1973-09-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act I informed the House that the government was continuing its review of the whole field of immigration policy with an eye to Canada's long-term needs. I wish now to inform the House of the steps the government is taking to intensify work on these questions and of the schedule it has set for its completion.
The task, as I think we all recognized during recent debates, is enormous and urgent, and the government intends to proceed without delay. The first step must be to identify all the options, and for this purpose I have appointed a small group of people to deal with this task. We will need a great deal of help. I am writing today to provincial governments and to over 100 organizations enclosing a statement of the problems under study and inviting them to tell us about their particular concerns and to give us their advice. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies of this statement in both official languages, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), in each official language.
The target for the completion of this first stage, which will also involve a series of special studies, is next spring. The results will be published in the form of a document, a "green paper", which I am confident will provoke further national discussion. I want to emphasize that we will be seeking the widest possible spectrum of public opinion on the green paper. In addition to seeking the views of the provinces, the territorial governments, members of parliament and briefs from interested groups, I am proposing that a national conference on immigration and population be convened, sponsored by my department.
The green paper will, I hope, provide a good focus for debate. It will do three things particularly. First, it will identify the problems and analyse policy options in terms which will relate immigration to the kind of Canada that we might want. Second, it will review the techniques and procedures by which immigrants are recruited. Third, it will review the whole legal framework within which new policies should operate.
The end result at which we are aiming is a comprehensive policy, to be expressed in new immigration legislation for submission to parliament. Our goal is an up to date instrument to shape Canada's future immigration policy which will crucially affect and determine Canada's economic, social, cultural and demographic growth.
With leave, I should like to table the further statement in both official languages.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I certainly welcome the minister's statement. I should like to re-emphasize the intent of his last sentence, which we share and accept. He said:
Our goal is an up to date instrument to shape Canada's future immigration policy which will crucially affect and determine Canada's economic, social, cultural and demographic growth.
I would only add one rider. We on this side of the House, and I am sure all hon. members, suggest that the goal should be an up to date instrument based not on race, creed, colour, sex or national origin but on the ability of the person who comes willingly to Canada in freedom in order that he may ultimately share in the great destiny of this country.
I am pleased to note that the government now realizes that immigration policy cannot be implemented by regulations but should be instituted by legislation. In order to get away from regulations in terms of the Immigration Appeal Board we have found that it was necessary to bring in legislation. Legislation has had to be introduced to deal with certain decisions made by the Immigration Appeal Board that have embarrassed the government.
I should also like to say we should never forget, though some may find fault with this view, that this country was built by thousands of unskilled and uneducated people who came to this country believing in the work ethnic. Many Canadians have forgotten this. Many Canadians have cast aside an appreciation of the work ethic. When we think of the new policy that must be introduced through legislation I hope we will not forget that if this country has reached any greatness it is as a result of the efforts of those who did not have as much education or possess the skills of people today but were sincere in the belief that they were coming to a land of opportunity where they have made their mark. There are many such success stories.
Let me further emphasize the need for consultation with the provinces. I am glad to see there is to be provincial consultation because it seems to me the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in regard to the social services needed by many immigrants. There is a very great need by many immigrants for language training in order to increase their ability to become integrated into
6612

September 17, 1973
Immigration
our society. There is a need for them to be advised about the many different government services that can be placed at their disposal. There is a need for accommodation and jobs. In this regard there must be more co-operation and consultation with the provinces.
We await the national conference on immigration because we all wish to contribute in respect of input. We await the green paper. I commend the minister and the government for the steps they are taking. They may rest assured that they will have the wholehearted support of members of the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the question of immigration has been of importance to this country ever since white people first began to come to what is now Canada. There are many important aspects of the question. How many people should be encouraged to come to Canada? There have been great differences of opinion in this regard. There is the question of from which countries we should encourage people to come. Opinion has changed in this regard over the years. At one time immigrants were almost exclusively from Great Britain and northern Europe. This situation existed for many years but has now changed drastically. We now have immigrants from Asia, Africa, the West Indies and southern and eastern Europe.
These are all matters of great concern. We welcome the idea of a national conference at which the provinces and the various community groups, ethnic, religious and racial that have a particular interest, will be represented and will be able to make their views known so that hopefully the government may arrive at policies based on a consensus of the people who participate in that conference.
I reiterate what we have said on so many occasions in the past. The rate at which we admit immigrants into this country is in the final analysis decided by the federal government. As a result of the provisions of the BNA Act to a large extent, many immigrants who come to this country who are not fluent in either English or French, the official languages of the country, become to a large extent the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities in respect of the provision of education and the knowledge of Canada they require if they are to become active participants in this country. I say to the minister, as we have said in the past, that we believe the federal government must take a much larger responsibility in fact as well as in law to help the provinces, the municipalities and local communities develop the ability of new Canadians particularly those who are not knowledgeable in either English or French, so they may play a full part as Canadian citizens after they arrive in Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we must state positively that this time, we are fully in agreement with the minister's statement.
We notably welcome the fact that, firstly, it deals with the establishment of a long term policy, and this is the reason for our concurrence. We also welcome the fact that, secondly, the government and the minister thought of providing for consultations and negotiations so as to come to an understanding with the provinces.

We dare hope that the widest possible spectrum of public opinion which is being sought, as mentioned also on page 2 of the statement, will help reach the goals which the minister has set and which I think are those of Parliament as a whole.
[ English]


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order by way of a caveat. I have not had a chance yet to see the document the minister sought to table under Standing Order 41(2). It may be quite valid and he may be entitled to do so. I simply want to say there is a difference between making a statement on motions under Standing Order 15(3) and tabling a document under Standing Order 41(2). It may well be that a minister may make a statement which may be a condensation of what he tables. That is perfectly all right and takes less of the time of the House. But if what the minister tables is in effect a propaganda document or press release to which he refers in his statement, then we would take very strong exception to it. I have not had a chance to see the document, but I thought I should file that caveat now so this procedure would not be completed without our having had an opportunity to say we object at this time.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is acceptable. I sent copies to the opposition critics earlier today.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, this point of order was raised last week. As raised in the previous instance the point had perhaps more validity, as I understood it, than today. I am in full agreement with hon. members who raise this point that there are two standing orders, one providing for the tabling of documents and the other for the making of statements. There is a third possibility open to ministers, that is, to make a statement outside the House. I have felt and ruled in the past that perhaps it was not consistent with the spirit of the rule to table in the House under Standing Order 41(2) a statement that a minister may want to make outside the House, in other words, to table under the Standing Order a statement to be made outside the House.
The overriding difficulty in so far as the Chair is concerned is that if hon. members object on a regular basis to the tabling of documents under Standing Order 41(2), the Chair would be placed in the position of having to exercise some measure of censorship and having to examine all documents that are going to be tabled and decide whether such documents are of a nature that they can or should be tabled under Standing Order 41(2). I remind hon. members that when this Standing Order was enacted by the House a few years ago it was for the very purpose of making it easier for the House to receive documents or papers from members of the cabinet, and I assume it is for that purpose that these documents are being tabled under the Standing Order. I would hope there would be general agreement among members of the House as to what type of documents are envisioned under the terms of Standing Order 41(2).


Mr. Stanfield:: There is just one point, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister did not mean to mislead the House in any way but, as I understood him, he said that he had sent
September 17, 1973

copies of the statement he tabled to the opposition parties. What the minister sent was sent to my office, which is the usual practice, but he simply sent the statement he has read to the House. I call that to his attention. He did not send me a copy of what he has tabled, although obviously he is sincerely under the impression that he did so.


Robert Knight Andras: The Leader of the Opposition is quite right. If he did not get a copy of the statement I tabled, that was an error or misunderstanding on my part. I thought I sent both the statement I read and the statement I tabled.


STATEMENT ON GATT MEETING IN TOKYO-TABLING OF DECLARATION OF MINISTERS
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on the Tokyo Declaration to which Canada is a signatory. The Tokyo Declaration officially opens the seventh round of multilateral trade negotiations conducted under GATT. These negotiations will be of unprecedented scope covering both tariffs and non-tariff measures which restrict or distort trade in industrial and agricultural products. The negotiations will include the first systematic and comprehensive attempt to reduce or eliminate non-tariff measures and bring such measures under more effective international discipline.
As a result of Canadian efforts the negotiations will also include, for the first time, a systematic examination of the possibilities of reducing or eliminating all barriers to trade in selected commodity sectors. These negotiations hold out the promise of potential benefits larger than those achieved in any previous negotiation. For these reasons the Tokyo Declaration is a very important document, and the fact that representatives of 102 countries assembled to consider and approve it provides ground for believing that this venture will succeed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, the Declaration of Ministers approved by 102 countries at the GATT meeting in Tokyo last week.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to welcome the minister back from the GATT meeting in Tokyo where he participated at the kick-off of the new round of negotiations. I am sure he is as aware as anyone that the goal posts are still far removed and that a good deal of tough bargaining is going to be necessary if we are to achieve a satisfactory result by 1975.
With the philosophy of further liberalization of world trade this party is profoundly in accord. Certainly no country is more dependent on world trade than Canada. No country exports as large a proportion of its national output as Canada. Therefore no country is as vulnerable to the results of world trade negotiations as Canada.
This is particularly significant at the moment when the world seems to be dividing itself into trading blocs, when Canada, if we are not careful, could be excluded from ready access to the great international markets of the
Trade
world and when, if we are to be successful and develop fully the talents we have in this country and the high technology industries, we will have to ensure that we have access to the great, powerful, industrialized markets in other countries, including, of course, the European bloc, the United States and Japan.
Probably the Japanese challenge is the greatest of all, Mr. Speaker, and it is reassuring to know that non-tariff barriers are to be attacked as well as the tariffs themselves. It is rather discouraging to look at the results for last year and to realize that less than 3 per cent of Canada's exports to Japan last year were in fully finished products. I hope the minister used the opportunity that was available to him in Tokyo to impress upon the Japanese the necessity not only of balancing our trade fully but also of guaranteeing that within a reasonable period of time, perhaps three or four years, fully half of Canada's exports to that country will be in the form of fully finished products. The minister is going to have to develop considerable backbone if he is going to achieve this and he is going to have to talk tough to the Japanese. I would encourage him in this regard. Certainly this is one of the greatest potential markets in the world for Canadian products, and any failure on his part will not be well received by the Canadian people. If I may make one suggestion, Mr. Speaker, it would be that the minister consider building a permanent facility in Tokyo which could be used by Canadian manufacturers to show the products we have in this country and which would enable Canadians to expand substantially their exports of manufactured products to Japan.
It is equally important that we tackle vigorously the non-tariff barriers to our agricultural products in the European community. Here our interests seem to lie very much along the same lines as those of our American neighbours. The minister and his officials should work very closely with the Americans in putting all possible pressure on the European community to lower the barriers that now exist in order to give reasonable access to Canadian farmers for their products.
One further point which I think deserves emphasis is that in working out the new agreement there would be a determination to pay special attention to the needs and aspirations of the developing countries. They should be given a chance to participate more fully in world trade and earn for themselves the foreign exchange necessary to buy capital equipment and other products they require to develop their own economies.
This is welcome news, Mr. Speaker, but I think the final point that must be made is that no amount of success in these trade negotiations will achieve the results required unless at the same time we can achieve a tremendous improvement in international monetary arrangements. I would hope that the minister would press his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), to go to the International Monetary Fund with some fresh thinking. Information already available would indicate that perhaps we might fall into the trap of repeating the mistakes that were made at Breton Woods in 1944. It does not matter what the tariff arrangements are or what the conclusions are in respect of non-tariff barriers if we have an interna-
26454-54 J

September 17, 1973
Trade
tional monetary system that produces crises every year or two.
I would say that of all the problems facing the trading world at the present time one of the most important, and probably the most important, is the resolution of international monetary arrangements and the necessity for the injection of some new thinking in this area.
We wish the minister and his officials well and hope they will be able to solve not only our trading problems but that through pressure on the financial group the orthodoxies of the past will be discarded and we will get an international arrangement which will be efficacious and allow Canadians to develop along the lines we all wish to see.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in welcoming the statement the minister tabled today I would like to add that we in this party look forward to the particular trade policies of the government in the areas that are listed as part of the general concern in the statement. We have not had any general indication from the minister or the government of their over-all trade policy. We hope it will be established in these negotiations in the days ahead in a way that will benefit not only Canada but other trading countries.
I should like to make three specific points. First, we should like to see the negotiations that have just begun lead to a general liberalization of agricultural trade. In particular, we would like to see ready access to the markets of western Europe for Canadian farmers. We know very well that for years that part of the world has had a highly protective system for agriculture which has barred the full, liberal entry of Canadian agricultural produce. We hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is pushing for significant changes in that direction and for changes that will include orderly world marketing procedures so that the Canadian farmer will not be left in the kind of vacillating position in which he has found himself in recent years.
The second point I wish to make and I do so briefly, has already been referred to by the spokesman for the Conservative party. It is very important to see that non-tariff trading barriers are discussed as well as tariffs. This is particularly important in terms of Canadian access to the Japanese market which has become one of the most important in the world. If I may take one particular commodity I know something about, it happens to be the case that North Americans produce small automobiles at world competitive prices, including Japanese prices, but they are effectively excluded by non-tariff barriers from the Japanese market. It is this kind of situation that has to be changed if Canadian producers of secondary goods, not only automobiles but the whole range of secondary goods, are to gain access to that very important world market. I hope the minister is pushing the case for the removal of non-tariff barriers very strenuously.
The final point I wish to make on behalf of our party is that we welcome the newly expressed concern about the particular problems of developing nations. For too long the industrial world, including Canada, has developed a series

of trade policies which have frequently been in the guise of aid or development for the underdeveloped world but which, in terms of any serious cost-benefit analysis have always turned out to be to the advantage of the developed world. I for one welcome the putting on the agenda of recognition of the special problems of the poorer countries in the world and the indication that the richer nations are going to establish trading principles which, for once, might not work to the disadvantage of the poorer countries.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we were glad to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) speak about the international trade agreement endorsed by 102 countries.
We hope that Canada has acted in such a way as to improve its situation in the fields of import and export and that we will have, among these 102 nations, not a top place, but at least a place equal to the others. What I mean is that we should not be satisfied to deal with other countries by selling or giving away most of our raw materials, by not finishing our products at home, while other countries use our raw materials to finish their products and selling them to us afterwards.
I think that after these discussions, after these agreements, the government should be able to make decisions about processing at home our raw materials as completely as possible and create secondary industries; there is a terrible lack of these in various regions of the country. And by creating needed additional secondary industries, Mr. Speaker, we would not merely be raw materials sellers, but we could deal with any country on an equal basis concerning products made in Canada, and not in Japan or in the United States. This is my wish.
We congratulate the minister for reaching these agreements with the 101 countries gathered in Tokyo, but we would like that, after this very important meeting, Canada carries out decisions in favour of all Canadians.


TABLING OF COMMUNIQUE ON QUEBEC-CANADA MEETING
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the joint press release on the Quebec-Canada meeting on energy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if it is a press release, I object. It is not even a good press release.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will appreciate once more the procedural difficulty in which we are placing ourselves. The rule is clear. I have referred to the rule on a number of occasions. I am sure that everyone in the House knows what Standing Order 41(2) provides and is aware of the terms of Standing Order 15.1 said earlier today, last week and on a number of previous occasions that the purpose of Standing Order 15 is to allow a minister, a
September 17, 1973

member of the government, to make a statement on motions, to which representatives of the parties in opposition can respond. The purpose of Standing Order 41(2) is to table a document or paper relating to the administrative responsibilities of the government or of a particular department. The third alternative is for ministers to make statements outside the House, which our Standing Orders do not preclude and which has been the practice on many occasions in past decades and more.
What is being suggested now is that when a document is sought to be tabled by a minister the Speaker should suspend the work of the House and look at a document which may be five or ten pages long and determine whether it is the kind of document that could be tabled under the terms of Standing Order 41(2). The previous document tabled by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was even longer than this one. I am sure it is not the wish of the House that we suspend the sitting every two minutes for half an hour so the Speaker can study a document to determine whether it is a document that is acceptable under Standing Order 41(2). I would really think that the responsibility should be that of the minister who tables the document-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -to determine whether he is complying with the spirit of the rule. This is what all hon. members would expect, and certainly it is what the Chair would expect.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved:: That the Second Report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on Wednesday, July 15, 1973, be concurred in.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions, informal and formal, with regard to suspending this motion until the normal question period has been completed. I think that is acceptable to all parties. I have talked to members on the government side and to the other parties. I think the government, as a
Order Paper Questions
result of its deliberations over the weekend, might be able to answer a number of questions today, after which we could probably proceed with the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: This order of business will be called immediately on the calling of orders of the day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the cost of the household mailer called "Postal News Ottawa"?
2.	Was this same household mailer used in other areas of Canada and, if so, what numbers were mailed out and at what cost?
3.	Was there any money spent advertising this same program (a) in magazines (b) in newspapers (c) on radio (d) on television and, if so, how much?
4.	What is the cost to the government for new mail boxes and for painting old ones for this program?
5.	What studies were carried out to prove this system?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is $3,437.86; part 2, 4,235,000 cost-$87,144.71; part 3, (a) nil, (b) nil, (c) nil, (d) $179,000; part 4, $342,000 for the 60 cities under the assured mail program; part 5, In depth studies were carried out by departmental officials, over a period of two years, especially by marketing and operations.


Mr. Bawden: How much did the Department of Public Works spend, by province, in each of the past five years (excluding salary expenditures) and for each of the first six months in 1973?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Following is a schedule showing the expenditures by province in each of the past five fiscal years and for the first three months of the 1973-74 fiscal year (excluding salary expenditures).
Department of Public Works Summary of Expenditures other than Salaries (WOO)
Fiscal Year	New- found- land	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Prince Edward Island	Quebec	Ontario Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	North- Out-west side Territories Canada	Total1968-69	16,112	14,867	8,711	5,322	39,562	103,025	9,779	2,967	5,379	13,036	6,044	1,984	885	227,6731969-70	12,082	16,057	5,742	2,062	37,536	105,474	7,358	4,204	10,688	17,344	6,885	1,778	695	227,9051970-71	16,949	8,040	8,818	1,196	66,156	123,651	8,450	4,386	5,624	18,224	6,874	1,866	661	270,8951971-72	5,469	7,912	5,282	1,009	57,311	145,264	10,762	3,118	7,162	16,647	6,145	3,260	953	270,2941972-73 1st. Qtr.	4,664	7,940	8,314	1,199	54,521	162,369	9,856	3,205	8,049	22,333	9,844	4,246	2,410	298,9501973-74	427	1,326	849	101	10,789	26,086	1,366	766	2,961	3,887	1,963	666	362	51,549
September 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What were the names of the two prisoners given passes from Agassiz Institution in April of this year to attend a dance and who have not returned?
2.	Were these prisoners escorted and, if not, for what reason?
3.	In how many cities have fraudulent certified cheques issued by these people turned up?
4.	What are the names of the cities in question and what is the amount involved in each case?
5.	What is being done to apprehend these people?
6.	Were these people in prison on a first offence and, if not, how many offences had each one had previously?
7.	What is being done to determine the responsibility for the financial losses incurred by citizens as a result of these fraudulent cheques?
8.	What are the qualifications of the person (a) responsible for granting passes to these people (b) recommending passes for these people?
9.	What specific action has been taken to prevent further happenings of this nature?
10.	What compensation is the government prepared to allow to those who have suffered loss or harm at the hands of those prisoners who are (a) on temporary leave (b) on extended freedom without permission?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Jeffrey Kinzel and Thomas Schmidt. On March 30, 1973, Kinzel and Schmidt with four other inmates from Agassiz Correctional Camp (minimum security) attended a lecture given by the Ontological Society at the Peter Pan Ballroom, Vancouver. The Ontological Society, a religious philosophy organization, has been working with inmates at Agassiz Camp for some time. During the lecture Kinzel and Schmidt were given permission to go to the washroom. They did not return.
2. Yes.
3 and 4. Unknown. Investigations concerning the commission of such crimes is a provincial responsibility.
5.	Upon the inmates' failure to return, the Penitentiary Service escorting officer reported by telephone to his superior who, in turn, alerted the R.C.M. Police detachment. The RCMP immediately placed an all points bulletin with the Vancouver City Police. Further action in respect to the apprehension of these two individuals now rests in the hands of the police.
6.	Both inmates were serving their first federal penitentiary term. Inmate Kinzel had three previous convictions. He served two terms in a provincial institution and one six-month suspended sentence on a $100 bond. Inmate Schmidt had four previous convictions for which he served sentences in Provincial institutions.
7.	This is a matter falling within the ambit of responsibility of the Attorneys General of the provinces concerned.
8.	(a) The Director, Agassiz Correctional Work Camp has served 24 years with the Canadian Penitentiary Service. He entered the Service at Stoney Mountain Institution in 1949 and became a Staff Training Officer in 1957. In 1964, he was appointed Chief Instructor for the Canadian Penitentiary Service Staff College, New Westminster, B.C. During his service career he successfully completed Penitentiary courses on Management, Supervising, Teaching, and Evaluation and Planning. He was appointed Director, Agassiz Camp in March 1968. (b) The Inmate Training Board, made up of the Director, Administration and Supply Officer and two Classification Officers, is responsible for recommending passes for inmates. The Administration and Supply Officer has been with the Penitentiary Service 14 years. He began his career at British Columbia Penitentiary supervising inmates in the Stores Department. In 1962 he was appointed Assistant Stores Keeper, Mountain Prison. He served as Acting Administration and Supplies Officer, Agassiz Camp in 1969, and has on a number of occasions been Acting Director for the Camp. In 1965 he was ordained a Minister of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. In addition, he has completed courses in Human Development at Douglas College. One of the Classification Officers has been with the Penitentiary Service since 1963 when he was appointed Protestant Chaplain at Agassiz Correctional Work Camp. In 1967 he was appointed to the position he now holds. He is an Arts graduate of the University of British Columbia, where he majored in Psychology. He received his Bachelor of Physiology in 1964. He completed a Human Relations Course at Douglas College in 1972 as well as in-Service courses on Counselling Techniques, Sociology of Deviant Behaviour, Criminology and Penology and Psychotheraphy. The other classification officer was employed as an Assistant Classification Officer for a period of three months. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Simon Fraser University and is currently a Classification Officer at Mountain Prison in Agassiz, B.C.
9.	The Canadian Penitentiary Service issued a revised Commissioner's Directive on Temporary Absence which directs that group temporary absences to outside functions may only be carried out where satisfactory security arrangements can be made. The Directive also requires institutional authorities to carefully assess the escort needs for such occasions, and to conduct an advance check of the proposed site of the activity, as well as notifying the responsible police force of the intended activity.
10.	Save where legal liability exists, there is no authority for payment of compensation other than by obtaining an Order in Council for the making of an ex gratia payment in individual cases of hardship. This matter is under review to determine whether the present situation should be modified, and if so to what extent.

September 17, 1973


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How much money has been given to each of the countries of Senegal, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Upper Volta in the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, in the form of (a) Canadian International Development Agency grants (b) International Development Assistance loans?
2.	What, if any, special programs has the government initiated or participated in to assist these countries affected by a disastrous drought?
3.	What has the cost of these programs been to date?
Hort. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): 1. During fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 we have paid the following amounts in the form of subsidies and loans to the countries listed below:
Gifts
Country	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73$	$	$Chad	248,600	262,100	237,900Mali	104,800	725,148	203,200Mauritania	47,000	104,700	83,800Niger	2,465,400	1,582,632	1,874,100Senegal	3,182,200	5,381,200	4,507,000Upper Volta	84,800 Loans	499,700	454,500Country	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73$	$	$Chad	-	-	-Mali	-	-	-Mauritania	-	-	-Niger	-	5,608,300	5,966,900Senegal	-	-	339,000Upper Volta	-	-	-
2. Bilateral donors including Canada were asked to provide strong support for the emergency aid effort coordinated by FAO for the African countries of the Sahel region. Canada agreed to allot an additional $3.8 million in food aid over and above the amount of $3 million already allocated for fiscal year 1973-74 for the Francophone countries of the Sahel region. The total amount of $6.8 million in food aid will be distributed as follows: $1 million, Senegal; $1 million, Niger; $1 million, Upper Volta; $1.2 million, Mauritania; $1.4 million, Mali; $1.2 million, Chad. To avoid congestion in the principal ports serving the Sahel region, Canadian food aid will be shipped in accordance with the operations schedule set up by FAO. In addition, Canada has sent three Hercules transport aircraft to transport supplies from the entry ports to the disaster areas in the interior because of difficulties in traditional methods of transport caused by the rainy season. By these means it will be possible to ensure delivery of a greater share of the available aid to the population remote from the large centres.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The additional bilateral allocation in food aid made by Canada to the six stricken countries of the Sahel region totals $3.8 million. This amount does not include the sending and use of three Hercules transport aircraft for more than a month.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many post boxes are there in Winnipeg's 11 postal stations and, of this number, how many are currently rented out to the public?
2.	Is there a waiting list of persons wishing to rent post boxes at any of the 11 stations and, if so, how long is the list?
3.	What does it cost to rent a box at each of these stations?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to make more post boxes available for rent by the public in Winnipeg and throughout the rest of the country?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. two thousand two hundred sixty-eight; 2,129 rented.
2.	Yes, there is a waiting list of 80 applicants as follows: Main Post Office, 61; Station "B", 9; Station "C", 1; Norwood Grove, 3; St. Boniface, 4; St. Vital, 2. The waiting list includes those to whom vacant boxes have been offered but from whom confirmations have not been received. A few days is allowed following an offer of a box before offering it to the next name on the waiting list.
3.	Post Office boxes are available in five sizes with annual rates as follows:
Post Offices Not Having	Post Offices Having
Door-to-Door Delivery	Door-to-Door Delivery
by Letter Carrier	by Letter Carrier
A	$ 4.00	A	$ 8.00B	6.00	B	10.00C	10.00	C	15.00D	15.00	D	25.00E	20.00	E	35.004.	Every possible effort is made to ensure that lock boxes are made availbale to the public not only in Winnipeg, but for all of Canada. In some cases, an increase of lock boxes would involve major renovations. However, as the demand for boxes are made, every effort is made to accommodate customers.


Mr. Stackhouse: How much money was expended for overtime payments to the staffs of federal penitentiaries during June 1972 and June 1973?


William Warren Allmand: June 1972, $288,182; June 1973, $525,762.
Notes: 1. There are 2,345 Correctional Officers in 46 federal penal institutions.
2. Of the total overtime paid to staffs of federal penitentiaries for June 1973, $503,435 was paid to Correctional

September 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
officers with the balance, $22,326, going to other institutional personnel.


Mr. Reynolds: Was a letter, regarding inmate No. 1,357 McCauley, dated June 10, 1973, sent by Mr. Dan Bartholomew Cx4 to the British Columbia Penitentiary prison director, answered and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: No. Mr. Bartholomew's letter was referred to the senior institutional officer concerned for his consideration and advice. Action was taken on the matter raised by Mr. Bartholomew the following day. However, due to a conflict in shift schedules between Mr. Bartholomew and his squad leader, Mr. Bartholomew was not immediately informed of the action taken. He was, nevertheless, informed at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Will the Solicitor General advise whether (a) charges are pending against Mr. Brian Murphy (b) he is allowed to come and go from prison and, if so, for what reason?
2.	(a) Are charges pending against Mr. G. W. H. L. Schlieper (b) is he permitted to continue at his job or in some other form of work and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Mr. Murphy is employed as a research officer studying inmate profiles and, therefore, his work, unlike that of correctional officers, does not require him to be in daily contact with inmates in a supervisory, teaching or counselling relationship. His continued employment, pending the disposition of charges now before the Court, did not and does not in any way jeopardize the security of the institution. Since charges were laid, Mr. Murphy has visited the institution once to meet with the Assistant Director, Socialization.
2. (a) Yes. (b) No. Mr. Schlieper is a correctional officer, and is therefore, in daily contact with inmates. It is considered that his entry to the institution could pose a risk which may affect the security of the institution and the safety of both staff and inmates. Accordingly, he has been suspended pending the disposition of charges against him.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the total number of staff in the British Columbia Penitentiary and how many hours of overtime were worked during (a) January 1973 (b) February 1973 (c) March 1973 (d) April 1973 (e) May 1973 (f) June 1973?
2.	How many of the penitentiary staff applied for educational leave in the past 12 months and, of these, how many were (a) approved (b) rejected?


William Warren Allmand: Staff	Overtime*
(a)	262	1,7244(b)	268	1,205(c)	269	1,365(d)	270	2,6214(e)	265	2,515(f)	264	2,5834
* Includes time spent in staff training each week by approximately 22 security officers.
2. Four, (a) One (b) Three (one of which was granted leave without pay from May, 1973 to May, 1974 to attend university).


Mr. Reynolds: Is the British Columbia Penitentiary producing ballot boxes for the next federal election and, if so (a) are they finished and, if not, on what date will they be completed (b) where are they stored?


William Warren Allmand: No. (a) and
(b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all those employed by, on loan or in any way attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
2.	(a) What are (i) their salaries (ii) the dates that they commenced such work (iii) the exact job descriptions in each case (iv) the nature and dates of any previous government employment (b) on whose recommendation were they engaged and, in each case, what were the particular qualifications that they were considered to possess?


John Mercer Reid: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him privately.


Mr. Mather: 1.	How many former members of parliament have retired on parliamentary pension since 1970?
2.	How many former members who retired in 1970 are still living and drawing that pension?
3.	What is the average annual amount of the parliamentary pension being drawn?
4.	What was the average dollar contribution to that pension made by the Members now drawing such pension?


John Mercer Reid: 1 to 4. The parliamentary pension payable to Members of Parliament is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
September 17, 1973



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Alexander: 1.	For the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 to date, how many LIP grants, as well as OFY grants, related to the constituencies of Hamilton East, Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton-Wentworth, Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton West, were submitted, rejected and approved?
2.	By constituency (a) how much money was involved in each of these categories (b) how many and what LIP projects were (i) extended (ii) for what length of time (iii) how much money was involved?
Return tabled.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary again to starred question No, 2436 which has been standing in my name since June 21, relating to the staff, if any, of the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are the minister and the government firmly committed in principle to the export tax on petroleum that has been announced, or is this an interim measure that is subject to review and revision upon consultation with the provinces particularly the producing provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to say that the separation of the price for sale in the United States from the price in Canada, so that Canadians will not have to pay whatever accelerating prices American customers will have to pay from time to time, is a matter of principle with the government. As the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement, an export tax is one of the control mechanisms that could be used. Of course, as I indicated to the House on Friday and as I indicated to the Alberta minister, it is certainly within our concept that the proceeds of either a tax or the return of a marketing board would be shared with the provincial governments concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Recognizing that, according to the minister's announcement, the price of crude in Canada will be based upon the price of crude landed at Montreal, may I ask the minister whether the export tax technique is an essential part of the minister's program, and what propor-
Oral Questions
tion of the export tax does the minister propose to offer to the producing provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will reread Hansard he will see that I said the proposal of a Montreal basing price was one of the proposals being considered. I already answered the rest of the hon. member's question by pointing out that whether it be an export tax or a marketing board is a matter for discussion. Indeed, the question of the form it would take and the share is one of the aspects upon which we expect the government of Alberta to respond, as Mr. Dickie, the Minister of Mines and Minerals, promised to respond on October 3 when we see them again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the government's policy in this field seems to change so much from day to day, will the minister explain why he and the government found it necessary to behave in such a heavyhanded way in connection with this program rather than following the method of consultation which the minister previously announced the government was committed to follow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said I followed the process of consultation. As the hon. gentleman knows, we published an elaborate analysis of the energy situation, including this particular question, in June. We had consultation with the Alberta representatives in July. At that time Alberta undertook to respond to our analysis and to the conversation on that occasion. Up to this moment no such response has been received from the province. On that basis I am quite prepared to carry on a dialogue and consultation, but it seems to me there is a mutuality required for the effective operation of the process.


OIL EXPORT TAX-NOTICE TO UNITED STATES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the maintaining of good trading relations with the United States is of obvious importance to this country, can the minister advise the House why no prior notice of this added tax on crude oil was given to the United States, particularly in view of the fact this lack of action appears to have caused by far the greatest resentment in the vociferous protest made by the United States government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would correct the hon. member by saying there was no lack of notice. I concede it was done at almost the last minute. However, on a matter of this kind I do not believe we should have felt it necessary to seek the permission of the United States government before taking action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Calgary North on this matter and then try to go on to the next question.

September 17, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: No one, of course, has ever suggested that the permission of the United States should be obtained for an action of this kind. However, in view of the fact the United States has stated flatly that no prior notice was given, how does the minister justify his answer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to re-examine the statement to see if the Americans said they had no notice because I think I can produce some facts to the contrary.


OIL-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COMPROMISE-POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF OTTAWA VALLEY LINE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his statement at the Liberal convention over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands might like to ask his question directly. I would hope the question period today would not be a series of questions based on statements made outside the House during the weekend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister give some clarification with regard to his statement that there has been a compromise on the two-price oil system? What change has there been, apart from the agreement to give to the oil-producing provinces some share in the 40 cents a barrel export tax, with which I think everyone would agree? Has there been any change in the pricing policy? Will the present freeze, announced on September 4, still stand and will the posted Montreal price come into effect only when a pipeline has been built into the province of Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the question, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, the matter is under discussion at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It wasn't on Friday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Read Hansard. With regard to the compromise, it was with the position that had been taken by a certain group at the convention that there should not be a two-price system. We were able to satisfy them that there should be such a system and, indeed, that the province of Alberta would share in the proceeds of such a system. I was glad that the Liberal leader in Alberta was able to give the premier of that province some leadership with regard to good compromising as a Canadian.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's reply to a question put by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie on September 10 to the effect that one million barrels of western crude had been moved to Montreal refineries, may I ask

the minister whether it is now his plan to virtually wipe out the Borden line so that petroleum and petroleum products can move freely across that line until such time as the pipeline is built, making the Borden line no longer necessary?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It certainly is one of the
concepts, Mr. Speaker. Quite clearly the policy reasons for establishing the Borden line between 1959 to 1961 are no longer apposite. Very likely in due course the line may be eliminated. This is one of the questions that is to be dealt with in the context of determining the appropriate Canadian basing point.


OIL EXPORT TAX-CONSULTATION WITH ALBERTA PRIOR TO IMPOSITION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. In light of the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday asking whether there was consultation with Premier Lougheed and the Alberta government and the answer that they made no substantive comment about the matter, may I ask the minister whether there was definitely consultation with the Alberta government prior to implementing the 40 cents surtax on a barrel of crude petroleum? If so, when did the consultation take place and where?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Mines and Minerals of Alberta and the discussion took place late Thursday morning and early afternoon.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: That was not consultation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We presented the documents to him then and he accepted them, as I said, without substantive comment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North for a last supplementary at this point. Hon. members will appreciate that we are still on the first question after ten minutes. I will then recognize the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I put my question, I have in my hand the speech that the Premier of Alberta made to the Canadian Club of Calgary in which he said that this was a unilateral action on the part of the federal government, that there had been no consultation, and that this was thrust on the Canadian people by the government unilaterally. What does the minister have to say about that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Premier Lougheed talk to his Minister of Mines and Minerals.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North and the minister will appreciate, as will all
September 17, 1973

hon. members, that we are entering upon a debate rather than asking questions and giving answers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair indicated a moment ago that we should try to complete the first round of questioning. If hon. members want to pursue this matter later for the rest of the question period, that is up to them. The hon. member for York South.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence last week the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, was asked some questions regarding the proposed takeover of Acklands, Limited of Winnipeg, Canada's largest automotive supply wholesaler, by a United States firm from Atlanta. One of the answers that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration gave on September 12 was that company representatives were ready to meet with the minister and discuss the takeover. May I ask the minister whether such a meeting has been arranged and when it will take place?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is true that such a meeting has been arranged. It will take place tomorrow afternoon and I and my officials expect to meet with the leading representatives of the company.


David Lewis: Would the minister assure the House that in his meeting with the company representatives he will investigate the takeover proposal in accordance with the criteria set in the bill concerning foreign investment and take steps to prevent the takeover unless the benefits and interests of Canadians are protected?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be discussing with the officials the whole question of the significant benefit to Canada of this proposal, but as the hon. member must know, Bill C-132 is not yet the law of Canada, though I hope, as I know other members do, that it will be very shortly.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that there are precedents, for example, Home Oil and Denison Mines, where the federal government did take steps to halt a takeover, may I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that he will request that the takeover be halted until a full inquiry is made as to Canada's benefit and, if necessary, until Bill C-132 becomes the law of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think my conversation tomorrow will give me a better opportunity of judging what action, if any, should be taken.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon.-Prime Minister but, first of all, I want to congratulate him for having been reconfirmed in the good graces of his partisans over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I thank the Liberals for applauding me with such frenzy.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Since the bloody overthrow of the new democrats in Chile, has that country asked the Canadian government to recognize the new regime?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the leader of the credi-tiste party for his kind words. In reply to his question I must say that the Chilean regime has in fact asked the Canadian government to grant it diplomatic recognition, but we have yet to give an answer because we wish to consider the matter further.


OIL EXPORT TAX-ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSED COMPROMISE BY GOVERNMENT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question as a follow-up to what I asked earlier and the answers given by the minister. The minister stated that a compromise was made at the convention in regard to the implementation of the 40 cents surtax. I am not concerned about the convention. What I want to know, is whether this compromise is now accepted by the government, what was the compromise, and how much money Alberta will get back from this tax that was imposed without consultation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to refer the hon. gentleman to the resolution passed at the convention. I am not sure whether it would be in order to do so here, but I will be glad to bring it to the hon. member's attention.


Mr. Nielsen:: We do not intend to let you do that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe I could table the resolution under the terms of Standing Order 41(2).
S00)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one and can be put with great ease. Was the compromise suggested at the convention accepted as government policy? A yes or no will answer that question.

September 17, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not a novice in the political field and he will know that a political convention, of course, does not dictate government policy but rather provides a guideline.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


George Harris Hees: That is not what you were telling them on Friday and Saturday. You said, "Whatever you pass we will obey". Pierre, wait until they get you back the next time; then there is going to be trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Where's Turner?


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless hon. members want to adjourn this meeting to the Chateau Laurier, perhaps we might try to carry on with the question period.


FINANCE
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As has been urged on the government, is the government now actively considering early budgetary action to compensate home owners for the rising cost of mortgage interest rates and, if so, can we expect an announcement on this matter this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if any announcement is to be made the hon. member will hear about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: In due course; don't forget that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that and will look forward to this announcement with great anticipation. In the second quarter of this year the eight largest chartered banks increased their combined balance of revenue by a full 21 per cent over the first quarter. Is the government satisfied that the mortgage rates now being charged by the chartered banks are reasonable and necessary and, if so, can the government table any detailed study to support that position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has considerable reservation about at least three aspects of the hon. member's question. The first part conveyed information to the House which, as the hon. member knows, should not be attempted by way of a question. The second part of the

hon. member's question asked the minister to express an opinion, and in the third part he is asking for information which normally ought to be given on motions. I am not sure whether even the hon. member would be able to rephrase that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me at least to attempt to rephrase the question by asking the Prime Minister whether, in view of the alarming effects of high interest rates on the cost of housing, the government will propose some effective measure and bring it before the House within the next few days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member listened attentively to the Minister of Finance when he made this announcement and discussed the question-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did and that is the reason I asked the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -he will remember that the banks undertook to hold the mortgage tes steady and not increase them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I remember, too, that you are not interested in housing or the problems of the home owner.


INQUIRY AS TO INTR' DUCTION OF NEW BUDGET CONTAINING TAX CUTS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the tenor and substance of the resolutions passed by the weekend Liberal convention on taxes and high interest rates and related economic subjects, most of which indicated opposing points of view to those held by the Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister tell the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would invite hon. members to ask questions directly. I am not sure what purpose is being served by these lengthy introductions having reference to political activities outside the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Thank you, Sir. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether the government is now considering bringing in a new budget with tax cuts at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is really interested in the context of the question he has asked, I would be pleased to send him a little booklet, edited by Senator Stanbury, which indicates that 85 per cent of the resolutions adopted by the 1970 Liberal convention have been implemented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise I did not hear whether the Prime Minister said yes or no.


Mr. Fairweather:: He said there was a little booklet.
September 17, 1973

[ Transla tion]


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries.
At the next Law of the Sea Conference of the North Atlantic countries, is the minister going to state the position of the government that Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over living resources of the continental shelf or a distance of 200 miles from the coasts?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter which should first be brought up at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. What assurance has he given to the premiers of the Atlantic region that the risk capital required for the development of these provinces will not be jeopardized by the implementation of Bill C-132, the Foreign Investment Review Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premiers of these provinces have raised the matter with me in discussions, both collectively and singly. As the hon. member knows, when this bill was before the committee certain provinces chose to make their views known. I take it that the hon. member is aware of that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we in the Atlantic region are well aware of the desirability of this legislation but we do not want it at our expense. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has arranged any guidelines for domestic funding agencies to meet the needs of this part of the country in the event that this cut-off of capital does occur, as the Atlantic provinces fear?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is really a matter which has been dealt with and will be dealt with again in the bill that is before the House. If the hon. member or other members of the opposition have further views to make known on this, they will have a further opportunity to do so in the committee and in the House of Commons. We are certainly open to representations, if only they can agree among themselves what they would like implemented.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ALLOCATION OF ROUTE TO MILAN AND NEW ROUTES TO UNITED STATES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. When will he be able to make an announcement as to which Canadian airline will have the right to fly the route to Milan?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the last part of the question.


An hon. Member:: It was about Milan.


Mr. Bell:: Look into it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like a reservation, maybe I can help. This will not be announced before we announce the new policy of the government in the field of international civil aviation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the House when he will be making a statement in reference to which new routes allocated to Canada will be given to each of the Canadian airline companies?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this cannot be done before the cabinet has ratified the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary on this subject, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


David Orlikow: After the cabinet has considered the matter and the minister makes his statement, will he include an explanation as to why Canadian carriers will not be given the right to fly the route from Winnipeg to Chicago until 1978 or 1979?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only explanation is that this is a package in respect of which there was give and take, and I do not think one can select one route and ask why we did not get that one. I could ask about 15 questions in respect of other routes, so I cannot give a simple answer.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does the minister's recent position-not to mention that of the recent Liberal convention-concerning the old age security pension at 60 years of age confirm the fact that the people from 60 to 65 have no hope of obtaining that pension during this parliament?
September 17, 1973

Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I objected to a resolution for the implementation of such a scheme on January 1, 1974 as being unrealistic and I added that I had more confidence in the establishment of a guaranteed annual income for all the needy, including those from 60 to 64 years of age, than in the payment of pensions to everyone, even those who do not need any.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Some week and a half ago, I believe, I asked him why, in view of his statement that there was no food shortage in Canada, the government had found it necessary to have ration stamps printed. His reply, to apply the kindest word to it, was equivocal, but he did say he would investigate. I wonder whether he has investigated and what he has found out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I did investigate it with various ministers who might conceivably be concerned. My investigation confirmed the impression I expressed in the House that the hon. member was flying a canard.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Temiscamingue would perhaps allow me to let the hon. member for Ottawa West put his supplementary question, after which I will get back to the previous question.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege simply to say that I was not flying a canard but was operating on information I believe sincerely to be accurate. I will not stand for the imputation of motives by the Prime Minister. It is unparliamentary, unworthy of him, against the rules of the House, and he knows it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, of course, will recognize the Prime Minister if he wishes to rise on a question of privilege, but I doubt very much whether we should pursue the matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that I invited him to supply me with the source of the information and if indeed it is, as he says, honest information, perhaps he might have given it to me in the past two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since he just stated that he suggested at the liberal convention during the weekend that a measure be adopted for establishing a guaranteed annual income plan for people in need, and since he stated a moment ago that he is in favour of a system whereby those in need would receive assistance and others would not, can the minister specify who will decide who needs help and who does not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that I did not suggest at the convention what the hon. member for Temiscamingue says I did. As for his second point, I refer him to the working paper tabled in the House last April.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before this discussion continues, I would like to remind hon. members that it is irregular to ask questions based on statements made outside this House.

[ English]



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the federal-provincial manpower needs committee for Nova Scotia is today considering a recommendation to reduce the number of basic training for skill development places from 380 to 180 at the Point Edward Institute, and in view of the fact that there are long waiting lists for training at all Canada Manpower Centres in Cape Breton, would the minister intervene personally to see that the operations at this training institute are not diminished in any way whatsoever?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated privately to the hon. member, I am sympathetic to his representation. I will take special steps to examine the situation myself, but it has to be done in consultation and co-operation with the provinces, as I believe the hon. member knows.


Robert Muir: Would the minister concern himself to the extent of suggesting to the committee that he should be fully informed as to the actual happening before the committee makes a decision that it may possibly regret a little later?


Robert Knight Andras: That representation will be given full consideration.
September 17, 1973



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister been using the facilities of the Pacific Environment Institute government wharf in West Vancouver to moor his private boat and, if so, is this practice consistent with the policy of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, I am sure, will appreciate that questions such as this should be placed on the order paper. I doubt very much whether it is in order to ask a question of this kind during the oral question period.


John (Jack) Davis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows the answer to that question. He knows it is yes. He knows it is a tiny boat. He knows that if any other public purpose can be served it will be removed. He knows that tens of thousands of private boats are moored at public docks and no fee charged whatsoever.


John Douglas Reynolds: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the minister's boat is at a government dock and not a public dock, and while it was tied up at that dock it was replacing a government boat that had to be tied on the outside which caused damage to that boat. I do not think a minister of the Crown should be using government facilities for his own personal benefit.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, again on the question of privilege, the hon. member knows that a full inquiry has been carried out and that the other boat which was damaged was, first, not displaced and second damaged as a result of negligence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In correspondence last summer the minister stated that a start would be made on an oceanographic institute costing $7 million in Esquimalt-Saanich and that the first sod would be turned in September. To date there is no indication of this. Can the minister assure the House that his plans have not changed in respect of the oceanographic institute?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in assuming that this project will proceed as announced. Plans are well advanced for the start of construction.
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the meetings that have taken place between officials of DREE and the Ontario government, can the minister inform the House when the government intends to table its program for industrial development in northern Ontario?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the precise date but I can say that the negotiations with the government of Ontario are proceeding very well. It is my latest information that it should not be more than a matter of a month or a few weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the inability of DREE to decentralize its staff, would the minister inform the House whether he is now prepared to hire personnel to service the northern Ontario offices of DREE?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the first part of the comment, it is of course our intention to have as many people as we can get who are competent, and I am sure there are plenty of them, from northern Ontario for those offices.



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister who informed me both here and in committee several months ago that a complete study would be made into the feasibility of having DREE applicable to both the northern territories of Canada. Can he say now whether his studies are complete and whether this section of Canada will be included in DREE to make that legislation truly national?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with some of the elected representatives of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and his officials have been meeting with our officials to see how the programs of both departments can be integrated. If it should appear on the surface that there is some merit in extending DREE programs into the north, we will find a mechanism to do so.



FINANCE


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is there any evidence that the United States authorities are willing to relinquish the tariff on Canadian

September 17, 1973
Oral Questions
beef going across the border and, if not, is it the intention of the government to re-initiate the tariff on beef coming into Canada so that our Canadian beef producers will have a chance to compete on an equal footing with United States producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that when the Minister of Finance introduced this change he did indicate it would be temporary and kept under constant review. I want to reassure the member that the matter was discussed again as recently as last Thursday in cabinet. When action seems to be imperative, we will take it.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns a request from east coast fishermen for compensation in respect of storm damage on June 17. Can the minister tell the House whether he has yet made a submission to his colleagues in the cabinet dealing with this matter and, if so, when can we expect an announcement?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a submission has been made jointly by myself and the Minister of Finance, and I hope that a decision will be made very shortly.



REASON FOR FAILURE TO DISCUSS EXPORT TAX ON OIL AT WESTERN ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition and I would like to put it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the western economic conference took place only a short time ago, and in view of the recent announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the export tax on oil, can the Prime Minister tell the House the reason this very important matter was not discussed in detail at the time of the western conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for a very simple reason. The federal government and I personally attempted to put energy on the agenda of that conference and the western provinces themselves refused to include energy as an item on the agenda.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of CTV's continuing offer to provide equipment, facilities and personnel to act as cohost broadcaster with the CBC for the coverage of the 1976 Olympic games at a considerably lower cost than the CBC, is it the government's intention to make use of these repeated offers, thus reducing the over-all cost to the CBC and to the taxpayers by millions of dollars and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question, but I must confess that a detailed discussion of it is more than I could provide at this time. I would hope the hon. member raised that matter when the bill was before the House. If he did, I am sure he got the answer.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humbar-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that again, as in past years, application forms for LIP did not reach Newfoundland until a week after the proposed date, and in view of the fact this will mean further delays in their reaching the northern communities, would the minister advise if he will extend the October 15 date for the approval of applications for another week or two so these people will get the opportunity they deserve?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will examine the allegations of the hon. member. I was not aware they were that late. I thought they went out early in September.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SCARCITY OF APPLICATION FORMS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he would look very closely into the policy with respect to the releasing of application forms for LIP projects, particularly in the Atlantic provinces where they seem to be in very scarce supply?


Robert Knight Andras: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, the question put by the hon. member for Bruce is one in which I was interested and I
September 17, 1973

have been trying to raise for three days now. I compliment him on catching your eye, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the coming preliminary Conference on the Law of the Sea as well as the conference itself next year. Will representatives from the various parties in the House be permitted to attend each of those conferences?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House may remember that I outlined in some detail the procedure which the government hoped to follow with respect to the Law of the Sea Conference, namely, that the first stage would be consultations with the provinces, following which I would publish a paper setting out our views which would be subject to discussion in the appropriate committee of the House so that we would at that time be able to get the views of all the parties.


Frank Howard: I was asking the minister about the presence of members at the preliminary conference and at the conference itself, instead of channelling information through the government, if not as participants at least as observers.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that under consideration, although I should point out to the hon. member that if I began to open up the conference to observers in this way there would be very many people throughout the country who would also like to be present. I understand the spirit in which this is put forward, but I think that our delegation must be of a wieldy size.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McGrath:
That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on Wednesday, July 25, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations about one or two additional matters with respect to today's debate, and I think you
Food Prices
will find that there is an agreement with respect to the length of the speeches. As I understand it, the rules would provide for 40 minute speeches all day long. I do not think anyone wants that. There is agreement that the first speaker for each party speak for 30 minutes and that all succeeding speakers speak for not more than 20 minutes.
While I am on my feet, may I mention another point, although I confess that I have not discussed it with the other House leaders yet. It has to do with the hour between five and six o'clock. I believe that under Standing Order 16 we would have to use that hour today for private members' business, but I suggest that we might agree now to suspend the private members' hour so that the rest of the time today can be spent on the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Speaker:: The first suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was based on what I believe were consultations limiting the speeches made by hon. members of each party initiating the debate to 30 minutes and all speeches thereafter to a maximum of 20 minutes. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member suggests also that private members' hour be suspended. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very pleased to note that this motion for concurrence in the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices has suddenly become so popular. There were two similar motions standing on the order paper, and it is interesting to note that these two motions for concurrence in the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices did not surface until after the consumer price index for the month of August was brought down on September 13.
I may say at the outset, that the motion for concurrence in the report of the special committee is usually the responsibility of the chairman of the committee. Why the chairman of the committee or one of the government members of the committee did not see fit to move this motion perhaps will make itself known as this debate progresses. This is most unusual in the case of a special committee of the House because its very nature indicates that the House has set up a special sessional committee to deal with a special and urgent problem.
As a special committee, this committee will end with this session. That is why I believe the subject matter of the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, which was presented to the House on July 25, is a very important one. In saying that, I have no hesitation whatsoever in complimenting the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) for the excellent manner in which he has conducted himself as chairman of this important committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 17, 1973
Food Prices


James Aloysius McGrath: I may say that, apart from a few very infrequent lapses into partisan politics, the hon. member has been a good chairman of a very special and important committee. This makes it all the more difficult to understand why he did not move concurrence in this report. It might be well to remember that those charged with the responsibility of being chairmen of committees of this House all too often forget that they are the representatives of Your Honour, and hence have special responsibilities which they should discharge in the same fair, unbiased and objective manner as exemplified by Your Honour in this House. But all too often, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately is not the case. That is especially so under the new rules of the House.
It might be well for us to remember that the setting up of this special committee was the government's answer to the serious problems of inflation, to the effects of inflation on rising food prices. This committee first saw the light of day in a reference in the Speech from the Throne opening the present session back on January 4 this year. The government then referred to the serious inflation problem and to its determination to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. I think the precise words were:
-to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar in the hands of the Canadian people.
The Speech from the Throne went on to refer to the fact that:
While food prices in Canada have steadied slightly in the last month or so, the government is concerned about possible future effects of the world-wide trend toward higher food prices and will propose setting up a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to make a special study of this problem.
The House rejected the idea of a special joint committee, and I think quite rightly. It would be well for us to remember that since January 4 when these words were put into His Excellency's mouth by the government, Canada has had the worst rate of inflation in 22 years and the highest increase in food prices since the Korean war.
The Speech from the Throne back in January placed a very high priority on what it called the attainment of a reasonable price stability. I might say that these words are as meaningless and as empty as the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech on February 19, a budget that was supposed to reduce unemployment, hold the line on rising food costs and, for certain specified items, actually to reduce prices. I can tell you, Sir, that that budget could be best described in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as a sick joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on the working people of this country.
According to the August report of the Bank of Canada, this country has the highest and sharpest rise in food costs and a higher rate of inflation than any of the six other major industrialized western countries that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, It is also well to remember that since the high sounding rhetoric of the Speech from the Throne and the budget of the Minister of Finance last February, we have had high unemployment, high interest rates and high food prices.

There have been five increases in interest rates since that time, and what amounts to an 8.3 per cent rate of inflation as well as a 15.8 per cent yearly increase in the price of food over the period August 1972 to August 1973. The rate of increase for the first eight months of this year has been an over-all one of 6.6 per cent in the consumer price index, and an increases of 12.9 per cent in the cost of food. So, Sir, you can see that the greatest rate of increase has taken place since the Speech from the Throne when all the concern was expressed about rising food prices and protecting the income of Canadians, and since the budget speech of the Minister of Finance which was designed to hold the line on inflation and reduce unemployment. That is why this second report of the Special committee on Trends in Food prices is so important.
It is, therefore, perhaps even more important for us not only to examine the recommendations contained in the second report, which is properly before the House in accordance with the provisions of this motion, but to reflect on the recommendations contained in the first report of the Special Committee. That first report was tabled in the House on April 3, and concurrence was moved on April 17. There is a good reason for going back to the first report and that is that the second recommendation of the second report, one of the most important recommendations, calls upon the government to get on with implementing the recommendations in the first report. I expect that that kind of recommendation in a committee's report must be unprecedented.
The second recommendation in the report now before us reads:
The Committee recommends that the Federal Government consider the advisability of implementing all of the recommendations contained in the first report, especially the recommendation to consider the feasibility of programs to provide food for low income Canadians.
Of the six recommendations contained in the first report, only two have been acted upon by the government. Even at that, those two recommendations have only been partly implemented. The first one deals with setting up the Food Prices Review Board. It is interesting to see just exactly how the government dealt with that recommendation which called for the introduction of special legislation to set up the board. The government did not carry out that part of the committee's recommendation. Instead, it circumvented the committee's report, circumvented this House, and set up the board under the provisions of the Inquiries Act.
The second recommendation that has been partially implemented by the government is the one calling for the media to be provided with more consumer education.
The other four recommendations in the first report that have been ignored called upon the government to implement certain provisions of the proposed Competition Act dealing with consumer protection, new legislation governing the nutritional content of foods sold to the consumer and nutritional labelling, and federal-provincial co-sponsored programs so that nutritious food would be made available directly to children, senior citizens, shut-ins and the destitute. Even back in March when these recommendations were placed before the House, there were indications that meat and poultry prices were going up and that food prices generally would soar.
September 17, 1973

There was evidence presented to the committee very early in its deliberations to suggest that there was a very serious nutritional problem in Canada, and if there was such a problem then it is all the more serious today. There are many people in this country who cannot afford a nutritious diet. There are many in this country who are under-nourished. This is especially so among children; it is especially so among old people, and it is especially so among the unemployed.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the working poor are the ones who are the worst off because they have to suffer the terrible frustration of not being able to afford an adequate diet with their hard earned money. Of course, the poor of this country, according to the best definition and the best advice that I have, represent 25 per cent of the population-one-quarter of the population, living at or below what has been defined as the poverty line.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, that first report recommended that specific moneys be made available to consumer groups to make representations to government where appropriate. I can see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) reacting to that one by saying the government has already substantially increased the grant to the Consumers' Association of Canada. I commend him for that action, Mr. Speaker, but that increase was long overdue and it is not what the committee had in mind. The committee was referring to those new groups that have sprung up across the country; groups that represent the working poor, the anti-poverty groups, the citizens' rights groups- those who have banded together so that they may collectively give voice to the terrible frustration their members feel at not being able to provide adequate diets for their families, not being able to properly clothe their families and not being able to make it because of today's seriously inflated prices. These groups were born out of the sheer frustration of trying to survive on inadequate incomes at today's prices.
Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to discuss the report before us without discussing the first report, and the shameful failure of the government to implement all its recommendations. Surely, this must be the first time that a special committee has had to remind the government, by way of a recommendation, to get on with the implementation of its first report; that must be unprecedented. Certainly, it says something about this government's attitude to the special committee on Trends in Food Prices; it shows, Mr. Speaker, that the contempt characterized by the government in their attitude toward the trends in food prices is similar to their attitude to the other committees of this House and that is a shame.
This party dissented from the first report because we felt it did not contain an over-all policy recommendation to deal with the cause of rising food prices and because we felt at the time, and subsequent experience has sustained us in this view, that a Food Prices Review Board would be ineffective and virtually useless as its terms of reference were too confined. We made this clear at the time. That is not to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we did not support the other recommendations, the effect of which would be, as I have said, to deal with some of the consequences of inflation and high food prices. Indeed, the Progressive Conser-
Food Prices
vative members on that committee played a very active role in drafting that first report.
I believe it is only fair to say that the government owes this committee and this House an explanation. Otherwise by its actions, the government stands in contempt of the very committee which it set up as a special committee to deal with trends in food prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: There is certainly no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a hard-working committee, a committee on which all of the members took their duties very seriously. I think it can be said of this committee as a whole that, as a result of the hard work and dedication of its members, it has achieved what I consider to be a rare thing for committees these days. It has achieved a degree of collegiality which no longer seems to characterize the committees of this House because of the new rules. These rules make it very difficult for committees to have any degree of collegiality or cordiality or any degree of comradeship or any degree of working-together.


Erik Nielsen: They have goon squads over there.


James Aloysius McGrath: As my colleague, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has pointed out, not only is there a lack of collegiality but we have witnessed the moving goon squads. They move from committee to committee to boost the government's side so that the government's position can always be maintained.


An hon. Member:: What crap!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the special committee, referred to in the Speech from the Throne, was set up on January 23 and has heard 35 witnesses in 28 meetings. Many of these meetings were four-hour sessions, although there were times when the committee sat longer. I am sure that members of the committee, without exception, view with as much concern as I the failure of the government to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations of the first report and the attitude of the government, generally, to this special committee and the two reports.
We view it with great concern Mr. Speaker, because the subject before this special committee of the House is one that requires urgent and immediate attention. It is difficult, if not impossible, for us to understand why the government does not treat the committee with the same sense of urgency and the same sense of immediacy as the committee is viewed by its members.
Members of this House, without exception, are affected by rising food prices but there are those in our society who are more affected. I refer to those people on lower and fixed incomes, the working poor and the unemployed. The over half a million Canadians who are unemployed have to pay the same inflated prices for food, have to make it on unemployment insurance benefits, have to feed their families on their weekly unemployment cheques or, worse, on their weekly welfare cheques. We are talking about 500,000 Canadians, citizens of this country who have families to support.
Then, there are the working poor whose ranks are growing rapidly because of the escalating rate of inflation.

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
According to the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty-and I might say that this is an excellent report and one which has been largely ignored by this government- in 1971 a family earning $3,000 a year, which of course is well below the poverty line by today's standards, spent 27.9 per cent of their income on food. A family earning up to $9,000 a year spent 18.8 per cent of their income on food and those lucky enough to earn $15,000 a year spent 13.4 per cent of their income on food. If we update these figures from 1971, Mr. Speaker, to take into account the rate of inflation since then, we find that the $3,000 a year income family now spends approximately 31.2 per cent of its budget on food; the family earning up to $9,000 a year spends 21 per cent of its budget on food and the family earning up to $15,000 a year spends approximately 15 per cent of its budget on food. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that these figures give us some idea of the crisis situation we are in and the toll that inflation takes of the working poor.
The low income groups of this country and the unemployed of this country are the hardest hit. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why this government ignores this crisis. Low income earners have come nowhere near keeping up with the 15.8 per cent yearly increase in the cost of food since August, 1972 and they have come nowhere near keeping up with the almost 50 per cent increase in the cost of food since 1961. The minimum wage in this country is still below $2 an hour and, unfortunately for many, the minimum wage is often the maximum. I remain convinced that rising food prices and inflation are the chief causes of labour unrest in this country.
Nutrition is a critical factor in poverty, one which is often forgotten. The children of poor families must eat, too. It is well to refer to a recent study in Montreal which shows that 20 per cent of the population of Montreal lives in poverty. Also, 44 per cent of that city's slum families are undernourished. Yet still the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) tell us that food is a bargain, even at today's prices.
All the consumer education available in this country, all the consumer protection, consumer laws and shopping skills, are meaningless if you do not have sufficient income to put food on the family's table. That, Sir, is the problem facing many in this country today. According to the latest statistics available, and according to the Economic Council of Canada, one half million families, or 22 per cent of all family units in Canada, live in poverty. They live in poverty according to the definition of the Economic Council of Canada. That is why the committee recommended in its second report that the government pay special attention to implementing the recommendations in the first report and consider immediately a program to provide food directly to low income Canadians.
In its first report, the committee recommended that the government of Canada immediately proceed to promote a federal-provincial sponsored program to get food directly to the children of this country who suffer from malnutrition-that is a strong word. In other words, the committee desired to get food to the working poor of this country, to

those who live on fixed incomes and to those who live on welfare. I consider that to be an urgent matter, when one considers the 3.2 per cent increase in food costs in one month. That is why I consider the work of this committee to be of an urgent nature.
It would also be well to refer to two of the other recommendations of the second report. I do not mean to downgrade any of the recommendations of the report, because we helped to draft the report and we support it. We only say that it does not go far enough.
Recommendation No. 8 reads:
Because an adequate supply of essential food is vital, the Committee recommends that the Federal Government consider the advisability of immediately implementing policies to encourage farmers to increase steadily the production of staple foodstuffs on a basis that will provide a fair income for the farm family and basic food at a reasonable price for the consumer.
My colleagues will have more to say about that during the course of this debate. Recommendation No. 9 reads:
The Committee recommends that the Federal Government consider the advisability of protecting the Canadian market from the pressures of world food requirements by ensuring that domestic prices reflect domestic demand and supply.
We suggest that consideration should be given first to the domestic consumers of this country but, at the same time, we must ensure that Canadians can take advantage of world market conditions. That has always been our policy and we have never advocated any other.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said last Thursday during the emergency debate on the consumer price index, this country has probably the greatest food producing capability of any country in the world, and it follows that we ought to provide incentives to our farmers so that they will produce more food.
Because of the 3.2 per cent increase in the cost of food during August, because of the failure of the government to deal adequately with this serious situation and, as well, because the Food Prices Review Board under its present terms of reference is powerless to act and cannot meet the present situation adequately, as we have said before, now repeat, underline and cannot emphasize too greatly, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) will move an amendment to send this report back to the committee. I hope the government will permit this amendment to come to a vote. I hope the government will be seized with the same sense of urgency with which we are seized and permit this amendment to come to a vote, as this will give the NDP an opportunity to demonstrate and underline their concern, as expressed by their leader in the statement of September 13. It will give that party a chance to demonstrate to Canada that it is not really hanging on to the coat tails of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Perhaps if they give us that support, if the amendment is allowed to come to a vote, we may be in a position to force this arrogant and heartless government to do something soon about rising food prices in Canada.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I was struck by his somewhat selective version of what took place in the committee, the report of which is being discussed this afternoon. I was
September 17, 1973

not as struck as he was by the atmosphere of cordiality. I can well remember a number of occasions, particularly in the early stages of that committee, when there were vigorous and sharp disagreements on the part of various members as to what the committee reports ought to contain. It is worth noting that the second report of the food prices committee in some respects does not deal with the central issue of rising food costs, the reason being that there was such widespread disagreement on the part of members that we were unable to arrive at any consensus as to a specific recommendation.
This afternoon I want do deal with one or two aspects of the second report and comment more fully on the exigencies of the Food Prices Review Board and its fate since it was established. I will conclude by talking about one factor in rising food costs in Canada which I feel has not received sufficient attention in the last few months.
I begin by commenting on the report itself. I note that among the recommendations of the second reports is one dealing with advertising. Having heard the testimony of the supermarket representatives in the course of the June and July hearings, I was struck by their efforts to suggest that total advertising costs are a very small percentage of the figure representing their total sales. It is unquestionably true to say that, in a high volume business like the retail food business, the expenditure on advertising will form a relatively small percentage of the amount to be set against total sales. Let us remember, however, that many types of food are not advertised at all or advertised minimally; also, a good proportion of the food sold on supermarket shelves consists of non-advertised private label brands. If we then take the remaining volume of food sold and apply against that total advertising costs, we will see that, in respect of such items as are advertised, the cost of advertising is significantly high, or forms a significant percentage.
It is worth noting that the second report of the committee contains the statement that private label brands which are not nationally advertised can bring about effective savings to the consumer in the order of 20 per cent per item. I am talking about products of comparable quality and value. The supermarkets themselves admit that the savings with respect to private label brands represent about one fifth, if one compares those brands with nationally advertised brands. At a time when rising food costs concern us all, the conclusion of the committee that private label brands form a large proportion of total supermarket sales is a worthwhile one.
I was also struck by the efforts of the supermarkets to present their profit performance as a percentage of sales. By the time the committee finished its hearings, it was generally agreed, even by representatives of the retail food outlets, that this was not in fact a very meaningful or good measure of a profit performance. We were finally able to get profit pictures in terms of equity or assets.
When the representatives of the supermarkets appeared before us, they assured us that the practice of double or triple price labelling, which came to the attention of the public in mid-August, was one which they deprecated and in which they did not engage. We were given very firm
Food Prices
assurances that nothing of that kind took place and the situation simply did not arise where a consumer would find one, two or possibly three price labels on a product. However, this August, as a result of some investigative work by some of Canada's newspapers, a story appeared to the effect that many supermarkets had, in fact, many products on their shelves with one, two or three price labels.
When I put that fact against the assurance that was given by the supermarkets with regard to that particular practice last July, I wonder about some of the other assurances the committee was given by the same supermarkets. I may say that having only one price label on a product does not solve the problem for the consumer. The nub of the point is, are the supermarkets raising the prices of products which are already in inventory and which were purchased at a lower cost than newer shipments? If there is only one label, it may just be that the supermarkets are on the ball. The question is, what is the amount on the label and are the supermarkets over-charging the consumers? As I say, these supermarkets gave us assurances. In light of what has happened since then, I am not sure those assurances are necessarily all that comforting.
Dealing with the Prices Review Board, I may say this body might be called the ugly duckling of Canadian politics. I may say in passing that I recollect the ugly duckling eventually grew into a beautiful swan. If I and my party had anything to do with it, we would make sure the Prices Review Board did not remain an ugly duckling, but became a swan. I certainly look forward to support from my friends in the Conservative party in the committee.
The concept of a prices review agency has been proposed by the New Democratic Party for a number of years. Its purpose would be to give the consumer, at a time of rising prices, some assurance he is not being cheated in the market place. As we conceived and proposed it, the scope of the board would range widely over the economy, concentrating on those pivotal industries whose leverage on economic performance is greatest. It would have effective power to implement whatever conclusions it reached. That still remains the position of this party, as reiterated as recently as last July in Vancouver.
I want to take this opportunity to quote briefly from a resolution adopted by our convention at that time:
A powerful new Prices Review Board must be set up to protect consumers from unwarranted price increases and from gouging by unscrupulous dealers who would charge everything the traffic will bear. The Board must cover not only food, but other essential industries. Parliament must pass legislation to empower the Board not only to undertake searching investigation of price increases but, where necessary on a selective basis, to impose price ceilings or roll-backs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Terrence Wyly Grier: Not now, Mr. Speaker. I prefer to conclude my speech first.
At the end of the first series of hearings of the food committee, the New Democratic Party proposed that the committee recommend the establishment of a prices review board dealing with food which would have powers of roll-back. At that time, we limited our recommendation to food. We were dealing with the subject of food in a special committee set up by this parliament to take a look

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
at food prices. We did not want to play politics with the issue, but wanted to see if we could win some support for our proposal. My friends in the Conservative party would not have anything to do with it. They wanted, and I do not question their sincerity, a wide ranging program of freezes and controls. They made that point. Otherwise, they would not go along with anything. The Liberals on the committee reluctantly agreed to the principle of having a prices review board, but wanted any powers of sanction, which we had hoped would be given to the board, to remain in the hands of the government.
On that somewhat unsatisfactory basis, the committee came to a majority decision to recommend the establishment of a board to this parliament. I am happy to say when the first report was debated and approved by the House, among the conclusions approved was that of a prices review board. Shortly thereafter, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) announced the establishment of a board under the Inquiries Act. As far as that announcement was concerned, we approved it. We believed that a board established under the Inquiries Act, given full powers of investigation, could get under way more quickly than would have likely been the case had the government brought legislation of a similar nature to this House.
Our quarrel was not that the board be set up under the Inquiries Act, but that the board be given significant powers to impose roll-backs of prices where necessary. Nothing in the debate which took place in this House or in committee up until that time gave us the slightest assurance we could look forward to any support from those in the Conservative benches who were still tied solely and obsessively to their proposal for wage and price controls. With those defects and short-comings, the Prices Review Board went into operation. Since that time, I regret to say, the defects have loomed up and become more noticeable.
I want to comment on three or four of these defects. First, the government did not appear to take the role of the board very seriously. According to a statement which the board chairman made to the public as late as August, the board received very little co-operation. In fact, in some respects it was being obstructed by government departments through failure to provide the necessary staff.
In August, the CPI figures were released. I can just hear someone sitting around the cabinet table asking what the Prices Review Board was doing about this. It was not until that time the government woke up to the fact it had a Prices Review Board. The minister was obviously told in no uncertain terms to make sure the board got functioning as quickly as possible. I believe the minister is guilty of complacency and considerable political shortsightedness.
If the Prices Review Board had begun functioning earlier and more favourably, it would have been better for the Canadian consumer and, I assume, the government. However, the board seems to have taken too leisurely a view of its role. Not until publicly criticized in August did the chairman admit having that difficulty. What prevented her from indicating previously she was encountering this difficulty with the government and asking for the help of this House to get the staff required?
Up until the beginning of September, this board had only three meetings per se, two of which took place after

the story which broke in the Toronto press about double price labelling in the supermarkets. I suspect that as a result of this rather cautious and leisurely manner of setting it up, the board received very little support from the government. I suspect, encouraged by the government, it has taken too narrow a view of its terms of reference.
It was not necessary for the Prime Minister to announce on August 13 that the board was to be given extra powers to investigate specific price increases. It is perfectly clear from the original terms of reference, and from Mrs. Plumptre's replies to my questions in committee in late July, that she believed she had those powers at that time. I cannot for the life of me see why it was necessary to go all through this rather pointless exercise of giving the board powers that it already had. But the government has consistently backed off the question of sanctions and powers for the board, and in this respect as yet I have had no indication of any different position being taken by my colleagues in the Conservative party.
It is all very well for them to argue that we cannot take a look at food in isolation, that it is all part of the same economy. But you can say that about every item or every matter that comes before this House. The fact is that a committee was set up to look at trends in food prices and it made a recommendation to establish a board to deal with food prices, yet every effort that we have made to force the government to give the board powers has been frustrated by the official opposition.
As recently as two weeks ago, I moved a motion in committee, and I am going to move an amendment later on this afternoon in very similar vein. I should like to read very briefly the substance on the motion: That the food Prices Review Board be reconstituted with full power to require cancellation or rollback of unjustified price increases wherever it finds them, those powers to include imposition of penalties against companies that gouge the consumer. I was sure that that resolution would commend itself to my Conservative friends, but in the end they voted against it. Perhaps they will indicate later in this debate why they took that position, given their concern that this government do something about food prices in Canada.
May I say in passing that I personally have not been terribly impressed by the performance of the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board. She gives me the impression that she talks too much and does too little. Hardly had she accepted the position before she was saying in public that she did not believe in wage and price controls. Regardless of whether I agreed with her, I thought that statement was unnecessarily provocative to the Conservative party, whose co-operation she surely would have required in her work. Then, last weekend the chairman of the board was quoted as saying that the Food Prices Review Board should not be given any powers, which I consider provocative to the New Democratic Party. I am not interested in what Mrs. Plumptre thinks. She is not being paid to run around giving opinions off-the-cuff on matters of this kind. She and her board are being paid to investigate and to make recommendations. This parliament will decide whether the board has any powers, not Mrs. Plumptre.
September 17, 1973

I could go on to talk about what I think is a somewhat patronizing attitude displayed in the first report toward shoppers. Shop carefully, she says. Are we to assume that Canadians are not shopping carefully? If they are shopping carefully, the prices of the commodities they are shopping for carefully are going up at the same rate as the commodities that they might be shopping for carelessly. To be told to shop carefully is cold comfort to the Canadian consumers at this time.
The support of this party is for the idea of a Prices Review Board that will do a job, for a board that must be made operational. Our comments and position with regard to the present personnel and the pace at which the board operates, I think I have made clear, are conditional and considerably qualified. At this point I am not interested in getting sidetracked into personalities. I would not be disappointed if Mrs Plumptre were replaced by a more vigorous and authoritative chairman, but this will not solve the real problem. The real problem is: Is this House-and I address myself to Conservatives as well as to the Liberal benches-now prepared to give this mechanism, approved by the House, established by the government, the powers it needs to enforce its investigations?
Why are these powers so important? Why is it that it is necessary for the board to implement its decisions rather than leave them to the government? I am sure I do not have to say to any member of the opposition that the assurances that have been received in the past from government benches do not leave one too comfortable in the belief that when a specific recommendation is made action will be taken. The Prime Minister said on August 13: "We will consider making illegal or unwarranted under law what now can be done but which is considered to be profiteering and which might be difficult to get at under our existing legislation". Translated, I think that means that if a recommendation came forward the government would consider implementing it. That assurance is not sufficient. But if in fact the government is willing to move to consider implementing recommendations of the board, why not do the thing properly and give the board the powers to implement its own recommendations? Give the board teeth. Give it the power to insist on rollbacks where necessary. It seems to me that would be not only the sensible but the swiftest way of dealing with the problem.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) talked the other day about breaking inflationary expectations. I cannot think of anything that would break those expectations more quickly and more satisfactorily than this board, and I hope they will do so very quickly. Examples of the consumer being unfairly treated in the marketplace should be sufficient to enable it to implement powers given it by this parliament to rollback or cancel increases, and would demonstrate that henceforth this agency of the government was willing, able and ready to protect the Canadian consumer.
I now turn to another factor in rising costs generally which needs to be illuminated rather more than was the case in committee or subsequently. I refer to profits and profit levels. When the supermarket representatives came before us they dealt mostly with their profit performance during the fiscal years 1972 and prior. These fiscal years ended some time in March or April of the year in question.
Food Prices
When we looked at the profit performances once they were translated in terms of equity, we saw that the healthy supermarkets were earning profits on equity ranging between 10 and 12 or 12 Vi per cent. They contended, I think correctly, that those levels of profit were not out of line with what was earned in other sectors of the Canadian economy.
It is only really since the summer of 1972, and particularly during the year 1973, that there has been a very substantial acceleration in food prices. It therefore seems to me significant to look, so far as we can find figures, at profit performances during this period. For example, Dominion Stores, at its recent annual meeting, announced that its net profit had increased in the first three months of this fiscal year, 1973-74, from the 18 cents a share of the previous year to 34 cents a share, an increase of almost 100 per cent. The chairman of the board said: "Well, the performance the year before was a very bad one and therefore with this increase we are catching up". I say not true. I remind hon. members that in 1973, the year ending March 1973, Dominion Stores earned a profit of 11 per cent on equity-10.9 per cent, to be precise, and in 1972, 11.2 per cent. It was in the fiscal year 1971, two years ago, that the so-called bad year occurred, and that was when the supermarkets were engaging in a price war.
When one looks at the food industry generally and not just supermarkets, one notes, for example, that for the year ending December 30, 1972 the net income of Burns Foods rose to $3.6 million from $2.9 million the previous year, an increase of 25 per cent. For the six months ending July 1, 1973 there was another jump of 24.4 per cent. The figures for the Becker Milk Company indicate a return on equity after taxes for the year 1972 of 20.4 per cent. Canada Packers showed a gratifying jump in net income over the identical period a year earlier of over $4 million, an increase of 40 per cent. The rate of return for the most recent year was 10.95 per cent, and during the 13 weeks ending June 30 this year the net income jumped by another 35 per cent.
Canada Safeway had a net income jump from $15 million in 1971 to $21 million in 1972, with a rate of return, as I said, of 12.6 per cent. I have already talked about Dominion Stores, and Dominion Dairies for the six month period ending June 30, 1973 showed net income up by 59 per cent. General Foods Limited, in the year ending March 31, 1972, showed a net income jump from $9.2 million to $10.3 million, a rate of return .on investment on the other hand of 14 per cent. M. Loeb Limited for the 16 weeks ending May 19 of this year showed a jump in profitability of over 122 per cent. Maple Leaf Mills, in spite of a fractional drop in sales last year, showed company profits had climbed by 81 per cent. Quaker Oats showed a 12.6 per cent return on equity last year, and Schneider's Limited for the fiscal year ending October 28, 1972 showed a rate of return on investment of 10 per cent. Silverwood Industries for the 12 months ending March 23, 1973 had a jump in net profits of 775 per cent over the same period a year earlier. They probably have an explanation for that, but it is still a pretty healthy rate of increase. Western Stockyards Limited, and I do not know much about stockyards, showed a rate of return on equity of 22.9 per cent. Steinberg's Limit-

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
ed showed a rate of return on equity of 12.8 per cent for their year, 1972, and net income in the first three months of this year increased by 10 per cent.


An hon. Member:: What about Loblaw's?


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to read all of these figures to indicate that at a time when the consumer has been particularly conscious of quickly rising prices, when various agencies and committees have conducted studies, one rather interesting phenomenon has emerged in the last few months as we begin to get some figures on performance in 1973.


An hon. Member:: You forgot about Loblaw's.


Terrence Wyly Grier: I still have lots more, but I did not want to run out of time, and I wanted to bring to the attention of some of the less astute members of this House some very simple conclusions.
The simple fact is that the profit picture of companies, not only in the food industry but right across the economy, has been going up at an almost unprecedented rate. These rates are not compared with a bad year, as the so-called bad year in the food industry was two or three years ago. I am talking about improvements over a year which these companies told their own shareholders two or three months ago was a good year, and I might add that the year before was also a good year. We are talking about a phenomenon which shows that at a time when the consumer is digging into his own pocket to pay for food, shelter, fuel, mortgages and so on, the profit performance of companies supplying these services has shown a very healthy rate of increase. I want to suggest that the rate of increase is too healthy, and that it is time we considered the imposition in this country of something that might be called an excess profits tax. I have suggested that the rate of return enjoyed by these companies is too high, given the hardships to which the Canadian consumer is being put.
Let me suggest that if we take the whole profit performance of the Canadian economy in 1973, we would see that as a percentage of the gross national product the total profits of the corporations have gone up anywhere from $1.8 billion to $2.1 billion. When we take a look at the reasons for price increases, whether they be in the food industry or elsewhere, one of the phenomena we can and should look at critically is that in relation to the profit performance of these companies. I would suggest that it would be entirely in keeping with considerations of equity and fair play to the consumer that at a time when we are talking about a freeze here, a control there and a stop-gap measure elsewhere, we should consider imposing an excess profits tax, above which it would not be possible for companies to earn as a result of hardships imposed on the Canadian consumer.
In the time at my disposal I have dealt with an excess profits tax and the Prices Review Board. I come now to an amendment I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the said committee for the purpose of giving reconsideration to the inclusion therein of a recommendation that the Food Prices

Review Board be reconstituted with full power to require cancellation or rollback of unjustified price increases wherever it finds them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would now permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty in this regard as the hon. member's time has expired. It was agreed earlier that we would hold the first round of speakers to 30 minutes, and subsequent speakers to 20 minutes. However, if the House gives its consent, I will permit the hon. member to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member advise the House whether he and his party envisage that the Prices Review Board, in addition to having the power to rollback prices if necessary, would have precisely the same power in respect of wages where these are out of line with the averages, and where they exceeded productivity to the point of being inflationary?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As in Newfoundland, for example?


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I would envisage these powers to be such that if a price increase was considered necessary or justified on the basis of a wage increase, the board would not consider it unjustified and would agree to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Grier), seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The Chair has a bit of difficulty in accepting the amendment, but perhaps there will be no objection to it. If there is objection or submissions to be made, the Chair would appreciate hearing them now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on examining this amendment I recall that there was another amendment moved at the time the first report was presented to the House some months ago, in April I believe. At that time I think the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) proposed an amendment. It was not in the same terms but was generally along the same lines in that it suggested that the committee should consider granting the Review Board certain powers not included in the reference or the report. At that time I spoke on the point of order and Mr. Speaker, who was then in the Chair, after consideration held that the amendment was not in order. I do not have the citation before me, but the ruling stays in my mind very clearly.
I must suggest that there is the same reason for rejecting this amendment now. There are several hon. members who were members of the committee now present. They are conversant not only with the parliamentary law which applied, but also with the facts. One of my colleagues has shown me the citation which appears at page 3392 of Hansard for April 17, 1973. The amendment at that time proposed was:
September 17, 1973

That the motion for concurrence in the interim report of the parliamentary committee studying price trends in food be amended by
(1)	inserting after the word "be" the word "not" and by
(2)	deleting the period after "in" and adding thereto "and that
the said interim report be referred back to the said committee
with the instruction that the committee recommend to the
House that
(a)	its terms of reference be widened to include a study of all prices and costs, and not just food prices, and
There is, of course, a distinction there, but at the same time there is some resemblance in that there is a widening of the original terms of reference.
(b)	the government consider the advisability of instituting an immediate 90-day "freeze" on all incomes, costs and prices, exempting only the price of food "at the farm gate", and
(c)	the government consider the advisability of taking measures to stabilize costs in the Canadian economy and to halt the rise in the country's cost of living, after the period of the 90-day "freeze".
I grant that this amendment, proposed by the hon. member for Dauphin, did go a stage further but the principle seems to be much the same that it was, in fact, directing the special committee to include certain recommendations far wider than those contained in the terms of reference and the report the House was considering.
In his ruling at page 3392, Mr. Speaker made that quite plain with his very forceful, eloquent and sound judgment which since I have come to appreciate. I am not so sure I appreciated it at that time, but now I understand it a little better. Mr. Speaker said:
I might say that my main reservation is that this appears to be an entirely new question, and I cannot think that that can be considered as an amendment at all. I will listen to hon. members, but I suggest they would have to do quite a bit of convincing before they would satisfy the Chair-
Your Honour at this time did not go quite that far, but I did detect in your remarks a willingness to at least be convinced.
The only other citation I have is one which goes back some years when the House was considering the changes in the Standing Orders which were brought in by the Special Committee on Procedure. At that time, there was a motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. This was at the time when the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was House Leader and was talking about the virtues of Standing Order 75 (a), (b) and (c), that ill-conceived motion of which he was the parent. At that time, on behalf of my party, I moved an amendment that one clause of the report be deleted. That course not being satisfactory to the government, which was anxious to impose its rather autocratic rules of closure in this House, the then whip of the Liberal party, Mr. Deachman, moved a subamendment to my amendment. The proposal in his amendment was that the motion be changed so that the committee would, in fact, be recommending an entirely new form of Standing Order 75. Mr. Speaker at that time, after very careful consideration, held that the subamendment proposed by the then hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was not in order.
Food Prices
While my amendment proposing the deletion of one part of the report of the committee was in order, the government, through one of its members, was attempting something that was not in order. I think that case is on all fours with what is being tried at the present time. I would ask Your Honour to give some consideration as to whether or not this amendment can be moved without bringing forth a completely new issue.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Hypocritical nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I clear up a minor point. If my good friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has made as I shall demonstrate one error, I suggest he has made others. The hon. member referred to the amendment on page 3392 of Hansard for April 17, 1973 as having been moved by the hon. member for Dauphin. May I remind him, although as a Conservative he ought to know his colleagues apart, it was moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). So, that is the one point on which he is wrong.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are quite interchangeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend says the Tories are quite interchangeable. That is not the way we see them.
Mr. Speaker, when you first suggested that you had some difficulty about this amendment I thought it was only a minor question that was worrying your Honour and I was not sure whether it would be necessary to take the floor on a procedural point. However, in view of what the hon. member for Peace River said, it is obviously necessary to set the matter straight. It is precisely because of the ruling Mr. Speaker made on April 17 that we restricted the amendment we are presenting to the House to something that clearly would be in order. The amendment moved on April 17 by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham clearly went beyond the original terms of reference given the committee. It sought clearly to go beyond food prices to prices of all kinds, and suggested a number of other things which Mr. Speaker on that date found to be so far removed from the original terms of reference that there was not any possibility of his accepting that amendment. I may say, as you will note in the record, that I fully agreed with the ruling made on that occasion. Accordingly, when in our party we were drafting the amendment which has been presented by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) I may say we toyed with an amendment which would go beyond food prices but we were confronted with this ruling and the precedents which say that a committee cannot go beyond the terms of reference given to it.
The terms of reference of the committee as laid down in the original motion this House passed in January dealt only with food prices. I may say there are plenty of citations to the effect that at no point can a committee be asked to do something that would go beyond its terms of reference. These terms of reference could be enlarged, but that could be done only by a substantive motion given with notice and cannot be done by way of amendment to the motion for concurrence in a report. Therefore, the amendment, before us in the name of the hon. member for
6636

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
Toronto-Lakeshore is limited within the four corners of the question of food prices. It is limited within the rights originally given the committee to make recommendations in respect of food prices and not in respect of anything else.
May I draw Your Honour's attention to some of the citations which bear on this question. One might well look at citation 323, paragraph (2) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition to establish something that cannot be done which perhaps is not necessary to the argument but which we might as well have clear. That subparagraph reads:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the House, but it must be referred back to the committee.
We all know this, but it is as well to have on the record that we cannot here on the floor of the House amend the report of the committee, but can refer the report back to the committee. This is precisely what the amendment of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) proposes.
Then, you will notice the following words in Citation 322 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
When the motion to concur is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend it in any respect.
That is precisely what the amendment proposes, namely, that the report be referred back to the committee for the purpose of considering or reconsidering a question which comes within the four corners of the original terms of reference. Citation 322 goes on as follows:
It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision,-
We accept that the committee made its own report and it cannot change it by its own motion.
-but if the House resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the House to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
I do not see how we can argue about it at all. That is precisely what the amendment is asking, that the report be referred back to the committee and that the committee be given the authority to consider again the whole question of the powers that should be recommended for the Food Prices Review Board.
There are one or two other citations that underline the right to refer reports back to the original committee. Citation 325(4) reads:
When a motion is made for concurrence in a Select Committee report, it is competent for the House to adopt it, reject it, refer it back to the committee or decide that consideration of the report will take place "this day six months".
There is a citation that gives four choices. We have chosen one of them, namely, the right to refer the report back to the committee. Likewise, in Citation 326 we read:
The report of a Standing Committee should be considered final only when it is adopted by the House, because, until then, the House can refer it back to the committee with instruction to amend it in any particular.
That is where we are. This report has not yet been adopted by the House, it is not yet in final form because at

this moment the House has the right to refer it back to the committee with an instruction to amend it in any particular. We even refrain from the arbitrariness of the language that it be instructed to do so and so, and instead we give it the authority to reconsider the whole question of whether one of its recommendations should not be that the Prices Review Board have the power to consider and order rollbacks.
There are other words of wisdom in Beauchesne to be found in Citation 220 on page 182, but it is a lengthy paragraph and I do not think I will read it now because the gist of it was summed up in my earlier remarks on this point, namely, that when a report is referred back to the committee or when an instruction is being given to the committee in the first instance, in the second instance, or in any other instance, it cannot go beyond the original terms of reference that were given to the committee. Perhaps I should read two or three sentences near the bottom of page 182. The Speaker of the Commons of the United Kingdom said this:
'The principles which guide a limit in the system of instruction on going into Committee may be thus stated: First, an instruction must empower the Committee to do something which the Committee is not otherwise empowered to do. Secondly, the purpose of the instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the Bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the Bill.
It is true that this citation relates to a bill, but the same principle applies to a report and I think it has to be accepted that the recommendation back to the committee has to be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose that was given to the committee in the first place. The citation goes on to say:
Thirdly, it is irregular to introduce into a Bill, by an instruction to the Committee, a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct statutes for distinct branches of law'.
It was on that basis that on April 17 Mr. Speaker ruled out of order the amendment of the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), principally because it did not stay within the confines of the subject matter of food prices. Indeed, on page 3392 of Hansard he was very strong in the statements he made, in the second column on that page, to the effect that he did not see how it could possibly be considered as an amendment. He was referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham. He went on to say:
In the amendment that we have before us is an entirely new question, suggesting that the committee report be not concurred in but that the committee be instructed to consider a number of alternatives which were not referred to in any way in the original terms of reference given to the committee.
As I say, we were fully aware of that ruling and of the general principles that apply to instructions to a committee, and therefore my friend, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, limited his amendment far more than he would like to have done in terms of our interest. He would have liked to have gone into the question of prices across the board, but we accepted the procedural limitation and moved that the committee simply be asked within its terms of reference, that have to do with food prices, to reconsider a matter that was already dealt with in that committee, namely, whether or not the Food Prices
September 17, 1973

Review Board should have power to order rollbacks. The fact of the matter is that in that committee this matter has been dealt with, which proves that at least the chairman of that committee felt that it was a proper subject of discussion in the committee, namely, rollbacks on food prices. The proposal did not carry because of the votes that took place in that committee, but the right of the House to give a committee the authority to reconsider a proposition is clearly sustained in the various citations that I have read.
Therefore, in summary I contend that the hon. member for Peace River was not as astute as he usually is when he tried to see any comparison between the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and the amendment now before us. The former amendment went beyond the terms of reference of the committee, but the one now before Your Honour is within the terms of reference of the original committee and we think it is proper for the House to ask the committee to reconsider its position on this important matter.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in reading the short debate that took place on April 17, 1973, Mr. Speaker made the point that he could not accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham because it was a new question and therefore a 48-hour notice had to be provided in the usual way. I will quote briefly from the argument Mr. Speaker made as reported on page 3393 of Hansard of April 17, as follows:
I think that is one of the arguments which could have been submitted in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member, but he himself recognizes that what he has put before the House is a new term of reference and, therefore, a new question. Certainly, the House is entitled to consider a new question. However, if it is a substantive motion which is proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, then he has to satisfy the other requirement of the Standing Orders, which is that 48 hours' notice of any new question or new motion shall be given unless the motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and there is unanimous consent.
The question to be decided is whether the proposition which has been advanced by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is, indeed, a new question or not. The question here is that the Prices Review Board be reconstituted with full power to require the cancellation or rollback of unjustified price increases. It seems to be a question of substance going far beyond what was included in either the first or the second report. Indeed, I believe that an argument could be made that the question of the rollback of prices by the federal authority is far beyond the legislative competence of the House of Commons. Therefore, I would submit to Your Honour that it is indeed a matter of substance. It is a matter of new business, and therefore the motion is not acceptable under those conditions.
The other point I wish to make is that the committee still has its original terms of reference before it. That committee is still sitting. It will have a meeting tomorrow.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is to be the witness.
I would like to draw Your Honour's attention to citation 220(1) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 182. He is
speaking of the instruction or the motion which gives a
Food Prices
committee power to do whatever is contained in the motion, and he says:
If the subject-matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then such instruction is useless and irregular.
If one accepts the principle that the committee is still sitting, still has its original terms of reference before it and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, had already discussed this matter, then it seems to me that according to this citation the motion to amend the second report is useless and irregular.


John Edward Broadbent: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on the observations that we just heard against the acceptability of the amendment. The point was made that the subject matter contained in the amendment introduced new material and for that reason should be ruled out on procedural grounds. The crucial point is that the so-called new material included in the amendment is new only in terms of the report of the committee to the House. Surely, this is the crucial procedural question. It is not new in terms of the authority given to that committee by this body. That is the crucial point at stake here.
The hon. member would have been absolutely correct in his argument if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) had gone beyond the terms of reference given to the committee by this House. But precisely because the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore took great care to stay within the terms of reference given to the committee then it seems to me it is clearly acceptable.
It is inappropriate to argue, as the government spokesman has done, that an amendment has to be ruled out because of the contents of the committee's report. In fact, the committee during its meetings discussed at some considerable length the subject matter that is included in the amendment moved on behalf of the NDP by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. On that crucial ground, I think it is fully within the terms of reference of the committee, and Your Honour should rule in favour of its acceptability.
I should like now to turn to the original objections made to this motion by the Conservative party. The argument that is crucial in that respect against the Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is that his reference to the April 17 decision of the Speaker is a totally wrong reference, it in fact being one that supports the acceptability of the amendment rather than the argument against it. At that time the terms of reference were clearly exceeded by the Conservative motion, and therefore Mr. Speaker appropriately ruled it out. On this occasion the terms of reference are clearly sufficient to include the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, and therefore it should be considered totally acceptable.
However, for the Conservative party to enter into this kind of procedural debate on an issue which it said was so important, shows the almost unqualified degree of hypocrisy which that party has in facing this issue. Conserva-
6638

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
tives voted against this amendment when it was originally proposed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is getting outside the point of order. I thank hon. members for their contributions and would ask the indulgence of the House for some 30 minutes while I prepare my decision on what has become a narrow but difficult point in my mind. I hope that the Creditiste, who is making the first-round contribution to this debate will be prepared to proceed now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before continuing with the debate, I should advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 40 the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)- Energy- Crude Petroleum-Inquiry as to meeting with Alberta ministers-Discussion of consumers' subsidy; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Suggested institution of insured medical and surgical supplies for old age pensioners and others on low incomes; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)-Cape Breton Development Corporation-Alleged failure of corporation to comply with legislation-Government action.
I thank the Creditiste spokesman for helping the Chair in these somewhat exceptional circumstances.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McGrath.
That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on Wednesday, July 25, 1973, be concurred in.
[ Translation]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a motion for concurrence in the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, tabled on Wednesday, July 25, 1973.
Last Thursday this question was debated in the House by the Progressive Conservatives until 4 or 5 o'clock a.m. Friday and, at that time, I stated that the time of the House was being abused, that those very same subjects could have been discussed today on the occasion of the motion before us. Some people are always complaining that the Canadian public is paying too many taxes, that

food, clothing, machinery, etc. are too expensive but when it comes to wasting the time of the House, for example which costs thousands of dollars every day because of the mobilization of members, senators and staff scruples are not too high. In fact they go as far as discussing a question-which we could have debated today until 4 or 5 in the morning to give the Canadian public the impression that poor Parliament members are working at night.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives are jokers; they are responsible for our coming back day after day in the House to gain some political prestige with the voters by arguing that they are most interested in the welfare of the people. I repeat that they are jokers.
As regards the proposals made by the Conservatives to fight the increasing prices of foodstuff their solution is the same today as a couple of months back: a price freeze. This solution was used in Great Britain to no avail and turned into a complete flop. This solution is still in force in the United States and again it proved to be a complete flop.
Meat producers for instance stopped selling their product on account of the price freeze and because they would not be bothered or forced by any government. Now food production in the United States is decreasing as a direct result of the price freeze. However, the black market is thriving in that country. You cannot buy meat in a butcher's shop at the price fixed by the government, but you can get some behind the counter on the black market, in the backstreet, at an excessice price. The Progressive Conservatives did not realize that.
Mr. Speaker, during the war there was a price freeze under the famous Wartime Price Board. Everything wras controlled; rationing tickets were distributed to all Canadian consumers to enable them to buy preserves, sugar, tea, coffee and meat. The Mackenzie King government did not distribute the rationing tickets according to individual needs, but it shaped the people's stomach according to the size of the rationing ticket. We had that during the war.
At the regular price we had a hard time getting what we needed, but on the black market, we could bet anything. Sugar at 8c/ a pound was impossible to find, but if you paid 20c/ a pound, you could get 100 pounds of sugar! We saw this with our own eyes. The same was true for butter: on the ordinary market, you needed coupons, but on the black market you could get as much butter as you wanted at 10c/ or 15c/ more a pound.
The Progressive Conservatives do not remember this, even though these wartime controls had been imposed by the Liberals. Today, we are at peace, but they still talk of controls and of price and wage freezes.
My friends of the New Democratic Party do not want a price and wage freeze. If they could get a price freeze only without a wages freeze, they would be happy. But they are afraid to ask for a price freeze without a wage freeze because wages have a direct effect on the price of goods. Therefore, they go about it in another way. They say: We shall tax profits more. But they do not say that taxes also have an effect on prices. If profits were taxed, the result would be the same.
Mr. Speaker, I heard again a while ago the amendment which reads as follows:
September 17, 1973

That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the said committee for the purpose of giving reconsideration to the inclusion therein of a recommendation that the Food Prices Review Board be reconstituted with full power to require cancellation or roll back of unjustified price increased wherever it finds them.
If this is not price control, I wonder what it is. It amounts to the same thing. However, it enables them to attack those who make profits. Steinberg Ltd. has increased its profits by 12 per cent; Dominion Stores Ltd has increased its own by 100 per cent; Burns Foods Limited by 25 per 100 and Canada Packers Limited by 35 per cent. Those are huge profits!
Mr. Speaker, the rationale of private enterprise is precisely to make profits. As soon as profits are done away with, personal initiative will disappear. That is clear. It boils down to what I have repeated often: The hon. members of the NDP do not tell us how those profits are used.
When we see buildings go up, whether they be Steinberg's, Chrysler's, Ford's or Dominion Stores', permanent jobs are created. Those companies do not pile up their profits in their bedrooms. The leader of the NDP knows that. Why don't they tell us frankly how those profits are used and whether, if those companies were replaced by the federal government, we would have better results.
I have even heard the chum of the NDP leader, Rene Levesque, in Quebec, shout this at us in 1962; Let us nationalize power companies and become masters in our own home. This is what the leader of the NDP says: Let us nationalize, where necessary, to become our own masters, or let us confiscate their profits. It is one and the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, in 1962, Rene Levesque shouted over the radio and television: Let us nationalize power companies. He meant Shawinigan Water & Power; Northern Quebec Power in my area; Quebec Power, in the Quebec area. And Rene Levesque, leader of the Quebec separatists, told the Quebecers-


David Lewis: He was a Liberal at that time.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, but before being a Liberal, he was an NDP.


David Lewis: He was a Liberal minister.


David Réal Caouette: That is right, a Liberal minister. We see this at all levels. As a matter of fact he was a Socialist NDP and he became a Liberal minister. Today, if we look at the situation in Ottawa, we see that the members of the New Democratic Party are the ones who keep the Liberals in power. What is the difference? The Creditists are watching you dear members of the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, going back to Rene Levesque who was saying: The day electricity will be in the hands of the government, all the profits of the big corporations will be available to the population. Your electricity will be less expensive. After 10 years, Mr. Speaker, have a look at the rates for electricity in the province of Quebec. We pay four
Food Prices
times more after 10 years than we did under private enterprise 10 years ago.
This is what happens with Crown corporations and government control, this is what we come up with when we do away with the "motor" of private enterprise and of the personal initiative that profit brings about. If the purpose of profit was only to crush or choke people, I would go along. But these profits are used for investment, expansion and consequently for the development of the economy. Nothing is said about this, we hear only about profits so that the population will be impressed. The Socialists then say: down with private enterprise, let the government control everything.
Each time the government took something under control, it was a complete flop. There have been many flops in Saskatchewan during twenty years of CCF administration. Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has maintained itself with federal credits here during many years, not with CCF credits in Saskatchewan.
Consumer prices are rapidly increasing. It must be admitted however, the solution is not that which is being advocated by the members of the NDP.
The other day, the government put forth a solution concerning milk products by giving consumers a discount of 5 cents on a quart of milk. For 40 years we have been urging, let us subsidize consumers rather than producers. If the consumer has the required credit to buy, the producer will be financed through consumption. That is normal. But let us not try to finance consumption through production; it would be walking on one's hands rather than one's feet.
Mr. Speaker, the same thing will happen with bread. We are not the only ones to suggest that. Three weeks ago, on August 27, the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, Mrs. Plumptre, was reported in Le Devoir of August 27 as saying, and I quote:
Mrs. Plumptre urges consumers to protest to their members of Parliament.
The Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, Mrs. Beryl Plumptre, has a piece of advice for consumers aggravated by rising prices: Complain to your members of Parliament," she recommended yesterday on the CTV national network.
Interviewed on the program Question Period, Mrs. Plumptre insisted on the fact that the powers of the board are strictly limited to making recommendations to the government.
It is quite clear; the government of Canada cannot be appointed to the board.
"When I accepted the position, she explained, I specified that I would report first to the public, then to the government." Consumers, Mrs. Plumptre continued, should complain to their members of Parliament about rising prices and make it known to them that if they do not do anything about that situation they will not be reelected.
"Members of Parliament are very sensitive to public opinion and it is up to the voters to push them in the back. MPs are in a very bad position".
Newspapers, radio and television, added the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, have also an important part to play: it rests with them to make the people aware of this increase in prices and to rally the Canadian people so that they protest to the government about the increase in the price of bread for instance.

Food Prices
And the price of bread has in fact increased.
The price of bread is expected to increase by six cents-
-it happened two weeks ago,-
-next week-
-three weeks ago, she told-
-and by four . . . cents in October.
"If we could get the federal government and the provinces to really examine the situation, we would perhaps have some results", Mrs. Plumptre said,-
In fact, some results were obtained since her statement.
-which claims for the government to adopt a policy concerning the storage of feed for cattle and a policy of "stabilization of reserves".
The first report of the board, Mrs. Plumptre noted, indicates some concern about people who are below poverty level. The government, she regrets-
Below poverty level, this means that when a dozen eggs sell for 99 cents-I bought one last week-those who earn $4,000 a year pay 99 cents just like the hon. member who earns $26,000. It is the same price for everyone. So, those who live below poverty level cannot eat eggs by the dozen too often, of course, because their income does not enable them to do so. I will come to my solution later.
I go on quoting:
-The government, she regrets, could have done something about family allowances-
This will be done by the first of October. Why? Because pressures are made on the government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sais during the weekend, at the Liberal convention, that the government takes its responsibilities; yes, but why did it not take them when it had 156 supporters in this House? Why did it not increase family allowances three years ago instead of waiting till 1973? Why did we not increase the old age pensions? Because the government was feeling strong. In fact, with 156 members in Parliament, it was personified arrogance. With fewer members, the minority government has to come and see us from time to time and say: Listen, it might be dangerous; there will be a vote, would it not be possible to save us? I am willing to save the government, inasmuch as it does something to save the population. If it is not willing to do so, I am not willing to save it. That is for sure.
Family allowances-anyhow will be increased on October 1 and so will old age pensions.
I resume quoting:
What about poor people with many children?
I said it recently; the old age security pensions will be increased and a couple will get $341.80 a month; that makes more sense than $180.
However, mothers with five or six children receive social welfare benefits of $150 or $160 a month. But the government does not mention this. It does not talk about the people who really need help. Old people need help, but the blind, the invalid, those who cannot work to earn a living and needy mothers need more than they receive at the present time and the government does not act. But we need have no fear, Mr. Speaker, it will act because it is scared and fear is the beginning of wisdom. When a gov-

ernment is afraid to lose its power, hop! it relaxes a bit and adjusts to the situation.
What happens to the poor? We know what happens. I shall go on with the quotation:
She is not afraid of criticism. "If the government decides to dismiss me, I do not care-
She is not afraid of the government, even though she is chairman of the board!
What is important is that I do my best. If people are not satisfied, that is too bad."
She states the facts as they are.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it is not only a matter of bread and milk. Let us consider the price of eggs which, I said a moment ago, is 99 cents a dozen. This does not make sense; meat-everyone is complaining about it-is prohibitive. It is so prohibitive that almost everywhere horse meat is substituted for beef. Butchers are selling horse meat pretending it is beef so that they can make more profit because beef is beyond reach. I do not say that horse meat is not good, but I would not eat it, even though I am convinced that I have been served such meat without my knowledge. That is the honest treatment of the consumers by the food business.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing for milk, bread, canned foods; fruit and vegetables are quite expensive. Recently, on Mr. Jarraud's program on Montreal CK.VL station from 7 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. I heard a farmer say over the phone that he has a 12 acre field of carrots and has no one to pick them. That man was losing 12 acres of carrots on his land. In other cases, it is tomatoes or apples.
We all know of the predicament of the apple growers in the Montreal area. They find it hard to recruit apple pickers. So they brought in Jamaicans. And I read in a morning paper that the federal government decided to pay transportation costs with the agreement of apple growers. The federal government is going all out. I do not object to hire Jamaican workers but how much more would it cost to say to welfare or unemployment insurance benefits recipients in Montreal: "Gentlemen, for four or five weeks, go and pick apples, and you will continue receiving your allowances or unemployment benefits". At the present time, they receive and they do not do anything. If we paid them a salary as surplus money, this would encourage them and we would have all kinds of manpower.
But no! If an unemployed decides to go on a farm and pick apples, they stop paying his benefits. He works four or five weeks, and then he stops working; he is again out of work, all the apples have been picked. Then, he goes back to the Unemployment Insurance Commission office, and is told by some official: Sir, you have not worked 8 weeks; therefore, you are not entitled to receive benefits anymore. So, the individual who has stopped drawing unemployment insurance benefits in order to go to work is penalized precisely because he went to work. And the minister says: This is the law. Well, it is a foolish law, Mr. Speaker.
The same applies to welfare recipients. They are caught working and are told: You rascals! You made so bold as to go to work. No more allowances for you! And when the
September 17, 1973

time comes to get further allowances, it takes months before they are eligible again.
The government is powerless in such situations. Some people say: Welfare comes under provincial jurisdiction and the federal government contributes 50 per cent. That's all.
But unemployment insurance, for instance, is a national scheme. If an unemployed who gets $80, $90 or $100 a week to do nothing, to remain idle, was allowed to pick up apples during four weeks, if he was told that he may earn money without running the risk of losing his unemployment insurance benefits, it would be an incentive to work instead of an incentive to laziness, as is now the case.
Unemployed deserve unemployment insurance benefits. Others manage to get benefits by cunning, even though they are not entitled to them. With regard to welfare allowances, the same situation prevails. Some regulations, some legislation should be passed to enable those people to improve their lot. On the contrary, they are punished if they work.
The same thing occurred with food, a few years ago. Western producers were paid not to grow wheat. Eastern dairy producers were punished and fined by the federal government for exceeding their quotas. Too much milk was being produced. The producers were told: You will be punished. And punished indeed they were. In all those areas, the government tried to reduce production and now it says: Prices are high; food cost is extremely high.
Mr. Speaker, as to the 14 per cent of 5 cents the quart of milk subsidy which the government proposed the other day to the benefit of consumers, my colleagues and I have been advocating just that in the House for the past 12 years, making ourselves the laughing stock of everybody: "Subsidies paid to consumers are you crazy? That was allright during the war because there was an emergency but in peacetime this has no common sense.
The government has now decided to subsidize consumers. Within the government there is more and more talk about consumers. Opposition members are still slightly dumb but they will get to it. So, what do we suggest? We suggest similar discounts on all food commodities. An agreement between federal and provincial authorities should be concluded. The machinery required to distribute the 5 cents per quart of milk does exist and millions of quarts of milk are sold. So we say that an agreement should be concluded between the federal authorities and the retailers for the prices to remain at their current level. The government could grant a discount of, say 20 or 25 per cent on the retail prices of all food commodities.
This would reach everyone. The required machinery exists. However, if those grants come from tax money the prices will obviously still tend to increase. So we say that new credits should be issued to pay for new grants since they do not exist at the present time. Therefore, new credits should be issued by the Bank of Canada to change the system so that the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, stops increasing interest rates and starts serving the people. He is an interest manipulator; that is all he does. He draws up figures and if he is not able to do it, let me know and I will go and do it for him, and not figures
Food Prices
based on nothing, but entirely on our resources and production.
Therefore, the subsidies granted for milk and bread should be applied to all food products after an agreement has been made between government and retail outlets. Those who do not want to take part in this program can opt out, but those participating will profit by the 25 per cent discount paid directly by the government. In this way, the consumer would pay 25 per cent less than at present. That would be an efficient way of fighting inflation and excessive food prices. Some can even laugh, but while we are laughing, there are some Canadian citizens who give a sickly smile and who do not find any thing funny.
This could be our solution. If we cut profits, prices will rise immediately and if we remove these profits, will the federal government spend them? And how? At present, private enterprise is expanding and I say that any country in the world is expanding to the extent that personal initiative is encouraged.
I was looking at the results of the recent election held in Sweden. The friends of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) nearly took a dive. And they have been in power for 40 years. That was called socialism par excellence!
f English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were in power longer than the Creditistes have been.


David Réal Caouette: It is something like that, but they have not been ousted by the New Democrats, except in British Columbia. Today, they are so sorry about it that they tried the other day to have young Bennett defeated in Kelowna. And the friend of my friend from Winnipeg North Centre really got it when this government was in power.
Such is the solution advocated by the Creditists and I think that electors will come to accept that idea and that we will finally enjoy reasonable prices in the best interests of all Canadian consumers.
[ English]


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the second report of the special committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Possibly the minister will allow Mr. Deputy Speaker to intervene at this time and make the ruling he said he would.


Gerald William Baldwin: That might make some difference in his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, I want to thank the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) for his courtesy in making his intervention. It is very difficult to have so many thoughts coming to the Chair from the floor and to share them in a head which is also filled with a very vicious example of the common Canadian cold. I apologize to the minister that I did not get here before he was recognized for the purpose of making his speech, but in a few minutes he will have that pleasure. I would like to

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
thank hon. members for their contributions with regard to a very interesting point of order.
The issue is as follows. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has moved that the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices be concurred in. This committee report is to be found at pages 509 to 514 of Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, July 25. It contains nine recommendations. None of these deals directly with prices exept the first one which is as follows:
The committee recommends that the Food Prices Review Board immediately begin to study the effects of controls in other countries on the price and availability of food in those countries and furthermore discourages any attempt by the board to set itself up .soley as an educational agency.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) has moved an amendment to the motion for concurrence which is in these terms:
That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the said committee for the purpose of giving reconsideration to the inclusion therein of a recommendation that the Food Prices Review Board be reconstituted with full power to require cancellation or roll-back of unjustified price increases wherever it finds them.
Procedural argument was then joined and the Chair has had the benefit of the best presentations possible. I have to remind members of the House that the special committee is still in existence and has scheduled further meetings. The relevant part of the original motion which set up the committee is as follows, and I quote from our proceedings on January 23 as reported at page 561 of Hansard:
That a special committee of this House be appointed to enquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends-
It was not disputed by anyone taking part in the procedural argument that the purposes set out in the amendment of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore were not within the original terms of reference setting up the committee. Is the hon. member, then, asking the House to review its decision to concur in a recommendation to establish the Food Prices Review Board? However, I will not determine the issue on that point.
The two issues that I must decide are as follows. First, is the amendment relevant to the content of the second report of the special committee? There is some doubt in the mind of the Chair that it is. Second, the report is an interim one, and while the committee may not wish to review any or all of the ground it has covered in its two interim reports, it does appear to the Chair that there is no impediment to the committee making a further or final report on any subject so long as that subject is within its terms of reference.
The attention of the Chair was drawn to the decision of Mr. Speaker on April 17. I think the decision as interpreted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not deal with the point I am deciding at this moment. I have decided that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is out of order for the reasons I have mentioned.

May I refer the House, in conclusion, to citation 220(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 182:
If the subject matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then such instruction is useless and irregular.
Some other citations that appeared to lend authority to the proposition that there could be a recommendation back to the committee were rejected by the Chair because it seemed to the Chair that they were dealing with final reports and the committee would not otherwise be in a position to function again. But there is no question in the mind of the Chair that the committee whose report is being considered is still alive and will be holding further meetings.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, let me again say that I welcome this opportunity to comment on the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices and to speak to this motion seeking the concurrence of the House in the report. I also welcome the rather belated conversion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to the status of being a supporter of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices and its work. Certainly his approach today is a far cry from his approach when the committee was being created and during its first hearings. When the first report of that committee was being debated in this House, as the House will recall, at that time he and his Conservative colleagues voted against concurring in the first report, the one which he speaks in support of so earnestly today.
At that time the hon. member for St. John's East, as reported at page 3150 of Hansard, said:
-if that committee is to be effective, it can only do useful work within the framework of a freeze. That is why we do not support the recommendations, or the major recommendation, of the committee. That is why we, if this motion comes to a vote, will vote against it.
One can assess the merit and weight of his words today in light of what he said on April 10 last.
There has been a lot of discussion as a result of the August cost of living statistics which were released last Thursday. They are, of course, of concern to me and to the government and I hope they are of concern to every hon. member. However, I think it is something to be noted again that these statistics were gathered during the first week of August, and therefore this was before the measures announced by the government on August 13 and September 4 had begun to take effect. Since then there have been some hopeful signs that the prices of some of the items leading the surge in the food index in early August have begun to level out. Indeed, there has been an actual decline in the prices of some commodities such as beef and pork.
The statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 13 and September 4 demonstrated the government's determination to assist Canadians in meeting the extraordinary pressures placed on the family budget by the worldwide inflation in the price of foodstuffs. In his statements the Prime Minister set out a comprehensive plan of action in three parts: first, measures to conserve and increase the supply of food; second, measures to help protect the consumer against those who may be taking
September 17, 1973

advantage of the present situation; third, measures to mitigate the effect of rising prices on those in our society who are likely to suffer most from excessive food price increases.
The areas covered by the government's plan of action relate to the recommendations in both the first and second reports of the special committee. I think the record will show that the government, in the initiatives that it has taken, has in effect responded positively to the thrust of all the recommendations of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices.
An important finding in the second report about which the hon. member for St. John's East spoke so strongly in support is the one which is a reiteration of a conclusion in the first report, namely, that "the primary cause of the dramatic rise in food prices during the past year in Canada appears to be a world shortage of many basic food commodities". In other words, it is not a problem peculiar to Canada; it is a world wide problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: Blame the weather.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Therefore, the steps the government has been taking to deal with this situation have been formulated to take account of this international perspective.
During the previous debate on the motion to concur in the recommendations in the first report of the committee on April 10, I said that "controls are not a sure-fire solution to this problem; after all, controls introduced at the wrong time and without due regard to the fundamental factors governing food production could well lead to situations of decreasing supply and, in the long term, result in the development of a food price upsurge even more widespread than we have faced over the last year". This statement was, I think, convincingly confirmed by subsequent events in the United States. Since April we have seen in the United States the rise and collapse of a policy of attempting to curb food price increases by using price freezes and controls. It is generally conceded now, even by the United States administration, that this price freeze decision was a mistake and that a better solution to soaring food prices is to encourage food producers to increase the food supply and to do so in as efficient and competitive a manner as possible.
By the tenor of the recommendations of the special committee it would appear that most of its members at least also basically share this fundamental long-term approach to the food price issue. I think it is also instructive that when they examined the experience in the United States, many commentators concluded that such price freezes produced shortages and consequently led to even higher prices. Just yesterday, in the New York Times, Edward Cowan in an article datelined Washington wrote:
With the transition from the Nixon administration's Freeze 2 to Phase 4 complete, whatever enchantment there was with price controls a year ago seems to have gone the way of most illusions.
It is something based on illusions then that the Conservative Party wants to make the basis for policy in this country. Mr. Cowan went on to write:
Food Prices
The first reason is that prices are rising, and rapidly, 25 months after the President who resolutely opposed controls switched to them. Mr. Nixon's June 13 freeze has been followed by a new burst of inflation. Even administration economists believe that there has been a causal relationship.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the date of that, please?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yesterday, Sunday, September 16.


Thomas Miller Bell: You should see today's paper.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: September 17, 1973
Food Prices
courages any attempt by the board to set itself up solely as an educational agency.
As the House knows, the special committee recently had the opportunity of meeting again with the board and of discussing with it its current activities. The board confirmed that it had in fact undertaken studies of the effects of controls in other countries and the first study on the experience, I must say apparently an unfortunate experience, of the United Kingdom has now been released.
The board further confirmed that it was not setting itself up solely as an educational agency. The government has acted to help ensure that the board is in a position to identify cases of unwarranted price increases by clarifying its terms of reference and by strengthening its investigative staff to enable it to carry out this kind of assignment. Members will be aware of the nationwide investigative survey now in progress at the retail level of food prices and pricing practices.
It is important to note, of course, that the board is an independent agency, and this was something recommended by the committee; it is an agency with wide investigative powers under the Inquiries Act. Because the board is an agency, independent of government, and it is not subject to the government's day to day direction. It was set up, as I have said, as an independent body and given an initial budget of some $500,000. It has the authority to recruit its own staff as it saw fit. I do regret, however, that its chairman did not come to me to indicate her concerns about staff before the early evening of August 13. I say this because my position throughout has been that the board was, and is, entitled to full co-operation from the government.
There have been suggestions from one opposition party's spokesman about changing the format of the board. Let me say in a preliminary and general way that the proposal to give the board the power to roll back prices raises very serious questions for the consideration of all hon. members. Hon. members of the House should ask themselves if they want to give a totally independent body the power to make decisions that could and would have wide-ranging effects on the economy that would affect supply and wages as well. These would be decisions without appeal and would be made by a body not accountable to the Canadian people through parliament, yet the Canadian people would hold their members of parliament accountable for those decisions. I may also add that if some members are not satisfied with the kind of decisions now being made by the board, they should ask themselves whether they would necessarily be more satisfied with the decisions it would make if it had the authority to order roll-backs or not to order them as it saw fit.
Let me repeat what the Prime Minister stated on August 13;
-in the event that the board reports that significant instances of profiteering have occurred which the parties concerned are unwilling to correct voluntarily the government will seek parliamentary authority to undertake corrective action.
Also, on September 4 the Prime Minister made this statement. I happen to have the French text here: [Translation]
If the Board points out glaring abuses which those responsible do not eliminate, the government will resort to its powers to take

the necessary steps. If it needs other powers, it will not hesitate to call on Parliament.

The board's first report has demonstrated, in my view, its willingness to actively carry out its mandate, a mandate which is also in the form recommended by the special committee-one of reporting to the public its findings and making recommendations for action both to governments and to the private sector. The government has already responded in a positive way to the board's first major recommendation, that with regard to subsidies to limit the possible increase in the price of bread.
The special committee has also recognized the importance of competition in the food industry and has made several recommendations in this area. The committee was concerned in its report about certain alleged practices in the retail food business and asked the Combines Investigations Branch to make certain investigations. I think the House will be interested to learn that the Combines Branch had already begun a research inquiry into the food manufacturing industry in early July before, in fact, the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices had prepared its second report. The purpose of this inquiry is to study concentration levels, advertising expenditures and performance of firms in the food manufacturing industry, generally speaking the kind of practices that the committee in its second report asked the Combines Branch to examine. When the inquiry is completed, its findings will be considered by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Let me also discuss another recommendation of the committee calling for the immediate publication of an assessment of the 1969-71 food price war that the committee thought had been prepared. It would appear that the committee had in mind the following statement on page 27 of the annual report of the Director of Investigation and Research for the year ended March 31, 1971. It followed the presentation of a statistical study of concentration in food retailing which had been carried out by the director. The statement is as follows:
These structural developments are consistent with the 'price war' that occured in 1970 and 1971 even though its full effects remain to be assessed.
I have discussed this statement with the acting director and have been advised that the then director did not intent to convey the meaning taken from his statement by the committee. While developments in the food sector are kept under active review by the director as stated in the annual report, the director did not and does not have a study under way to assess and review the 1969-71 price war. It was simply intended to suggest that the structural changes which had occurred in food retailing had rendered the industry more prone to competition, that the price war which had erupted was consistent with that finding, and that the full effects of the price war "remained to be assessed". That is, that they had not been fully assessed.
Turning to another matter, in its first and second reports the special committee has spoken of the importance of the government's intention to modernize and update competition policy, particularly those areas dealing
September 17, 1973

with direct consumer protection. I have already confirmed that the government will be presenting its new competition policy to the House in stages, as recommended by the committee. I look forward to the bill covering the first stage being presented as soon as possible after certain final drafting revisions now under way are completed.
The committee has also asked that the government consider the advisability of proclaiming immediately the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The committee was of the view that this might have a beneficial effect on food costs. I agree with what I believe to be the intent of this recommendation, that is, to bring these regulations into force as soon as possible. This is also my own objective. I now anticipate that the proposed regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette on September 22.


Gerald William Baldwin: What year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This year, of course. I see you are probably thinking of the past. I think, however, that the committee might agree, on reflection, that the act itself could not be proclaimed immediately at that point. These regulations will have to apply to an estimated 80,000 domestic and 40,000 imported pre-packaged products from food to hardware items. The law provides that there must be an opportunity given for public comment on the proposed regulations before they are finally promulgated into law. It would be my intention, therefore, to proclaim the act certainly by the end of the year.
The committee has made other recommendations in its reports about measures to assist the consumer in the marketplace. Since the first report the government has made a sizeable grant to the one national consumer organization to assist it in appearing before regulatory bodies and thereby to carry out a more active consumer advocacy role as recommended by the special committee, and I look forward to further efforts of the type being developed. Studies are being developed on the cost to the consumer and the food industry of putting nutritional information on labels, and also on the best techniques and methods of displaying this information so that it is readily understood by the shopper in the food store. This is being done as part of the work of developing legislation in this area.
The third element in the government's plans of action on food prices are measures to mitigate the effect of rising prices on Canadians generally, and particularly those in our society who are likely to suffer most. The House has been dealing with a series of government proposals to help the Canadian consumer in this area, including immediate increases in the family allowance to $12 monthly and the steps to further increase the old age and guaranteed income supplement by making quarterly adjustments where required by increases in the cost of living.
The special committee has recommended that programs be devised to provide food for low-income Canadians and with the passage of these measures those Canadians who have been hardest hit by the increase in food prices will have some needed compensation for the increase in their food budget. Also, as I said in the House on April 10, 1973, the Department of National Health and Welfare, through the Canada Assistance Plan, shares with the provinces 50 per cent of the cost of a number of assistance programs with special relevance to low-income consumers. My colfood Prices
league, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), has consistently been encouraging the provinces to ensure that the rates under these programs adequately reflect the prices recipients have to pay for food and other essentials. In the last few months several provinces have raised the rates in their benefit structure to reflect rising prices and, of course, the federal share of the cost has risen accordingly.
I understand, further, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his department are actively examining what further programs might be called for in cooperation with the provinces and, recognizing the shared responsibility the provinces have in this area, to meet the needs of low-income consumers who may be facing additional nutritional problems because of the upsurge in food prices.
I think that what I have said, Mr. Speaker, confirms the efforts of the government in the areas dealt with by the recommendations of both reports of the special committee. In April, in commenting on the first report, 1 indicated that the government would strive to make a positive response to the thrust of each and every recommendation. This is also the position of the government with regard to the second report, and therefore it supports the motion to concur in the second report.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am pleased to have been able to participate actively in the decisions reached by the government to help the Canadian consumer, announced in recent months; measures which include reduction in personal income taxes, sales tax and custom duties, export controls on cattle and hogs, measures to increase family allowances and old age pensions, and to limit price increases in bread and milk. I am continuing these efforts to have the Canadian consumer helped through practical measures that take into account the world wide supply and demand conditions causing the upward pressures on Canadian prices.
This is my concluding sentence, Mr. Speaker. It continues to be the government's position, as the Prime Minister said on August 13, that "if any further action is called for to protect the food supplies of Canadians, or to protect Canadians against further erosion of their purchasing power, it will be taken without delay", and the government has shown its ability and its commitment to take decisive action to deal with these problems in the interest of the Canadian consumer and in fact all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear at the outset that on behalf of our party I propose to move an amendment to this motion of concurrence, and in order that Your Honour may have full opportunity to consider whether there are any procedural
6646

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
admissibility problems with this amendment, I propose to put the amendment now so that we might minimize any delay in Your Honour deciding on its procedural acceptability.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should warn the hon. member that if he puts his amendment, that is the end of his speech.


Ronald George Atkey: With that injunction, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withhold the formal moving of this amendment. I did think it might be possible to facilitate your consideration of the admissibility of the amendment, but I will consider your injunction and withhold it.
Having given you and members of the House notice of my intention, I will paraphrase the general thrust of the amendment. It is simply to refer the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices back to the committee with an instruction to consider the relevance and the effect of the movement of several main components of the consumer price index for the month of August, 1973, as domestic factors accounting for the trends in food prices in Canada, and related matters. I will formally put the amendment at the completion of my speech.
As a general proposition, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate to prod the government into doing something about rising food prices. It seems to me that if the members of the only opposition party in the House had not made it known that they would not support any motion for adjournment, this House might not have been sitting this evening and might not have had an opportunity at least to attempt to come to grips with some of the very real problems facing this country in the food sector.
As has already been mentioned by several hon. members, the committee worked very hard both prior to the presentation of the first interim report made to the House last April 2 and in the period until the second report was presented on July 25.
One consistent theme running throughout the recommendations, both the first report and in the second report, was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) should be doing a number of things. There were six recommendations in the first report, of which five were addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I regret that the minister is not present in the House tonight. In the second report presented to the House on July 25 there were nine recommendations, of which five, Nos. 3 through 7, were again directed to the minister.
Taking the recommendations from the first and second reports, ten of the fifteen substantive recommendations, or two-thirds, involve supposed actions on the part of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In his absence, and to be fair to the minister, let me point out that he was not been completely unresponsive to the recommendations directed to him. He has provided funds for the Consumers Association of Canada pursuant to the sixth recommendation of the first report, and he has made certain noises about possible legislation requiring nutritional information on food products. To this point, that is just about all. That is about two out of ten. The minister is

batting about 200, which will soon qualify him for the minor league, if he does not start producing in the House soon.
Let us look at some of the recommendations of this committee which the minister has not implemented. First I want to refer to recommendation No. 5 of the second report which relates to the proclaiming of the regulations under and legislation contained in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, this Act was passed in the House of Commons on March 17, 1971. It will soon be the third anniversary of the passage of that act in the House, but it is not yet the law of the land. There have been delays. The minister has been taken to task by the Consumers Council, his own creation. They have consistently berated him. He has promised a number of hon. members that the regulations will soon be made public and then brought into force, but he has consistently failed to meet these promises.
I was interested to note that the minister in his speech just before the supper hour made a commitment. He said that the regulations will be made public for the first time on September 22 and he promised, for whatever his promises are worth, that the new act will become law by the end of the year. I am willing to wager that the minister will not make it by the third anniversary of this act, which will be March 17, 1974. That is the nature of his record.
Let us look at the second recommendation that the minister has failed to implement. I refer to recommendation No. 4 in the second report which deals with the supposed assessment and review of the 1969 to 1971 food price war which we thought until this evening was being undertaken by the Combines Investigation Branch. At least, that is what one can gather from reading the report of the Director of Investigation and Research. The minister said tonight that this assessment and review never really existed.
After allowing the committee to go on since last January thinking that the report was under way and that everything was going to be looked after-he let them go on under the impression that a full assessment and review was being carried out by the Combines Investigation Branch-he comes to the House on September 17 and says that the report is not even begun. That is a despicable performance. I would think that the minister himself, who took the trouble to quote from the director's report to verify the fact that there would not be perhaps any inclination to think, or suggestion that an assessment or review had been done, should have read the full report so that he could have understood the conclusions which virtually all the members of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices drew from this report. I will quote briefly from a passage of the director's report, including passages that the minister himself neglected to read in his statement this afternoon. The director said:
The position of the unaffiliated independent has continued to decline, but those of the smaller chains and the affiliated independents have improved markedly. These structural developments are consistent with the "price war" that occurred in 1970 and 1971 even though its full effects remain to be assessed.
That is where the minister's quotation ended. He should have gone on to read this:
September 17, 1973

It should, however, be noted that the power of the large corporate chains increased substantially in the western provinces between 1958 and 1968. The grocery business in the rapidly developing shopping centres is largely in the hands of a few corporate chains. Also, a few chains have a disturbingly large share of the market in some cities. In addition, there remains a great deal to be learned about food distribution, especially at the wholesaling level. It is the intention of the Director of Investigation and Research to keep the situation under active review.
That is the statement that the committee relied on. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister was not keeping on top of the thing. In his absence I might ask, what are they doing over there in the Combines Investigation Branch? Are they really having a look at the food industry at all?
Then there was recommendation No. 3 in the second report. That dealt with certain types of retail agreements involving cash discounts, volume discounts, co-operative advertising, end-aisle displays, introductory free goods and case allowances. The committee asked whether these types of agreements in any way reflected adversely on retail prices, whether they helped limit competition, and whether they disadvantaged small retailers and wholesalers.
Again, for the first time committee members learned in the House today that the minister has launched an investigation, or at least that he had the Combines Investigation Branch commence an investigation in July. That investigation was purportedly launched at the same time that the committee members were considering this recommendation and were trying to come to grips with what they saw as a very real problem. I think the minister was less than honest in not revealing to the committee that this investigation was taking place.
Not only is the minister failing to co-operate with the Food Prices Review Board in their attempt to get investigative staff, but he is failing to co-operate with the special committee. Knowing full well that they were considering a matter in the committee, he chose not to reveal to them the fact that the branch over which he has responsibility was doing the sort of thing the committee members were concerned about. Again, I think that is despicable.
Recommendation No. 2 in the first report of the committee dealt with the consumer protection provisions of the proposed Competition Act. The committee asked the minister to hive off those protection provisions and enact them immediately without waiting for the other provisions dealing with monopoly power, mergers and related items.
The minister, while he has made noises about bringing in provisions relating to misleading advertising or dealing with consumer protection, has yet to give a firm indication of placing on the order paper a bill dealing with consumer protection. Indeed the government House leader was unwilling to give a commitment that we would have the misleading advertising provisions presented prior to any planned recess to come within one, two or three weeks. Again, I say it is very difficult for members of the House and members of the committee to take the minister at his word in view of the many promises that have been broken time and time again.
Food Prices
Those are four areas where the minister has failed to implement the recommendations that have been placed before him in good faith by members of the committee. There are several others. I mention them only in passing. The first is that he should have implemented a program to provide food for low-income Canadians. No such program has been placed before the House. We have no real legislation in force requiring nutritional information on food products. We have no action to ensure that food advertising is primarily price and quality informative, and we have no action to encourage consumers to buy private brands that offer them significant savings.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has now been in office for some ten months. I suppose that it is fair to give a minister in a new portfolio a chance to get a grip on his department, to get to know the nature and scope of his responsibilities and to have time to formulate an approach to a legislative program that will be responsive to the needs of Canadians. And during that time I suppose it would be unfair of opposition members to criticize him unduly for inaction when the problems may have been those of a previous minister in that portfolio.
But, Mr. Speaker, that period of grace has passed. This minister is now fair game. He has been in office for ten months. He has had two reports from the special committee. He has had the first of the Food Prices Review Board. A total of ten substantive recommendations of a committee of this House were directed to him, and his present batting average is only 200. The Consumers Association of Canada continues to criticize him for his failure to bring in any effective competition legislation. The Consumers Council of Canada continues to berate him for failing to proclaim the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.
It is time for this minister to consider doing something else if he is not going to produce in this portfolio. It does not bother me that the minister is lack-lustre, as he has been described, or as the leader of the NDP suggested facetiously on September 4 as "vital, invigorating and dynamic". Those are mere personality traits. Personally, I find the minister a likeable chap.
But his record is abominable. Not only has he failed to achieve any substantive reforms in his portfolio but, equally important, he has failed to project the crusading image that Canadian consumers have a right to expect in their Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Times are tough. Maybe this minister cannot come up with all the solutions to rising prices. But he can try to give the impression that he is trying and that he cares, that he shares the concern of millions of Canadians about shocking increases in the cost of living, particularly in the price of food. I put that forward in all seriousness in this debate. Previous ministers of consumer affairs have all had that crusading image. I refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who was the first holder of that portfolio, to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). To a large extent they all carried forward that crusading image. But we do not have it now at a time when there are shocking increases in the price of food, in the consumer price index and in the over-all cost of living. At a time when we have a 3.2 per cent monthly increase in the price of food we have a minister who does

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
not project the sort of crusading image which I and my party believe is necessary to give the consumers of Canada the governmental service and concern to which they are entitled.
I now wish to say a brief word or two about the Food Prices Review Board. The minister, of course, did give them a hard time in obtaining staff. Last Tuesday he attempted to suggest that they were acting independently of him. He neglected to say that ten of his senior departmental officials are in fact supervising the 80 investigators who are going around the country making investigations into the reasons for food price increases.
Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last September 4, presumably with the minister's knowledge, refused to bring in legislation giving either the board or the government the power to eliminate any abuses respecting unjustified price increases. The minister is not being totally consistent in his approach to the board. On the one hand he tries to stress their independence and power; on the other hand he refuses or is unable to convince the cabinet of the neessity to give them increased powers to do something about the increases in the price of food. I think the sooner we have a clear and articulate statement on the government's position with respect to the Food Prices Review Board, and not any window-dressing in terms of a bogus expansion in the terms of reference, as announced by the Prime Minister on August 13, the better off we will all be.
Now I am going to put the motion that I referred to at the outset of my remarks. I do this in a spirit of co-operation with the members on the other side of the House and with the members to my left. In this motion we are not going to pin the terms of reference or the instruction to the committee down to any specific proposal or amendment that was discussed at an earlier time in Committee. Merely, we are saying that when the committee considered its recommendations in the second report presented to the House in July, a certain set of economic conditions existed.
There was a certain set of premises by which we were all proceeding. Then things changed rapidly in the month of August. It was not just the consumer price index that changed; that is merely the manifestation of the over-all problem which many of us did not realize was so serious. I am willing to bet that members from all parties might not have been willing to stick with the recommendations of the second report had that factual information as manifested in the consumer price index figures of August been available.
In that spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I propose that this report not be concurred in tonight, that it be sent back to committee and that members from all parties have an opportunity, with this new factual information, to bring forward such recommendations, such reconsiderations, rethought-out policies, rethought-out statements and summaries of facts that occur to them under these new conditions, We should not at this time, in this House, in this period of crisis, be saddled with what are really lukewarm, wishy-washy recommendations which we sup-
(Mr. Atkey.]
port for the most part but which really do not come to grips with the over-all problems.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth):
That the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices be not now concurred in but be refrerred back to the said committee with an instruction to consider the relevance and effect, if any, of the movements of the several main components of the consumer price index for Canada for August, 1973, as domestic factors accounting for the trends in food prices in Canada, and to make any revisions thereby necessitated in the said report for presentation to this House as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) was good enough earlier in his address to indicate to the Chair the amendment which he proposed to move, and in this way he gave the Chair an opportunity to consider the procedural acceptability of his motion. I suppose the hon. member did that because he suspected there were procedural difficulties in relation to his amendment. If he did, he was correct.
I certainly do not propose to make a ruling now. I am quite willing to hear the views of hon. members who may wish, for the next hour or so, to instruct the Chair on their belief as to the rules, the precedents and citations which might be applicable to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's. Although I am quite prepared at the present time to make a ruling, I would not want to deprive hon. members of the pleasure of embarking upon a procedural discussion.


Ronald George Atkey: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. No doubt Your Honour is aware of a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker prior to the supper hour. Without attempting to reflect in any way upon that ruling, I think it now constitutes a precedent of the House and I might wish to make submissions on its applicability to this particular motion.
I do not have a written copy of the ruling before me, of course, but as I recall his words the Deputy Speaker seemed to indicate that because this was a motion for concurrence on the second interim report of a special committee, and because the special committee continues to exist and in fact has the option of submitting a third or fourth report, therefore the earlier amendment to consider other new matters was for that reason unacceptable to the Chair.
The procedural argument I would make in this context, Your Honour, is that this motion does not necessarily attempt to introduce a specific new topic which might well be the subject of a third report. It merely attempts to suggest that the factual basis upon which the recommendations of the second report were made have changed so drastically that at the moment, in the best interests of all hon. members of this House, the committee should reconsider its recommendations in light of that new factual evidence which has become available to members of the House and the public subsequent to the formulation and the making of the recommendations in the second report.


Mr. Caccia:: May I ask a question, Your Honour?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question on the point of order?
September 17, 1973


Charles L. Caccia: No, Mr. Speaker, a question in relation to the speech that the hon. member completed just before his point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: That is perhaps a little embarrassing, but I do not want to obstruct the interesting work of the House. If the hon. member for St. Paul's is interested in allowing a question from his colleague from Toronto, I suppose the rest of us should not object.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection, although I hope you could get on with your ruling as soon as possible, in the interests of expediting the work of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to move with my ruling, but I gather the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has some words of wisdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will keep them down, Mr. Speaker. I can think of three reasons why I should not take the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Try sitting down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That applause suggests there are four reasons, the fourth one being that the House would be just as happy if I took my seat. The first reason is that it is a bit difficult to speak on this point after Your Honour has suggested something about words of wisdom, and the second is that a few moments ago you said you did not want to deny us the pleasure of participating in debate. But the more important reason that would keep me from rising, although it has not succeeded in doing so, is that I find doing so a bit awkward.
This afternoon when we moved an amendment, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised a point of order against it. Now, if I speak procedurally against this one, it may look like tit-for-tat. I can assure Your Honour that is not the case but, rather, I rise because I think the consistency with which this House must act operates against this amendment being allowed. If I can be pardoned for one-half sentence on substance, I do not think this is a good enough reason for not voting on the main motion tonight.
This afternoon, His Honour the Deputy Speaker ruled our amendment out of order relying mainly on a sentence in citation 220(1) which reads in part:
If the subject matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then such instruction is useless and irregular.
It was argued this afternoon that the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices is still in session and is going to meet tomorrow as well as on other occasions and needs no instruction from this House to permit it to consider matters that are within its terms of reference. I submit if that applied this afternoon, it applies tonight.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) said that his amendment, unlike ours, does not raise a specific new topic. If I may paraphrase it, it seems to me that what he is saying is that his amendment just tells the committee to carry on with its work. Surely there is no place, especially in the light of this afternoon's ruling, for an amendment
Food Prices
that simply tells the committee to do what it already has the right to do. That committee, when it meets on future occasions, could consider the consumer price index figures and other figures released last Thursday and make a third and a fourth report if it wishes.
I submit that there is not sufficient argument, either in substance or in terms of procedure, to tell the committee to do something it already has the power to do, and that the amendment is not in order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise as one thoroughly prepared to argue this question, since the mantle of acting House leader was cast on my shoulders only a few minutes ago. However, although I always have the greatest difficulty in disagreeing with the sage of the House of Commons on questions of procedural minutiae, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I personally find that the motion put by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) opens up in substance new vistas for debate.
I, personally, would have been delighted to have the opportunity of hearing debate on some of these interesting questions. Unfortunately, I am not here with any elaborate procedural argument. I hope the Chair might find the amendment acceptable so that we might continue with such interesting discussions as have been opened up by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I must disappoint the amiable Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) who appears intent on supporting the procedural acceptability of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's. I find it difficult to disagree with the ruling delivered to the House this afternoon by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's when he says it was a precedent. I am sure there can be found many precedents in the history of our deliberations to indicate that this kind of decision, having reference to proposed amendments to reports from standing committees, has been made in the House.
The hon. member for St. Paul's first gave to the Chair notice of his proposed amendment. I heard him reading the amendment. It seems to me at first blush, at second blush and perhaps at last blush, that this is an entirely new question. The hon. member must appreciate that there were terms of reference agreed to by this House going back, I believe, to January 23. Hon. members, by amendments or suggested amendments to a committee report or to a motion to do with a committee report, cannot try to rewrite the terms of reference which were agreed to by the House.
I heard earlier during this debate, perhaps at the opening of the debate while the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) had the floor, the suggestion that there should be an appreciation by the House of the work done by committees and an appreciation of the reports being made by committees. I agree very much with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for St. John's East at the time. If the House agrees, I think we can go along with this idea by accepting the recommendation which has

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
been made to us by a committee, considering it at least and then voting either for or against it.
If that is the will of the House, it is a decision which the House has to make. However, to come before us with an amendment such as the one proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's, which is an entirely new question, which I respectfully suggest to him has nothing at all to do with the recommendation that has come to us from an excellent committee making an excellent report, that report having been proposed for the consideration of the House and the acceptance of the House by the hon. member for St. John's East, is not in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the House.
I suggest to the hon. member that what he is asking us at the present time to do is not to amend the motion before the House but to amend the decision of the House taken by this assembly on January 23. On that basis, I find the amendment cannot be accepted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it will be obvious to the House why I rise to speak on this particular occasion. Interest and, of course, long-standing expertise prompt me to rise and talk about farm prices and particularly about the effects that various costs, not least of which is the cost of petroleum, have on costs of food in Canada. By way of introduction to this question I should like to relate my remarks to some of the exact terms of the second report of the special committee which we are considering.
I refer particularly to Votes and Proceedings, page 514, paragraph No. 8, where one finds a discussion of the importance of having an adequate supply of essential food, of the importance, also, of encouraging farmers to increase steadily the production of staple foodstuffs, and of the fact that we should at the same time provide a fair income for the farm family. At the same time, I would refer to paragraph 2 of the same report, which refers back to and incorporates by reference the first report of the committee which may be found at page 232 of Votes and Proceedings. I refer in particular to the second column on that page, that is, to the reference to costs of operation, costs of processing and costs of transportation.
I think there is little disagreement among those who have been following the interests of the farm community, both in this committee and elsewhere, with the idea that one of the most important considerations involving farm costs has been the increased cost of petroleum products, particularly gasoline and diesel oil and also, of course, heating oil. These costs are important from the standpoint of farmers' operating costs.
I am glad the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) is here this evening, because he is personally familiar with and has taken an interest in the Ontario greenhouse owners and operators group which has particularly been feeling the impact of the acceleration in petroleum prices which Canada has experienced in the past year. This group will also feel it in the season to come.
These remarks apply to the growers of fresh fruits and vegetables of various kinds, if I may be parochial, in our part of the country in Ontario. They also apply to other parts of the country where some protection is provided for the Canadian consumer in food costs by reason of the fact

that the enterprise of the kind of producer I have referred to, who with a not inconsiderable investment in productive facilities provides the Canadian market during the cold weather months with fresh fruits and vegetables, provides important Canadian competition for imported foodstuffs. Without that Canadian competition the consumer would be less assured of paying a fair price at that time of year when he has no alternative source of supply in Canada.
Unfortunately, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not here this evening. He has, in somewhat forceful terms, put forward in relation to food costs and the costs of the farm community several arguments related to my portfolio and several arguments related to the fact that in the past year, in the area west of the Ottawa Valley line, the basic price of crude petroleum increased by about $1. That was an increase of about 30 per cent from the standpoint of the refiners. Of course, that cost is passed on in due course to all consumers.
The view of the Minister of Agriculture, if I may do the best I can with an argument to which he would render better justice, is that this is unfair to the farmers in the first place, in view of the additional costs and competion to which they are exposed. Of course, this additional cost eventually shows up in the farmer's balance sheet and makes more difficult, as the report says, the provision of a fair income for the farm family.
The Minister of Agriculture at the same time makes a second argument, the justice of which I must acknowledge. He feels that it is unfair, at a time when the big, multinational oil firms are in a position to increase their prices and have in fact increased prices by nearly 30 per cent in less than one calendar year-the beginning of the increase came about November, 1972-to criticize the essential food producer. As these firms are in a position to take a mark-up of not less than 30 per cent, he feels that it is essentially unfair that the producer of food should be subject to so much criticism.
I think it is fair to say, without disclosing the confidence of the cabinet room, that the viewpoint put forward by the Minister of Agriculture and by many who represent the viewpoint of consumers in other farming areas of the country and of consumers in the broader sense was that the increases in the price of gasoline and oil were increases which were, in the first instance, substantial in the hands of the companies that received them; secondly, these increases for the time being were seen to be more than adequate-


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for interrupting the minister in his speech. I submit to him, through you, Sir, that he must stay within the rules. I submit that his remarks concerning oil and oil prices are not relevant to the debate taking place at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the point made by the hon. member is well taken. I had assumed the minister who has the floor now would want to relate his remarks to the substance of the motion before us. He was talking about oil. It may have been olive oil he was talking about, which would bring his remarks within
September 17, 1973

the terms of the motion. The minister will want to take that into account.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that question has been occupying my mind all day. In response to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), if he had talked to those in the farming community of Ontario, as I have, and to his colleague the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), he would not say to the farm community, which is responsible for providing food supplies to the Canadian market, that the cost of petroleum products is an irrelevant question. I am not talking about cooking oil. He would not say to the hon. member for Kent-Essex, nor to the Ontario greenhouse growers, that the cost of oil is an irrelevant question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sure the greenhouse growers would say to him, in language which I could not reproduce and which could probably only be matched by the Minister of Agriculture or the hon. member for St. John's East himself, that the question of petroleum costs is one of the most important' from the standpoint of producers and one of the most relevant when talking about production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In my part of the country and in other parts it is not only a question of heating oil for winter producers of tomatoes and other vegetables; it is also a question of an industry that has become more highly mechanized over the years. Petroleum is a very important expenditure in their total current budget. Therefore, I think it is important that we reflect on the impact of this particular part of the cost package the farmer has to face. The cost package the farmer, like all producers, has to face is in due course passed on to the customers and is ultimately reflected in food prices in Canada.
It was in. light of this feeling and the feeling of the Ontario farm communities that we were pleased on that day to be able to gratify the greenhouse growers, mushroom growers and others. While they would be facing difficulties this winter in signing contracts for fuel or heavy oil, due to the increase in oil costs hereto-fore the government had taken the step to put a restraint on oil prices until the end of January so that at the same time it might take action to dissociate the very substantial increase which for domestic reasons in the United States has been forcing up the price of oil in that country. We wanted to dissociate that from prices in Canada.
I might say this proposal has run into some opposition. It has, of course, run into opposition from the producers of oil, and the government of Alberta. The substance of it has not run into opposition. I have yet to hear such an argument articulated. It has certainly not been argued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or any of his followers that 30 per cent is not enough for the oil companies.
Indeed, if one looks at the argument of the Leader of the Opposition and his followers, including the hon. member
Food Prices
for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-unfortunately, neither is here this evening-one would find that instead of being prepared to deal with the substance of the question of how much is enough when it comes to oil prices, they have been arguing around the periphery. They have been arguing the minutiae of procedure, not the substance or whether the Canadian consumer is paying too much. They argue about whether enough notice was given to the United States or whether there were consultations with Alberta. In other words, they have evaded the basic question of whether the member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) and the Leader of the Opposition think that real oil prices should be restrained in this country, and whether we should shift from a single price system to a two-price system so that the problems of the United States market are not automatically translated into our own.


Mr. Bawden:: What happened to the energy report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Calgary South asks what happened to the energy report. I think I am right in saying he was not here today when I had an opportunity to deal with this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to take exception to the line of approach adopted by the minister. I have some qualms as to whether what he is saying is within the terms of reference of the committee which considered food prices. As I said a moment ago-I appreciate I may be saying this facetiously-what we are considering at the present time is a report on food prices. I wonder whether the debate on energy, the supply of oil from Alberta and the related problems which were debated heatedly during the question period ought to be included in the debate we are having at the present time. This point was made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) a moment ago. I feel he had a good point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I made a very careful study of the parliamentary precedents in this regard. I focused in particular on a very interesting debate in the fall of 1962 when the then hon. member for Stor-mont-Dundas advanced some very cogent arguments with regard to harbours, with particular relation to Cornwall harbour. I have been trying to emulate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My recollection is that the hon. member was ruled out of order and sat down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been reflecting on this question throughout the day. While the fine, red thread of relevance seems very clear to me, I thought it might not be so obvious to other members of the House. On another occasion, and perhaps outside the House, I will have an opportunity to talk about these questions, particularly the consultations which took place with the United States State Department.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Calgary North is here now. I have reason to believe I will have an early opportunity to talk about the discussions with the government of Alberta. Therefore, I will direct myself to the question of farm prices and the cost to farmers. I hope we

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
can have in this House the verbal and articulate support of this measure of the hon. member for Kent-Essex and other rural members from the province of Ontario.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us what it is.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The measure is to restrain the prices of gasoline, diesel oil and heating fuel, which the Leader of the Opposition opposes. He would just as soon have higher prices for these to satisfy his Alberta members. However, I hope the Ontario members will support those of us on this side of the House who would like to keep the prices down for the consumer, and particularly the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), but the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) is rising on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, in my view, the minister does not know carrots from a gallon of gas.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) went through the list of recommendations of the food prices committee on which the government has taken very little action. He did a very thorough job of going over those recommendations. But it was the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the member who introduced the resolution, who pointed out, quite correctly, that the two most important recommendations of the food prices committee to date were the ones having to do with the setting up of the Food Prices Review Board and with urging the government to take measures to put food on the tables of people with low incomes.
Both those measures were introduced in the committee by members of this party, and the members of the other parties were very lukewarm about them, particularly the one having to do with putting food on the tables of those of low income. Members of the Conservative party in particular were very much opposed and very vocal in their opposition to setting up the Food Prices Review Board. The reason was that they were obsessed with the single idea that the only way to tackle the question of food along with the rise in the cost of living was to set up a system similar to that in the United States, a stop-and-go policy of freeze, price rise, further freeze, another price rise, and so on. It was a sort of leap the dips approach which would leave the consumer dipping more than he would be leaping.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget our friends opposite.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The Liberals may have been doing something like that too, but the

Tories are certainly noteworthy for the fact that since the Food Prices Review Board was set up over their loud protests they are now attacking it for not doing the things that they did not want it to do in the first place or felt it should not do. The Conservatives had this fixed idea, so it is somewhat entertaining to see them now lashing themselves into a fury at the government for failing to use the Food Prices Review Board to bring down food prices.
Opposition to giving the board the powers it must have is equally visible on the part of the government. It was very visible this afternoon in the attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) when he spoke in this debate. I am glad to see him in his seat once more. The minister was very firm in warning that if we were going to give an independent board the power that some of us contend it must have to be effective-that is, power to cancel or roll back price increases that are unjustified-we would be letting ourselves in for serious trouble.
I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has he forgotten about the powers of the Canadian Transport Commission to deal with such things as wages and whether people get stations in their area, and so on? Has he forgotten that the CRTC has very wide powers involving all kinds of things in the field of communications? Has he forgotten the powers that the National Energy Board has been clothed with? All of these are independent boards.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Are not members complaining about them every day?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Members may be complaining, but the fact is that the government has established the boards and kept them going. Consequently, the minister is in a very peculiar position if he now says that it is impossible to have a similar board to protect consumers in the matter of food and food costs. As a matter of fact, I can only come to the conclusion that he either considers it is not important to protect people in this way or that he simply is not interested in investigating the matter.
As a matter of fact, when the minister spoke this afternoon he slipped as nimbly as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) behind the workings of the international marketplace as an excuse for leaving people to sink in the morass of inflation, taking the attitude that nothing much can be done except to wait and see and to let nature take its course. Meanwhile, in order to make sure that nothing is really being done, we have his steady resistance to giving the Food Prices Review Board the powers it must have if it is to do anything.
The minister must know-after all, he has a good head when he is not obsessed with the idea that he must not use it-that going out and snooping around stores to see that prices are as advertised is a useless exercise. Shoppers do that kind of thing themselves and they complain bitterly when they find discrepancies between the advertised price and the actual price of articles on the shelves. I am afraid that the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board would hardly qualify as a candidate for the FBI when she permits the army of snoopers to set out, everybody knowing
September 17, 1973

they are going to snoop long before they get on the trail. That sort of thing will not work.
I picked up a very interesting article this evening in Farm and Country for Tuesday, September 18, by Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in which he refers to a number of naiveties on the part of the Food Prices Review Board. He says:
When one of the chains has been charged in a court because of pricing shenanigans, it is hard to find the board's naivete palatable.
He was referring to stickers on cans. He went on:
It is just as naive to wait for voluntary restraint in other sectors of the market place. When banks are licensed for usury, their profits cannot help but skyrocket. Our economy today is readymade for opportunists. Food processors have reported profits on investments up 50 per cent to 80 per cent over last year. Commodity futures trading has yielded fantastic profits.
There are people who do know what is happening. We in this party absolutely refuse, and will continue to refuse, to accept the idea that nothing can be done about food prices. We refuse to accept the idea that because of the world market it is absolutely impossible to feed Canadians adequately with good food at a price they can afford. If we were talking about exotic foods that have to be imported, perhaps it would be different; but we are not. We have everything in Canada needed to provide a healthfully nutritious diet. We have the grains needed for bread, pasta, and so on. We have dairy foods such as milk and cheese. We have poultry products, eggs, meat, fish, vegetables and fruits of many kinds. It is absurd and untenable for this government or anybody else to say that we cannot feed our people properly. The people on the street will not accept this. Women in the home will not accept it.
If the government keeps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs looking like a dignified and indignant pharoah unwilling to take steps to free the people from this tyranny, then he is going to get the plagues and those plagues will come upon all of us-increased misery, insecurity and malnutrition. One of these days he is going to have armies of women besieging his office and other places on the Hill unable to take any more of this business of having the wool pulled over their eyes.
It is absurd to believe we cannot feed our people. There must be something taking place between the producer and the consumer, something that is taking increasingly heavy tolls. If the marketplace cannot provide the kind of diet our people need and can afford, changes in the marketplace must be made.
In the time I have available I intend to deal with one protein food. Nothing is more necessary for a good diet than protein. In underdeveloped countries, dietary malnutrition diseases develop on a huge scale because of the lack of protein. Even in our big cities in Canada there is evidence of malnutrition among newborn children and older children as a result of the lack of protein.
In British Columbia we have always had an abundance of fish and until very recently it was sold at a reasonable price. What has happened in this regard? Le me give you an example of what has happened to the price of sockeye salmon in British Columbia. Up until the beginning of
Food Prices
1972, a 7 Vt ounce can of salmon-and I do not know why they do not make it eight ounces-sold for 69 cents. In early 1973, the same sized can sold for 89 cents, and in the summer of this year the cost went up to $1.15. On September 15 this year, the Vancouver Sun ran an article that suggested that callers were complaining that the same 714 ounce can of salmon was being sold for $1.31.
Whole pink salmon, which is one of the lower grades, was selling in British Columbia supermarkets this summer for $2.49 a pound. Some people will say that the villains are those who demand increased wages. The fiser-men's contract for 1973 in respect of sockeye salmon, which is about the second best grade, calls for 50 cents a pound this year, plus some slight production bonuses, and 52 cents a pound for next year. The contract in respect of cohoe and steelhead calls for 40 cents a pound this year and 42 cents a pound next year, and for pinks it is 20 cents a pound this year and 22 cents a pound next year.
So the pink salmon for which the consumer had to pay $2.49 a pound this summer in Vancouver netted the fisherman 20 cents a pound when he caught it. There is a $2.29 spread between what the fisherman got and what the consumer paid in the store. Who gets that $2.29? Let me point out that, as an additional factor, the labour force in the fishing industry has been reduced by nearly 50 per cent in the last five to ten years because of automation, with the cost in respect of wages consequently going down significantly.
What is the reason for this huge spread? I suggest that it arises because two companies control 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the canned salmon in all of British Columbia and Alaska. Those two companies are B.C. Packers Limited and Canadian Fishing. As far as I can learn anything about Canadian Fishing, eight shares of 15,000 are owned by eight Canadian employees of Canadian Fishing, some 14,900 are owned by Americans, and no one I have been able to contact knows who owns the other three. You might call this a dominant position if you do not like to call it monopoly control, but that is what I call it. I think this more than any other single reason is why we have these prices in respect of salmon today.
Let me refer to some of the reasons we have been given for these prices. On August 4 the Vancouver Province ran an interview with the president of B.C. Packers, Mr. Richard Nelson, to this effect:
Prices paid here by consumers of B.C. sockeye salmon will rise sharply in the next several weeks due to an unprecedented strong international demand for the product.
The upward price spiral was blamed Friday by spokesmen for both government and industry on the almost total failure of the Bristol Bay runs to Alaska, largest sockeye fishery in the world.
British Columbia supplies about 20 per cent of that international market, but this year it will supply about 50 per cent because of that Alaska failure. Most of the pressure is coming from Japan and Great Britain. This is the interesting thing about the article:
Nelson said the retail price here will not be known until sockeye runs have ended. His firm withdrew its price offer to local wholesalers a week ago until the market settled down.
I suggest that means all the fish they can get hold of will be sold to Japan and Britain at the highest prices they can get, and everything that is held back here will be held

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
back until something like a comparable price can be charged Canadian consumers. This means, in turn, that the fish which used to be regarded as a substitute for meat by the poor people of British Columbia has spiralled in cost away out of sight-and fish is about our best protein source in British Columbia, or has been until now. An interesting thing is that around August 16 a small number of 7% ounce cans of salmon was released to the wholesalers at a price of $50 for 24 pounds, which comes to $2.08 a pound. It is also stated in this article.
A top official in the federal fisheries service here said the government is powerless to stop the export of fish at the expense of the domestic market.
I should like to ask, if we can have a two-price system for oil, domestic and foreign, why can we not have a two-price system as well for British Columbia salmon? If we can have export controls for beef and pork from the Prairies, why can we not have a two-price system for salmon in British Columbia? These fish are caught in British Columbia waters, and we had a record run this year. What do our federal government officials mean when they say the federal government is powerless to act, when they know this is going on?


An hon. Member:: There is something fishy.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You bet there is something fishy when this federal government allows a statement of that kind to be made. These two companies control between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of canned salmon in British Columbia and Alaska, and therefore are in a position to determine the price. If export prices are higher, they will sell to Japan and Britain. As a result, there will be a shortage in Canada and the prices will be at such a level that only the wealthy can buy salmon in Canada.
There was an interesting clipping in the Globe and Mail of August 10 which stated that for the 24-week period ending June 17 this year-and that was before the big run came in-sales of salmon by B.C. Packers were up by 25 per cent and its profits were up 124 per cent. I say that this is gouging the consumer and this sort of thing should be stopped.
I have only a couple of minutes left so I shall suggest what should be done. First, the sooner we get rid of these snoopers and put the money being used for this purpose by the Prices Review Board to something useful, the better. Secondly, I think we must have a Prices Review Board with some teeth. There is no advantage in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and the government thinking they can pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer any longer. People are getting wise and know that a token board is not much good. Thirdly, the Prices Review Board must open the books of these companies and make known to the public what these companies are doing and who controls them. Fourthly, I think the government should put export controls on B.C. salmon in order to keep enough within Canada for our people at a price they can afford to pay.
My fifth point is that we must impose an excess profits tax in respect of these companies which are increasing their profits by 124 per cent while increasing their sales by 25 per cent. Lastly, I think we must get down to a study of

who controls the fishing companies. When we do, I think we will find the great Weston empire underlying at least one of the two dominant fishing companies on the west coast.
As my leader said when he spoke last week regarding the realm of corporate profits, "This is an area that only New Democrats are willing to attack, but it is a crucial area". We must get down to the attack in the area of controlling our means of life and the many items which make up the nutritious diet needed by the people of this country. The sooner we get around to it, the sooner will the people of this country have faith in the power of the government to do something about the soaring prices which are inflicted on them today unreasonably and with no justification.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate because, first of all, I have been a member of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices. Although I have not attended all meetings of the committee, I have been present at most of the hearings. First of all I should like to make a few general comments about the hearings I have been privileged to attend as a member. I must say that during the early meetings the collective feeling of members seemed to be that it would perhaps be only a matter of time before the villain or the rip-off segment of the food industry would be exposed as we proceeded from one witness to another and that, hopefully, the next witness would be the culprit or the fall guy who, because of illegal or excessive procedures and profits, was perhaps responsible for all our record high food costs.
Of course, it was not that easy. The committee brought forth its first report with its principal recommendation being that of a prices review board. Then just prior to the second report of the committee which we are debating tonight the thinking and direction seemed to change significantly, with most of the committee members realizing that there was no single scapegoat to be found and crucified in our deliberations and that, just maybe, North American and world demand-supply patterns had a great deal to do with the Canadian cost of living and especially food cost issues.
A good number of caustic and satirical comments have been made by members of the press, members of parliament and Canadians as a whole about the usefulness of this special committee. I think a good many of these no doubt were justified, especially in the early stages of our hearings. Now, almost in retrospect, as we debate the second report of the committee I suggest that one of the most valuable and perhaps unexpected results of all the committee's deliberations is a much better total understanding of our entire food industry, hopefully, by all Canadians. I hope we appreciate that.
Tonight I wish to address myself particularly to recommendations Nos. 8 and 9 as these two deal very specifically with the long-range agricultural production side of this question. I think it is important that I read these recommendations:
8. Because an adequate supply of essential food is vital, the committee recommends that the federal government consider the
September 17, 1973

advisability of immediately implementing policies to encourage farmers to increase steadily the production of staple foodstuffs on a basis that will provide a fair income for the farm family and basic food at a reasonable price for the consumer.
9. The committee recommends that the federal government consider the advisability of protecting the Canadian market from the pressures of world food requirements by ensuring that domestic prices reflect domestic demand and supply.
These two recommendations to which I wish to address myself cannot help being interconnected and should be considered together in this debate. During all the food cost discussions, both in our committee and all over Canada, 1 suggest that no single food item received more attention than meat, especially beef. Because of the important position beef holds in any food cost debate, I wish to use this commodity to illustrate the tremendous need for the implementation of these two recommendations.
Up until about a month ago there was ample justification for saying that one of the major reasons for the present pressure for beef in North America is the fact that beef producers have so successfully produced high quality, cheap beef that demand has outstripped supply, and also because this demand pattern is now becoming evident around the world. Let us look a little more closely at this demand-supply pattern between Canada and the United States.
First, whether we like it or not, we must remember that as a nation Canada is a net importer of beef and a net exporter of feeder cattle. In the period January 1 to September 8 of this year Canada exported 111,000 feeder cattle to the United States and 12,600 live fat cattle. In the same period of 1972 we exported only 4,460 feeder cattle and 6,000 head of fat cattle. Our beef and veal exports, that is, the carcass exports to the United States were about 44 million pounds for the same period in both years, so there is no change there.
On the import side, over the same period, we imported 33,700 live cattle in 1973 compared to 32,300 last year, which is an increase of almost 4 per cent. But here is the significant part. Over 50 per cent of these current imports have taken place in the past three weeks. That is, 50 per cent of the cattle coming live to be slaughtered here have come in during the past three weeks. In addition, Canada imported about 105 million pounds of beef from all countries in this same current period compared to 111 million pounds in 1972.
The total trade balance here is definitely not in our favour. Canadian beef cattle producers have recently seen their market prices tumble drastically, with more of the same likely to come. These same cattlemen presently are very concerned about the results of two recent federal government actions which definitely do not provide the long-range incentives called for in recommendations Nos. 8 and 9. The first of these is the manner in which the government imposed the export beef controls. I should like to suggest that most thinking cattlemen did not seriously object to the actual need for these controls, at least for a very short period of time, but they did object very strenuously to the way in which they were imposed on a Monday afternoon back on August 13, just hours before the heaviest run of slaughter cattle in the entire week.
I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows that on Tuesdays there is the biggest run of the
Food Prices
week in Canada. As late as Monday a good many had started on the trip to market. Also, it was at a time when our Canadian weekly kill was at a near record level of 65,000 head. Surely these controls could have been announced on a Friday afternoon, to allow a reasonable adjustment period for cattle shippers. In addition, an unreasonable delay in announcing the details of the controls caused untold confusion for both producers and packers. Those details did not catch up to them for several days afterward. I suggest this is not the way to create genuine incentives to produce more foodstuffs.
The second federal action is the very current situation involving our so-called one-way free trade which permits duty-free imports as opposed to export tariffs that are presently charged by the United States. Last week 8,000 head of live fat cattle came into Canada, nearly all through the Sarnia-Port Huron entrance, at a time when rail shipments of beef from western Canada were just starting to arrive after the rail strike. What was the result? A downward plunge of fat cattle markets, with more of the same to come. Some southern Ontario cattlemen are so concerned that they might very easily set up some form of demonstrations in opposition to these U.S. imports. Surely the government should immediately reimpose the import tariffs on beef to help restore some confidence in our Canadian cattle market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: There is no question that the confidence of Canadian cattlemen in their own market has indeed been shaken over the last four weeks.
To develop these recommendations properly, our consuming public must understand thoroughly just how beef prices are determined. First of all, they are not arrived at by adding up all our costs such as land, taxes, feed, labour, interest, etc., then adding a percentage for profit, then adjusting somewhat for competition and finally coming up with today's beef prices. It is not that easy or simple. Today, $2 steaks or ground beef at $1.25 is the result of events that took place two years and three months ago when the cattle producer made the decision to breed the beef you are eating today. You should add another year to that interval to cover additional planning time which, I can assure you, is definitely necessary. What I am saying is that three to four years ago cattle producers decided, entirely on their own, not to increase their breeding herds sufficiently to produce enough for today's supplies. They did so because there was not enough money in prospect, so they diverted their attention to other agricultural production.
Our national objective in beef cattle must surely be at least to be self-sufficient in Canada today. Why not develop the confidence and incentives to keep those 111,000 head of feeders at home, finish them out here and export the surplus if any? One way of achieving this objective is to develop as quickly as possible a new national feed grain policy. It is important that this new policy clearly recognize the total dimensions of our domestic feed grain industry. This industry represents some 800 million bushels, or 80 per cent of our total feed grain production which, I suggest, is considerably larger than our wheat production.

Food Prices
The new policy must also recognize that our livestock and poultry feeders are the customers for this feed grain and as such they have to be considered in the feed grain price determination.
The proper implementation of these two recommendations could very well determine whether our major Canadian agricultural components continue as a private enterprise or become a public utility. The only fundamental answer to unduly high food costs is increased agricultural production which should continue to be more efficient and more competitive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Finally, we should remember, and remember well, the words of the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Butz, who said on his recent trip to Canada: "^ou can't get more by paying less".


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by commending the hon. member who has just spoken. I think his contribution to this debate has been an excellent one. Much has been said about the price of meat at all levels up to the retail level, yet there has been so little information and so little understanding of what goes into the price of this important product. I think the hon. member has made a very valuable contribution to the debate this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who opened the debate today wondered out loud why it was that two other members of the House saw fit to move, as he had done, concurrence in the second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices. I certainly cannot speak for the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier), but my motion was placed on the order paper because I felt that the hon. member for St. John's East would never get around to moving his motion. It had been there since July 25.
However, I am rather puzzled by the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East commended this report and praised it, in fact moved its concurrence, and then another member of his party, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) said it was totally inadequate; he did not wish to see it concurred in but, rather, sent back to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is what you call Progressive Conservatism.


B. Keith Penner: This contradiction is rather puzzling in the debate today. But I think this debate, which is one in a series we have had on inflation, is important because once again it helps us to understand just how immensely complex is the problem of inflation which we are facing. One of the remarkable aspects of any inflationary economy is that it is a love-hate relationship. Everyone loves the inflation which benefits them, but hates the inflation of someone else for which they have to pay a little more.
The hon. member for St. John's East-who, by the way, is a very able and valuable member of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices-in moving this motion today gave us one of his usual, very vigorous speeches. He

struck out wildly in a great many directions, but I felt that all his punches really lacked substance. He did not even bother to give us the usual litany from the other side of the House about freezes and price controls which we have come to expect as part of the daily ritual. He really had nothing to offer today, on behalf of his party, on how to cope effectively with the problem of inflation. I thought, also, that his criticisms of the government's actions were really far from convincing. However, he did his best and that is all that can be expected of any of us.
There is no doubt that all members of the House share the serious concern of those whom we represent about the recent dramatic increases in food prices. Nobody on any side of the House can say that they have a monopoly on the concern for this problem. More recent indications of a reversal in the trend in food prices are certainly most welcome. What price reductions have taken place in recent weeks, of course, do not give any of us cause to breathe a little easier, but there is certainly hope.
I have here a report by the Canadian Press which indicates that a cross-Canada survey taken last Thursday by CP and covering 17 common food items shows a decline in most major cities from prices last Thursday compared with the end of August. It was conducted where possible in large supermarkets, and prices on September 13 were compared with those on August 28 for the same 17 items. So I say there is some cause for hope, but not enough at this moment for any of us actually to begin to breathe easily.
In particular-the hon. member for St. John's East brought this out in his speech-we are all disturbed about the impact of rising food prices on families with fixed and limited incomes. They, of course, are the ones for whom we must have the most concern. It was for that reason that the government sought the speedy approval of parliament to increase family allowances and old age pensions. There will be more of those increases in 1974. As well, Mr. Speaker, subsidies have been announced which are designed to hold the line on consumer prices for such staple items as milk and bread.
The Food Prices Review Board established by this parliament is on the alert for any undue profiteering which may be taking place at the retail level, and consumers are asked to co-operate with the board by reporting to it examples of what they consider to be price gouging. Some hon. members have attacked and ridiculed the board, but despite that many members of the special committee were satisfied, following a recent meeting with members of the board, that it is taking its mandate seriously. It is endeavouring to pinpoint problems and to make suitable recommendations to the government based on substantial, valid findings and evidence.
Some members of the special committee have advocated that the Food Prices Review Board should have its powers expanded and enlarged and that it ought to be empowered to roll back prices on its own authority. I continue to oppose that proposal because in my view only the government itself ought to have and to use such powers. It is the government which ought to take full responsibility for the consequences that would result from such action. I am
September 17, 1973

surprised that the NDP would urge such a proposal because we hear so frequently from that party their condemnation of independent boards that have control over prices.
When the Canadian Transport Commission recommended a price increase for Bell Canada it was the NDP that called for the cabinet to take action. The point here is not the Bell Canada increase but, rather, who should take the action. I believe it is the government that ought to take full responsibility under the glare of parliament, under the daily criticism and questioning of parliament. It should have the responsibility for taking such very strong action as rolling back somebody's prices and possibly not rolling back somebody else's. Of course, the Prices Review Board is quite free to recommend to the government that certain prices be decreased. But it is the government of Canada, being aware of its constitutional position, which must make the ultimate decision. To delegate such sweeping powers to a board of inquiry could be very devastating. It could cause some serious dislocations in our economy, particularly in relation to the supply of necessary foodstuffs.
Concern over inflation has led members of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices to consider on more than one occasion the advisability of resorting to controls. The committee has not shunned its responsibility for looking at this particular course of action. I think the members have done so in a very serious, responsible way, but the committee in its two reports to date has made no such recommendation to the government, nor has the Food Prices Review Board up to this time. If the board ever does, Mr. Speaker, the committee would certainly want to examine its reasoning with very close scrutiny.
So far, however, most of the sound evidence appears to be in opposition to the imposition of controls. For example, a recent study prepared for the board by Professor David Smith, who looked at the situation in Great Britain, indicates that a temporary resort to controls can make more appropriate monetary demand management even more difficult to attain.


Ronald George Atkey: He said that in 1966, too.


B. Keith Penner: That is fine. The truth does not alter from year to year. Controls, it is argued by this professor, can cause more severe inflationary problems in the future. Price freezes or other controls at best only suppress prices for a short time. Once a freeze is ended, prices explode. They did in the United States. Indeed, the success claimed for the initial control program in the U.S.A. really was the result of much earlier restrictive monetary policy and the slack in the economy.
Attempts by the U.S. government to control prices have demonstrated quite clearly not only the ineffectiveness of such controls, but, indeed, their perverse effects. Nevertheless, some members recognize that there are certain political attractions in a temporary resort to controls. It is most appealing in certain ways because it gives the appearance of doing something that is bold and effective. I emphasize that it gives the appearance of doing that, but a great many serious-minded observers and commentators, including leading economists, continue to cast doubts on this approach to fighting inflation.
Food Prices
Recently, the president of the French Employers Organization pointed out that since 1945 France has issued 25,931 price control decrees. Despite that huge outflow of bureaucratic decrees, a 10-ounce jar of instant coffee in Paris costs $3.75, and a pound of sirloin $2.95. Price controls represent decisions by a few men given authority to press buttons which they think will give the desired results, that is, reduce inflation and stabilize prices. The trouble is that humans, no matter how clever or well intentioned, never know for certain what will happen when they push the buttons.
Did price controllers elsewhere know that putting controls on prices at one level but not another would make farmers destroy eggs, kill baby chicks and laying hens, and sell off their sows because under the control system it cost more to produce chickens, eggs and hogs than they could get when they sold them? Did price controllers know that many meat packers would have to close down? In effect, the controls reduced supplies of these products. This process tended to force prices up, not down.
In contrast to that, the Government of Canada takes the position, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) reinforces this view, that the measures we must take are those designed to conserve and increase the supply of food while at the same time protecting farm incomes. Certainly it is a finely balanced course that the government is following, but it is a serious and a responsible approach.
Falling prices or set prices can discourage production. Marina von N. Whitman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers has warned as follows, and she ought to know a great deal about this subject:
Direct controls on food are far from the whole answer, and in the long run they are not the answer at all. Controls which hold prices below the levels which market conditions would otherwise generate for any sustained length of time are bound to create shortages, and thus the necessity for some means of rationing to substitute for the rationing function normally performed by prices in a free-market economy such as ours.
When a price control freezes the price on a proauct which is in short supply and which is costly to produce, naturally the producers will be reluctant to sell. One writer on economic matters said recently:
The supply side of the supply-demand equation (based on free prices) has been neglected too long. Incentives to increase productivity should be developed,1 tariffs -should be lowered, taxes, especially sales taxes, should be cut.
On the sidelines, Mr. Speaker, when these controls are having their effects or their supposed effects there are always those who are willing to pay a little more to get what they want. These people will make a direct deal with the producer at a new, higher price despite the fact that they are breaking the law. The more affluent people in a society where there are controls will drain off supplies while the poorer people will go without. The more ridiculous the level of the price from the standpoint of the producer, the less he will produce and the less will appear in the recognized marketplace to be consumed by the poorer people. Controls have never failed to produce black markets which favour the rich and penalize the poor.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come.

September 17, 1973
Food Prices


B. Keith Penner: Show me a situation where that has not been the case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the war?


B. Keith Penner: What about it? Look at the history of the Second World War and find out if it did not exist. It is for this reason that the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, in recommendation No. 8, said that ways should be found to increase supplies, and in recommendation No. 9 talked about protecting domestic supplies. It was with this in mind that the government on a temporary basis, through order in council, provided for export licensing for cattle, hogs and the products thereof. The order was introduced to prevent a shortage caused by an unusual drain on Canadian supplies-created extensively by the U.S. price control system-that which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) last weekend called "a stupid law".
Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically welcome the debate we are having today on the report of the committee because it gives all hon. members an excellent opportunity to state as fully and as clearly as they can what steps they would propose and argue for to reduce food prices, while at the same time not having us live cheaply off the hard labour of our farmers or creating a shortage of supply and black market prices whereby the rich continue to enjoy a bountiful table, regardless of cost, while the poor can barely afford a subsistence diet.
Some hon. members in this and other debates have argued that we cannot consider rising food prices apart from the problem of inflation in general. That is only half true. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in a debate a week ago reminded us of a fact that well deserves repeating in this debate. On September 10, as reported at page 6391 of Hansard, he said:
-that a good portion of the rise in the price of food should not really be treated as an ordinary price rise similar to that which has taken place in every other sector over a period of time, or indeed that is taking place even now. A good portion of the rise in food prices is an overdue adjustment of income to farmers in Canada who produce grain and meat for market.
It is of particular importance that these adjustments have taken place. Adjustments of a similar magnitude compared with other price rises need not and will not take place in the future, but the adjustment that has taken place to date is overdue. I say that because it is important that other sectors in this country should not believe that they somehow have to try to catch up to the over-all price increases that are taking place in this country, including the increase in the price of food. This would be an attempt simply to take back for the more protected-those on higher incomes-all the gain that has been made by giving farmers a better income return, as well indeed as other gains being made under this Liberal government by the low income earners in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker I think the House would want to ensure that there is less interruption of members who are making well researched and interesting contributions to the debate, even though I realize that the results from Jarry Park, Montreal, are heartwarming indeed. The hon. member for K.ent-Essex (Mr. Danforth).


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, after many months, in fact years of outcry by the consumers of this country against high living costs we are still faced with a government that seems afraid to tackle the basic
	*
causes. This cry that we hear today also comes from the agricultural producers who want this government to give them an opportunity to create more supplies of Canadian goods in order that they can fight on an equal footing to preserve prices to the Canadian consumer.
As far back as last February this party advocated a freeze on food prices, costs, incomes and wages in order that we might have a breathing period in which to take stock of what was going to happen in the country. As long ago as February it became evident that there would be a tremendous increase in prices in the ensuing months and this party advocated that steps be taken to find out if something could be done on behalf of the consumers.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk of consumers, there are no greater consumers in this country than those who produce the food. They, too, are consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: They are concerned about their input costs as consumers. This is one of the basic problems. If prices had been frozen in February, we would have saved the consumers of this country literally hundreds of millions of dollars and there would not have been this excess profit-taking that our friends in the NDP are talking about-the big rip-offs. But because the freeze did not take place at that time, because we did not have an opportunity to have a breathing period in order that we could sit down with labour and industry, the leaders of agriculture and all the people concerned with the welfare of this country to work out a program, we are in this mess today.
The government of this country delighted and laughed at the fact that we advocated controls. They laugh and express glee when they point to what they call the chaotic situation in the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, today the consumer in the United States has a better shake than the consumer in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: In the limited time that is left to me I would like to talk about controls. First I should like to talk about the NDP and their controls. They laughed at our controls, but they are advocating price controls-only they do not call them price controls. They say, "Set up a committee to roll back prices". That is price control. But the problem is that they would roll back prices at the retail level and the primary producer is the man who pays and pays and pays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: They talk about rolling back prices, Mr. Speaker. When you roll back prices at the retail level, you let the input cost of the primary producer go to such a degree that he stops producing. This government that laughs at us for advocating price controls is instigating a worse kind of controls-selective controls. These selective controls have the same basic weakness as the NDP controls because they do not control input costs.
When you freeze the price of milk to the consumer for 12 months, as they have done, the primary producer cannot recoup the tremendous input that he is faced with. When
September 17, 1973

you raise the price of wheat to the flour miller so that bread is cheaper, that is not at the cost of the government or the taxpayer; it is at the cost of western producers. When you try to control the price of meat by taking off the 3 per cent tariff on American beef coming into the country, the person who is going to pay, pay, pay is the primary producer, not the consumer.
This government blithely says that it is going to create an atmosphere which will encourage production. It is not enough for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whellan) to get up and glibly repeat, "I am for the farmer." That is conversation. Let him influence this government to implement policies that will help the primary producer, then I will believe that he is for the farmer.
Only one thing will bring about increased production of food in this country, and that is profit to the primary producer. If you want to impose selective controls on farm produce available to the consumer, as you have done with bread and milk and tried to do with beef, you must control input costs. Under the present government, input costs are rising at the tremendous rate of 13 per cent per year. Yes, 13 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Farmers' incomes, despite what they are receiving today, are not rising to that degree.
What the consumer who is concerned about the high cost of living and the high cost of food today does not know is that the young fellow who is standing at the edge of the counter where one pays for groceries and is putting parcels into bags for customers, who has no responsibility, is working eight hours a day and is probably taking home more pay today than 40 per cent of the primary producers in agriculture despite all their investment and labour. That is the terrible situation we face today. This government says what it wants to do to encourage the production of food in this country. Let it introduce legislation that will give the farmer the opportunity to produce. After all, the farmer must pay the increased interest rates this government has allowed; he must pay the increased building costs this government has allowed. Thus, the farmer must pay increased costs for fertilizer, farm machinery, cattle, seed, chemicals and all manner of items. It is the primary producer who must pay these costs, and under these circumstances he cannot survive. It is time the government found this out.
It is not good enough for this government to say blithely, "We accept the recommendation that says there ought to be a scheme in this country to encourage the production of food." You cannot say that in one breath and then impose controls at the retail level on farm produce. It is ridiculous for the government to criticize us for advocating price controls when it is initiating the same thing on a selective basis and hoping the people of Canada do not realize what it is doing.
I know the NDP are as serious as anyone in this House about trying to control the cost of living. They seem to place all their confidence on the Prices Review Board. I submit it will not solve the problem of high food costs. When we talk about rolling back the prices of food items in this country, do they not realize there are over 14,000 items of food? How can one police any roll-back, let alone enforce it? They base their whole case in the fight against
Food Prices
inflation on the high cost of advertising, on the taking of excess profits in the handling of food and in the gouging of the public. Mr. Speaker, these could be contributing factors but they are minor factors in relation to the basic problems that are causing inflated food prices in Canada.
The problem we face in parliament is this: this government is desperately trying patch-up policies and is going from panic to panic as consumers point them out, instead of taking the necessary monetary and fiscal steps and adopting the necessary policies in order to control and fight inflation. When government members stand in their place and say the only reason food prices are so high is that we cannot control them, that is not good enough for me, my colleagues or the people of Canada. Saying that there has been destruction of crops, a storm in some other country, or that some other country is suffering from scarcities of foodstuffs for some reason or another and "We know it is bad here but it is not half as bad as in some other countries" is not good enough.
This debate was brought on in order to give the government an opportunity to send this matter back to the committee. We want to deal with this question on the basis of today's facts. I hope the government will accept the hon. member's motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members have any questions after I have finished my remarks, I shall certainly entertain them. I have done a great deal of preparation on this subject and it is most unfortunate that, as we are close to ten o'clock, I will not have the opportunity to mention several things that I wanted to mention. In the time available, with the same courtesy on the part of opposition members that I have tried to extend to them during past months, I will try to make one or two points.
One of the major things we have been attacked on over the months is that the government has failed to get at the sources of inflation.


An hon. Member:: It sure has.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I should like again-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am hoping that someone on the other side of the House will tell me, either inside or outside the House, how we can tell the Japanese that pork is poisonous and how we can tell Europeans that beef is unhealthy. How can we tell God to give us better weather? How can we tell the farmer that he does not deserve a better price, or how do we tell the worker that he cannot fight for better wages?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: This is too bad, Mr. Speaker. I have seen this attitude developing over many months. Sometimes we get heated; sometimes the opposition becomes heated. That is fair enough. Surely, however, we extend courtesy in this House so that when someone is trying to make a point on behalf of his constituents, he is allowed to do it.

September 17, 1973
Food Prices
May I make a further point. It would not be fair or proper for this government to say, in attacking those sources of higher costs, that we must take away the right of the worker to fight for fair wages. We have heard a great deal about wage and price controls as being the saviour and the solution to the problem that we face in connection with inflation, and especially in connection with rising food costs. Something I have not heard mentioned in the last hour or two is the working paper produced by Professor David Smith of Queen's University. I think the first report of the committee studying trends in food prices recommended that that study be carried out.
The first working paper to come from Great Britain makes something clear. It notes that various control systems established over a number of years in Great Britain, and especially in the past year, have not been successful. Actually, the increase in food prices under controls in Great Britain has been, between April, 1972 and 1973, 15.4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Clearly, controls are nonsense.


Peter Reilly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because this subject is of such pressing importance to so many millions of Canadians and as, because of procedural difficulties today, a great many members, including my colleague across the way and myself, were precluded from taking part in the debate, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to continue until eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: John Reid said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly). Is there unanimous consent that we continue until eleven o'clock?


An hon. Member:: No.


George Harris Hees: Donald Macdonald said no.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a second point of order. In view of the overwhelming importance of this subject to millions of Canadians, I feel justified in demanding that the government bring this matter in as a government order by the end of this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows he should not rise on a point of order to make a speech or participate in the debate. If the hon. member has a valid point of order, I invite him to put it to the Chair and the Chair will decide on its value. Otherwise, we will proceed with the normal adjournment debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I, in my eternal quest for knowledge, ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about the business for tomorrow, the day after and the day after.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a large shopping list for the day after and the day after, but tomorrow we will return to the Canada Pension Plan bill we were dealing with last Friday. If that is completed, we will proceed to the residential mortgage legislation. If that is concluded, we will then go on with the CNR financing bill.


Erik Nielsen: What about the Parole Act?


John Mercer Reid: We would also like to bring the Parole Act forward at a later point. Perhaps there could be some discussion among the House leaders as to the appropriate way and time to deal with this matter.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the seven minutes allotted to me tonight arise from the following question which I directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and also a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), recorded at page 6590 of Hansard. My question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he is meeting any ministers of the government of Alberta this week and if one of the matters that will be discussed is the question of the province of Alberta subsidizing the consumers in reference to crude petroleum as western wheat farmers have been asked to subsidize consumers in reference to bread in the whole of Canada?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the Alberta ministers. The hon. member's formulation will be an interesting one to put to them.
On September 14 the Leader of the Opposition asked a similar question. The minister replied:
I think it is fair to say that they made no substantive comment about it.
When speaking to the Calgary Canadian Club on September 14, and I mentioned this in the question period today, Premier Lougheed said:
We are and have been prepared to sit down at a national conference on energy in a spirit of co-operation. However, the federal government unilateral action now appears to preclude such an approach.
September 17, 1973

When pressed by me today, the minister stated there was consultation. I cannot accept that. With regard to consultation with western Canada, Alberta in particular, I say this new, ad hoc oil and gas policy of the government is the biggest deception ever perpetrated on western Canada. There was no consultation. One recalls the western economic resource conference where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put on a show to gain western votes with words, and ever since he has kicked the west in the posterior, all of which was confirmed by the western Liberal delegation at their own convention. As a learned Liberal Senator said at the convention, considering what this government has done to our wheat, our cattle, our natural gas and our crude petroleum, if the government does not revoke and repeal such policies the Liberal party will become a matter of factual history, lacking any national, viable force.
This lack of consultation with the provinces is astounding. It is the most high-handed policy of negative co-operative federalism ever devised. Yesterday they talked about building a pipeline to Montreal. Premier Bourassa stated that it would interfere with their refinery development of crude from international markets. He said no; and as soon as he said no, of course, the Trudeau government said no. This is what the minister of natural resources of Quebec said:
The pipeline project is absolutely unacceptable to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Lougheed, on the other hand, has complained about the mechanism of the surtax. His words are on record in this House. In his case the government said yes. The Prime Minister said yes. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of economic discrimination is this to western Canada? This is economic alienation.
The utter confusion of the federal Liberal government policy has affected Canadian independent companies more than international companies. For it is they who must scramble for money, for investments in Canada and elsewhere. I was advised by one independent company today that the uncertainty of this policy will dry up funds and in the end all consumers in Canada will suffer. This drying up of funds will curtail development. It does not take a crystal-ball gazer to appreciate that because of the trouble in the Near East which could explode at any time, the price of international crude will continue to rise. The lack of development in Canada may make us dependent on others rather than being sure of ourselves. In the long run this policy will mean loss to the consumers of Canada.
In considering the price of a commodity such as crude petroleum, price has one of two functions. It may restrain consumption or it may generate supply. Those who are developing the tar sands, for example, have this to say:
Unless oil sands production is exempted from export controls and export taxes, then it is our considered opinion that the federal government's actions would effectively put an end to large-scale development of the oil sands.
I do not have the time to put the figures on the record tonight, but they were put on the record of the committee and show that the tar sands can produce the same amount of crude petroleum as the proven reserves presently known in western Canada. Therefore this is no time for the government to be monkeying around without full
Adjournment Debate
consultation. Will the tar sands development be ground to a halt?
Now let me deal with the question of compromise. In my question today I smoked out the minister when I asked him about the compromise spoken of and which was so fully reported at page 9 of this morning's Globe and Mail in Mr. William Johnson's column. The minister said, of course, that the compromise is a compromise resolution of the convention, and that the hon. member-meaning me- should appreciate that it is not binding on the government. Therefore I say the compromise reached at the convention was not a compromise of government policy. So there has been no compromise; that there is, is fiction.
All of these problems have resulted from the Liberal government's ad hoc policy in regard to endeavouring to control galloping inflation. Their policies have added to and aggravated inflation since the Prime Minister said that inflation was licked. The sad thing, as I see it, is that it has taken Alberta a lot of capital, exploration, and above all risk, to find and to develop its resources of crude petroleum and natural gas. Today this government has put the lid on that development. It seems to me that this government believes, if I may coin a phrase, that the nationalism propounded by the Liberal party is according to the price of a barrel of crude petroleum produced in Alberta.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my response to questions earlier today, I met with Mr. Dickie, Alberta's minister of mines and minerals, on September 13, and on that occasion put to him the situation placed before us by the decision of the National Energy Board the day before, that it could not grant licences for October oil exports because it could not, as required by the act, satisfy itself that the price for Canadian oil being sold to the U.S. was just and reasonable. The board considered that the price differential was generally of the order of 40 cents.
I then explained the choices to Mr. Dickie; that is, let the federal government abandon its policy of attempting to control the inflationary pressures on oil and allow the Canadian price to rise to meet the U.S. price or, alternatively, we would simply not allow the export of oil, which was unthinkable or, alternatively, we had to find a method of maintaining the Canadian price and obtaining prevailing prices for our oil in the U.S. market. The immediate imposition of the export tax or other control mechanism was required. I told Mr. Dickie I regretted that a circumstance had arisen where we had to act immediately.
With regard to the utilization of the funds which would be raised, I suggested to Mr. Dickie that we had only in mind that they would be employed for the purposes of developing secure and stable supplies of energy in Canada. I assured Mr. Dickie that we would consider the Alberta government's entitlement to whatever additional royalties would have been obtained by the sale of oil in the U.S. at the higher U.S. market price, and that we would discuss with Alberta the application of the proceeds to energy developments in the province of Alberta and frontier oil, particularly increased exploration off the Atlantic coast where a discovery is so badly needed by Canada for

September 17, 1973
Adjournment Debate
security of supply in the Atlantic provinces. I proposed to Mr. Dickie that I meet him again and other provincial ministers in Edmonton on October 3 for substantial negotiations which would accommodate Alberta's requirements within the context of the federal policy.
I do not know of any legitimate Alberta public interest which has not been taken into account by the federal government. I acknowledge that Alberta is the owner of the resource. But the owner, by virtue of his ownership, is not entitled to act apart from the responsibilities of being a member of a common neighbourhood, which I might call Canada. The national oil policy of 1961 gave Alberta oil a guaranteed market in Ontario and the western provinces, at a time when international oil was competitive with Alberta oil in price, all the way back to Edmonton. Canadian consumers assisted greatly in the development of the Alberta industry and it was right that they should have done so. Now we have an industry whose costs can compete in world markets. That industry and that province have some responsibilities to the rest of Canada.
The whole point of the federal policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 4 is not to deprive the government of Alberta of revenues. Indeed, the division of these revenues was left for specific response and discussion on October 3 in Edmonton. The policy does, however, tax certain of the never higher profits of the oil industry for the dual purpose of giving some short-term protection to the Canadian consumer against exaggerated price jumps and providing funds which can be directed toward the development of other Alberta energy sources and those in other parts of Canada as well.


HEALTH-SUGGESTED INSTITUTION OF INSURED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SUPPLIES FOR OLD AGE PENSIONERS AND OTHERS ON LOW INCOMES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak about the situation regarding insured drugs for those on low incomes. On repeated occasions in this House I have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to insure the drug costs of all those on low incomes, the old age pensioner, those on small pensions and those living below the poverty line. These people have been hardest hit by the galloping increases in the cost of living. Food costs in the last year are up 20 per cent, and shelter is up 12 per cent. According to welfare statistics there are five million people in Canada living below the poverty line, or some 25 per cent of our people. To those on low incomes, food, shelter and drugs represent a much higher percentage of their dollar than the dollar of those on higher incomes.
I only plead the case of those on low incomes, particularly those who are sick and have chronic illnesses such as heart disease, arthritis, cerebral and vascular diseases or chronic diseases in general. When national medicare was brought in on the blueprint of the Hall Commission report, prescribed drugs were to be brought in also for those on medicare. Let me read what the report said:
Effective and judicious use of drugs have made it possible not only to improve the health of the nation but also to raise the economic benefits resulting from the provision of health services. The use of many of the newer drugs by physicians facilitates their 
patients' recovery, and in some instances avoids or minimizes the effect of serious diseases. Improvement in the state of health of the nation meant increases in the productivity of the working force. Persons released from hospital care sooner because of new or improved drug therapy meant saving costly hospital bed days, a welcome economy in the light of rapidly increasing costs of hospital care.
The report continues:
Advances in drug therapy in the last two decades have been particularly spectacular.
In view of this, the commission concluded that all prescribed drugs should be included as a benefit of a comprehensive health care program. Over and over again the minister has replied to my pleas, as the one before him did, that the federal government would pay under the Canada Assistance Plan 50 per cent of drug costs. The minister surely had his tongue in his cheeck when he made that statement. He knows that this is permissive legislation. It is not mandatory like food and shelter.
Out of several letters I have received I should like to refer to one. It is a case record concerning a lady suffering severe rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease requiring five kinds of drugs so that she can keep out of hospital and look after herself in her own apartment. These drugs cost her well over $60 a month. Try to do that on $179 per month and pay for an apartment costing $125 per month. I am afraid most of us do not realize what we are allowing to happen to people who are sick and distressed. Permissive legislation gave her $25 per month maximum. She must pay the other $40, and if she stops taking the drugs she will go to hospital where she will occupy a bed at $60, plus, per day.
I am afraid the minister was more influenced by his counterparts in the provincial governments than by the spectre of those who have to deprive themselves and often eat a little less of poorer quality food, day after day, wondering where next they can cut in order to make ends meet. The minister might better break with his cronies in the provincial government and do what he knows is honest, necessary, long overdue and economically sound.
As a matter of fact, the minister and one of his provincial cronies did get friendly and, according to the story, the minister is going to share the cost or pass it under the table in some form or other to that province for its drugs. The minister talks about consensus of the provinces. There was no consensus in respect of medicare, yet it was passed. Insured drugs would cost one-sixth of the amount of medicare, and to the poor requiring it one-twentyfourth.
The provinces which did not accept medicare were taxed for it, so they soon walked the plank and joined. The minister, instead of doing his duty in respect of drugs, talks about a health care plan where health habits will be assessed. There will also be examinations to spot and prevent diseases. Yet, at the same time people are told that examinations must be cut down, that there are to be no more annual examinations. It is no wonder the people become confused. It is no wonder they are frustrated. I say to the minister, bring in the legislation to ensure drugs for those on low income. Sickness, lay-offs from work and hospitalization costs would involve greater amounts than the cost of drug care.
September 17, 1973

Costs are mounting daily. They are frightening. The minister should not pass by those people on the other side of the street. They should be given justice. Surely I do not have to remind the minister of the story of the Good Samaritan. Let him make a new resolve, and act.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to amplify the statement given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in reply to a question the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) raised the other day, and again tonight, concerning the institution of insured medical and surgical supplies for old age pensioners and others with low income who are in need.
In the first place, the federal government is not constitutionally in a position to institute such insured health benefits. What the federal government has done in this area is to offer to cost-share in one manner or another provincial programs providing such benefits to those in need. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, enacted by parliament in 1966, federal sharing has been and is available to all provinces, but not all have taken full advantage of its provisions. In fact, one large province with which the hon. member should be very familiar leaves the nature and extent of health-related benefits for persons in need largely to the discretion of local, municipal or regional authorities, with the result that there is great variation in the assistance available from one community to another, and this despite the ready availability of federal sharing to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost. Obviously, the provincial government could correct this situation itself.
Any extension of benefits under our two national health insurance programs would have to be on a universal basis since the acts do not provide for federal sharing of less than universal programs. The introduction at this time of a universal program covering pharmaceuticals and surgical supplies would have major budgetary implications and, quite apart from this, would represent a breach of the federal government's nrm commitment that it would not initiate a new major joint program without provincial consensus. The background to this commitment is well known to the House.
To summarize, the provinces have not yet taken full advantage of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan to provide assistance in the area of pharmaceuticals and surgical supplies to the needy persons mentioned by the hon. member for Simcoe North.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-ALLEGED FAILURE OF CORPORATION TO COMPLY WITH LEGISLATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, about the only thing I could say that is worth mentioning at this time of night is that at present there are three times as many Tories in the House as there are Grits.
For the past six years I have used every possible vehicle to bring to the attention of the government a situation, namely, that legislation of 1967 has not been adhered to by
Adjournment Debate
the responsible Crown corporation officials in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The last question I put in this respect was on September 10, when I asked if there was any reason the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation should not be held responsible under the Criminal Code in the same way as any railway worker would be who refused to return to work under the legislation which was recently passed by the House.
The fact remains that legislation passed in respect of pensions for dependants of former employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and in the coal industry under section 18 (a)(ii) of the act requires that pension arrangements be made, but there is no doubt that these arrangements have never been made. I might say here that two committees of parliament have given unanimous support to this matter. The most recent committee report recommended unanimously as follows:
Your committee supports the position of the Cape Breton miners that the Cape Breton Development Corporation has not acted in the best interest of the said miners in deducting from pensions retirement payments sums of money which were legally forthcoming from federal unemployment insurance programs and the Canada Pension Plan. Further, your committee recommends to the House that a firm decision be taken in favour of the legitimate claims of the Cape Breton miners and recommends to the House of Commons that the government consider the advisability of instructing the Cape Breton Development Corporation to satisfy the said claims.
So far as the Cape Breton Development Corporation is concerned, I have here the situation as it applied up to July 1 of this year and still applies in many cases. This is a quotation from their own policy paper, and it reads as follows:
(a) In the case of a surviving widow of the pensioner, make a single payment to her on the last day of the month in which the pensioner dies and again on the last day of the month following but not thereafter-
This can add up in some cases to a write-off of approximately $50 by way of an answer to the legislation passed in the House under section 18 (a) (ii) which requires coverage. As of July 1 there have been improvements brought about as a result of the sympathetic approach taken by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I give full credit to the minister in this case. But I say here and now there is no denying that Mr. Tom Kent-and this can be found in the submission put before the government as recently as June-is still ignoring the legislation as passed by the House of Commons in June, 1967, section 18(a)(2), requiring that these payments be made to the widows. This is still not being done. There is no denying it.
I do not know how the parliamentary secretary who will answer on behalf of the minister, or how the minister or the government can answer this question. On the first committee there were 12 members from the government side of the House and that committee gave unanimous support to the contention I put before it, as did the petition accepted by Mr. Speaker and the government. The most recent committee also gave unanimous support to my contention.
The evidence that they have not carried out their full commitments under the legislation is to be found in their own writing. If the hon. member who takes the responsi-

September 17, 1973
Adjournment Debate
bility for answering tonight reflects on what is happening in the court, I will have no alternative but to take up the matter as a question of privilege tomorrow, because here we are not dealing with the court decision in any way, shape or form but with what Mr: Kent has put in writing and what has been passed as legislation and supported by two committees of this House.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I would like to reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). I know that the problems involving Devco's efforts in Cape Breton are not unfamiliar to members of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. The hon. member has brought them to the attention of that committee with force and commitment. On May 28 of this year, five representatives
of the preretirement pensioners group met with the minister for discussions and subsequently with the standing committee.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has been working very hard to deal with what the hon. member regards as certain legitimate grievances of the pensioners. I believe considerable progress has been made. I know the minister is prepared to co-operate with the hon. member to pursue alternate means to bring just benefits to the Cape Breton miners and their families. The minister has also had discussions with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) since there is a legal interpretation to this matter to which the hon. member has referred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, September 18, 1973