the responsible minister to act on those recommendations within a limited period of time. We are not talking about a weak-kneed, ineffective board, such as is alleged we are talking about. That is not our concept.
In the committee we received evidence on excess advertising. It was plain that advertising was being undertaken that really did not relate to the real needs of the consumer. Just the other day when I was coming through Winnipeg I bought the Winnipeg Tribune. It carried an article explaining why TV ads aimed at children worked so well. It was by a Mr. Choate, and was taken from a Los Angeles paper. In part it read:
For the past year the Council on Children, Media and Merchandising . . . has had financial support from foundations in studying the impact of TV commercials on children. As a result of our study, I have concluded that the techniques of creating ads with a predictable effect on youngsters are the closely guarded secret of a cadre of motivational researchers, employed by American business .. .
Under controlled circumstances, and with the utmost security, the personnel of motivational research firms across the country monitor the reactions of children to given commercials and products. In this way, children are being used in laboratory situations to formulate, analyse, polish and compare ads designed to turn other children into salesmen in their own homes.
This is 1973, Mr. Speaker, and children are being programmed to buy products in a way that is acceptable to those who are merchandising and packaging the products. I repeat that this is 1973, not 1940. We should look at this question as a part of the total picture. We should also look at the needs of the farmer. One hon. member, I think it was one of the very attractive members of the committee-I am sorry that I do not recall the riding-said we could very well face the risk of a drop in the production of meat because of the pressures being put on the farmer by those who are promoting boycotts. Mr. Speaker, there is no group in our society that has asked less of society than the food producers. All they have asked of society is some security and a reasonable standard of living. They have not asked for excess profits or excess privileges. They have not taken time on radio or television to gull people into the kind of programs they think will be of advantage

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
to them. They have asked for minimum prices that would protect them against slumps, in some cases foreseen and in others not unforeseen.
Just two years ago hog producers were losing money on every hog they produced on their farms. I saw the audited statement of a hog producer in my constituency. He was producing 2,000 hogs a year and was losing $6 on every hog. All that producers such as that require of society is that they be given a reasonably steady return on their products; then they will produce all the food we need. I would say to that same hon. member that if we make the production of food unattractive enough, and if we introduce enough risks for the farmer, we may succeed in getting to the point in Canada where we will not produce enough food for ourselves. That will be an achievement for a country like Canada! But if we keep on like this, and hang on 90-day freezes and capers like that, we may well achieve it.
I suggest that if we are practical and if we investigate the real cause and take reasonable steps, we can produce all the food we need, we can distribute it to the people who need it and we can avoid some of the malnutrition that there is in this country. Evidence of malnutrition was brought before the committee. People came before the committee and told us in plain, simple language that malnutrition-in other words, starvation-exists in Canada. Yet we pride ourselves on being, one of the richest countries in the world, with a very high standard of living. We can avoid malnutrition if we take reasonable and logical steps that will adequately serve and protect Canadians.
If we need some advertising and can bear the cost, we should do it logically and not do it on a profit exploitation basis. Let us do it on the basis where it will serve Canadians, where it will tell children the foods that will build healthy bodies instead of trying to persuade their mothers to buy something that is not needed. We used to go into school when there was no television and put pictures on the walls which told children that oranges and eggs and bacon made them healthy. Now that we have one of the best advertising medium in the world, what is it used for? To sell cornflakes! As responsible people in this House, let us say to these image markers, "Don't tell us how to starve to death. Tell us how to live". That would make more sense.
If this committee did nothing else, at least it gave its members an opportunity to understand some of the factors at work in the food industry. From time to time members said, with some frustration which I also felt, that we were getting a snow job, and at that stage I suppose we were getting the public relations treatment from the industry by the people experienced in doing a selling job. But there were those of us who wanted to look-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the order made today has expired.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, as one who participated on a part-time basis in the Special Committee on Price Trends in Food, it gives me pleasure to
[Mr. Gleave.l
participate in the discussion on the motion for concurrence in the report of the committee.
The problem the committee has been asked to deal with relates to the basic problem of inflation. We have a government which, for reasons best known to itself, over the past two or three years has been very active with the printing press in increasing the money supply of this country. I would find this rather amusing if it were not so sad for those people who are unable to defend themselves against the ever increasing rise in all prices, not just food. No member in that great collection of intellects on the government side can say why we are having a problem with prices today. It should be elementary that if you are irresponsible and make the printing presses work overtime, you will have inflation and consequent increases in the price of food and everything else.
It is interesting to note that over the past two years the money supply in this country has increased at a rate that is not less than 10 per cent. I think the average of the two years would be 15 to 17 per cent. This is completely unacceptable. We have also had a situation where the federal government-the most obvious government; the one at the top of the heap; the one that everyone looks to as an example-has failed to live within its income. We have had a period of sustained high taxation and sustained high government return but, nevertheless, a continuing succession of deficits. I think is beyond dispute that government deficits result in inflation and increased prices. I do not know what the mystery is. We have an irresponsible administration which has been playing with the fiscal and monetary policies of the national government and, as a result, we have a national problem.
Members of the New Democratic Party and of the Liberal party scoff at the suggestion that the federal government should undertake a freeze in order to change the direction that the economy has been following for the past five, six, seven, eight or ten years. I suppose that dates back to the famous Pearson formula for settling the Seaway dispute which set off this most recent siege of inflation. In any event, I am not sure what was illogical or wrong with the suggestion that the federal government take hold of the problem and tell the people that they are going to take a new approach to the situation and will protect the population of this country-especially those who are unable to protect themselves by way of collective bargaining or otherwise-and enable them to maintain their purchasing power. No one is suggesting that a 90-day freeze is a total solution to the problem. I think that anybody on the government side, as well as their auxiliaries to my left, would realize that the policies pursued to date are wrong and there must be a change of direction.
I suggest that the basic change required is an example by the federal government, to be followed by other levels of government and business in the country, to start living within their means. In that way we would give some real impetus for growth in the economy and provide more benefits for everybody. The coalition that we have now has passed along the old idea of the New Democratic Party for a prices review board. It is very interesting to note that the motion we are asked to concur in does not recommend any real powers to be given to the review board, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway
April 10, 1973

(Mrs. Maclnnis) suggests that the board should have the power to roll back prices and enforce what it considers to be the general good of the consumer as well as the producer.
I cannot understand why that hon. lady would wish to be associated with a prices review board that does not live up to her expectations of what it can do. She and her party are advocating a much more severe solution to the problem than has been advocated by this party, which has said that as a beginning there should be a 90-day freeze while governments at the provincial and federal level work out a meaningful program within the general free market approach to this situation.
There is no escaping the fact that this is an economic problem. Someone has said that you can make an economist out of practically anybody or anything. Just the other day I heard that the best way to make an economist out of a parrot is to teach him the words "supply and demand". Surely the real problem with respect to food in Canada today has to do with supply. This, in turn, relates to our being part of the world economy-and the world is desperately short of food. It is discouraging to note that in the last year or two we have become net importers of agricultural products. At one time we prided ourselves on being the breadbasket of the world and, without difficulty, producing enough for ourselves. Now we are net importers of food. When you are a net importer of food, you are at the mercy of world markets. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that our approach to solving this problem should be one involving increased supply.
One does not hear the New Democratic Party or the Liberal party advocating measures that would increase the supply of food. Actually, one can remember that classic example of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) introducing the infamous program, Lower Inventories for Tomorrow-otherwise known as Lift-on the Prairies, whereby the taxpayer of Canada was actually paying grain producers not to grow grain. This happened withing the past three years. Now we see that the latest contract for the sale of wheat to Russia, announced earlier this week, will take every bushel, every grain of wheat out of our possession. I therefore wonder what would happen in this country if we were to be unlucky with the weather. This has not been unknown in the past. Probably we would end up buying back some of the grain we sold at higher prices, if we were unfortunate. If the weather co-operates, there is no question that the Canadian farmer can produce the required amount of grain to meet our current commitments and also enable us to make other sales.
Primarily, we require at this time courageous policies on the part of government which must be effective in the war against hunger in the world. No one can deny that there is a world food shortage. If we can gear our production in such a way that we produce surpluses, if possible in most commodities that we are capable of producing, we shall take the pressure off the demand for food in this country and thereby reduce prices. As a happy consequence, of course, we shall be able to earn much needed foreign exchange and generally expand prosperity in the country by transmitting the benefits gained by foreign
Food Prices
trade to manufacturers and other sectors of the Canadian economy.
The government is entranced by the NDP-inspired idea that supply management should apply in the agricultural sector of our economy. Much time was taken in the previous parliament in debating that silly piece of legislation, Bill C-176, the result of which was a restriction in the supply of food in this country. It is time to remind hon. members again of this fact: if we are to bring prices down, we must increase supply.
The NDP philosophy is that there must be ever bigger units of production. They will not do the job. I believe that we can do the job most efficiently if we encourage small producers to produce. The cumulative effect of their production will provide the necessary quantity of products for us, at the best price. In my view, we do not want a continuation of greater and greater restrictions regarding grading and inspection of our products. We are only too familiar with the disappearance of small abattoirs and meat processing facilities which have been scattered about the country and replaced by larger slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants operated by an ever decreasing number of people. That situation may be very good for the NDP and their friends in organized labour, since it makes it so much easier for them to organize the people who are dealing with these products and who want to demand ever increasing wages.
As my hon. friend from St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) pointed out, nobody who has taken part in this debate so far has been prepared to say that the food processing and distribution industries, which are labour-intensive, have contributed to increasing prices. Of course, the world situation has a great deal to do with the problem. However, when you see the lonely meat-cutter in the supermarket earning in excess of $5 per hour in many parts of the country, you begin to realize why the price of meat is increasing. I suggest that if we are to keep some sort of lid on that part of our economy, we should encourage the establishment of more, and smaller meat processing and other processing facilities which deal with food in this country.
Certainly we do not want to increase the activities of marketing boards, the sole ambition of which is to restrict supply in order to drive up prices. We want policies that will enable producers to be efficient and produce the greatest amount possible in order to maximize income. They should not maximize their income by reducing production, since in the end nobody will benefit and food supplies will be lower. We have seen in the past how such policies have resulted in the tremendous cost-price squeeze from which the farmer has suffered. Prices, until relatively recently, remained dormant. At the same time, the price the farmer has had to pay for everything he uses has gone up fantastically. That he should still be in business, I submit, is a tremendous testimonial to the staying power and efficiency of the average farmer.
I suggest that we shall maximize production and solve our problems if this government is prepared to go into world markets and sell our products, instead of merely being an order-taker. We presently are commanding relatively good prices for our cereal grains, largely as a result of the crop failures in eastern Europe and China. For a long time I have advocated the setting up of overseas

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
storage facilities so that we can be truly competitive in the cereal grain market. Let us face it; the time will come again when we shall have a surplus of agricultural products merely because the agricultural segment of our economy is truly efficient and productive and will produce no matter what governments do.
Farmers do their best to produce, because in so doing they feel they are accomplishing something worth while. I admire them for that. Let us see some decent salesmanship by the government. Let us see greater efforts to enter into long-term contracts with new or emerging trading blocs, in particular the European Economic Community which will supplant our traditional market in the United Kingdom. I was interested in hearing the minister of industry, trade and commerce of the last parliament, and the present minister, announce what is happening, what the government are doing and that ambassadors have been appointed.
We do not seem to be coming to grips with the real problem of getting business tied up on a long-term basis so that our producers will have the knowledge that there is something to work toward. In order to get into that position the government should, as a matter of principle, embark upon a policy of paying for storage of grain on farms so that we can at least be in a position to deliver these additional sales when they come. This would also level-out the peaks and valleys of our production in that area.
We should establish a guaranteed floor price. It should not be established at a price that is more than ten years old and has been depreciated in the meantime by inflated dollars. If there is a demand for the product, let us produce it. We should become efficient.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the House order made earlier has expired.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, as one who served on the trends in food prices committee, I can certainly agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) who said that to serve on that committee was a fantastic learning experience. It undoubtedly was.
We all know that the impact of the high cost of eating has become a predominant concern of the consumer. The topic of food prices has once again been the subject of an inquiry by the federal parliament. It is right and proper that the consumer and government alike should be disturbed. However, I suggest, as did some hon. members opposite and as did the brief presented to the committee by the Manitoba government, that in comparison little attention has been devoted to prices of goods and services other than foods, such as housing, transportation, health and personal care.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I couldn't agree with you more.


B. Keith Penner: This is rather extraordinary, in view of the fact that a very large majority of consumers during the past few decades have been spending a declining share of their income on food, in contrast to income shares devot-

ed to housing, transportation, health care, recreation and entertainment.
If we are disturbed about food costs, we should be even more troubled by the prices of houses. There are, of course, many reasons why food is costing more. It was rather difficult for the committee throughout all its deliberations to single out one culprit or even to find that one section of the food industry is responsible for taking undue advantage of us. When you come to housing costs, however, and I will use this as a brief example and not expand upon it, it is quite easy to pinpoint the problem. There is a shortage of serviced land. This has pushed up the value of real estate in many Canadian communities and has opened the door wide for land speculators. I read in the Financial Times this week that the cost of serviced lots in the city of Toronto is now somewhere between $18,000 and $20,000. Without talking more about that problem, which is one that ought to concern our provincial governments a great deal more than it obviously has, I would like to go on to deal only with food costs.
The brief from the Manitoba government spoke of an apparently unwarranted preoccupation with food prices. Part of the reason for this is that shopping for food is done by cash on a daily or weekly basis. Other necessary expenditures which consumers have to meet, such as mortgage payments or rent, seem to be extracted from them in a way that is somewhat less painful.
In any consideration of food prices, meet always seems to be at the centre of the stage. It seems that consumers in North America have too great an appetite for meat to be satisfied with macaroni and cheese. The committee report refers to the increased demand for beef and pork products. I quote the report as follows:
Canadians like meat and are willing to pay for it.
In 1961, according to calculations of the Meat Packers Council of Canada, consumers in this country used 70.5 pounds of beef per capita. Consumption of beef then rose throughout the decade until it reached 87.3 pounds per person in 1971. Statistics for 1972 are not yet complete, but it is estimated the per capita beef comsumption will be almost 90 pounds, and the trend is rising for 1973. Consumption of pork and poultry on a per capita basis has also risen rapidly.
The increasing proportion of meat in Canadian family diets, which represents an upgrading of the food consumption pattern in this country, has been made possible by rising real incomes, the rising demand for beef has seen our farmers make very determined efforts to increase supplies in economic response to a profitable level of livestock prices. Farmers have been encouraged by higher prices to produce more and better quality food. For the farmer, these improved prices are necessary to meet his rising costs of production.
The chairman of our committee already referred to the fact, and all members of the committee were certainly convinced, that the primary producer, the farmer, the man who produces the food in this country, cannot be held responsible for the high costs we have to pay. What happens if these efforts on behalf of the farmer to increase supply are slowed down or stopped? What happens if more and more farmers quit producing food? One leader in the food industry put it this way: "With the
April 10, 1973

demand for food rising rapidly in this affluent country, lack of incentives to farmers will mean shortages and even higher prices". I feel strongly that this point needs to be stressed. If there are not incentives for the farmers, it will mean shortages of the food the consumers in this country want, and that in turn will mean still higher prices. This spokesman went on to say that unfortunately the consumer cannot have it both ways. Rising income levels and low food prices are just not compatible.
Let us accept whatever validity there may be in that statement, and I think there is considerable validity in it. At the same time, however, I am quite prepared to accept the fact that there is need for a food prices review board in Canada. To do what? The Conservative party has talked about a 90-day freeze. They say they will have a food prices review board instituted after the 90-day period. They have not yet told us what that prices review board will do.
We can tell you what our board will do. it will make absolutely certain that no one in the very involved and complicated food industry, from the farm gate to the retailer, will take undue advantage of the consumer. They will not take undue advantage by charging food items prices that cannot be justified. Many increases can be justified. We have to be concerned about finding the person along that food chain who is slipping in an increase that cannot be justified. The government of Alberta, which presented one of the finest briefs to the committee, recommended a continuing vigilance on the factors that contribute to food costs in all sectors of the food chain. Continuing vigilance surely implies a food prices review board of one kind or another. The official opposition has seen fit to downgrade such a function, but the government of Alberta saw considerable merit in it. It was not alone. The Consumers Association of Canada, an organization for which I have the greatest respect, said that the consumers of this country need, and indeed demand, a watchdog agency to ascertain that food prices are as fair and reasonable as possible, all relevant factors being considered.
The association in its brief noted with interest the suggestion that a prices review board be established to investigate rapid increases in the prices of any food product, to determine the cause of the increases and to inform the public of its findings. The association said such a board would offer an opportunity for a more effective scrutiny and increased understanding of the food industry. Returning for a moment to the brief from the government of Alberta, and still talking about the need to investigate the food chain, this is what the submission said:
Such a watchdog agency should seek out new developments having a potential for improving the effectiveness of food production, processing and merchandising.
So the Alberta government envisaged an added role for such a board. Indeed, it went one step further. The board, ought, it said-
-to initiate educational activities to keep consumers informed of new developments and informed about the food system thus encouraging them to obtain maximum nutritional benefit from the food dollar.
Food. Prices
The committee examined very carefully the wisdom of imposing wage and price controls as an effective weapon against inflation, particularly against rising food prices. The official opposition, as we well know, has proposed such a freeze for 90 days, but hon. members opposite have made it clear that they will exempt raw, unprocessed food, which I take it includes meat, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. These, incidentally, account for about 55 per cent of the food budget. The Alberta government noted it would be very concerned about the effect of price controls on the food industry. The brief stated:
Although we recognize that price controls on food would arrest the trend of steadily increasing food costs in the short run, we feel that detrimental effects would result for the food industry and for the consumer in the long run. The food industry, which is faced with increasing supply costs and fixed production prices, would be hard pressed to maintain necessary levels of output. Shrinking margins would place many producers, processors and handlers in a precarious economic position with the result that output would tend to be reduced as profit incentives were eroded. A situation such as this would be contrary to the best interests of both consumers and producers.
Are there any examples that we can consider? The action of the President of the United States in placing a ceiling on the price of meat suggests he believes that farmers are mainly at fault for the food spiral. By putting a ceiling on the retail price, the United States administration is counting on pressure rolling back through the retailer to the middle man and, eventually, to the farmer. I believe this shows the folly of the position of the opposition in saying they would control prices only beyond the farm gate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We never said that at all.


B. Keith Penner: Oh, yes. It has been said that prices are to be controlled beyond the farm gate, but if the producer cannot sell his product he is stuck with it. So if prices are rolled back to the level of the producer, he is the one who will eventually take it on the chin. This is the point which has to be emphasized. Ultimately, it is the farmer who will suffer. If the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would look at the news reports, he would see that United States' farmers feel betrayed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. They betrayed because in their view he did not serve their interests well by objecting to the imposition of the ceiling on meat prices in the United States. Previously, he had stated repeatedly, when speaking to farmers and to other groups in the country, that this was not the way in which to solve the problem.
What did he suggest as an alternative? He suggested the alternative outlined by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), who said the answer was to increase supply, stimulate production and increase beef imports. I am talking now about imports into the United States. The President of the United States now faces the frightening possibility of a farmers' strike. If production falls, the resulting shortage will raise another spectre-the spectre of a black market in meat. It may be that meat prices in the United States have already reached their peak. If that is the case, the ceiling is meaningless. But if the price has not peaked, the ceiling will likely create a shortage of meat, and that will make conditions right for a black market. In addition, it means that when the controls are

April 10, 1973
Food Prices
removed there will be fantastic pressures to push prices upward, beyond the point they had reached when the ceiling was imposed.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) has told the House he will make a positive response to each and every recommendation in our report.


Mr. Frank:: When?


B. Keith Penner: Did you listen to his speech? He told us when. He said he would do so on an urgent basis and would provide us with detailed plans and policies early in May.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: I think members of the committee would expect no less. Finally, I would say it is very important to the 25 members who served on the trends in food prices committee that we test the House with respect to the report we have submitted. The committee was a servant of the House of Commons and it deserves to know the judgment of parliament on the work it has done. I therefore urge all members not to talk out this motion, but to allow it to go to a vote a ten o'clock in order that those who worked long and hard and in a very dedicated way on the committee may know whether or not they have served the House of Commons well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal tonight with several aspects of the problem that faces us.
First of all, there is the problem of rising prices. Why are prices increasing in such an alarming way from one month to another? What are the effects of this rise on the middle class, and then on the disadvantaged category which is reaching increasingly larger proportions in Canada? What are the influence and importance of the big trusts with respect to the problem of inflation at home and even abroad, considering the sprouting of an ever larger number of multinational corporations? What evidence has been given in the food prices committee to point out where the actual problems were? How is the collusion of traditional governments being expressed? What is the solution offered by our traditional governments? What is, finally, the alternative advocated by our party, in those circumstances?
Mr. Speaker, prices are going up at an alarming rate in all fields. Here we are considering the problem of food prices in particular. We must not forget that food prices are not completely independent of prices in other sectors of the country's economy. Indeed, other sectors are experiencing the same problem, whether we are talking about clothing, automobiles, building, housing or transportation. We have reached the stage, especially for small wage-earners, where inflation has reached the limit. Formerly, people would spend less money on food, so as to make ends meet, but in view of the price increases in all the areas I have just mentioned, that has become impossi-
[Mr. Penner.l
ble. In many cases, people want more than food handouts to the poor, which the hon. minister suggested recently.
What are the causes of inflation? One of them is obviously the excessive profits made by some companies, and their way of exploiting people's senses, if you look, for example, at the way they present products. In some cases, the packaging costs more than the product itself. That means that the merchants, the producers, are less interested in satisfying the people than in making a profit. For those who exploit human poverty, all that counts is making a profit, getting steadily richer while others are getting poorer.
The committee heard evidence from dozens of people, representatives of the manufacturers' association, producers, farmers, packers, advertisers or any other associations, to the effect that it was not their fault if there was inflation and rising prices, but the fault of other people who could not be named. In the end, Mr. Speaker, where is the problem? It seems to me that if the committee does not get to the deeper causes of the present unrest, it is missing the point and merely acting as a safety valve in society.
Canadians are beginning to be hungry; the Roman principle is applied: They are given games or still a minor committee is established to reduce them to silence or let them hope that the problem will be settled while knowing quite well that this will only contribute to satisfy them temporarily and the problem will persist because it is in the interests of those who benefit from it.
The solution of conventional governments is price control or price freeze. Prices are controlled but a black market is created. As noted recently, a meat boycott is under way. Suddenly, the people became tired of the boycott and they began to buy. This is exactly what will happen when price control or freeze will come to an end.
In my opinion, we should apply a solution which would be much more favourable to the people than to those who strive to control it and get rich at their expense. That is the solution our party recommends. A discount on purchases should be granted, not to the producer, but to the consumer. Mr. Speaker, no incentives should be offered for production when products are in sufficient supply, but potential buyers of the products should have incentives and thus the wheels of economy will be able to turn. This system should be carried out in association with dealers, with producers willing to have this type of market.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this solution be considered; it is one which would suit, not the minority, but a majority of the population as a whole.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a steady rise in food costs which has been accompanied by a steady migration from the land of rural Canada. This must be taken into account when we consider food costs and what has happened in the last few years. Farm units have become larger, with many farmers producing much more specialized grains, along with beef cattle and so on.
May I call it ten o'clock?
April 10, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on January 15, less than two weeks after parliament met for this session, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) whether he would make specific proposals regarding estate and capital gains taxes to provincial representatives. I had hoped that he would show some leadership in this regard, but in the succeeding weeks the minister has gone only part way in assuming a leadership stance. In fact, I submit that he has tried to substitute salesmanship for leadership, and this is becoming more and more evident.
The federal attitude toward estate tax has been very equivocal. After the former minister of finance announced with fanfare that the federal government was in fact out of the estate tax field since capital gains taxes were in, this administration said to the provinces, in effect: You collect and we will help you. Two provinces, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, have in fact decided that this is a regressive tax and one which should not be collected. Is the federal government doing anything to assert leadership with regard to the position of other provinces? Of course it is not. Nor is this government going far enough to bring equity into those instances where farmlands are being hit with capital gains tax.
The capital gains tax on farmlands favours corporations. It destroys, or at least seriously erodes and impedes-as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) pointed out not too long ago-the natural desire of farmers to pass on the results of a lifetime of toil to their families. It takes a long step, I suggest, toward further eroding the position of rural areas of Canada. Death should not be a prerequisite to passing on farmlands without taxes.
Ever since the former minister of health made his famous remarks last year concerning the further taxation of the middle-class, the government has suddenly realized the extent of the antipathy this approach aroused among much abused, middle-class Canadians. The government is now exhibiting a new-found interest in doing something for small businessmen and middle-class Canadians. In fact, this government is adopting so many of this party's policies suggested by our leader that I should not be at all surprised if a directive has not already been issued that the cabinet must wear Stanfield underwear in future.
I ask this government and the Minister of Finance to give the provinces a clear understanding that it would be in Canada's best interests if they all got out of the estate tax field, since this tax as it now stands hits not just rich people but most middle-class Canadians who are already paying capital gains tax. I ask them, also, to remove capital gains tax or to further substantially modify it in
Adjournment Debate
regard to farmlands passing from one family member to another, or one generation to another, and to show some leadership and give some sense of direction to Canada's financial affairs.
I make the suggestion to the minister that he must further modify the capital gains tax. He should realize that this tax must be refined. For example, with regard to Canadians who over the years, either through systematic saving or a stock option given by his employer-as is often done in the case of public utilities which permit employees to buy stock over the years at a favoured price under certain conditions-have held stock, they should not pay capital gains in the same way as a speculator. Perhaps in some instances no capital gains tax should be paid. There is a great deal of difference between buying 1,000 shares of General Motors and selling it in a comparatively short period of time and making a profit, if you are doing it for speculation, and borrowing money to buy shares in a Canadian company, holding those shares for a number of years, perhaps five, to assist in your retirement or in the education of your family.
By failing to distinguish between the Canadian who buys stock in a Canadian company and holds it for a specified time, and a speculator who is a trader or an opportunist, this government is doing this nation a disservice. A selected capital gains tax exemption up to a certain amount, perhaps $25,000 or $50,000, in Canadian securities held for a specified time, say five years, would encourage Canadians to invest more in Canadian companies.
There are, of course, many modifications needed to this suggestion, but I would urge the minister to consider it and use a little more imagination in giving some leadership to this nation's financial institutions. Perhaps soon on motions he could also tell us what effect he feels high interest rates are having on our slow-growth regions; and perhaps he will also give us his views on regional financial policy. He might also indicate whether he has found a method of complementing our regional development policy.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal-provincial conference mentioned by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) in his question took place on January 18 and 19; it would appear that the questions mentioned by the hon. member were not raised by the provincial governments. However, as the Ministers of Finance meet fairly regularly, it is no doubt quite possible that the matter of estate taxes might be raised again at a coming meeting.
I might point out that the question as expressed does present a certain anomaly since, as we know, the federal estate tax was abolished at the time of the tax reform, precisely because it was considered that its role was now fulfilled by the new income tax on capital gains. The matter involved then is that of the interaction between personal income tax and provincial estate tax.
Here again, the problem does not apply to some provinces which decided to abandon the area of succession duties, that is to say Alberta and Prince Edward Island.

April 10, 1973
Adjournment Debate
However, New Brunswick and the province of the hon. member, Nova Scotia, announced their intention to retire from this area whereas Quebec has recently reduced its tax rate in a gesture that leads way to a possible withdrawal.
As to the implementation of the personal income tax on capital gains coming from the sale of land, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) recommended in his budget speech of February 19 that we should allow farmers in the future to leave their land to their children, at the time of death, without paying taxes.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Finance tabled yesterday motions of ways and means which make it possible to extend these provisions to transfers inter vivos, that is to say, when the farmer is alive.
As for help to small businesses, we know that the government is reviewing all this matter and that it is committed to report on this to Parliament as soon as possible.


GRAIN-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN SUBSIDIZED PRICE OF WHEAT FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on January 18 I put a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) which I wish to pursue tonight. It reads as follows, as recorded in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the two-price system. In view of the fact the international wheat price is at least 50 cents above the domestic price paid by the millers of $1.95} a bushel, can the minister inform the House whether the subsidized price of $3 a bushel will be increased by at least 50 cents in comparison with what was paid last year?
The minister replied:
The $3 price ensures, of course, that the farmer in the prairie region obtains that price for the wheat consumed in Canada, and that price is still well above the international price.
I want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the statement made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is totally misleading in terms of the two-price system. Let me give a number of reasons in the short time available to me. First, the domestic price paid by millers in this country to handle Canadian wheat is $1,951 a bushel, basis Thunder Bay. The subsidized price is $3 a bushel. The difference is subsidized by the federal government.
What the minister failed to point out was that the difference between $1,951 and $3 is not paid directly to the wheat producer but is paid on an acreage basis on all six grains. Therefore, when the international price for wheat rises for the first time in a long time above the fixed price of $1,951 a bushel, when it goes up to $2.68 a bushel, the western producer of wheat loses at least 50 cents or more per bushel on domestically consumed wheat. That means in one crop year a minimum loss to wheat producers of $30 million. This is the kind of information which I would like to point out for the information of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
Further to that, since I asked that question the minister has sent out a questionnaire to all producers in western Canada. It was sent out to all permit book holders, not
[Mr. Comtois.l
just to wheat producers. As pointed out by the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta wheat pools, the questionnaire was heavily loaded in terms of getting the farmers to answer on an acreage basis. I would like to point out to the minister that the questionnaire was worded in such a way that the only answer a farmer could give, if he was trying to be fair, was on the basis of acreage payment. I point out that an area such as Assiniboia constituency, which is 90 per cent wheat producing, replied as being 28 per cent in the affirmative when 1 asked the following question:
This spring should see another payment under the two-price system for wheat. What would you prefer-the present system of $3 per bushel for the top grade sold on the domestic market and distributed on an acreage basis on all six grains?
But when I asked, would they prefer a guaranteed price of $3 a bushel, for example, on the first 2,000 bushels sold, 71 per cent of the producers replying said that they would like it on this basis. This is something I want to point out to the minister in terms of the discrepancy in the questionnaire he sent out to producers in western Canada. Furthermore, I take issue with him in sending the questionnaire to all permit book holders, because when it comes to the question of rye, rapeseed and flax, are the producers of southern Saskatchewan going to have the opportunity of saying that those three grains should come under the Wheat Board when they are just producing wheat? After all, when it came to the question of the two-price wheat system, all the grain producers were allowed to answer as to whether or not payments should be made on an acreage basis. This is something that should be pointed out to the minister.
There is one final point I wish to make. I would hope that in the future any questionnaire sent out relating to two-price systems, or to the question of whether certain grains should be under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, should give the farmers enough choices so they could make a fair reply, rather than what happened in this particular case. The answer to the problem of a realistic two-price system for wheat producers is to ensure that there is a guaranteed minimum price for all six grains. When you have a domestic price for wheat related to costs, you can assure the domestic producer of wheat, as well as the other producers, of a minimum price.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) wishes to point out that there always has been a significant argument in favour of paying the two-price wheat money supplied by the federal treasury to all wheat producers on the basis of their potential rather than on the basis of their actual production. Every grain farmer is a potential wheat producer. This is borne out by the fact that every shipping bloc in western Canada delivers wheat through the Canadian Wheat Board system. If the payment was made on the basis of wheat only, every producer would likely produce enough wheat to qualify for the payment. This is particularly and significantly true if you think in terms of a payment on a limited number of bushels of wheat. The advantages in favour of helping the smaller farmer, in
April 10, 1973

favour of making a payment even when there is no crop, and in favour of diversification instead of encouraging wheat, all point in the same direction.
The results of a questionnaire on the payments, sent to 171,625 holders of Canadian Wheat Board permit books, was quite conclusive. To date, 36.6 per cent of the producers have returned completed questionnaires. Some 87.1 per cent favoured payments on an acreage basis; 1.3 per cent favoured part of the payment on acreage and part on a bushel basis; 10.3 per cent favoured all of the money being paid on a bushel basis through the Canadian Wheat Board wheat pools, and 1.3 per cent returned the questionnaire with no choice indicated. This certainly indicates how western grain producers preferred to receive the payments from two-price wheat funds.
In conclusion, it should be made clear that the government took its responsibility for deciding that the money available for payment should continue to come from the treasury, even though a significant proportion of it now is clearly a consumer subsidy, holding the price of bread down instead of letting it reflect world prices for wheat. On the other hand, the $3 price for wheat is still higher than the world price and therefore producers as a group have no complaint, as they strongly indicated in their replies to the questionnaire.
It is difficult to follow the argument of the hon. member that wheat producers lost $30 million on the basis of what millers are paying, and the international price. Last year we paid over $57 million to grain producers in western Canada, on an acreage basis. At least 80 per cent of all grain producers in western Canada produce wheat; therefore, on this basis wheat producers received $45.6 million out of the $57 million paid out.


GRAIN-WHEAT-DISPARITY BETWEEN COST OF HOPPER CARS PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT AND THOSE BOUGHT BY UNITED STATES RAILWAY
Mr. lack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to stress my concern about a question I asked some time ago and in a letter I wrote to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) last August. At that time I questioned the minister about the purchase of hopper cars for the movement of Canadian grain. I criticized the minister because I felt that the amount of money paid by the government for the hopper cars was abnormally high. The minister replied in writing and said there was fair bidding, etc., on the contract. I am not criticizing the purchase of the hopper cars, because I think it is a generally accepted fact, at least in western Canada, that this was a step in the right direction. But I am criticizing the terms of the purchase. I believe this is not only important to westerners but to all Canadians.
The thing that spurred my question was that the Burlington Northern Railway in the United States had also purchased hopper cars for the movement of grain. They bought 1,000 jumbo hopper cars for $18 million. From my information, they were 100-ton cars with a capacity of 3,300 bushels each and will be in service by this summer. These cars are virtually of the same size and capacity as those purchased by the Canadian government. I believe the difference is that the federal government has overpaid
Adjournment Debate
the companies who built the cars by some $12 million. This is the discrepancy between the Canadian and the United States figures.
My purpose tonight is to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board if he will outline what the excess covered. I have some questions that should be answered in connection with the sale of these hopper cars. First, has there been a final agreement between the government and the railways as to the exclusive use of the cars? Second, what arrangement has been reached for the maintenance and repair of the cars? Who is going to pay for that-the federal government or the railways? Third, what is the rate structure for reimbursement by the railways for use of the cars?
Since half of the lines in western Canada will not be able to carry these cars because of their size, I think the Canadian people, especially western grain farmers, should know how the grain is going to get to the main line so that the hopper cars can be used. Are the railways going to buy the cars from the government, or is the government to continue ownership? The minister has defended his action by saying the difference is made up in part by federal sales tax and transportation to western Canada. The grain trade sources that I have been in touch with say that any companies doing business with the federal government are exempt from federal sales tax. That would be taking money from one pocket and putting it in another.
These are some of my concerns, Mr. Speaker. To my way of thinking, $12 million is a considerable discrepancy. When I asked the question in the House, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board said it looked as if there were some additional ball-bearings or some other small parts in the make-up of the cars, and this constituted some of the difference in price. I do not think that answer is good enough.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has always been very secretive and has not imparted information to the Canadian people. I hope that tonight we will hear some details about the contract and exactly why there is this differential in price with respect to cars to be used in Canada and those that are used in the United States, so that this matter may be cleared up and the Canadian taxpayer may know exactly where and how this money is being spent.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) had indicated to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) that there is a good deal of room for difference in the engineering and make-up of the hopper cars involved.
The Burlington Northern, the United States railway involved, purchased 1,000 hopper cars at a cost of $18,000 per car. This $18,000 should be compared with the net price of the Canadian car of $20,100 after federal sales tax and consulting and inspecting services are substracted. However, the Canadian cars had a number of additional features not incorporated into the U.S. equipment. These added-cost Canadian features will result in long-term

April 10, 1973
Adjournment Debate
operating benefits. There is less incentive to incorporate these features into the U.S. cars, as cars there spend a large part of their operating life on lines other than those of the owners.
The additional features in the Canadian equipment are these: First, the Canadian cars have two wear wheels; the U.S. cars have single wear wheels, and therefore the Canadian wheels have a much longer life. The additional cost involved in $200. Second, the Canadian cars have four internal hoppers and discharge gates; the U.S. cars have three. The Canadian cars have a lower centre of gravity. The additional cost here is $390. Third, the
Canadian cars have internal epoxy resin paint to eliminate corrosion, whereas the U.S. car is untreated. And the Canadian car has extra external paint costs. Together these, but mainly the resin, add $930 to the cost. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian cars have a WABCO PAC brake system; the U.S. cars have only standard equipment. The cost here is $830.
The extra features incorporated in the Canadian cars, totalling $2,350, are responsible for the differential in the net price between the two types of car. Federal sales tax of $2,500, and various services at $700, account for the total cost.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday. April 11. 1973