1973-01-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact the Urban Development Institute states that the shortage of reasonable cost housing in the urban centres of Canada has reached the proportions of a major social tragedy, I move:
That this House order that a standing committee of this House, known as housing and urban affairs, be set up to study matters which fall under the jursidiction of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, due to the fact that in some of the major cities of Canada only 4 per cent of the population can afford to buy a new house because of the outrageous cost and prices of same.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43, and I hope that before there are automatic noes from the other side hon. members will listen to the reasonableness of my proposal. In view of the fact it would assist in settling the present postal dispute if parliament were to declare itself on the basic issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That the question of amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act to provide for the classification of positions in the federal public service to be subject to collective bargaining, and particularly to grievance and arbitration, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity arises out of the continuing decline in our cheese, butter and other dairy exports to the United Kingdom and other European countries as a result of the expansion of the EEC. Therefore, if consent is given, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That the Standing Committee of this House on Agriculture be instructed forthwith to examine the methods by which the drastic decline in Canada's dairy exports to Britain and the EEC countries may be halted, the effects of this decline on Canada's farmers and balance of payments position, and the possibility of finding alternative markets for dairy products.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


AIRPORTS
Mr. lohn Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave of the House to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The urgency and necessity of my motion arise out of the apparent misunderstanding of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) of the facts, the law and their responsibilities in respect of the expropriation proceedings at Vancouver International Airport.
Because of the fact that the Cora Brown expropriation hearings were not held as the hearing officer resigned and a new hearing officer has to be appointed and a new date set for hearings in the future, I therefore move, with consent, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Roche) that:

January 19, 1973
Oral Questions
This House urges the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment to proceed to Vancouver forthwith, there to meet with the members of the public concerned to discuss the expropriation proceedings and procedures and the environmental impact of the proposed runway.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of a statement by the Minister of Finance yesterday that he saw no immediate relief from rising prices. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether that represents the policy and attitude of his government, whether the policy of the government is to accept the inevitability of continued increases in prices, and specifically whether this means that the committee the government proposes to set up in respect of food prices is a charade?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The words "immediate relief" I take it were spoken by the minister yesterday and they mean exactly that. The government is not on the verge of announcing price and wage controls, but we have stated repeatedly that it is something for which we have made contingency plans and which we are prepared to envisage when the time comes. Perhaps this committee which is to be set up by the House of Commons will indicate to us its views on that timing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if the government listens to that committee it will be the first time it has listened to views on economic policy except from its own advisers. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance that any suggestion that the jobless rate will remain at about 6 per cent is pessimistic, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House what the government's target is in respect of lowering unemployment during 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is usual in the speech on the budget for the Minister of Finance to bring more precision to the kind of statement just quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he would wait until that time to hear it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, can I have his assurance that in the budget presentation the Minister of Finance will provide the House with a precise statement of the government's objectives with regard to the lowering of unemployment during the year, a precise statement in terms of the percentage that the government hopes and expects to achieve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say how precise it will be. I believe that the Minister of Finance indicated his view on the importance of statistics the other day in answer to a question by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. A few moments ago in reply to the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister said the government would be prepared to introduce price and wage controls when the time comes. Would he advise the House how much higher, in his opinion, inflation would have to rise before that time would come?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think our position on that is not dissimilar to that of the Leader of the Opposition who has talked about price and wage controls if necessary, but not necessarily.


George Harris Hees: As the Prime Minister's government is responsible for bringing in such controls when the time does come, does he not think he has a responsibility to advise the country when he thinks inflation will be high enough to justify it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.


DATE OF FORTHCOMING BUDGET
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Prime Minister indicated that something hangs upon the budget, would he now indicate exactly when the budget will be presented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
remember what I said that hung on the budget-probably the life of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You did not say that but it is probably true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot give an exact date, but the Minister of Finance has discussed dates in cabinet and I feel that very shortly he will be able to make that date public.


Mr. Hellyer:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary, but I would hope that we would not become involved today in the same situation as yesterday when every frontbencher asked a supplementary at the expense, I suggest, of other hon. members. The hon. member for Trinity may ask a supplementary and then we will go to the hon. member for York South.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate if it is fair to assume from his reply to the House that a 5.1 per cent annual increase in the cost of living index is a rate of inflation which, to quote the words of the Minister of Finance, "does not unduly erode incomes, particularly fixed incomes of Canadians"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think the hon. member should assume that. The government in recent years obviously has taken budgetary postures which were oriented toward the lowering of the rate of inflation. As has been obvious in our past and present policies, we are not happy with the rate of inflation. What we are saying is that it is not absolutely certain that price and wage controls at this particular time are the best way to stop that rate of inflation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which he introduced on Wednesday seem to expand the discretion and powers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission with respect to the definition of certain matters now in the act, would the minister undertake to table the draft regulations being prepared to define "suitable employment" and other matters which are intended to go to the commission so that when we reach the debate on the bill we may know exactly what the intentions are?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion into consideration very sympathetically regardless of whether it will be draft regulations or in another form, but I will wish to convey to hon. members what the ideas in the minds of the commissioners are with regard to that part of the amendments because I realize the tremendous importance of the discretionary powers with regard to applicants. I want hon. members to assist in advising us how the matter should be handled.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the interrogation-that is not too strong a word-of unemployment insurance applicants has already tightened the net and made many innocent unemployed people extremely unhappy, as well as having delayed the obtaining of benefits, has this been done as a result of the changing of rules and regulations and, if so, would the minister table those rules, regulations or directives that may have gone out from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to field officers, or any other information that would help us to know the basis on which action has so far been taken?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to take that question as notice, examine it in all its implications and get back to him.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that information was given to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee yesterday and other information has been published that the number of people who abused the old regulations is, relatively, a very small proportion of the total, and in view of the fact that the proposals in Bill C-125 threaten the welfare of all the unemployed and propose powers for the employer that might have serious consequences for workers, may I ask the minister whether he and his advisers would reconsider some of the proposals now contained in Bill C-125 instead of proposing Draconian measures that would undoubtedly hurt many innocent people?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer to have that whole subject matter debated thoroughly. I would hope that the hon. member's interpretation is based on too quick an analysis of the measures that we are proposing in the amendments to the act. I do not think that at this stage I would be prepared to commit myself to withdrawing them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse. I see four or five frontbenchers who have supplementary questions on this matter and I will recognize them subsequently.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the acute unemployment problem and the fact that the government has invited the people to take an active part in the LIP projects, will the minister take the necessary steps to speed up the study of projects submitted so that they might be implemented as soon as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have already tried to reply to similar questions by many hon. members. I can advise the hon. member that we are now committed to $135 million of the total allocation of $165 million. I might also mention my favourite program's progress. The on-the-job training program is only subscribed to the extent of just under $13 million and there is a $50 million allocation for that, approvals for which we would like to see accelerated.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.

January 19, 1973
Oral Questions
In view of the figures the minister has just given us, I shall be more specific in my question. I know the figures that have been published but I would like to ask whether the department staff could not work more diligently that an answer might be given more quickly with regard to projects submitted and that they might be implemented as quickly as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of opinion. It is certainly our desire to proceed with the implementation of the projects as quickly as possible and provide our advice of approval to sponsors of projects. In my opinion, under the circumstances the progress made to date compares favourably with last year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the far-reaching social effects of the minister's proposed amendments, particularly when he says there will be a saving of $100 million, did he, in keeping with the practice of his predecessor, have any discussions with his provincial counterparts regarding the amendments he has now introduced in Bill C-125?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that consultation has not taken place yet but it is being considered.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact there has been some concern about one of the expressions in the bill, which was not in the act, namely, "without just cause", has the minister had an opportunity during the past year to come up with a definition of that phrase by way of regulation, and will this be made available to the committee for its consideration?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, and there is jurisprudence in this matter. I might add with regard to the application of that particular amendment that the wording is not different from what is in the present act. The real change is in the degree of postponement of benefits.


MANPOWER
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell the House why it was in British Columbia that his department ordered the postponement of applications from municipalities?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the first approvals for municipal projects under the local initiatives program in British Columbia were granted on December 14. In all fairness I might add that I have requested people on my staff to contact the hon. member for details, which I have not been able to get. I would certainly react if I could get the specifics of his concern.


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in reference to the tri-level national housing conference that is going to be held on Monday. In light of the fact the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities are very disappointed that they will not be able to participate, may I ask the minister whether the agenda has been agreed to by him and the provinces, and would he be prepared to file that agenda today? While he is on his feet, will he also tell us whether or not mayors and other municipal representatives will be able to participate in the conference and not just be there as observers?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to publish the agenda today. I certainly hope it will be such as to allow all provinces and all participants to put forward whatever points of view they wish. One province has for the moment expressed a reservation about one item on the agenda, and I would like to clear that up before the agenda is published. If it is not made available today then this will certainly be done on Monday. I reiterate my hope that the agenda is so structured as to allow all points of view to be fully expressed.
With regard to the question of municipal representatives, I have expressed the hope in letters as far back as last September that provincial delegations would include municipal representatives. I think that was the proper position for me to take, and I would strongly urge the provinces to do that. I would also hope, and I will be proposing on Monday, that for the future there be a different system for the inclusion of municipal representatives. I refer hon. members to my speech of January 11th when I indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: There is just so much we can take.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-REQUEST THAT MEMBERS OF CONSERVATIVE HOUSING COMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND AS OBSERVERS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the importance of the federal-provincial housing conference to be held on Monday and Tuesday, will the minister make the neces-
January 19, 1973

sary arrangements for members of the Progressive Conservative housing committee to attend as observers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the conference is a conference between governments and hon. members opposite are not the government.


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-STAFF INVOLVED IN MAKING PREPARATIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the well known rivalry between officials in your ministry and officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. Questions should be directed to the Chair. Hon. members should not put questions to a minister directly but should address themselves to the Chair. I make this remark for the benefit of all hon. members. Perhaps we should keep that in mind when posing questions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister inform the House whether he has relied mainly upon the staff of his own ministry or upon the staff of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in making preparations for the forthcoming conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that such a question can be asked at this time. This is debate, and I have serious doubts. We could go on for a long time with questions of this kind.


POSSIBLE REGIONAL TRI-LEVEL CONFERENCES- PAYMENT OF COST
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker, concerning the matter of tri-level conferences. We are now talking about a conference which ought properly to be a tri-level one. Can the minister inform the House whether the first large tri-level conference held last fall, which was supposed to act as a kind of broody hen for further regional tri-level conferences, has indeed brought forth this kind of issue? Are such conferences now planned, if so, how many, and does the government propose to help support the cost of these conferences?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, for the conference held in Toronto the government bore and for future ones will bear a very substantial portion of the cost. I will be attending a planning meeting in Halifax in two weeks time to organize a second national tri-level meeting. I have had discussions in Toronto with the former provincial treasurer, Mr. Mac-Naughton, about plans for an Ontario regional tri-level conference, but to date that is the only province which has
Oral Questions
indicated a desire to hold such a regional conference. I stand ready to participate in the organization of conferences in the other four regions.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ACT TO PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister made available, or will he do so before next Monday's federal-provincial conference on housing, to provincial government representatives his proposed amendments to the National Housing Act and the mortgage financing legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, an outline of the proposals will be given to provincial delegates. This will not be the precise bill because parliament would be entitled to the bill first, but the proposals that the government will be putting forward-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PURCHASE OF LAND TO ESTABLISH LAND BANKS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: I have a supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the lack of serviced land is clearly at the root of the housing problem and in view of the fact the minister has appropriated $500 million over five years-and I was going to say that is supposed to be a drop in the bucket but maybe it is only a fifth of a drop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Will the minister advise the House to which city of or cities in Canada he will be allocating this $100 million per annum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I have doubts about a question such as this. I have noticed that some of the answers given by the minister have been rather long but perhaps they have had to be in light of the questions that have been asked. If the minister replied to a question such as this one I think he would be giving a statement which normally ought to be made on motions. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, will the government be buying land in and around metropolitan Toronto, land that the hon. member for York South has said is owned by large corporations, sometimes referred to as "bums".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we will be allocating very substantial increases in funds for land assembly and new communities. The location of the land to be purchased is a matter for consultation in a co-operative way with provincial and local governments.

January 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Everybody knows that $100 million will not buy a land bank in Toronto.


POST OFFICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell us whether the chairman of the conciliation board is now in Ottawa examining the questions which are in dispute between the government and the unions and whether any progress has been made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is now studying the question and we expect an answer over the weekend.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-SUGGESTION THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION TO ACHIEVE EARLY AGREEMENT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the Postmaster General has committed the government to accepting the report of the conciliation board without amendments and in view of the positive vote of the postal workers on the same report, will the right hon. gentleman use his good offices to urge the President of the Treasury Board to instruct the negotiating team to reach early agreement on the matter, thus ending the present charade, so that the sorely tried Canadian public might be assured of at least a semblance of postal service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister might answer the question, although I have some doubts as to the terms in which it was framed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter this morning with the Postmaster General. I feel that the good offices of both ministers are being used.


DISPUTE WITH WORKERS-STEPS TO GET PARTIES TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Now that Mr. Shime is back on the job, is the minister prepared to take whatever steps are necessary, including showing a more reasonable attitude, in order to get the parties back to the negotiating table so that we can be assured that there will be no further disruptions in postal service in Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that Vancouver employees voted in favour of returning to work and have in fact already done 
so. I have also been informed that several employees want to do likewise in the Toronto area.
I believe union representatives should follow the example of their members and return to the negotiation table to sign a contract that we are also ready to sign.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he not again consider using his good offices to urge upon his colleagues, particularly the government House leader, a change in attitude with respect to the priority they attach to amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, so that they might be referred to the appropriate standing committee with a view to removing some of the difficulties that seem to arise in negotiations between the government and its various departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the order in which House business proceeds is discussed frequently by the leader of the House and myself. I will get in touch with him on this and other matters.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
Is the minister considering a change in the standards governing retaining walls along the banks of the St. Lawrence river?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):: No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's present policy to change the standards as they are quite clear. When erosion is caused either by shipping or by the carrying out of federal works, the federal government is responsible. However, in the case of erosion due to natural causes, the owner himself has to repair his property.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Does the department consider building, in the near future, a retaining wall on the north shore of the St. Lawrence?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be put on the order paper. If the hon. member feels that there is some urgency, it could be discussed at the time of adjournment.
January 19, 1973


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has he received protests from Canadian union leaders against the amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation proposed by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Since some 67 per cent of the production of the Bland-ford, Nova Scotia, whaling plant was sold for human consumption and the closing down of this industry places some one hundred shore employees plus ships' crews out of employment, is it the government's intention to establish a new industry in this area to take care of this unemployment, and will compensation be paid to the owners of the whaling plant and its employees?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into measures of the nature of adjustment assistance to help the owners of the property and also to assist the employees to find alternative occupations.


REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN BECAUSE OF DECLINE IN TOTAL CATCH
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It is more a related than a supplementary question. In view of the 25 per cent decline in the total fish catch in the Atlantic provinces and in view of what appear to be very serious ice conditions this year which will further reduce the catch, what steps is the minister taking to compensate the fishermen who will suffer severe financial loss as a result of these two factors?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the total income of fishermen on the east coast is up appreciably; it is up by 10 per cent over that of last year.


James Aloysius McGrath: You will not get anywhere with that kind of flippant answer, Jack.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Provencher has a supplementary to a previous question.
Oral Questions MANPOWER


ON-THE-JOB TRAINING PROGRAM-REASONS FOR LACK OF APPLICATIONS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The minister mentioned yesterday in the House, as well as today, that he was concerned that the department is not receiving an adequate number of applications for on-the-job training. Has the minister checked with officials in his department as to what might be some of the possible reasons for the lack of applications?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are having those
discussions.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Would the minister please check whether or not officials from his department are asking businessmen and small businesses in rural areas questions which simply force these businessmen to opt out of the program because of the types of questions that are being asked?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the act of rising today gives me more exercise than I have had in three weeks. I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As foreign vessels using the Great Lakes often carry cargoes which are potentially dangerous pollutants, in view of the danger of collisions or groundings will the minister assure the House and the country that the use of pilots in the open waters of the Great Lakes will not be eliminated?


Hon. Joan Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question for the time being of eliminating the pilots.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As Bell Canada's November, 1972, campaign for the installation of additional telephone extensions free of charge will result in a number of exchanges being placed in more expensive monthly rate brackets, and as Bell customers were at no time advised that such action could result, has the minister considered undertaking an investigation under section 37 of the Com-

January 19, 1973
*
Oral Questions
bines Investigation Act dealing with misleading advertising?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have the officials of the department look into the matter.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Will the minister consider making a statement on motions within the next day or so?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be happy to see what information I can provide to the hon. member on this matter.


AIRPORTS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Last week I had the pleasure of asking the minister whether the government was reconsidering its plans for the expansion of Mount Hope airport and the minister provided me with an interesting reply relating to Pickering airport. In keeping with the generous and congenial attitude of the official opposition I shall now assume that the minister knows the location of Mount Hope airport and ask him whether the government has decided to cancel its plans for expansion of that airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to cancel the expansion of Mount Hope airport. I think that construction is supposed to start some time in the spring. In the meantime we are ready to receive suggestions or recommendations from interested parties. I would like to know whether the hon. member has any opinion on this matter.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Can the minister inform the House whether his willingness to receive suggestions includes the holding of public hearings?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before resorting to public hearings I might be interested-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, resorting?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Have you never heard of the grass roots?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we might first have the opinions of Members of Parliament who contend that they have been elected by the people, so if the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please. The hon. member for Lethbridge has caught the Speaker's eye.
.* * *


ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that. My red jacket is no reflection on Your Honour's capability as Speaker. It is because of your statement regarding supplementaries that I am now on my feet. I wish to address this question to the Prime Minister in the name of the people of the first home of the Northwest Mounted Police in Alberta. As both the RCMP and Fort MacLeod are celebrating their centenaries starting in June of this year, and as Her Majesty will be here during the time the musical ride will be performed in Fort MacLeod, will the Prime Minister recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that she seriously consider placing Fort MacLeod on her itinerary?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will realize that Her Majesty's schedule in Canada was established for a set number of days quite a few months ago. I think it is good that she has accepted to spend two days in the west, one in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan, to associate herself with the centennial of the RCMP. As to Her Majesty's exact movements in those provinces, I will gladly transmit the hon. member's suggestion to her. However, hon. members will have to realize that she cannot be everywhere in that one day. The hon. member will also realize that there are representations made on behalf of the premier of that province that she be elsewhere than Fort MacLeod on that day. I will transmit this suggestion to the Palace to see if it can be included in her schedule.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Prime Minister that Fort MacLeod was established in 1874 and Calgary was established in 1875.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister inform the House whether it is now government policy, on behalf of the environment, to bury all old barges and other refuse in beautiful Lake Okanagan?
January 19, 1973

Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms cannot be in order. The hon. member may wish to rephrase his question.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will address this question to the Minister of Public Works. Did the Department of Public Works in fact bury three old barges in beautiful Lake Okanagan in late November, 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr.Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier there was reference to three derelict barges having been sunk in Lake Okanagan in November. Before this method of disposal was decided upon, was there any consultation with the Department of the Environment? If so, did it receive the approval of the Department of the Environment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As we are dealing with something that happened a few months ago, that type of question normally ought to be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether there will be a special committee established to develop new guidelines for the safe, efficient transportation of livestock, particularly feeder cattle, and will legislation be presented to regulate this through the Department of Agriculture and remove it from the Criminal Code?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: That is under study at present, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister assure the House that the procedures followed in shipping cattle in 1972 will again be allowed in 1973 until new guidelines are established?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, until the legislation is changed the rules which have been in effect will remain in effect. As the Minister of Agriculture indicated, we are seriously looking at the question of the rules. We now have a report from a committee which we established to look at both the economics of the situation and the humane elements involved. These recommendations will soon emerge in the form of recommendations to the House.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION-INVESTIGATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE OF OPERATIONS AND DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In light of recent events associated with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, including the resignation and dismissal of a large number of the senior staff and the unfavourable profit and loss picture of that corporation, does the minister intend to refer the matter of the administration and operation of that corporation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for investigation and report?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. As hon. members know, we have encountered management problems in that joint federal-provincial crown company's operations. This matter must be referred to the committee because of the financial losses involved.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us what is his department's policy on the securities of the Arts Council?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State was called out of the House on an urgent matter. He will be back shortly. I will bring this matter to his attention.


FISHERIES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns additional fishing patrol vessels. In answer to the question, does this mean more work for Vancouver and Victoria shipbuilders, the minister stated over CJVI in Victoria on January 11 that certainly vessels to be operated on the west coast would be built on the west coast. In view of this, does the minister now wish to amend or correct the answer he gave to my question on January 17?


John (Jack) Davis: In no way, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.

January 19, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE-NATURE OF CANADIAN ELEMENT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing my question to the Minister of National Defence I wish to thank you on behalf of those who sit at the back, whether we wear scarlet jackets or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Can the Minister of National Defence inform the House whether the group that, according to information provided to the House within the past few days, is being prepared for a possible hasty departure to Viet Nam was formed as a result of voluntary option or selected by nomination from which there was no appeal? In other words, is it a volunteer or draft force?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that there are a number of contingency plans depending upon our requirements. All of those who would be going to Viet Nam, if the government should decide that is what they should do, would be going as volunteers.


Donald W. Munro: Will the minister then inform us if it is true, as I have heard, that discharges-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be asked in those terms. The hon. member cannot ask the minister to clarify a statement made outside the House.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister giving consideration to an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act or to the regulations under that act to make sure that when there is the promised substantial increase in the old age pension this will not be subtracted from the war veterans allowance but will result in an actual addition to the income of our war veterans?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, may I say that this question is now under study in the department.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the previous reference to the RCMP and is directed to the Solicitor General. Bearing in mind the strong reaction throughout western Canada against changing the designation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will the minister order the immediate reinstatement of the RCMP name in a size big enough to be seen on "K" division headquarters in Edmonton, which only yesterday reported having received no directive yet?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that there was never any intention to change the name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Certainly I have no intention of changing the name. With respect to the signs on buildings, the RCMP is now consulting with the Attorneys General of the different provinces where the RCMP act as provincial police to see what kind of sign is most suitable in the provinces. As soon as those consultations are concluded the new sign will be installed.


Douglas Roche: Will the minister bear in mind that the prolonged delay in restoring the full designation of the RCMP is a continuing source of public friction and concern in this centennial year of the RCMP?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation or debate and I do not think the matter should be pursued.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I regret having to call orders of the day. I appreciate that a number of members have supplementaries either to this question or to others. I will try particularly to give priority in the next question period to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and others.
TTranslation]


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege.


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


Jean Robert Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of the session, the French-speaking members have had a hard time obtaining their copies of Hansard before the beginning of the sitting. I would ask you to be kind enough to see that French copies of Hansard are distributed before the beginning of the sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that since the opening of parliament, especially when the sittings began at eleven o'clock, it was difficult to obtain a translation for ten or eleven o'clock. From now on, as in the past, the
January 19, 1973

French and English versions of Hansard will be available very early the next day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray:
That a special committee of this House be appointed to inquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends;
That 20 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members of the Special Committee and that Standing Order 65(5) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact that last night the House decided this committee might well be composed only of members of the House of Commons, perhaps we could facilitate the commencement of the proceedings of the committee and, through the usual channels before too long a time has elapsed, add by mutual arrangement an amendment to the motion setting out who will be the members on the committee. I raise this point now in the hope that members of all parties, through the usual channels, might have this kind of discussion, instead of having to come back with a further motion respecting those members who will be asked to sit on the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might say a word on the same point of order. We would be quite glad to participate in such discussions so that the names of the members can be added to the motion, avoiding the necessity for another motion being made later. I wonder whether those discussions could also include the number of members on the committee. I do not wish to upstage the suggestion of the Progressive Conservatives for a committee of 19, but I should like to suggest that the number be 28 or 30, now that there are no Senators on the committee. This would give better representation to all parties in the House. However, I am merely suggesting that this matter be included in the discussions suggested by the Progressive Conservative House leader.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member for Peace River and the
Food Prices Committee
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there will be discussions to consider certain aspects of the motion before the House. I assume that these discussions will take place, but for the time being we will proceed with consideration of the motion before us.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is very similar to a motion placed on the order paper by the government in 1966 calling for the setting up at that time of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. I listened with great interest to the speech by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) in leading off the debate, but I am sorry to say that I found nothing new in what he had to say. His remarks were very similar to the speech made by the government representative in 1966 when a similar motion was introduced.
I was impressed, however, with the very excellent speech by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and I might say that as a consequence of his intervention we now have before us a much more workable proposition, which hopefully will end up in the establishment of a much more workable committee. I listened as well with great interest, as I always try to do, to the speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). She has established herself in this House as an articulate and dedicated spokesman on consumer affairs. Hon. members of the government would do well to pay more attention to the remarks of the hon. member for V ancouver-Kingsway.
As I have said, this is not the first time that we have had a proposition like this put before us. I have already referred to the joint Senate and House of Commons committee set up in 1966 on April 21. This committee was given terms of reference almost identical to those we have before us today. Indeed, the terms of reference were identical to those of the committee that the government proposed to set up before the amendment placed before the House by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was accepted last night.
It is interesting to look at the workings of that 1966 committee. As I say, it was set up in April of 1966. Its terms of reference were changed from the original consumer credit study to enable the committee to look into food prices. It submitted what was termed a progress report, which was in fact its final report, on April 25,1967. The committee met on 59 different occasions in the city of Ottawa between September 28, 1966 and February 1967. In addition, the committee was constituted into two subcommittees in order to facilitate its work. It went across the country holding public hearings in 12 of the principal cities of Canada and the major recommendation to come out of that committee, as is a matter of record, was the establishment of the department of consumer affairs.
We then had the Senate committee on poverty which also did excellent work. It was set up on November 26, 1968 and submitted its report in the fall of 1970. This was a study of poverty in Canada, but anybody who has read the report and followed the deliberations of that committee will know it had to concern itself with the general

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
proposition of the cost of food as it related to poverty in Canada. The two are interrelated.
Going back to 1966, we saw the establishment of a royal commission by the governments of the three prairie provinces to look into food prices. This committee, after exhaustive studies, issued its report in March, 1968. It, too, is a matter of record. About the same time a royal commission was at work in my own province of Newfoundland, again examining the high cost of living and the cost of food. Then, there was another senate committee study, undertaken by the Senate Committee on Finance. It was empowered by the other place to look into the problems of growth, employment and price stability. The report of that committee is now a matter of record and it contains certain precise recommendations in line with its terms of reference.
Of course, we cannot forget for a moment the late and unlamented Prices and Incomes Commission which was established by the present government as a move to hold the line on inflation. We hear little now about the Prices and Incomes Commission and one wonders what happened to the very substantial organization which was put together as a result of the establishment of that commission. I understand that some parts of this organization are still in existence within the government structure. Perhaps the services of those parts may be very usefully called upon to assist this committee when it embarks upon its study.
I refer to the establishment of these committees and commissions to underline my central point, and that is the advisability of another study at this particular time. Here again I refer and defer to my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, although in doing so I have very serious reservations about just exactly what this committee of the House can hope to achieve, especially in light of the statement which was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) yesterday at the Federal-Provincial Conference simultaneous to the debate in this House on the setting up of this committee. The minister referred to the fact that he could see no improvement in the general situation so far as increases in food prices in Canada were concerned.
That utterance by the Minister of Finance was well stated today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and leads us to question the motivation of the government in setting up this committee. If the government hopes to be able to sweep the problem under the carpet or have it pigeon-holed in that place where all similar committee studies, reports and recommendations are placed, then it does not have a full appreciation of the constitution of this parliament.
The House of Commons and the members of this place are not prepared, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance may have had to say yesterday, to see this matter become the subject of pigeon-holding, or to see the deliberations of this committee swept under the carpet. Neither are the members of this House, if I may say so, prepared to see a situation similar to that which we had in 1966 when the committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up. I do not think the members of this House are prepared to support what could very well turn out to be, if the government has its way, one big junket across

the country for the members of this House. I do not think the members of this House are prepared for that, and neither, if I may say so, are the people of the country prepared to accept it.
There is sufficient data and there have been sufficient studies made, and I think one of the principal objectives of this committee should be to compile the principal recommendations of all of the committees to which I have just referred, because even though they may have been set up a few years ago, their findings and recommendations are still very relevant to the present situation we have in Canada. This is a serious problem, one that is far too serious to be swept under the carpet or to be pigeonholed after a long study by a Commons committee. This is serious because the people of Canada who are suffering the most today from inflation and from an increase in the cost of living are those on lower incomes, on middle incomes and those on fixed incomes; the poor, the working poor and our old age pensioners. We cannot afford to let too much time go by without addressing ourselves to this most serious problem facing our country today.
I happen to come from a province which enjoys the rather dubious distinction of having the highest per capita cost of living in the country and the lowest per capita income in the country. What has happened since this government came into office? About two years ago, we saw the government move to freeze freight rates. The consequence of their failure to do so has been nine increases in freight rates in two years. Every time the railways increase their freight rates, there is a concomitant increase in the cost of living, because an increase in freight rates must be passed on to the consumer who must ultimately pay the cost. Notwithstanding repeated pleas to the government to place an immediate freeze on freight rates, we are on the threshold of having further increases in freight rates. These increases are contributing to the high cost of living we have in the Atlantic provinces and all across Canada, for that matter. They are contributing substantially to the hardships we are imposing upon the poor, those on lower incomes and those on fixed incomes.
While I was encouraged by the reference in the Speech from the Throne to a conference the government proposes to convene with the five regions of the country and their provincial governments, on the whole area of freight rates and the influence freight rates have on the cost of living, I believe the problem is serious enough for the government to take steps now to bring a measure before this House which would place an immediate freeze on freight rates. In that way, the government would be demonstrating its good will and the fact that it is genuinely concerned about this matter. With the constitution of this parliament, who knows how long it will be before such a conference, badly needed as it is, can in fact take place?
Therefore, because of the urgency of the matter, because this is a serious situation, because it has been the subject of parliamentary committee studies before, because it has been the subject of study by royal commissions across the country and by provincial commissions, and in fact because we feel the matter has been studied sufficiently and is an urgent one, and in order to ensure that the committee will conduct itself in light of the urgen-
January 19, 1973

cy of the situation and report promptly to the House, I propose to place an amendment before the House.
I move, therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, next after the third paragraph thereof, the following:
"That the said committee shall make its final report and recommendations within the three months next following its appointment.''


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I rise in this House other than at the oral questions period, I should like, first of all, to congratulate you and your Deputy (Mr. McCleave) on your appointment to your respective posts.

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday I have been listening to the various remarks which have been made on the matter of the special committee of the House on food prices. I have been trying to thread my way through the rather tortuous logic. I could assume that the tortuous logic came from all quarters of the House, but we have had a very good sample of it from the benches immediately to my right. On the one hand, I hear that this is a matter of a crisis and a matter of enormous urgency. Precedents have been cited to the effect that there have been many studies made on the matter of food prices by this House, the other place and by the two places combined. This also leads me to believe the whole matter of food prices is an extremely complex and difficult one, that we really cannot study the whole matter of the rise in food prices within a very short time and make any real analysis of what causes this part of our economy go off kilter every once in a while or, as most housewives would indicate, go off kilter most of the time.
Usually this House and the country is enjoined by the members of the Progressive Conservative party-and here I speak traditionally and historically-to proceed with caution. Surely, it is the function of a Conservative group to advise the nation that care must be taken and haste made but made slowly. Yesterday, however, we heard there was a crisis at hand and heard accusations from the Tory benches to the effect that the government has been doing nothing and that action is needed. Mind you, in all these calls for action there have been no specific suggestions concerning what kind of action should be taken, so what we see now in this House is a shift in the Progressive Conservative "mot d'ordre". It is not a matter of making haste slowly but doing nothing swiftly. One may be allowed to suspect that the Tories-I am not talking about motives but rather reasons-have unspoken reasons for having the study of this very complex matter completed within three months. I just may be that the kind of action they are urging on the government, properly defined, is a form of inaction and that really what they want is that there be nothing done on this whole question but that it be done with dispatch.
Last night the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) read us a rather dreary list of people in the other place who have overt and open connections with the 25714-31
Food Prices Committee
food industry in Canada. I am sure that if we were to project this list a little further we would find many members of the loyal opposition who also have direct and indirect interests in the food industry in Canada.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: And on the other side.


John Paul Harney: We will get to the other side eventually. I think what we really need to do is change the approach of this committee in such a way that it will be able to pursue the matter in depth and not be a nine-day or three-month wonder of a committee but rather a committee which will be able to solve a problem which has been besetting this country for a long time. It is a problem which has been facing every household with intensity. For this reason at least, we must charge this committee with the need to report to this House and to the nation this winter, particularly on some of the worst aspects and abuses of the pricing system in Canada.
It is not necessary to have a committee of this House to tell the average Canadian housewife that a good part of the price she pays for food must be attributable to the excessive cost of advertising. In my city of Toronto one day a week the great dailies publish enormous advertising sections detailing in print and in picture for the benefit of the poor housewife exactly what a roast of beef looks like. She would be quite satisfied with a simple little list printed in a certain part of the paper collating the prices of the various cuts of meat and various other foodstuffs store by store, and supermarket by supermarket. She has to plough through reams and reams of print and pages and pages of pictures which very often at best could be said to be misleading in respect of the actual economies she would receive if she pursued the urging of the advertisement. Certainly at that level a committee of inquiry such as we are discussing in this House could act very quickly. This is a problem which is obvious to practically everybody in this country, if not to every member in this House.
What we have before us is a very complex problem. It is one which is deep-rooted and which goes into the very nature of the production and distributive system in this country. At the same time, there are aspects of the problem which any person with any common sense could tell us are subject to immediate action. If we subscribe to the amendment from the Progressive Conservative benches proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) not only would we be running the risk of doing nothing but would also be running the concomitant risk, to use his own words, of damaging one very important sector of our nation. Members of my party yesterday made the very important point that this House must not act swiftly to the point of detrimentally affecting the interests of the basic producers in this country. The people in this country who stand to lose the most and be hurt the most by hasty action on the whole question of the price of food, food production and distribution are the basic producers, the farmers of this country. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) pointed out, it is only recently that they have begun to receive something like a part of the kind of price they should have been receiving a long time ago.

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Another sector of our nation and our economy that we should be careful not to hurt is those who are involved as workers in the packing and processing industries. Yesterday, I think someone in the House quoted the figure of $6 an hour with reference to workers working in the food processing industry. It is almost impossible, when looking at the statistics produced by Statistics Canada, to know exactly what it is that a food packer or processor receives on the average, but I can assure you from my knowledge of what food processors receive in Toronto that it is a long way from $6 an hour. So, there we have another very important segment of the food producing, processing and distributing industry in Canada which would be extremely vulnerable to hasty, inconsiderate action on the part of the House.
There are other reasons for not asking this committee to move to completion of its work within three months. The other reasons are of a much more positive nature than the ones I have just outlined. Many of us feel that there is something that is in need of a drastic change in the whole matter of food producing and distributing in this country. Many of us feel, too, that no matter what specific recommendations we put forward to change what now exists, we will have somehow failed if we do not start thinking and recommending other ways in which the whole matter of food distribution can be handled. For example, we have had attempts, some successful and some unsuccessful, in various communities in Canada to establish consumer based or indeed community based distribution systems for foodstuffs and household needs. We have seen in Halifax, for example, the successful establishment of a direct charge co-operative. We have seen a similar successful establishment in Hamilton, and there is an excellent one in Oshawa which has been able to establish and maintain itself successfully, mainly because it has had the effective backing of a very large and community sensitive part of that locality, that is the United Auto Workers.
Again, we can say that the case was more or less the same in Hamilton. If United Steel Workers of America had not supported fully the direct charge co-op in operation there, one could be allowed to wonder whether it would have moved at all. The direct charge co-op idea is a new idea in food distribution, not only in this country but in the whole of North America. It provides for a lot of excellent aspects. It provides, in effect, for real consumer control over the quantity, quality and pricing of the products that are put on the shelves. It provides for a very direct understanding on the part of consumers of exactly what goes into the pricing of the products they buy after the society gets the products from the wholesalers. It provides for a new establishment of confidence on the part of the consumer in the whole mechanism of distribution, because he feels he has some control over it and he begins to understand exactly why prices do go up in certain cases. It certainly provides for something which is extremely valuable and necessary in so many of our communities, and that is yet another way among the many needed ways to build up a sense of community among our people and to eliminate the alienation that so many of our citizens feel about the whole process by which this country is governed. Alienation among the citizens exists not

only with regard to the political process but also with regard to private enterprise which is supposed to support society's basic economy and satisfy its basic needs.
So, it would be very important for this committee to look into these positive areas to see what this House could do to help Canadians establish institutions, vending and supply institutions in which they would participate, institutions which they would control. There has been some talk in the past few years of participatory democracy, and a lot of it has been very much like the talk we have heard about the need for action. It has been action but no specifics, and participate but no specifics. We have here a very real case of citizens of this country, as consumers, participating in establishing at least a part of the economic democracy which we all wish to see established eventually.
Because there is a real need to go into this matter of food pricing in depth, and because there is a real need for this House to take action in some of the more immediate areas which are more susceptible to correction, such as the matter of advertising-and I have given the House simply one example-and because there is again a very real need for the House to inspect new areas of positive action to allow the Canadian consumer more real control over the economic conditions which he has to face every week as a consumer, and because there is a real need for the House to consider ways in which the government of this country could aid the citizens of this country establish their forms of economic democratic participation in the way that trade unions in this country have done, I would like to move an amendment modifying the amendment put forward by the hoft. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words "within the three months next following its appointment", and by substituting therefor the following words: "upon the completion of its investigation, and that it shall make an interim report, including recommendations for action, within two months of its first meeting".
The clause as amended would then read as follows:
That the said committee shall make its final report and recommendations upon the completion of its investigation, and that it shall make an interim report, including recommendations for action, within two months of its first meeting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the subamendment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first occasion which I have had to speak in the chamber in this particular session I want to express, along with others in the House, my congratulations to Mr. Speaker. It was my good fortune to be a member during the twenty-eighth parliament, and we found that all we had heard about Mr. Speaker at that time was most assuredly true. He conducted himself with dignity and, happily, with a great sense of humour.
I think, however, that the appointment which pleased me even more was your appointment, Sir, as Deputy Speaker because at long last the government had caught up with a proposition that I had made in the last House when we had a majority. At that time, I broke the rule by
January 19, 1973

voting in the Committee on Veterans Affairs to appoint Mr. Chester MacRae, then Member of Parliament, as vice chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. So, the government has seen the wisdom of the step I took at that time. Since the government made that decision, I do not think it could have found a more appropriate member from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to appoint to that high position. I also wish to pay my compliments very briefly to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As one who had that happy experience in 1969,1 can assure them that it is an honour they will cherish long after they have left this establishment.
fTranslation]
Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said, as reported on page 454 of Hansard, and I quote:
Senator Robichaud who is involved in National Sea Products Ltd.
The Hon. Gerard Robichaud is no longer senator; he is Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick. Let us get our facts straight.

Hon. members will be happy to hear that that is the extent of my contribution to this debate in French.
No one can dispute that food costs are rising. It is a fact that is most familiar to those who are on fixed incomes, particularly our senior citizens. Most assuredly it is familiar to all of us to one degree or another. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) suggest that the government in some way was endeavouring to sweep the problem under the rug. I would remind him that it was the government which proposed this measure, pointing out that food costs are rising, and urging that a committee should study food costs to see what action can be taken to stop the rise in food prices. It is my hope that the committee can do just that.
But having criticized the setting up of the committee, and having suggested that it will sweep the problem under the rug, what constructive comment did we hear from him on how to make the committee work? Mr. Speaker, the official opposition seem to be more content to move from newspaper headline to newspaper headline than to make this house work as the people of Canada want it to work. Who is to blame? That is the question that is constantly asked with respect to food prices. The issue is not easy to determine. We have heard a recital of the series of committees and commissions that were established to see if something could be done to halt rising food prices. The last committee we established recommended the establishment of a department of consumer affairs, and that recommendation came to fruition as a result of action taken by a Liberal government. It is not correct to say that committee reports are only put on a shelf to gather dust. That committee made a recommendation, and the recommendation was accepted by the government. Today, we have the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The next step was the establishment of the Prices and Incomes Commission by the Department of Consumer
25714-31)
Food Prices Committee
and Corporate Affairs. That commission was subjected to a great deal of criticism, but the criticism generated more heat than light. The commission fulfilled a definite function, a necessary function, at the time it was established. It pointed out to consumers that there were areas where people could curb the rise in wages, in prices and in incomes, also rises in salaries at the federal, provincial and municipal level. It pointed out the problems and the need for us, in this time of affluence, to show some form of restraint. In my view-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair finds itself in difficulty because, with the amendment and the subamendment, the compass of the debate is really very narrow. This works a hardship on members, such as the hon. member now speaking, who is delivering his general thoughts on this whole topic rather than confining himself to the question of whether there should be an interim report, including recommendations for action, within two months of the first meeting of the committee. Because of the rules of the House, that is precisely the confines of the debate.
I do not want to be overly strict because that would only prompt two speeches from the hon. member, one dealing with that particular point, and then one later on dealing with his general approach. This is something that might be given consideration before we meet again at two o'clock, to see whether the house leaders are agreed that the vote should be on Monday so that we may consider that we are on the general debate rather than on the particular amendment and subamendment. I really am in difficulty, and since we are starting off a new parliament it is rather important that we adhere to the usual practice.


Mr. MacEachen:: Your Honour, may I make a comment on your very proper observation that if the speakers were to be held strictly to the amendment and subamendment it would indeed be a very narrow debate? Probably under the strict application of the rules of relevancy that ought to be the case, but it seems to me that from time to time we have overlooked the rules of relevancy, and no more recently than yesterday when the amendment before the House was upon the question of removal of the Senate from the proposed committee. At that time, most of the speeches were of a very general character and only touched tagentially on the question of Senate participation. I suggest that as a matter of agreement by the House, without asking you to associate yourself with any deterioration in the application of the rules, we might agree to allow the debate to be of a general character on all these subamendments that may come along today and later. That is the first point I want to make.
The second point I want to make is that I understand that it is not likely there will be a vote today. Certainly, I am operating on the assumption that there will not be a vote on either the subamendment of the amendment today. For that reason, this does provide an opportunity for members to talk generally. I hope these observations may be of some help to the Chair.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to make a contribution on this point?

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not too sure that "contribution" is the right word. I just want to say that, as always, on this side of the house we are seeking truth and justice. It appears to us that the best way of doing it would be for the Chair to allow the widest latitude on the various subjects that hon. members want to bring up in respect of prices, inflation and the cost of living. It is also our understanding that due to the number of members in all parties who want to speak, probably there will be no vote until Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair gathers the mood of the House. I would have to agree with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that this matter did not just erupt this morning, and that there were very wide ranging speeches yesterday. Before giving the floor again to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), I wish to assure him that the time spent on this point will not be taken from his allocation of time. I also wish to apologize to him for raising the matter in the middle of this speech, in view of the fact that it could have been raised during speeches given in the House yesterday.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not feel put upon because I was interrupted. It gave me an opportunity to catch my breath and ask a Page for a glass of water. I was speaking first in a general vein because I thought this was necessary before going on to deal with the amendment and the subamendment. I think that the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) is a good one. It points out that the committee has an obligation at the beginning to do all it can within a two month period. If it can make recommendations that is well and good, and we can have an interim report. We will have to look at the involvement of governments, labour unions, farmers, supermarkets and that mysterious fellow, the middleman. But to attempt all this with a time limitation of three months does not seem to make much sense if the committee is to have any meaning at all. It seems to me that we need more time, but I think we can come up with an interim report.
Criticisms are often directed at farmers, at unions, at supermarkets and governments as well as other people. Much of this criticism has no basis in fact, and the charges are too often made from ignorance of the facts. A charge is often made against a government purely for political gain or by a consumer out of frustration and because he does not know the facts. That is why we need this committee and why it has to last longer than three months-why it will last longer than three months. Mr. Speaker, that is why I find the subamendment one which I can support.
If the committee is to be limited to the three-months period, it will be natural enough that the favourite target will be the government. It is always easy to establish a common bond against the government on almost any issue. The next favourite target is the supermarket moguls, they are fair game in our society. They are also adept at answering criticism and need no defence from me in this chamber. The thing that makes me happy is that less and less criticism is directed against the farmers. It seems that the farmers are getting their message across.

The new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has for many years been the champion of farmers. It must be very rewarding to hold a portfolio which gives the widest possible audience, in defence of and in appreciation of farmers. He is still at the same old stand, notwithstanding his new responsibilities.
I was extremely pleased to read the speech the minister made in Halifax in which he again put it to the farmers that they must get their message across and that they have an obligation to use the manpower services. This is the sort of thing that farmers will be reminded of when they come before the committee. In that speech, referred to in the remarks of the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), according to the minister, when people were getting a bargain on food prices they were getting a bargain as far as the farmers were concerned, that farmers have had increased their productivity and so the Canadian consumer was getting a good deal. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham should read the speech again and not take a sentence out of context, suggesting that the minister might be indicating that prices were not on the rise. The minister was simply indicating that in these circumstances the farmer is not to blame.
Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind your admonition, I am going to limit my remarks. I feel that the debate should not become too wide because we will have an opportunity before the committee to go into the many different aspects of this subject. I hope that we will see representatives of the Consumer Association of Canada before this committee. They have done a tremendous amount of research on this subject, and to confine the committee to a three-month period would do a disservice to them and others like them. They will need a good deal of time in order to present the results of their research to the committee. The supermarkets will also need time to establish their position before the committee. If profits are exorbitant, then the committee will have an obligation to say so in its report; if it is felt that controls are necessary then the committee should make that recommendation, bearing in mind, of course, that where there is a shortage of food, controls will not get at the basic issue. I hope that senior citizens will also appear before the committee to explain their difficulties. Perhaps they could show the young lady of today the proper way to shop as they have unhappily learned out of necessity. Perhaps a new horizons program is necessary.
I have been told by a lady who made a serious study of this, that by checking the newspaper ads, by listening to the radio as I do myself on my way to work-on Thursday mornings, CBO has a commentator who gives comparable meat prices and tells where the best bargains are-and by studying nutrition magazines, she found that she could feed her family better and save about $10 a week on her food bill. Consumers have an obligation to take that kind of action rather than to indulge a preference for prepackaged and prepared foods as seems to be the case in this day and age. If price is no object or if they can afford the luxury, more power to them, but there are many people who should be looking very carefully at their shopping lists and they should be able to appear before the committee.
January 19, 1973

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney). As a backbencher, I cannot speak on behalf of my party, but it seems to me that the subamendment makes good sense and is fair to the consumers of Canada. The supermarket operators, government representatives, the farmers, the unions and anyone else who wishes to appear before that committee should have the opportunity. I hope that this committee will make a serious attempt to solve the extremely difficult problem of rising food prices.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of having a colleague from one's province in the chair is that he knows the name of one's constituency. This is appreciated, especially in my case, when my constituency became part of the former constituency of Colchester-Hants. As a result, I was often addressed as the hon. member for Northumber-land-Colchester-Hants but with Your Honour in the chair I am now correctly known as the member for Cumberland-Colchester North.
Since this is the first time I have participated in debate in this parliament, I should like to offer to you, Sir, my congratulations in public as I have in private. I know that you will honour the position for which you have been chosen by all members of this House and I anticipate great things from you in the days ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and, to a degree, appreciated what he said. I think all members of this House have an understanding of the problem that we face, the problem of spiralling costs, especially food costs. These increases make it difficult for anyone on a fixed income, and especially those living below the poverty level, to go into the supermarket and purchase foods in keeping with their income. They know and we know that this is important. Every day that goes by the task of making the dollar meet requirements is more difficult. We, as a party, are somewhat hesistant about endorsing the approach that the government has adopted in order to try to combat the problem.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has pointed out why we are hesitant, why we are somewhat doubtful about the government's approach. While we believe that the matter is urgent, we do not believe that it will be solved by a committee. I agree, in part with what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) was saying on this subject. He suggested, as did the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that the report should not be made in three months because everyone who wishes to appear before the committee should be given the opportunity of having a say. Parliamentary committees and other committees established by governments to sit for a certain time usually exceed the time limit allocated to them before presenting a report. That limit is exceeded sometimes on two or three occasions. There are indications that this procedure has become the rule rather than the exception.
Food Prices Committee
I am also concerned about parliamentary committees being democratic committees. Anyone who wants to appear before the committee should, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton suggested, be given the opportunity to say something. If this is what is wanted, in my opinion the other place should set up its own committee. It should travel across the country and, keeping in mind the long range point of view, secure the advice and opinion of all who want to appear before it. Then, that committee could produce a long range proposal somewhat similar to the report of the committee established by the other place on aging or on land use. I could assist the government in that way.
I think the consumer of this country is fed up with complaining. This committee will merely listen to complaints. It will travel from coast to coast and listen to people say what is wrong with this and that, and how the price of this and that has risen. What the consumer wants is action, Mr. Speaker, and not more reports, submissions and arguments as to who is at fault. Whether you like it or not, the administration of this country is at fault because prices are skyrocketing and it has not taken the necessary action to stop it. If this government is not capable of taking that action, if it has not formulated a plan, as it ought to have, to contain costs realistically, it should move out of the way and make room for somebody else who can do the job. I think my party could do it. I think my party ought to be in office now, and certainly this is the opinion of the electors of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Certainly, if they were given the opportunity tomorrow to indicate which party they prefer to run the affairs of this nation, they would indicate the party I support. Let me present evidence for my statement. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) said on January 18, as recorded in Hansard at page 431:
In statistical terms the increase in food prices from December 1971 to December 1972 was 8.6 per cent. Over the same period, the rise for all items other than food in the consumer price index was 3.8 per cent.
I do not argue with what the minister says. If he says that, I am sure he is right. On the same date, as reported in the Globe and Mail, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made a speech in Halifax to members of Canada's dairy industry. The report of that Speech reads:
Mr. Whelan feels the public must be conditioned to expect to pay a more realistic price for food. An average Canadian wage earner is paying less proportionately of his income for food now, than he was 10 years ago,... If food costs had risen in the same proportion as the rest of the consumer price index items, beef farmers would now be getting 70 cents a pound for beef on the hoof, rather than 40 cents.
Then, the minister is reported to have said:
I think we should be telling consumers what a fine job we have been doing, and what a bargain they are getting.
You can have it one way or the other, Mr. Speaker, not both ways. Either consumer food prices are going up faster than other prices, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggests, or they are not, as the Minister of Agriculture suggests. The report continues:

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Mr. Whelan said nobody seems to complain about increases in the price of beer, furs, snowmobiles and other luxuries. You don't hear a peep out of them. But if a couple of cents are added to food costs everybody is screaming.
I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture thinks, but I am not too greatly concerned about people who are buying snowmobiles, furs and other luxuries. Perhaps they are not screaming, for good reason. But the great majority of people in this country are screaming because food prices are going up and they just do not have money to buy food. Previous to the October 30 election, we underwent four and a half years of the present administration. What did we get from it? We got nothing for those on fixed incomes; they were not compensated for increases in living costs. That is why those people are screaming about increases in costs of food and consumer items. They do not have money in their pockets to buy those things. With the dollars left in their pockets they cannot buy sufficient food today to maintain their families. We must do something about that.
We can do something in several ways: First, by increasing the various types of federal pensions, thus giving certain people sufficient income to meet increases in living costs; second, by gearing those pensions to the cost of living increase; and, third, by controlling the sorts of increases that are being imposed everywhere at the present time in this country. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


AFTEB RECESS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was making some general statements about the committee that is proposed and some of the areas in which it might work. I wish to again refer to the comments of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, with regard to comparative consumer reports that are sometimes of value to food buyers. In that regard, it might be of some value to a consumer to know the comparative values in the various supermarkets when purchasing a certain item. However, it does not help very much when that item in all supermarkets has increased by 10 per cent or 20 per cent in one week. This does occur. I have encountered it.
I wish to make specific mention of two items which I purchased in a grocery store over a very short period of time. They both were significantly increased in price. One of these was a food item. I purchased this for 77 cents and, two or three weeks later, I paid 98 cents for this same item. That really shakes up a person. That is the type of increase that so-called discount operators are providing for consumers. Another item that came to my attention this past weekend was fuses. When I removed the last fuse from a container of three in my home, I noticed that the price on it was 22 cents. When I went to the food store to purchase a replacement, the price was 41 cents for three

fuses. I do not know how long I had the first three fuses I referred to, but in was not a long period of time. In that period of time, the price had jumped almost 100 per cent. This is the sad situation that has been facing consumers all across this country.
There may be many areas the committee will have to study in order to determine what might be done to assist the purchasing public. One basic problem, certainly in Atlantic Canada and probably across the country, is the spiralling cost of feed concentrates to producers to be included in products destined for grocery stores, certainly in so far as meat is concerned. On November 20,1 wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture similar to one I had written some time before to the former Minister of Transport. In that letter, I pointed out the unbelievable increases producers in the Atlantic provinces must pay for feed grains. I quote from my November 30 letter:
The cost of feed additives has increased substantially. It is my understanding that the increase in the cost of soybean meal has been $55.00 per ton for meat meal and fish meal, the increase has been approximately $50.00 per ton.
In so far as feed grains are concerned, as of October 23rd, barley has increased in price from $8.00 to $10.00 per ton, corn is up $12.00 per ton, No. 5 feed wheat is up $10.50 per ton, oats are up $14.00 to $15.00 per ton, mill feeds are up as much as $22.00 per ton, and hog grower and hog finisher are up $6.00 per ton.
There is no way the farmers of this country can stand that type of increase without receiving additional payment for their products. Unless there is something this government can do to assist the farmers, they will have to add on this cost to the price of their products. This has been happening over and over again. From the time that increase in cost goes from the producer to the purchaser, it is hard to believe how much of an increase the person buying that product has to pay. Certainly only a small portion of that goes into the pocket of the farmer who is trying to maintain a livelihood in extremely difficult circumstances. I also suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that as far as feed concentrates were concerned, there should be special action taken by the government that would be of material assistance to the farmers of Atlantic Canada.
I wish to put on record a resolution that was passed by the Maritime Farmers Council. This is a federation which includes the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture, the Maritime Co-operative Services, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Prince Edward Island Confederation of Agriculture. Their resolution on feed concentrates reads as follows:
Whereas animal and vegetable protein concentrates constitute approximately 13 per cent of hog feed rations, 15 per cent of broiler feed rations and 9 per cent of layer rations, and
Whereas the price of all animal and vegetable protein concentrates is governed by the price of soybean meal, and
Whereas during the past five months the cost of soybean meal has increased by more than 60 per cent from $140 per ton to $225 per ton, basis f.o.b. Moncton; with similar increases in other protein concentrates, and
Whereas this is causing an increase of $4.25 in the cost of producing a market hog, with similar increases in livestock, dairy and poultry production, and
January 19, 1973

Whereas this represents an intolerable situation when combined with rising costs of feed grains, transportation, and other production input expenses, and
Whereas even at the greatly increased price there is a real danger that the supply of protein concentrates made available may not be sufficient to support our livestock and poultry industries,
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to authorize the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to buy soybean meal and/or other protein concentrates, and position these ingredients for our use, and
Be it further resolved that we ask that the price for these concentrates be protected at $130 per ton, basis f.o.b. carlot Toronto, for soybean meal.
If that action were taken, the purchasing public would have a substantial guarantee that there would not be the increases in food prices they are now facing. Everybody would enjoy some stability in the market place, and in the result there would be less inflation in this nation. Whether or not the committee hears complaints from people about food prices, this action is required in order to get some stability and end the spiral of inflation for an unprotected purchasing public. Whether the committee sits or does not sit, whether these facts are laid before the committee or not, the price of food will continue to go up and up and up without a corresponding increase in the amount of money in the pockets of Canadians to buy that food.
In the province of Nova Scotia, families are asked under the provincial social assistance scheme-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him under the House order passed yesterday has expired. He can continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I can finish in a couple of sentences, and 1 thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to continue. I was saying that under the social assistance plan in Nova Scotia, families are asked to try to maintain themselves, no matter what their size, on $200 a month. This means that people are going to starve to death under this spiralling increase in the cost of living.
We believe, and rightly so, that any committee of the House that is established to study food prices must get the job done quickly and report back within the shortest possible period of time. I think that three months, in itself, is almost too long; we should be taking action today. If we were the party forming the government of this country today, the people would get action today. But under the present government the people will have to wait at least three months. And the government is saying that three months is not long enough. It may not be enough for this government, but for many people who are trying to survive on next to nothing it is the devil of a long time. People are going to have a mighty hard winter if they have to wait for the committee to sit. It seems obvious from the comments that have come forth from government benches since the amendment was introduced that the government is not even satisfied with three months. They want the people to wait even longer for some remedy to
Food Prices Committee
their problem. It may be these people will no longer be on this earth when the government finally does take action on their behalf.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have been paying close attention to this debate, which has been one of the more interesting debates. Speeches by individual members have been of high quality. However, I am afraid that the speeches particularly from members of the official opposition, have been very good in histrionics but very poor in terms of content.
The question is simply this. We are faced in the world today with spiralling prices. Such a condition is not unique to Canada. We do not have the highest rate of inflation or the highest increase in prices of any country in the world. Countries are doing worse than we are, and there are even a few who are doing better. But it is obvious that there is no easy answer.
I think all of us on this side of the House would have been impressed had the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), who admittedly is a new member in the House, been able to indicate exactly what was Tory policy. But there is no Tory policy, and this is why, to illustrate the poverty of their thought, hon. members opposite had to steal the sheets from the bed of the NDP.


Mr. Baker:: That is the bed you are in.


Gerald William Baldwin: Sheets that the Liberals have soiled.


John Mercer Reid: After last night I hope they enjoyed their one night of bliss. I hope the NDP enjoyed it, too. Perhaps they will find that the "official" opposition are not their only bedmates.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have already discovered that you are economically impotent.


John Mercer Reid: I do not blame the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham for the kind of speech he made yesterday. It is something that we in this particular parliament have come to expect from the Tory benches-in other words, nothing. After all, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is merely following in the steps of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who had nothing to offer in terms of policy when he spoke in the throne speech debate. He was quite upset that the NDP looked at his speech and decided it contained nothing. That is why the NDP preferred to go along with the government, which has offered something concrete, a plan for action in the future. This is why the NDP has not supported the Tories. The NDP do not particularly like the government, and they do not particularly like hon. members opposite; but hon. members on that side have not even given the NDP anything to hang on to in order to encourage them to vote against us.
The attitude of the official opposition can be likened to that of the big bad wolf in the famous story who was going to huff and puff and blow the house down. They have certainly let out a lot of hot air; but the only time they have been able to get any support in the House, outside of their own, was when they borrowed the bed-

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
sheets from the bed of the NDP and moved a motion that one would normally have expected the NDP to move, since the party has a long history of being opposed to the Senate. We were not aware that the Conservative party had suddenly changed its view overnight.
The idea they borrowed from the NDP was not even germane to the motion that was before the House. I think we can offer the official opposition a bit of advice. If they are really serious about defeating the government and want to come over on this side, they are not going to accomplish that objective with hot air. It is not going to be achieved by speeches such as that of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, or even by a speech like that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition during the throne speech debate. This can only be achieved by substantive policy recommendations. When hon. members really start to deal with the nitty-gritty issues facing this country today, then members on this side of the House may start to fear for their seats. When they start to do these things, then we will begin to have a debate in this House that is meaningful. We might then have debate in the House that will attract the attention of the ordinary person in Canada. Until that time, I am afraid this House of Commons is not going to attract that kind of attention.


An hon. Member:: Tell us the price of beef; you have not mentioned that yet.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is enjoying the attention he is attracting, but the difficulty is that under our ancient practices the Chair is supposed to hear at least some of the speech which is now being interrupted. I would ask that the hon. member be allowed to continue without the number of interventions that have been taking place.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we thoroughly agree with you, and we hope the hon. member will say something that we think is at least worth hearing.


John Mercer Reid: I thank you very much for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, but I do not really fear that those hon. members opposite who have been yelling and screaming during my rather quiet remarks have been able to divert me from my purpose, which is to discuss some of the issues before us. I would like to direct some remarks to the amendment and the sub-amendment which have been moved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The previous speaker indicated he felt the committee ought to complete its deliberations within a three month period. As former chairman of a committee, I have always taken the attitude that when a committee is given something to do it ought to have a time limit of some kind and ought to be under a greater degree of control by the House. However, it seems to me that to expect any group of hon. members in the House of Commons to look into the totality of factors that affect food prices in

Canada within a short period of time is unrealistic. I think a far better proposition could be made, that the committee should be instructed to make substantive reports to the House of Commons from time to time in order that we might keep a running check on its activities and control more precisely what the committee is doing. Speaking for myself and not the government, I would think some form of amendment which indicated that we wanted the committee to report on an interim basis, say once every two or three months, would be acceptable to me as an individual and, I think, would be given serious consideration by the minister.
We all recognize that committee members become very much wrapped up in their own activities and do not spend much time following the will of the House. Sometimes they even substitute their own desires for those of the House. Because of the complexities involved in the factors surrounding food prices, it is not fair to force upon any group of men, even those from the opposition, a time limit within which they must produce a final and definitive report. That simply is not realistic.


An hon. Member:: You are weaseling now.


John Mercer Reid: One has only to examine the factors involved in food prices to understand the point I am trying to make.


William Heward Grafftey: Quick action is what we need from this government.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) says we need quick action. What quick action did his party ever propose? One has only to read his leader's speech on the throne speech debate or the speech of the lead-off speaker for his party to find out that nothing is proposed. I suggest that is what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stands for, nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: I say that with apologies to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: There are a number of items the committee must consider, one being that the increasing amount of food we consume today is not in the form of raw agricultural produce. Instead, we are eating much more processed food. When we purchase food, we are not purchasing the raw product in many cases but products subjected to a high degree of ^processing. In terms of volume alone last year in the United States there were more potatoes processed into frozen french fries and, goodness knows what other kinds, than sold in their natural state. The trend is probably the same in Canada.
We are dealing with a system in which people are demanding a higher degree of processing and, therefore, paying a higher price than would be paid for the product in its natural state. I suggest there are reasons for this situation. There has been a substantial change in the life style of Canadians within the last 10 or 15 years. Let us take the example of a man and wife who are both working. When they come home after a hard day's work they
January 19, 1973

want a meal which can be prepared with a minimum of strain. They buy frozen meals, frozen french fried potatoes and other frozen products, all of which require a great deal of processing and the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. If people make that choice, are they really paying a higher price for food than they might had they purchased it in the natural state, or are they making a choice as to the disposition of the moneys they have left over after paying for necessities? This involves a question not so much of food prices but of how people spend their discretionary incomes.
In the last two or three months I have been making a tour of my constituency and interviewing a lot of small grocery store operators.


John Allen Fraser: What is discretionary about a price tag?


John Mercer Reid: If a person wants to buy frozen potatoes instead of table potatoes and has to spend three times as much, is not that person making a discretionary purchase? I suggest that he is because he has a choice as to how he will spend his money for food.


John Allen Fraser: What choice has he got?


John Mercer Reid: If the price of potatoes in their natural state were going up as fast as the price of potatoes in the processed state I would say we should really be concerned, but that is not the case.


An hon. Member:: You are never concerned.


John Mercer Reid: One merely has.to read the speech of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and other members who represent agricultural constituencies who spoke during this debate to learn that this is not so. Farmers are not making that much money, because farm prices are low. It is not the farmer who is making the money, it is the processor, the people who have caused this product to be in demand are the consumers who also have the opportunity of buying the product in its natural state. The consumer is spending his discretionary income, and apparently that is satisfactory. That is the simple point I wanted to make, and I think the hon. member now understands it.


An hon. Member:: Thank you for making it, but how many months did it take you to come to that conclusion?


John Mercer Reid: We are dealing with a society in which the life style has changed. We find ourselves in a situation in which we have added more links in the chain that brings the food from the farmer, through the processor, the wholesaler and the retailer to the consumer.
Before I was interrupted, I was talking about having interviews with people who operate small grocery stores in my constituency. They told me there were a number of reasons for the increase in prices last year. One individual told me quite bluntly that a substantial part of the increase over the last six months could be attributed to politicians.


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


John Mercer Reid: I was a little shocked by this statement. He said that a substantial part of this increase could be attributed to politicians who have been talking about the imposition of wage and price controls. As a result these companies, in order to protect themselves, increased the prices in case that event came about. It is difficult to say whether there is truth in that suggestion. If there is, there is a lesson for us to learn. We should be careful of what we are saying to those people who might actually believe that some of the members of this House are serious.


John Allen Fraser: Well, you are innocent. You have not talked about wage and price controls.


John Mercer Reid: The committee must consider the sociological factors. Most members have not bothered to mention this aspect.
The committee must also consider questions in relation to long-term food supply. I have been reading a book called "The Limits of Growth" in which the Club of Rome and MIT computer studies indicate that no matter what is done in terms of decreasing population through birth control, and increasing the supply of food through the use of non-arable land that might be exploited, and increasing the yield from land now under cultivation, there is no way we can meet the challenge to produce enough food to feed the estimated population of the next 30 years.
This year we have had reports of the beginning of famine in the new country of Bangladesh and in India. We have seen the prices for food increase across the world simply because there seems to be a shortage. The hon. member who spoke before me mentioned the substantial increase in the price of feed grains. He would probably be interested to know that last fall the United States removed all quotas in order to encourage the import of beef and other meat products into the United States because of a scarcity in that type of protein. He would also be interested to know that the country perhaps most noted for tariffs, France, was also faced with a shortage of protein and removed its 7 i per cent value added tax recently. So, countries are attempting to cope with this shortage by removing tariffs and destroying the protection they built up in respect of their food industries. This indicates that the problem is not solely a Canadian one but is worldwide, not only in the long-term but also in the short-term.
It was interesting to me to note that, in applying its wage and price controls, the United States specifically decided to exclude raw agricultural products although these controls were applied to other products of the manufacturing sector of the food industry in that country. Unfortunately, even though my hon. friends across the way deny it, there really is no easy solution to the problem. Canada, as an international trading nation with 25 per cent of its gross national product based on foreign trade, and one job in five based on foreign trade, will not be immune to these inflationary factors which are outside our control. We try to operate in an international economy and must do so. There are certain consequences which fall upon us. It seems to me that the problems of inflation which beset not only Canada and the United States but the world as a whole, are not solvable at the local level but
486

Food Prices Committee
rather on an international level. It is a brutal fact of life that we do not have sovereignty over a number of things which affect us and our living standards. It has always been Canadian policy to try to work through international organizations such as FAO, the United Nations and the Group of Ten in an effort to solve problems common to all. I suggest this is a problem which will find its solution, not in the deliberations of this House of Commons but in the deliberations of worldwide bodies.
Now, I should like to come to the point related to the question of nutrition. In the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River there were four candidates during the last election. There was myself, the Conservative candidate, the NDP candidate and an independent candidate. The independent candidate ran on the platform of a guaranteed annual income as well as the matter of nutrition. The point he tried to make in that election campaign was that the nutrition value of the food we buy is not as good as it should be, and that there are other ways in which to acquire the nutrition our bodies need. The federal government has sponsored a nutrition study to find out how well Canadians are being fed and how well they choose their food from what is available as well as how well that food is actually prepared in order to keep the nutritional value intact. The preliminary reports of that study are not particularly encouraging, because the indication is that many Canadians do not take advantage of the nutritional value of the food we now have. Perhaps an anecodote will illustrate the point.
When talking to a grocer I asked him about the nutritional value of many foods, particularly prepared foods, and he said that the greatest tragedy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him, as agreed by the House yesterday and extended because of the interjections earlier has now expired. The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to devote part of my remarks to supporting the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Scarborough-West (Mr. Harney) this morning. In passing, may I comment to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) that in respect of time limits this government has had many years and the electorate has already imposed a time limit upon it. The electorate said to this government on October 30, "get off your butts and do something". We suggest it should be done now and within a time limit. I should like to echo the concern of my colleagues and other speakers about the rising cost of food in his country today. It is a concern that is reflected by the general public and by the media. It is also reflected in this House. In an editorial entitled "Let 'em eat Mackerel" the Vancouver Province of January 16 expresses skepticism that yet another Senate-Commons committee will produce the results that are needed. The editorial reads:
It is as though a gang of thieves were stealing from everyone's income and savings at a rate of 5.1 per cent a year ithe living cost rise) and the best the government could do was to find out how it was being done.
As a new member in this House, I have often been puzzled by the terminology used here. Through my growing years I had always thought that there were only two places, and that the other place was the place you found when you looked down. Through the lengthy debates yesterday, I discovered that the other place is over there and that there are more than three places-the other place, the place occupied by our colleagues to my right and the one you find when you look down. My puzzlement is abated. I am happy that the members of the other place have been excluded from the committee. I urge that the committee scrupulously avoid, so far as possible, any conflict of interest among members no matter from which of the three places they come.
Regarding the cost of living, the urgency of the situation has been testified to by the figures quoted by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) when she pointed out that the consumer price index has risen slightly over 17 per cent in the last two years. According to the Department of Agriculture, in the last five months food prices have risen 7.4 per cent. I do not need statistics and reports to tell me that the price of food has risen. The real autnorities on the rise in the cost of living, however, are not the researchers from Statistics Canada or the various party groups, not the Association of Grocery Product Manufacturers or the retailers, but the person who goes into the supermarket and pays out his or her hard-earned money. These are the people whose representations should be sought, not in the form of sophisticated briefs but in whatever form their representation is brought to the committee in order that light might be shed on reasons for the rise in the prices. These people, if you ask them, do not blame the farmers because too many of them have lived on the farm in the past, as I have, and have seen what the normal standard of living of the farmer is.
We hear a great deal, of course, about the affluent Canadian society and we are very proud of our affluence. However, it is a sad and ironic reflection upon this affluent society that there are a great number of Canadian citizens living below the poverty level. So many of them live at this low level that it has become necessary for groups to join together in anti-poverty organizations, as it is necessary for our elderly people to join together for their own protection, indeed for their own survival. It may be that ultimately, the only course of action will be for the poor and needy to organize and to arouse the citizenry in order to put enough pressure on the government to force some kind of immediate action.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) mentioned nutrition. During the last campaign I spoke to several old and deprived people who told me that they were reduced to eating dog food. "Oh, sure", said one old gentleman, "I always eat it in the last week before my cheque comes. It is not bad stuff". Since then I have had several complaints from dog owners who claim that their dogs have been made ill by certain brands of dog food. If
[Mr. Reid.l
January 19, 1973

you look at the variety of products in this multi-million dollar industry and the lack of any uniformity in the identification of what ingredients are contained in their products, the thought of Canadian citizens being reduced to eating such junk is revolting.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Nels Edwin Nelson: It is easy to blame the farmer for increased food prices, but anyone who has had experience with farming knows that although the land may be strong it is not easy to become wealthy by farming this strong land.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not with those guys in power.


Nels Edwin Nelson: According to the president of the Canadian Farmers Association, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of November 30, 1972, 94 per cent of farm products are bought up by big supermarket chains. Farmers, the editor pointed out, are powerless against the big food chains. They cannot strike like other workers because their produce spoils in the meantime. The result is that they have no real bargaining position. He pointed out that packaged, diced carrots sell for $350 a ton of which the farmer got $100. The label on a can of peas costs more than the peas inside, he said.
According to the Department of Agriculture, as reported across the country on September 13, 1972, the biggest culprits by far are the processors, packagers and distributors. According to the study prepared by the Department of Agriculture, 64 per cent of the $2.8 billion increase in food prices since 1961 has been accounted for by processors and merchants.
Consumer affairs minister of the government of Manitoba, Mr. Mackling is reported in the Globe and Mail of Friday, October 27,1972 as saying that his department:
-can document cases that prove merchandisers are intentionally using inflation as a reason to increase their prices.
As a result of the provincial-federal division of authority, provincial governments cannot impose price controls. But surely this House, through a group demonstrably free of conflict of interest, can take action quickly in consultation with provincial ministers of consumers affairs and a prices review board as suggested by my colleagues.
Let us examine a not too hypothetical single instance to illustrate what happens to a head of lettuce from the time it leaves the farm until it is finally sold. The farmer may get 4 cents for a head of lettuce with a profit of perhaps 1 cent or 2 cents. Harvesting and packing add 4 cents. Now it costs 8 cents. Plastic film, freight costs and handling add 13 cents. Brokerage, spoilage, inspection, advertising, store overhead and profit add another 18 cents. The lettuce sells for 39 cents, unless it comes from California in which case there may be additional charges.
In this continuum of profit making, it seems to me that the areas to be investigated most quickly and most thoroughly, are those of packaging, distributing and price fixing. Aside from the scope of the committee's inquiry, what concerns me deeply is the period of time allowed for that investigation. Granted, time is needed for any kind of effective inquiry, but what happens in the meantime? It seems to me, therefore, that the imposition of a two months' time limit is preferable to a longer time and that
Food Prices Committee
in the meantime the Department of the Attorney General should be intensifying investigations and unjustified price increases.
I agree with the member from the government side who said that there is no easy answer. So long as food prices are controlled by a handful of corporate food chains, so long as the citizens of Canada labour under the maldistribution of wealth that is characteristic of the regimes of both old line parties, there will be no easy answer. The most we can hope for is something in the nature of reforms to alleviate the problems of Canada's people. At least that much I urge the government to do and do quickly.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is with legitimate and unconcealed pride that I intend to make some comments about the motion proposed and agreed to yesterday to establish a committee, which apparently will no longer be a joint one, to consider increases in food prices.
I would like to deal with the matter as a remote observer, as far as some technicalities of the problem are concerned, being neither a producer nor a dealer, but an ordinary consumer whose wife notices from time to time that such or such a product is more expensive than previously. This phenomenon, while rather disturbing, is not only a domestic but also an international one. I see however that the increase is not restricted to food, but also affects almost all other consumer goods sometimes less of a necessity than food.
Although apparently it does not cost any more today to buy food than it did 10 or 20 years ago, it is still recognized that the share of the family budget allotted to the purchase of food is smaller than what it was 10 or 20 years ago. We eat more and better today.
I for one find it illogical that, without complaining too much, people do not hesitate to spend more and more money to acquire luxury or recreative items. They complain a bit though resignedly, when every year the price of automobiles, skidoos and colour TV sets goes up. In this situation, we must admit that food prices have not increased as fast as wages and, as the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was saying in Halifax this week, the Canadian consumer more than any other buys his food at bargain prices.
Mr. Speaker, the housewife is constantly hammered when she buys food at the retail store, and let me explain: When housewives go to the supermarket, they find pack-agings so attractive that they omit to check inside whether there is the right amount of the product.
I think that nowadays, because of information media, namely television and radio, our housewives are being constantly influenced by food chains mainly specialized in packaging. I am under the impression that after the inquiry we shall have discovered that the cost of packaging certain food products is higher than the cost of the actual contents. As one of my colleagues was saying a while ago, it is surprising that housewives, in their continual quest for the best processed and above all the most attractively
25714-32J

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
packaged products, sometimes forget to reflect on the cost of the packaging. Formerly, there were few firms specializing in the retail food line, whereas today a host of processing plants are increasingly specializing in packaging food.
Mr. Speaker, if all segments of society had developed their products at the same rhythm as farmers, we would not be facing our present problems of inflation.
It is not the farmers who have failed to produce more, because they have shifted their production thus ensuring a tremendous improvement in the field of food products. As a matter of fact, some farms in our area that we used to believe were restricted to cattle and milk production have been shifted to market gardening and, given our well organized road system, farmers found that they were not so far away from the main centres and that they can produce and deliver quality products very quickly.
According to statistical data, Canadians do not hesitate to spend more on such luxury items as a summer cottage, a yacht or travel, than on essential commodities. I wonder to what extent and at what cost people prefer to escape reality. Has the consumer really been well informed as to the various factors that influence food prices or are we witnessing the birth of a new scale of values in which what used to be considered a luxury has now become a necessity?
Mr. Speaker, almost every Canadian family now has one or two cars; many have snowmobiles, boats and various other luxury items. When the cost of foodstuffs increases by a few cents, they protest very strongly but when the price of liquor goes up by $1 or $2 a quart or gallon, no one complains. But if the farmers or milk producers plan to increase the cost of milk by 2 cents a quart, it's front page news. Are we going to use the cost of food as a pretext to justify expenses considered of secondary importance until very recently?
Mr. Speaker, this is the situation, but is it logical or acceptable? I am asking myself and every Canadian that question. I trust that the committee soon to be set up will throw light on the problem. I was happy yesterday to hear the minister offer his full co-operation to the new committee that will be created to look into the problem of food prices in Canada. To our amazement we will probably discover that neither the farmers nor the producers make big profits but that instead the advertisers and manufacturers of containers do. They vie with one another as to who will produce the most glamorous packaging to better sell the product.
In closing, I express the wish that this committee will enlighten the House in this regard, and as soon as possible.


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his computerized courtship of the electorate during October last, "I love Canada." One of the things I like about it is that its people are not a violent sort. Even when they are provoked almost beyond endurance, they respond reasonably.
There have been times, when I used to sit in the gallery above, when I wondered why the people of Canada, looking down upon the proceedings in this House, did not
[Mr. Corriveau.l
delegate a body of people to rush down here and burn the place to the ground with all of us in it. I was left to wonder about that again just a few minutes ago as I listened to the 20 minutes of the concentrated puerility that we heard from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). It was fatuous, supercilious and contemptible. It demonstrated for still another time, as though we needed another demonstration of it, this government's airy disregard for the problems of Canadian citizens.
I was particularly interested, during the course of that speech, in the hon. member's reference to the Speech from the Throne which he described-I believe I quote his correctly-as a blueprint for the future. One of the recommendations in the Speech from the Throne which is going to be offered up to the members of this House for their approval is the introduction of television cameras into this chamber so that the people of Canada can see what goes on here.
I say to him that he and his colleagues on that side of the House are fortunate the cameras are not already installed, and that the people of Canada have not been treated to his performance and to that of his Prime Minister during the last few days in the House. Mr. Speaker, if they had seen the performance of this government, if they had seen the demonstrable lack of concern for their problems evinced at every turn by those gentlemen and ladies, those same ladies and gentlemen would not have time to sit around in this House; they would be too busy elsewhere, answering their protest mail and telephones.
I do not know whether striking out Senate participation in the proposed committee will make much difference, or whether it will make any difference if the committee reports in two months or three months. But I believe one thing is certain-whatever the make-up of the committee, and whatever time it takes to produce either an interim or a final report, it will bring no relief at all to the people of Canada. It will not bring any good news to the old people who find it difficult to live in a reasonable measure of comfort on their inadequate pensions. Its deliberations and findings will not mean relief for the working poor whose tiny incomes and negligible bargaining power make them the natural victims of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this committee will accomplish anything of value; in the historical context it would be unreasonable to expect that. Within the past few years we have had commissions, both royal and common, Senate committees, Commons committees and task forces on dozens of vital national questions; but the action which flowed from all that effort and expenditure of public money, could it be harnessed and converted into energy, would barely provide enough power to light this chamber for an afternoon.
We had a commission on the status of women, but the status of women has not changed. We had a Senate committee on poverty, but the poor have grown in number and diminished in the public consciousness since the committee reported. Everyone agreed that poverty was a national disgrace and that something should be done, but this kind of response could have been elicited before a
January 19, 1973

committee was struck and goodness knows how many millions of dollars spent to make a finding of the obvious.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a poem by a British humourist which goes as follows:
I saw an old man in the park
I asked the old man why
He watched the lovers after dark
And this was his strange reply
I am the royal commission on kissing
Appointed by Gladstone in '74
All of my colleagues are buried or missing
And our records were lost in the last Great War
But still I'm a royal commission
And my task I intend to see through
Tho I know, as an old politician,
Not a thing will be done if I do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I cannot seriously entertain the belief that there is one member of this House so naive as to think that this committee will accomplish one meaningful thing. Even all the joyful whooping and hollering on this side of the House last night had a hollow ring to it. It was about as meaningful to the people who suffer inflation as though this House had found that 15 rather than 30 angels could dance upon the head of a pin. Establishing committees such as this is little more than a device for fooling the people and distracting their attention from the fact that they are being victimized, in my view. It is an attempt to persuade them that their Members of Parliament really care about their plight and intend to set things right. In my view, and on the record, nothing could be very much further from the truth.
In 1969, this government announced that inflation had become the most serious problem facing this country and that it proposed to do something about it. Very shortly it became obvious what that was. Using the old generalist economic approach, the idea that some kind of mix between fiscal jiggery-pokery and monetary meddling could fix things, they embarked upon a deliberate attempt to create unemployment in order that the age-old economic prophecy would be fulfilled and we would have less inflation.
When President Nixon took office in 1969 he called it fine-tuning the economy. One prominent economist replied that he might as well talk about fine-tuning the flood on the Mississippi River: it made about as much sense. There was another prophecy in 1969. It was made in the sixth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. At page 163 of the report this statement appears: In Canada, it is difficult to maintain that current inflation is a reflection of excessive demand pressures, for the Canadian economy has been operating with at least a moderate over-all margin of slack since 1967. On the other hand, in the United States the problem of price and cost inflation has been very much one of excessive demand, aggravated by the impact on the economy of the war in Viet Nam. Until some easing of price and cost increases takes place in the United States, Canadian policies to deal with domestic price and cost problems will be handicapped.
Here comes the most relevant sentence of all, Mr. Speaker.
Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably result
Food Prices Committee
simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada and its chairman, Arthur Smith, was saying to the Prime Minister and his colleagues, "Don't do it-don't do what you say you are going to do because it will not cure the ills we are facing; it will not cure the ill of inflation and will only cause harmful and high unemployment in Canada". But that is precisely what happened, Mr. Speaker, and we are still paying the price for it.
Many times since, when the government has been berated for its failures in the field of economic forecasting, the response has been that this problem is so complex that no one could come up with the right answers. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that Arthur Smith was right and the Economic Council was right. For his pains, Mr. Smith was banished, and no attention has been paid to the Council since. Mr. Smith and the Council told the emperor that he had no clothes on, and so they had to go.
This morning the Prime Minister said that his policy was price and wage controls if necessary, but not necessarily price and wage controls. Fancy that, Mr. Speaker: from philosopher king to Mackenzie King in two weeks,


Otto Emil Lang: He said that was your leader's policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He said it was his too.


Peter Reilly: My leader would not steal from Mackenzie King; he has better precedents than that.


Mr. Foster:: You are lucky to have an entertainer over there.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to review the bare bones of the inflationary picture as it has developed since this government took office. Between 1968 and 1972 the cost of living, over-all, has gone up by 20 per cent. To the wage earner in this country that means that what cost a dollar in 1968 now costs $1.20. Shelter has increased by 27.4 per cent in the past three years, food by 18.2 per cent, clothing by 10 per cent and health care by 17 per cent. Those are basic items, not fripperies, extravagances or self-indulgences. The plain and tragic fact is that there are many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who cannot afford them.
I had a telephone call from a constituent of mine, a man in his late sixties living with his wife on a pension. They pay nearly half their income for rent, and when all their essentials are taken care of they have less than $20 a week for food, clothes, transportation and whatever wild extravagances they can put their minds to when these needs have been exhausted. That man was nearly in tears on the telephone, Mr. Speaker, and it was not good to have to sit there in my beautifully appointed office, drawing $26,000 from the public purse, and listen to one of my fellow men, one of my neighbours, one of the many millions of people who put their trust, I hope, in me and in the other members of the House in the hope and belief that we would care for them and solve problems that they cannot solve, that they are powerless to solve. That was the most distressing incident I had to cope with since the

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
House began to sit, but that was not the only time I had that kind of call.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member. If he would like to rise to his feet, I will yield the floor to him.


An hon. Member:: Get on with your speech.


Peter Reilly: The hon. member will need to speak louder.


An hon. Member:: Get on with your speech.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, what I want to know from the government or any member is, what do you tell these people? What do you tell them, while we sit around here boring the people in the galleries rigid with irrelevancies, diatribes and lectures. What the people want, need to know and have a palpable right to know is what precisely we intend to do about those problems that they cannot solve.
Prices have increased by 20 per cent in four years. Have pensions risen 20 per cent in four years? No, they have not. Have unemployment insurance benefits gone up by 20 per cent in four years? Has the minimum wage gone up by 20 per cent in four years? The only pensions on retirement, or welfare benefits if you care to call them that, that have gone up are the pensions members of this House are entitled to if they manage to hang on here for six years. We have not done very much for the people who cannot help themselves in this country, and I think it is about time we got around to doing just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, as the economist Galbraith once put it, "Men of conservative temperament have long suspected that one thing follows the other." Nowhere, in my submission, is this proven better than in the field of economics. We have tried to hold inflation down by the tried and true method of setting it off against employment. That, for a variety of reasons, has failed. We have tried persuading management and unions to agree voluntarily to hold down wages and prices, and that course has failed.
The choices have dwindled to the point where in my opinion two are left. We can pursue the careless course we have followed, the course that shows disdain for the real problems affecting hundreds of thousands of citizens in this country, we can continue to plan for a country in which inflation is rampant and in which poverty is an equally predictable concomitant of it, a country in which people will never have a chance to dig themselves out of the mess we have made for them, or we can follow another course: we can attempt to regulate wages and prices. I am not talking here about guidelines or persuasion; those have been tried.


An hon. Member:: What about other incomes, including ours?
[Mr. Reiily?


Peter Reilly: I would agree with an income freeze right now. I would not have sat in the last parliament and legislated such an increase for myself if I had been here as a member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member certainly was not here.


An hon. Member:: But his colleagues were.


Peter Reilly: If hon. members from the party which pretends to speak for the weak, the old and the poor mean to denigrate the things I have been saying with that kind of cheap, juvenile barracking, let them go ahead. I hope their remarks are on Hansard, and I hope it is recorded that they were made by members of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: This is not a television game.


Peter Reilly: It is marvellous to hear this kind of thing. I only regret that more of the people of Canada are not here to listen to the high level of debate practiced by the party to my left which thinks itself an intellectual party.


An hon. Member:: You are not on television.


Peter Reilly: Neither are you. As I said to the people across the aisle a few minutes ago, it is a good thing the hon. member is not on television.
It has been said that wage and price controls would hamper the operation of the free market. I do not believe that to be true, because the market in those areas which have a bearing on inflation is not free anyway. Prices and wages are fixed by powerful corporations and powerful unions; there is very little free movement in those areas that really affect the people of Canada. I believe that the public of Canada deserves a place in the councils of those organizations if we are to make certain that the public interest will be served when those in lofty positions make a move.
There is no need for me to become involved in the area of farm prices or small manufacturing prices, Mr. Speaker, because these, as nearly as I can determine, are regulated by the market and there is no need to interfere with it. The only place where we need to impose regulations is in that area where powerful corporations and powerful unions now make the rules. Perhaps we might include certain essential areas such as rent controls. Those controls need to be imposed, perhaps only temporarily, until we can determine how to bring those factors more into line with the incomes of so many thousands of Canadians who are not making- it now. Those prices need to be frozen.
I think there is no doubt that the people who are suffering under rampant inflation want controls. They do not want guidelines or voluntary restraints that penalize those who co-operate and reward those who refuse to co-operate. They want firm, mandatory controls which will make certain that those on fixed incomes, the working poor and the unemployed, will be rescued from the relentless exploitation of the rich and powerful and selfish people of this country.
If this government and this House of Commons truly understands its responsibility to the people of this coun-

try, if hon. members have the vaguest understanding of the problems that bear so heavily on so many hundreds of thousands of unfortunate Canadian citizens, they will somehow summon the courage to take the drastic step. The government does not have that courage now.
There is still a chance for members to go out into the boondocks and see how real people live. Then they will move at once to consider price and wage controls, and impose them-because, Mr. Speaker, this move is no longer a debating point for an economics class: it is a very urgent need. We must help those who cannot help themselves. We, the members of this House, can help the people if we will. In my submission, we will not be helping the people through the mechanism of this committee, no matter when it reports.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the introductory efforts which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) made the other day. His first three attempts to be recognized and gain the floor of this House were not very successful; he fell flat on his face.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish food prices would fall flat on their face.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He was certainly prominent before coming to this House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Which people fell flat on their faces last night?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will have something to say about that later, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell us now.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am mentioning the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham at this time for this reason. He and his former colleagues in the Ontario government were so interested in serving the needs of the people on the hustings that they could not even maintain or build a bridge across the Petawawa River so that 12,000 people could reach the shopping plaza and buy food, no matter what its price was. They could not reach the bargains at the shopping plaza; and the hon. member was one of the super-ministers in the Ontario government at that time, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What about northern Ontario? Was he responsible there, too?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: One thing-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The party opposite was not very successful against the hon. member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am interested in seeing one thing, Mr. Speaker. I come from rural Ontario. I do not want to see farming communities of this country crucified for the sake of political gain. The cost of operating a farm today is very high, and the farmers must have a fair return for the risks they take.
Food Prices Committee
Another extremely important matter-I am not sure whether it has been mentioned in this debate-is freight rates. For those who live some distance from the large urban markets, freight rates are very important when considering food prices. For example, farmers throughout eastern Ontario raise a lot of beef and hogs. They not only face the freight costs of shipping the animals to the slaughter-houses but they are faced with the cost of bringing the product back to the local market. For this reason, I compliment the government for including the matter of freight rates in the Speech from the Throne.
Anyone who wants to check former speeches I have delivered in this House will find that time and again I raised the question of freight rates not only on food but on manufactured goods. We must also consider the processing industry. A study of freight rates in Canada will also be of importance to the developing economy in this country. Whether it be food processing plants or any other type of industry, it is as important to this country to have equalized and fair freight rates for all areas of Canada as it is to have a regional development program. When I speak of food processing, I refer to fish in the Maritimes, wheat in the west, mixed farming in Ontario and the various plants which deal with these types of products. If we take a serious look at freight rates along with an investigation into food prices, we will be hitting the whole problem of food costs with a double-barrelled shotgun rather than with pellets travelling in various directions.
Many people criticize all outlets, from the foodliners to the small corner stores, for the high cost of food. I think it is fair to say that many retail outlets operate on a very small percentage of profit. I hope the committee will study all areas of this problem, including the farmers, the consumer making his purchases in the foodliners, and other food middlemen across Canada. We cannot permit the rumour to be spread, as it often is, that the farmer has it made. The farmer today works far longer hours than the average citizen in this country in order to keep his operation going. It is his business. His money is involved and he has deadlines and payments to meet.
I have spent a considerable amount of time in sessions of committees of this House. I think it is extremely important that the make-up of the proposed committee include a fair representation of people from all walks of life and all interests. We do not want a committee representing only one or two views. The same is true with regard to witnesses who will appear before the committee. When the steering committee decides who should appear before the committee, they should call for a good cross-section of people-the producer, the middleman and the retailer. Also, people involved in transporting food throughout Canada should be invited to appear before the committee in order to deal with transportation costs.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What about consumers?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Without this guideline, it will be impossible to get a clear picture. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has served on many committees of this House, some of which I have chaired. I have very high regard for her conduct and what she has to offer. I heard her mention the word "consumers." Cer-

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
tainly, consumers' organizations should appear before the committee. What I am trying to say is that all groups should be represented. We should not merely load the gun in committee and then come back into this House with a report that is not viable.
The committee will be made up of members from all sides of this House. Because of our present make-up and the party system in this House, every member who serves on the committee should be sincere and dedicated. Hon. members should be interested in bringing a fair report to this House which will be in the interests of the consumer, the producer and all others involved in the food industry.
In my opening remarks I referred to the fact that farmers must pay for shipping their animals or food products to markets where they are processed and then returned. I think it important that we have regional slaughter-houses instead of shipping hogs, sheep and cattle to large centres where the industry is tied up in a few very large conglomerates. I think the committee should make an in-depth study of this aspect of the problem.
Another way to protect the farmer is to examine what has happened during the past 12 months. In eastern Ontario, stretching through to North Bay, there was a very serious wet weather problem and many farmers lost their year's crop. They are faced with additional expenditures this winter in order to bring their herds through the winter months.


Walter David Baker: The government did not do very much to help them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The government gave them assistance. This was done here in Ottawa on the initiative of a number of members of the Liberal caucus on that day.


Walter David Baker: Why weren't they returned?


Mr. Clermont:: I was one of them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am here today. I have travelled from farm to farm with delegates visiting these farmers, not only in my riding but elsewhere. We did receive some input and I would be willing to supply the hon. member with letters I received from satisfied farmers in the area. Those letters are one indication why I am back, contrary to what the hon. member across the way said a moment ago.
The chairman of this special committee must be a good diplomat, a fair-minded person who will have to know all the rules and operations of a committee. I think it will behove every member of the committee to try to give him respect in return for his or her fair play, just as it behooves us to give the same respect to the Chair in this House under similar circumstances.
The study of food prices in Canada will undoubtedly greatly be affected by what is happening in many Asian countries today. Right from the time western Canada started producing No. 1 wheat we have heard it said that Canada is the breadbasket of the world. Some nations of the world will obviously face great difficulty in the immediate years ahead. Surely there should be some international agency more effective than any to date

which will provide, on a multinational level, funds for the production of food to help these needy nations over their difficult times. We cannot expect the farmers of Canada to produce food that is to be given away, with no return to them on their cost of transportation and operation within Canada as a whole.
As a nation highly respected in the eyes of the world, we have a responsibility to help nations that are in difficulty and this we have done over the years. In comparison with other nations of the world, I think Canada, by and large, has a pretty good record of being our brother's keeper. If we are to be sincere in our international relations and if other nations want to be sincere with us, we must find ways and means at the international level of getting food to areas in need, at least if we have any Christian, Hebrew or other ethics left in this country. And they are here, despite all the pessimistic views expressed about churches today.
In closing, I congratulate the government for bringing forward this motion. At the same time, I emphasize how important it is that the committee operates efficiently. Secondly, all elements of the food industry should be able to make representations to the committee. Thirdly, the cost of distributing food throughout Canada must be examined carefully. Lastly, we must bring back a report to the House that is not only logical and credible in the eyes of the House but also in the eyes of the Canadian people at large. Having brought back that report to the House, I know that the government will be prepared to consider it in all seriousness, as I am sure will all members of the House. Let us keep our eye on the basic interests of John Q. Public, not on John Jones, MP and on what we might gain in a cheap manner through political action.
I have many friends on both sides of this House, Mr. Speaker. When the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the throne speech spoke the other day, they reminded me of some words that I used in my maiden speech in this House-that if we can lay aside personalities, say the things to one another that we have to say and then walk out of the House as friends prepared to come back the next day and work constructively for the nation, then we can make this parliament work. We will be able to produce a good report on food costs, and if we give it a fair chance we will have probably one of the most effective committees in this twenty-ninth parliament.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of humility that I come to this House. The county of Peel and the riding of Peel South are once again represented properly by members on this side of the House in this party. The county of Peel is again happy and proud to be represented by a party that has been charged with greatness in the past. I have not had the chance to speak before in this House, so may I first of all congratulate you, Sir, on your election as Deputy Speaker, as well as the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lamou-reux) on his election as Speaker of the House.
A lot has been said in this debate, and I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) that perhaps we are spending too much time talking rather than getting down to business. I should like to use some of my time to
January 19, 1973

thank Mr. Alistair Fraser, the Clerk of the House, for the assistance he has given me as a new member.
Some months ago all of us here walked around our ridings, knocking on doors and hearing continual complaints about the price of a jar of coffee, a can of peas, a jar of Cheez-Whiz to make a sandwich for the kids' lunch, to say nothing of the cost of a pound of hamburger and other meat. The people of this country are pretty darned concerned about the prices they are having to pay for food and groceries, the necessities of life. If this government does not take more legislative action to deal with the rising cost of living in this country, and do so very quickly, I am sure the people will tell the government, more seriously than they did on October 30, what they think of it at the next election.
There is really no need for a protracted debate on the matter of setting up a committee to inquire into food prices. We have all been around and know pretty much what the problem is. We have had enough royal commissions and committee studies; but if we are to have another committee, let me say a few words about what that committee should explore.
A great deal has been said about farmers. Unfortunately, in my riding there is no longer any farmland; it has all been used for housing lots. As a lawyer, I have dealt with farmers for a long time and I say this to members of this House: I know of no business or industry which uses so much capital and labour for so little return. It is no wonder that the sons of farmers are leaving the farm to drive trucks and work in factories, and it is no wonder that some of the best agricultural land in Ontario lies fallow, growing weeds and producing no food.
No one can accuse those who produce farm products, in this province in particular, of creating the high price of food at the grocery store level. This committee inquiry must treat the words "price" and "food" in their broadest sense. The inquiry should consider all those things that are necessities of life, including shelter, clothing, services and, indeed, all costs to consumers.
I was amazed at the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) when she asked, "What about consumers?" Every member of this House, every person in the galleries-in fact everyone-is a consumer. What we must consider is the cost of production and the price of food. The hon. member for York South Mr. Lewis; and his gang are often yelling and talking about the extortionate prices which supermarkets charge. Every indication I have is that the profit of supermarkets is less than 1 per cent of gross turnover. Let me remind hon. members of this House that if the price of an article was $1 and the profit was reduced by 1 cent, the market would just break even. If the price was reduced by 2 cents, the retailer would go broke.
We have had enough business failures in this country and we must consider why some of them have occurred. Perhaps some of these failures are the result of our cost-price structure. Some have said they should be blamed on labour. My inquiries would indicate that this is a highly labour-intensive industry and that most of the people are not well paid. Grocery store clerks, the people who move
Food Prices Committee
the produce and others in this industry are not well paid or wealthy, yet this is a highly labour-intensive industry. Every small pay increase is immediately reflected by an increase in price.
I think we must look deeper than the cost of labour, the cost of farming, the cost of distribution and transportation. We must consider the cost of incompetence on the part of the government which sits opposite. This government has saddled the Canadian people with incompetence which is reflected in the price the people must pay for everything they purchase.
During the election campaign I travelled throughout my constituency and talked to a number of operators of small businesses, as I am sure all hon. members did in their ridings. I am sure most hon. members have seen the statistical forms sent out to businessmen with a demand that they be completed and returned, or else. The cost of these forms, the red tape and the time involved is added to the overhead and passed on to the consumer. If the committee ever gets started, it should inquire into this type of cost because it also drives up prices.
There is a company in a neighbouring riding named Maple Lodge Farms. It is involved in processing chickens. A short time ago a health inspector closed down this operation because of a small dispute with management. The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill) went to work on the matter and managed to get the plant back in operation within two hours. In the meantime 250 people stood around doing nothing while production in the plant was held up. There was nothing actually wrong and the issue involved only interference by a bureaucratic inspector. This is the kind of interference businessmen in this country face today. As long as this type of interference by this and other governments continues, prices will increase, because if a man is to stay in business he must pass the cost of interference and control on to consumers in the cost of production.
This government has interfered in another way. Less than a year ago it authorized the slaughter of a large number of chickens in order to increase the price of eggs. This is the kind of action that creates an increase in food costs. Only two years ago this government told the farmers of this country not to plant wheat and said it would pay them to reduce wheat acreage. How much government interference of this kind can the business community or the economy stand? This is the type of thing that continues to force prices up; I refer to inefficiency and bad decisions. If this committee inquires into the cost of interference by government in the business sector, it may do some good.
Another matter which is more dramatic than wages in relation to food prices is the government's vested interest in inflation, in terms of income tax. We have 5 per cent inflation today. Does the consumer need 5 cents extra on the dollar in order to pay the increased cost? I suggest the consumer must have at least 7 cents or 8 cents more, because of rapidly accelerating income taxes. The consumer needs this extra money just to stay even. This government continues to collect income tax on the basis of a vested interest in inflation, yet its members stand here in the House and suggest we should have an inquiry into prices. This matter was clearly discussed by the

January 19, 1973
Food Prices Committee
Leader of the Opposition iMr. Stanfield; in May, yet nothing has been said in the Speech from the Throne and nothing has been proposed to date to reduce the vested interest of this government in inflation.
It is easy for all parties to attack someone else. It is easy for the New Democratic Party to accuse the corporations. It is easy for us who live in the cities to say that the farmers, the producers or the transport people are responsible. It is easy for us to blame the developers for the high cost of rent. What this House must do, however, is look at itself and some of the legislation it has passed, as well as some of the red tape and regulations which have been created, and the effect this has on prices.
I suggest we should look at the incompetent government we have on the other side of this House. We have personal income taxes which start at 20 per cent and increase to 60 per cent or so. We have corporate taxes of 50 per cent or more. This government takes 20 per cent of the gross national product, and all other governments together increase that percentage to 37 per cent or 38 per cent. It is no wonder that those Canadians who rake asphalt for a living or serve in stores, as well as other Canadians, do not have sufficient money with which to buy the goods they require.
We must also inquire into the work ethic situation in respect of unemployment insurance and the welfare system in this country. The cost of welfare, the cost of payouts and handouts are all passed on in the tax system. All these costs add tremendously to the prices which must be paid. I do not say for a moment that we do not need to look into this aspect, because we do. We must look into the situation of the elderly people, the sick and the disabled in our community. We must realize, however, that the welfare system and the attack on prices does not require a commission or a committee in order to accomplish this.
In reference to the question of time, an amendment has been moved to the effect that this committee report in three months. A subamendment has been moved that an interim report be filed in 60 days. I do not know what the committee and its reports will establish, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is one of urgency. This debate has been carried on and on. I suggest that it be terminated next Monday at the latest and that the committee be forthwith appointed.
I would be delighted if the committee, as suggested by the New Democratic Party, could report in 60 days. We had the slogan "60 days of decision" by a previous Liberal government but I am not sure that those 60 days of decision produced anything. So while I am quite prepared to vote on the basis of a report in 60 days, I suggest that it should be a final report and that this House and the government get on with producing legislation which will solve the urgent economic problems of this country.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my remarks perhaps I should say I listened with a tremendous amount of interest to the comments of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) who just resumed his seat. He made some valid points which I believe deserve looking into, one concerning the tons and

tons of paper which Statistics Canada, or whoever is responsible, sends out to businessmen, which must be filled out and read but then is made little use of.
Incidentally, this is a situation which almost reached a peak during the time the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister. So be it; it is a valid point. This is an harassment particularly of small businessmen. If we can do anything to eliminate that problem we will be making a contribution at least in respect of making life easier for small businessmen. Quite frankly, I do not think it will have any effect on the price of food. I do not believe the hon. member thought it would; it was window-dressing on his part. But it will ease the burden of the businessman.
I also have some comments which I was enticed to make in respect of the speech, if I can call it that in polite terms, of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly);but inasmuch as he is like a hit-and-run driver, or slightly like a vulture who leaves his carrion and his droppings, and has left the chamber, I will wait until Monday in the hope that he will be here to listen to what I have to say concerning his attitude in this matter.
I see that you are becoming restless in the chair, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if you are inclined to call it four o'clock. If so, I shall accede to your wishes in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the government consider the advisability of establishing a ministry of state to formulate new and comprehensive policies in relation to youth affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at last to have an opportunity to make some representations on behalf of the people in my district and the country. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my private member's notice of motion which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the government consider the advisability of establishing a ministry of state to formulate new and comprehensive policies in relation to youth affairs.
To my mind, governments have been groping in the dark about the problems in our country. We continue to react to emergencies that exist and then introduce ad hoc programs to try and combat the particular problems which exist. It is interesting to note that we have in this
January 19, 1973

country five million poverty-stricken Canadians out of a total of 22 million. Many of them are children.
Here we are, in the year 1973, with problems which governments have not been able to cope with over the years and only grant more money to try to stop the cancer of poverty and sickness which keeps growing in spite of the efforts of governments to stop it. We keep reading and hearing every day about our inability to cope with the cost of medical services, and the experts cannot find a way to cope with these increased costs. We pour millions of dollars into studies to find out why people are getting cancer; studies on mental health problems, studies on nutrition, studies on the use of drugs.
We debate here in the House of Commons, in embarrassment, the problems of national unity, and we are at a stage today where the senior citizens of our country cannot cope with the cost of living. We have citizens in our country who in their later years cannot cope with society because of lack of education or because of the deterioration of their bodies. We are wondering why teenagers are reacting to the establishment, the supposed experts who are supposed to have all the answers about the future of our country. But we have failed miserably and are now at the stage where we must try to cure the ills with stopgap measures which are only temporary preventatives.
The problem is that we as legislators cannot see the forest for the trees. We are trying, through political bumbling, to direct efforts to ease the burden by an approach which will never solve the problem because we do not get to the source of the problem. To my mind, the answer is to concentrate our efforts toward our youth. We will never do it by creating programs with fancy names such as we have in our Department of National Health and Welfare- programs like Recreation Canada, Sports Canada, Hockey Canada, or by directing funds to create a few teams which will win championships. Neither will we do it by creating a few athletes who happen to have had the advantage of having the facilities provided because of political patronage. The answer is in youth development, the true development of the bodies of all our youth, whether they live in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or in the smallest hamlet in rural Canada.
It is a wonder to me why we seem to have such a hangup about becoming champions. I wonder what benefits have been derived from winning, for example, Olympic gold medals, and then we wonder why we cannot win a medal in spite of all the funds that are poured in. What have the great Olympic games proved over the years? To my mind, they proved in Germany last year that the competing countries of the world have no other objective in sending their athletes to the Olympic games, which are supposed to cement world unity, peace and understanding, than selfish, narrow aims. What did we accomplish in Germany other than the fact that some people of warped minds were able to ruin the games by the massacre of innocent athletes?
The answer, I say again, is youth development in Canada; it is to direct our efforts to the development of the bodies of our youngsters at primary school age. The answer is to provide a program to satisfy every child in
Youth Affairs
our country, whether he lives in the largest city which provides many advantages or in the smallest hamlet where these advantages are all too few.
There is no one here more interested in the education of our youth than I am, but there is more to education than improvement of the mind. We must at the same time and coincidentally try to improve the development of the bodies of our children through a co-ordinated effort in education programs-to improve minds and bodies alike, not to create hockey champions or track champions to compete for the sole purpose of winning medals. We should direct our activities toward a co-ordinated effort to produce more healthy Canadian citizens for the good of the country.
The answer lies in creating a ministry of state for youth affairs to co-ordinate and direct an effort with the provinces to set up a youth program which would achieve the objective of developing better and healthier Canadian citizens. Under this ministry we could provide the leadership and the guidance that is necessary for all our youth, not only in direct sports but in physical fitness. We must teach the child teamwork, give him leadership training and teach him comradeship. We must let the child follow his natural instincts and prove his leadership qualities, instead of being left in the background because he does not have the attributes of the hockey player.
The future of our country lies in our youth, but we will not correct the problems of our youth by stopgap measures. We must get to the source of the problem. We must provide leadership and guidance to the youth at primary school age by a program designed to develop each individual's attributes toward his greater pride and distinction and, most important, make him feel that he is contributing as much as his comrades who have greater advantages.
Heretofore, Mr. Speaker, our program was narrow and downright stupid. Instead of using our common sense we have been listening to the supposed experts in the sports world who could not care less about our youth and our country other than to write a controversial column in the sports pages for their own selfish aims. They have all the answers because they are charged with the responsibility of preparing a sports column, but it is obvious, to me at least, that they could not care less what happens to the vast majority of the youth of our country.
There was no one more proud than I when Team Canada struggled to victory over Russia in the hockey series last year. But what did we accomplish other than the false pride of those few with advantages, while those who cheered in every nook and cranny of our country are suffering due to the lack of foresight of the leaders of our country in developing all of our youth rather than a chosen few.
I was dismayed last year when one of the best programs in physical fitness for youth, sponsored by the Canadian Legion, was discontinued by the federal government because of lack of finances. I was still more amazed at the fact that the Canadian Legion accepted the decision of the Department of National Health and Welfare to discontinue contributions. The discontinuance of this program is another example of the stupidity of our experts who seem to think that they know what is right for our country.

January 19, 1973
Youth Affairs
All provinces have departments concerned with correcting the problems of the youth of our country. Constitutionally, it is incumbent on the central government of Canada to co-ordinate these efforts by participating in discussions and negotiations with the provinces, and in particular those provincial departments which are concerned with youth programs, in particular employment of older youths and the development of other policies for the betterment of our youth.
A program should be designed, under a new federal department of youth affairs, to ensure that in future years our country will produce better citizens, so that we will not face the problems which we are facing today concerning the aged, the poor, the blind, the sick and the maimed. Programs concerned with aiding these poor people are poorly administered because those who are in charge of them have only their own selfish interests at heart.
If we create this ministry, we will be developing a healthy individual who is able to take his place in our country and in our society and is able to take advantage of the opportunities that are offered him. If we create this department, we will not be faced with the problems with which we are faced today. In the future, our senior citizens will not have to ask the government for assistance and will not have to cope with health costs, but will live in comfort as participants in our great country.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, for a parliamentarian, one of the best opportunities of realizing the importance of his office is no doubt when he has the opportunity, like I have today, of expressing in the House opinions and views on current topics.
Mr. Speaker, far from me the thought of suggesting that my remarks will have the importance and quality they ought to have. They come however from a Canadian who is deeply convinced that tomorrow's problems will be solved with the co-operation of all those who believe in a better Canada where all Canadians, regardless of their age, will have attained a proper standard of living.
When in addition to being a Member of Parliament, the speaker has the opportunity, through circumstances much more than because of his competence, of playing a rather important part in the government of his country, he is aware of the importance and seriousness of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister did me the honour of appointing me Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), I felt quite unworthy considering the ability required from the holder of such an important office. I accepted, Mr. Speaker, counting mainly on the indulgence of my colleagues and being impressed by the person chosen as Secretary of State.
I did not know, Mr. Speaker, that I would be delivering this speech in the presence of the minister. I would not want my words to be construed as the expression of a wish to replace him. On the contrary. I believe he has the talent and, should I say, fortunately or unfortunately for those who wish to replace him, the youth and the compe-

tence to remain in his position as long, of course, as we have the confidence of the House and the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to take part in this debate on a subject which has been and will always be of prime importance for me. For many years already I have had the opportunity of taking part on a somewhat intensive scale in young people's activities in the Chambers of Commerce, Richelieu Clubs and youth associations, so I have been in a good position to understand young people's problems, their anxiety and their hopes. I am not one of those, and may God preserve me from ever being one, who are satisfied with making general judgments on young people and condemning them. I know, for having been young myself, that young people do not always fulfill the hopes we place in them. But there is nevertheless hope in that youth, hope which we must, not only as a government, but also as parliamentarians of any political association, channel, use and orient towards the best interest of our country.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of fairly numerous responsibilities, the Department of the Secretary of State devotes quite a lot of attention to that field. I believe I can say on behalf of my government, that it is not by showing a lack of understanding towards the young, by trying to isolate them from the world of today that we will solve their problems. The problems of they young are our problems. Their aspirations are those of people like us. The wishes of the young are those of people of all ages, of citizens of all categories who wish to live in a society that can give them the comfort, the happiness and the security to which we are all entitled.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, it would be a mistake-and I do not believe the government is willing to make that mistake-to accept that the young be isolated, that they not be considered as part of our society. With all due respect for my hon. friend who spoke before me, and whom I congratulate on the tone of his remarks, which were not agressive but constructive, I am not willing to accept his solution as being appropriate, even though I do agree with his remarks which did contain some elements of truth and some constructive suggestions, and which at the right moment will inspire us.
Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State was really and sincerely anxious to meet the needs of our young people, it established a committee a few years ago. As parliamentarians, we are often blamed for sitting on too many committees and doing too little. That committee on youth created a few years ago worked steadily I believe in an attempt to represent the wishes, needs and yearnings of our young people. As most hon. members know, its report was submitted to the Secretary of State and it will no doubt be the basis of a policy which we will submit to this House.
It is rather important to emphasize that the report, which was prepared by young people, is clear; the comments from those young people should bring enough pressure to bear on the government to guide its policy. The young people themselves were absolutely against the creation of a ministry of youth, the immediate or far-reaching result of which would have been to isolate them from the
January 19, 1973

present and future society in which they want to participate fully.
And I can only rejoice at this firm response from the young people who, despite their uncertainties and problems, are willing to participate fully in our society of tomorrow and to contribute in a constructive way to the evolution towards which our efforts should lead and which will provide them, as well as other Canadian people, with the welfare they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, apart from that committee which was created and to which I just referred, we had the opportunity during this week, thanks to the initiative of a minister who was called to office only recently, to learn about measures that were not entirely new but improved, and which affect all young Canadian people. You have undoubtedly heard, Mr. Speaker, the statement made this week about some programs in which the government has invested and will invest $85 million this year in order to enable young people not only to earn money to carry on their studies but also to take active part in the improvement of various community services.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the policies which we devised this week will meet all the needs and aspirations of young Canadians, because this has never been achieved and never will be. But the important thing is that governments are trying to find practical, viable and effective solutions so that young people, instead of feeling isolated, instead of feeling rejected by our society, may realize they can play a genuine role that not only would improve the society in which they live but also would provide them with an opportunity to experiment and to earn some money for their education.
Mr. Speaker, among these programs, the most prestigious,-if I may use this expression-is the Opportunities for Youth program. It may be interesting to recall that this idea, which was put forward two years ago already, is unique in the world. This year we have tried to make correction to it in the light of suggestions made by the people a few months ago. I hasten to add that the improvement of the Opportunities for Youth program will not meet with the approval of all citizens. But as a government we are prepared to meet-and that is our duty-the challenge of facing the problems of youth, and I think that we are in a position, in co-operation with all our colleagues in this House, to bring solutions which reflect the confidence that young people entertain toward Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, this policy of Opportunities for Youth is becoming so interesting-and I do not believe that I am betraying a secret by saying so-that people from the United States, Australia and Europe have inquired regarding our way of proceeding because they became interested in this new formula under which some 67,000 young Canadians will have, one way or another, the opportunity to take part in the improvement of our community.
It is obvious that the Opportunities for Youth program, for which $40 million will be earmarked this year, is part of a comprehensive program providing, for example, employment in the civil service. Out of this budget of $85 million which I mentioned earlier, $30 million will be allotted to hire young people for civil service jobs.
Youth Affairs
We were once blamed because the work of those young people was not always satisfactory. This year, we shall try to avoid such comments which are sometimes justified. That is why, instead of instructing the Public Service Commission to hire a certain number of students, we have asked the commission to define its needs. As a result of that assessment, the public service will perhaps be employing a smaller number of students, but on the other hand they will be performing more efficient, more positive work.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it has been possible to devote $5 million more than last year to the Opportunities for Youth program which, incidentally, according to the evaluation of the Treasury Board, has been recognized as being the most efficient and productive of all the summer programs for young people.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that what should be retained from a speech like mine is that we want to impress the people of Canada and our colleagues with the fact that we, as a government, are prepared to recognize our mistakes, to face challenges and to work with all parties, and with the people as a whole in the interest of really integrating young people into our future society and in order that those who will be called upon to replace us may start their preparation and training right away for their leadership role. We have confidence in our youth, Mr. Speaker, a confidence shared, I am sure, by the people of Canada.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). When I first read his private members' notice of motion I thought his proposal was more comprehensive than his detailed explanation suggested. According to his motion, he wants the government to consider the advisability of establishing a ministry of state to formulate new and comprehensive policies in relation to youth affairs. When describing the ministry of state that he wished to see set up, he tended to concentrate more on sports, on the development of the bodies of young people, on the development of healthy Canadian citizens, and he seemed to put the emphasis on the primary school level.
I think his motion has merit, but needs expanding. May I give a few reasons for my opinion. My background, before becoming a member of this House, was that of a high school teacher. I was greatly concerned about the increasing disillusionment on the part of many young people, especially my senior students. I would see many of them walking the streets after they had graduated from grade 13, and would be puzzled as to why students of such ability and intelligence had not gone on to university. They would say to me, "What is the use?" They became disillusioned over their prospects of finding a job and their future prospects in a country governed by Liberal and Conservative governments which seemed to do little to alleviate unemployment. This alarmed me, because I can think of no more dangerous or frightening prospect for our country than that of our young people becoming disillusioned.

January 19, 1973
Youth Affairs
I think the government began to realize this back in 1967. In that summer we began to witness the phenomenon of alienated youth. We saw thousands of young people forsaking their traditional role of working, and hitchhiking, instead, across the country. Also, the public became aware of the increasing incidence of drug use. In 1967 and in following years we saw college disturbances. There were riots in United States colleges and at Sir George Williams University in Canada. Learned gentlemen in the press and through the media spoke of the generation gap. We heard this often.
People began to wonder what was happening to young people who embarked on the new lifestyle and harboured new attitudes toward pollution. The government became worried. I would like to think it became worried out of a sense of genuine concern for young people. Perhaps there may have been concern on the part of some hon. members, but there was also the fear of social unrest. So something was done to placate these young people who seemed out of place in our society.
In 1969, the then secretary of state set up a committee on youth to investigate the problems I have just described. As the committee was investigating these problems it became apparent to all that rising unemployment involving young people had to be cured. In 1972, 11 per cent of those between 14 and 24 years of age were unemployed. So when we were witnessing this problem of alienation and unemployment the Department of the Secretary of State came forward with a program called Opportunities for Youth. On examining the history of that program we find that it has merit, although there are some great flaws in it. One of them is this: it has become an opportunities for students program, not necessarily an Opportunities for Youth program.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the parliamentary secretary present in the chamber this afternoon. A few days ago, during the question period, I asked the Secretary of State a question about the Opportunities for Youth program. Was it designed for students or was it designed for youth? In my opinion, I did not receive a satisfactory reply and intend to pursue this matter further on the "late show" in days to come. On examining the Opportunities for Youth program, we notice that the acceptance rate for projects submitted by university students is 31 per cent, or thereabouts, whereas the acceptance rate for programs submitted by non-students falls to about 18 per cent. One can appreciate what has been happening.
We should have a program that stresses youth of all income brackets and all backgrounds in life. As the program is now constituted, I am afraid the Liberal government is preoccupied with providing assistance to upper and middle-class students. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? The reason, I am afraid, is that upper and middle-class students are most articulate in designing their programs. They have a distinct advantage, therefore, over young people from disadvantaged families or socioeconomic environments. We may also surmise that it is the articulate, educated young people who will react most demonstrably if something is not done to alleviate the problems I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, I suggest that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe for setting up this ministry of state ought to be comprehensive enough to include all youth, not just youth at the primary youth level on whom he seemed to concentrate. The motion should include young people of all ages right up to university level and from all social and economic backgrounds. If such a ministry were established, and if its activities encompassed all our youth as I suggest it should, then I think we should be going a long way toward dealing with the problem of alienation that affects so many of our young people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: If we are interested in young people, I think we will find that there are great opportunities for putting their enthusiasm and talent to good use. I find that young people are much concerned about the quality of life, about our environment, about pollution and about all the destruction that they see. I am sure a ministry of state concerned with youth could put young people to work on programs such as cleaning up the environment and making this country a better place in which to live. I know young people are also concerned about social services and are willing to help others such as the disadvantaged and those living in slums. I am sure their expertise and enthusiasm could also be used in social services involving day care centres and the like. Young people are interested in peace and harmony, not only in the world but in our nation.
Such a ministry, Mr. Speaker, would give the young people of Canada an excellent opportunity to become acquainted with one another. I am thinking especially of young people of French Canadian or English Canadian backgrounds. Perhaps, if they come to know one another, we can overcome some of the differences that are the bane of adults in Canada. So if we are to provide opportunities for work in those areas, I think a ministry of state along the lines I have suggested would be very profitable.
If such a ministry is to be set up, it is essential that young people become involved in it. This is one of the merits of the Opportunities for Youth program. I commend the Secretary of State for the degree of involvement of young people in this program. If such a ministry is set up, the only way it will be a success is to involve young people in the planning, organization and execution of the projects that they themselves design.
In conclusion, the motion does have some merit but only if it is expanded to include young people and to the point of concentrating on providing meaningful jobs for these young people and not, as the mover seemed to express, a desire to concentrate on sports.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this very interesting motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I am pleased to note that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is here to listen to this debate. I hope he is establishing some kind of precedent, and other ministers will be present when we debate private members' bills which
January 19, 1973

concern them. I am very serious about this suggestion. I specifically mention the Secretary of State because until now most of these matters have not been correctly placed under his department.
If we are to upgrade the importance of private members' hour, it is of real significance that, when possible, ministers be here to listen to comments which are made and, hopefully, from time to time to respond. I do not mean they should tie up a large section of private members' hour, but it might be useful to have even a brief comment from ministers somewhere near the conclusion of the debate so there can be some real interaction between private members and the government with regard to the proposals put forward.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for responding to some of the suggestions made by members on all sides of the House with regard to the Opportunities for Youth program. This week we received an outline of the format for the development of Opportunities for Youth projects. In the initial reading I have given to the proposal, I find great merit in it. It follows closely along the lines we pursued with interest during the past two years. However, there is still a major shortcoming. Perhaps it is best reflected in the proposition put before us this afternoon. That is, a basic lack of any kind of over-all policy, strategy or comprehensive approach to both the problems and opportunities of youth today. The comments made by the immediately preceding speaker are very much apropos the situation.
There are many tangible reasons why the government has moved to develop programs like Opportunities for Youth. Some of them obviously reflect a very serious situation that exists in the country today with regard to young people. Even though my life is not very long on the vine, I cannot recall a situation where young people of various classes and vocational opportunities have faced the kind of frustration and uncertainty, both vocationally and economically, that they face today.
Just last week we received the latest report of Statistics Canada with regard to the number of unemployed people under the age of 24. There are now some quarter of a million young people unemployed. Added to this, of course, will be an immense outpouring of young people as universities, technical colleges and high schools close their doors for the summer season. We have not faced, in a serious way, how we are going to deal in a constructive fashion with young people seeking to integrate themselves into the over-all pattern of Canadian society.
The parliamentary secretary issued a word of caution with regard to the hon. member's motion. He would not like to see the young people isolated. We have to be very frank and realize that, because of the situation, many hundreds of thousands of young people in recent years have found themselves to be very much isolated. It becomes a matter of very great isolation when young people are not able to find work, employment and a livelihood when they complete many years of training and education.
I have been a member of this House since 1965. During that time a variety of programs, suggestions and activities were put forward by both the Pearson government and the Trudeau government. In 1966 we were deeply involved
Youth Affairs
in the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians. Who, here, remembers the Company of Young Canadians? I am told that it is alive, well and functioning in some areas of bureaucracy in Ottawa, but its shape and nature have changed drastically since those early years. As stated by the parliamentary secretary, we have since had the report of the committee on youth. He stated there will be some organized policy approach from the government on the report on the committee on youth, but to date we have not seen any evidence of that.
In the past two years we have had the development of certain programs directed basically toward summer employment, the principal of which, both in notoriety and expenditure, has been the Opportunities for Youth program. In that period we have not had any attempt at a comprehensive establishment of policy. Indeed, in its very impact the economic management of this country has created such a serious dislocation for so many of our young people that if we can call it a youth policy it has been in one of the most negative tones possible. Therefore, it becomes extremely important that there be an immediate approach on the basis of the hon. member's motion.
Some suggestion has been made that it has not been the request of young people that a separate ministry of youth be established. If the motion is examined, it will be seen that the hon. member is asking for a ministry of state, which is somewhat different. It would attempt to bring together a comprehensive approach to policy in relation to youth affairs. This is what we obviously and desperately need. I cannot understand why the government has resisted for so long and so strongly the development of such a youth policy. Members on this side of the House have suggested means whereby we might pursue this matter. Indeed, I have moved motions and suggested until I was blue in the face during the past year or two that we should establish a committee or use one of the committees available to this House to examine the various documents that have been presented to the Secretary of State, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and other ministers of the government, as well as an opportunity for general public reflections on how we should look at the chronic problems which face young people in our society today, the principal of which is tremendous economic dislocation.
On my way here this afternoon, just a few minutes ago, I met a young chap who told me that he was completing his course. When I asked him what he planned to do after completing that course, he replied, "I have no idea." He is not taking a trades course, or coming out of grade 7 or 8, or taking an upgrading program sponsored by the Department of Manpower; he is taking a post-graduate course in law. This man is regularly articled to the bar of Ontario, and he tells me that there are 500 others like him who have no real idea of the opportunities there may be for them.
When the hon. member to my far left suggests that the preoccupation of the Secretary of State's program has been toward the upper and middle classes, he is correct. The dislocations of unemployment now extend right through the whole range of society and have been creat-

January 19, 1973
Youth Affairs
ing problems for governments and politicians generally. The wonder of it is that the problems that have been created have not been greater.
If we were to argue only on the basis of fear, we might suggest that if we do not soon attend to these very serious problems, we may be faced with difficulties that are well beyond proportions easy to handle in a responsible and rational way. We are faced with a situation in which we have allowed through a policy of drift, training institutions, particularly universities, to carry on year after year without giving any real thought to the changing nature of society and of the economy in particular.
There has been no attempt to co-ordinate, either on a federal-provincial basis or directly with institutions of training across the country, the needs and requirements of society as at the present moment and as they will be over the next quarter of a century. More and more young people, we find, are increasingly becoming disillusioned. They find they have followed what they thought was the appropriate route to becoming positive and responsible members of society, only to discover that the door is slammed in their faces when they complete an extensive program of education. There is a most desperate need in this country for a comprehensive policy that is geared to youth, their education and employment. There has been no recognition given to that fact by the government.
I am pleased that we now have a new and young Secretary of State. I hope that in his brief time in office he will be able to provide some leadership in this very vital area. Even though his time may be short, his contribution may be great if he can deal with what is a very crucial area of social and economic difficulty facing Canadian society today.
I do not want to speak at further length because I am most anxious-


Mr. Faulkner:: You still have another five minutes.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, there are another five minutes before the debate terminates at five o'clock, unless of course we have a vote. But I would be most anxious to give the Secretary of State this opportunity briefly to indicate to the House how the government is going to move forward on this question and, hopefully, allow members of the House to engage in a serious way in the discussion of a comprehensive youth policy. I should also like him to indicate in what way his department's policies and plans will be moulded to deal with this problem.
All hon. members have had occasion to agonize during the past two years at the continued and increasing problems facing youth, at their inability, in all classes and in many different places, to become part of the economic
and social life of the community. I hope that the Secretary of State might be able to indicate briefly this afternoon some ways in which he will provide leadership in this very vital area.

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria: Mr. Speaker, along with all the hon. members who have spoken over the last two weeks I would like to pay my respects to the Chair on the occasion of my first speech in this parliament.
I think I have a special reason for taking part in the debate on this motion since I have had some experience with a department of youth affairs. I would like to state briefly how this department met with much success in my province of New Brunswick.
It was the government of Hon. Louis-J. Robichaud which undertook during the election of June 1960 to establish in New Brunswick a Department of Youth Affairs which was of course the first in the history of this province and among the first in Canada. This commitment was kept as soon as the Liberal government took office but the Department of Youth Affairs was connected with the Department of Welfare. I joined that department shortly after it was established first as information officer and later as assistant director. I thus gained some experience from the growing pains of the department and also had moments of deep satisfaction.
The department was initially responsible for the administration of a loan and scholarship program for students at the post-secondary, university and postuniversity levels and thousands of New Brunswick students took advantage of it. Later on we submitted to the provincial government a policy to develop amateur sport and to provide financial assistance to the recreational associations of many communities. This policy was implemented and a sports director was hired. A network of local offices connected the department to the communities through a degree of decentralization. Vocational guidance services were then established locally particularly to help the young victims of a high rate of school-age mortality, and in this matter as in the cases of other programs, we had problems of jurisdiction with the provincial department of education. In a new experimental field, it is quite normal that problems should be encountered, but we managed to find solutions afterwards.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour provided for private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Monday, January 22, 1973