1973-09-04

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-INTERROGATION BY POLICE CONCERNING FILES MISSING FROM INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I have given you, on behalf of myself and every member of this House. You, Sir, as parliament begins each session, ask the Governor General, in the Queen's name, to continue the privileges, mandates and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by members of parliament.
My question of privilege concerns the fact that on Friday last my parliamentary office was visited on two occasions by members of the Ottawa city police force and the RCMP without first having sought an appointment or without your permission or that of your staff.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The purpose of their visit was to inquire about files and documents missing from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On the first occasion, these gentlemen interrogated my staff, in my absence and without my permission, as to my activities, contacts, telephone calls and conversations during the preceding 24 hours.
On the second occasion when I arranged to meet them they continued this type of interrogation. What gravely concerns me, Sir, is the implication throughout their questioning of my involvement in a criminal offence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously I have an interest in seeing that the investigation is conducted satisfactorily, and for that reason I subsequently arranged to meet with these police officers. Yet, I have an overriding obligation to ensure that the privacy of my office is not violated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have raised this question, Sir, because its gravity affects not only myself but all members on both sides of this House. If you find I have a prima facie case of breach of privilege I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That all matters pertaining to the interrogation of myself and my staff on Friday last be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) did provide the Chair with notice as required by the Standing Orders. Furthermore, the hon. member and I have had a few discussions in connection with the incident to which she has just alluded.
I have no doubt that all members of this House are highly concerned about such activity. I have no doubt whatsoever that members would not want to be placed in the position where, in their absence from their offices, representatives of police forces, either federal, provincial or municipal, should be allowed to go in and, without any authority whatsoever, question members of the staff. I think that is an extremely serious matter, and I have no doubt at this point that I express the views and concern of each member of this House when I say that if ever there was an apparent breach of a member's privilege, this is it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: At the same time, I think perhaps hon. members would want me to have an opportunity to have a discussion with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to ascertain whether the House would want to have a debate on this matter or whether we should simply agree that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, put the motion and have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am not sure whether or not hon. members, in their joint and unanimous concern over the incident, would want us to proceed in this way. If there are views which might be expressed at this time for the guidance of the Chair I would be grateful to hon. members. I, personally, would not hesitate to rule that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, subject to what guidance I might receive from hon. members on the point.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything more on this matter other than to indicate that you have expressed the views I hold, and which I am sure represent the views of members on both sides of the House. I think the only issue which can be decided at this time is whether or not the motion should be put now or there should be a debate. Possibly the government House leader and the other House leaders might have an opportunity for consultation and discussion with Your Honour on this point so that we may come to a decision which will accelerate the solution of this question, and also see that it receives the attention it deserves. I would make that suggestion.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, your expression of opinion on this matter certainly has found support in this part of the House and we would be ready to co-operate to seek the

September 4, 1973
Business of the House
most effective method of dealing with this matter. Perhaps it would be useful to follow through on the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and have a meeting with Your Honour and other House leaders.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we would have been prepared to agree without debate to the passing of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), but since there is the suggestion of consultation we would be glad to participate in that consultation. I have no hesitation in expressing the view now, however, that we think what is needed is inquiry into the matter by the committee rather than a debate at this stage on the floor of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the suggestion that the House Leaders should meet instead of our holding a debate to settle the matter as soon as possible, since all hon. members do feel, as you said a while ago, that police officers should not have access to our offices without our knowledge, at any time, whenever it suits them, but that they should be authorized to do so beforehand. We therefore strongly support a meeting of the House leaders so that consultation may be held at the earliest possible time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me a few seconds, might I suggest that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) be invited to meet with the House leaders when this matter is being discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding of the situation that, on the basis of the Chair's finding there is a prima facie case of privilege, the motion would be put later on following the discussions which have been alluded to, that is consultations with the House leaders, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the Chair, following which arrangements could be made for putting the motion and perhaps having the matter referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections as suggested by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising at this point under motions to suggest a procedure that has been discussed earlier today to deal with the business of the House facing us this afternoon under introduction of bills. We will be
[Mr. MacEachen.)
seeking to move first reading of a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act and a bill to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits. It would be our wish to proceed with second reading of the amendments to the Old Age Security Act. We realize members might want to have an opportunity to look at the bill before the discussion begins.
At the same time, it is the decision of the government that the Prime Minister make a statement on motions today dealing with inflation and the cost of living. The cabinet has completed its study of this statement, but it is not ready, translated and in proper form for distribution. It might be convenient, in order to accommodate these various considerations, if we agreed to suspend our sitting until 4 p.m. The statement to be made by the Prime Minister would be circulated as soon as possible to give opposition parties an opportunity to study and comment on it. Then, following motions, we would continue with the normal question period and the normal business of the House.
That is a proposal I make in order to accommodate the need to have a look at the Prime Minister's statement so that comments might be possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the general suggestion made by the government House leader is acceptable. We would have been ready, if necessary, to respond to the Prime Minister's statement at this time, but one can well understand, in view of the importance of this statement, that the document must have the greatest possible scrutiny. The punctuation must be adequately fitted to the statement.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Its incubation took a long time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having in mind the limited period of gestation, we are quite prepared to consider the motion as suggested. Under those conditions, we will agree to the suggestion.
On the matter of the bill to be introduced, what the government House leader suggested is reasonable. As a matter of fact, we are prepared to go one step further. Because the bill is one which covers suggestions we have made from time to time, we are willing that it be dealt with in committee of the whole, thus saving the time which might otherwise be taken in sending it to the standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We hope that, with adequate opportunity for debate for those who want to make representations, it might well be completed by tonight-I hasten to add, within orthodox limits of our time. Under those conditions and for that reason, we would be prepared to go along with that addition to what the government House leader has suggested.


An hon. Member:: Start the meditation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Transcendental?


Stanley Howard Knowles: reasonably successful. I believe that if you combine the comments made by the government House leader and those made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) you will get a picture of what it is to which we have agreed. May I point out that the proposal for a suspension until four o'clock is one that in our view should not come into effect until after the introduction of bills, so that the two bills in question will have been introduced and will have received first reading.
Although our leader was ready to speak immediately in response to any statement the Prime Minister might make-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a good thing you are not under oath, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one thing about my leader; he always does what I say he will do. We also feel it would be a good idea to have time to look at the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act and to look at the Prime Minister's statement before we proceed further.
We also agree to the proposal that when the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act has had second reading, it could be considered in committee of the whole rather than being sent to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Accordingly, we are a party to the agreement that has been reached thus far today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the bills in question be introduced at this time, and that the sitting be suspended thereafter until four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Privilege-Miss MacDonald


STATUTE LAW (SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1973 PROVISION FOR REMOVAL OF TWO PER CENT LIMIT ON ESCALATION, REDUCTION OF ELIGIBLE AGE, ETC.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it might be worth recording that we are agreeable to dealing with the old age security bill in the committee of the whole. If that could be understood we could agree to the suspension until four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it therefore agreed that the House suspend the sitting until the call of the bells at four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 2.23 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-INTERROGATION BY POLICE CONCERNING FILES MISSING FROM INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) proposed a privilege motion. The Chair ruled at that time that there was a prima facie case of privilege. At the suggestion of some hon. members it was agreed that the ensuing formalities might be considered after discussions or consultations between the House leaders. Those have taken place and it has been agreed that the motion should be put and the matter referred, without debate, to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I would therefore put the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That all matters pertaining to the interrogation of myself and my staff on Friday last be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
September 4, 1973
Cost of Living

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, parliament has achieved the first purpose for which it was recalled into emergency session. It has legislated an end to the national rail strike and hon. members know that today the trains and ferries are running again. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) will soon announce the appointment of an arbitrator for the dispute, one whose terms of reference are to bring about a prompt and fair settlement. Getting the trains running again was an urgent national economic necessity, as is the second purpose for which hon. members are here. That is the problem of rising prices, especially food prices, which the government wishes parliament to deal with now.
The government wishes to benefit from parliamentary discussion of inflation and the economy; it wishes to seek the approval of parliament for immediate legislative action that it proposes; it wishes to report on non-legislative actions that it has taken and will take. I will briefly describe the government's legislative proposals and nonlegislative actions in this statement.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian prices for consumer goods have, indeed, gone up rapidly, although our situation is better than that of most other industrialized countries. In fact, our economy is dynamic and expanding quickly; the expected rate of growth this year is 7 per cent of the GNP in real terms. Such rate of growth is seldom achieved, here or elsewhere. Jobs are being created at a faster rate than in any other developed country: when we compare the first seven months of this year with the corresponding period last year, we see that the rate of new jobs has gone up by 5 per cent and that 411,000 more Canadians have jobs, that is an unprecedented rate of growth namely 4.3 per cent of the labour force. And so, despite the swift increase in the labour force, unemployment has gone down to 5.2 per cent whereas last September it reached its peak at 6.9 per cent.
Workers income and corporation benefits have by far exceeded the global rate of inflation in Canada. During the first quarter this year, the real income of individuals, after income tax, went up by an average 6.2 per cent compared with the same period in 1972. If Canadians have a net increase in income, it is due to a large extent to the fact that the financial budgetary reductions of last February have borne fruit.
Higher costs of food products and others result from world shortages, the effects of which an importing and exporting country such as ours cannot escape. In the face of higher world prices, our action is limited. Nevertheless, Parliament has in effect accepted the important proposals put forward by the government to slow down inflation through tariff and tax reductions that w'ill alleviate the burden of higher prices on Canadians. Parliament has

agreed to greatly reduce personal income taxes and sales tax, to increase tax exemptions, to provide as of January 1974 for the escalation of personal income tax, to increase sensibly old age security pensions, to remove federal sales taxes on children's clothing, to cut tariffs on a wide range of consumer goods.

Any system of prices and incomes controls has thus far been rejected as ineffective in coping with a phenomenon that is worldwide and because controls risk aggravating the real problem-the problem of supply-should farmers and other producers restrict production in the face of controls. That is what has happened elsewhere. A Food Prices Review Board was established to monitor prices, to investigate price rises, to train the spotlight of publicity on those increases considered to be unwarranted.
The government also announced its intention to nearly triple family allowances.
This package to restrain inflation and to mitigate the effects of inflation was directed at Canadians generally, but especially at those who are least able to protect themselves, those on low and/or fixed incomes. As the world inflationary forces continued, I announced on August 13 further steps extending this comprehensive approach under three sets of measures. These were: measures to conserve and increase the supply of food while protecting farm incomes; measures to protect the consumer against unwarranted price increases; measures to mitigate the effect of rising prices, especially on those who suffer most.
I would like to discuss legislative proposals for parliament and non-legislative actions taken or to be taken, under these three headings. I shall discuss, first, measures to conserve and increase the supply of food. The government, on June 29 last, placed soya, rape and flax seeds and their by-products under the control of the Export and Import Permits Act to protect our protein feed situation after the United States imposed their export embargo. Similarly temporary export controls on beef and pork were imposed on August 13 to safeguard meat supplies for Canadians against a rush of Canadian exports to the United States caused by trading and price distortions brought on by price controls in that country. A good supply of meat continues to be available in Canadian towns and cities and prices have dropped substantially following the government action because of increased marketings-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: This has been a startling statement thus far.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -coupled with some consumer resistance. The conclusion of the rail strike will further serve to reduce pricing anomalies. Export controls will last only as long as they are necessary-


An hon. Member:: Not in western Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: They are hurting the farmer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is there anything else?
September 4, 1973


Mr. Fairweather:: Nothing has been said yet.


George Harris Hees: That is why we want to fill in for you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You are awfully nervous over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Nielsen:: Now say something.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the opposition is not afraid of the contents of this statement, otherwise they would not make so much noise; they would be much more relaxed in preparation for listening to their own leader make his statement. Export controls will last only as long as they are necessary to protect the food supply of Canadians and are not intended to be a permanent instrument for supply control.
On a more long-term basis, the provinces have been invited to a ministerial-level conference in September to agree on principles and policies to encourage increased food production at reasonable returns to farmers. Increased food production in Canada, encouraged by measures to bring more stability and security of prices to producers, strikes at the heart of high food prices now being faced by consumers. Therefore, the government is prepared to put in place measures such as higher support payments for agricultural commodities, advance payments on a wide range of agricultural products, commodity-oriented government-producer financed income stabilization programs and such other measures as might evolve after the September conference. There is no shortage of food in Canada now, Mr. Speaker, and the government will see to it that there is no artificial creation of scarcities.
Adequate farm manpower at times of peak need is critical to food supply, and if we are to increase production we must increase the availability of manpower. The Manpower and Immigration Department is preparing new and more effective arrangements for the recruitment, training, deployment and housing of seasonal farm workers. Additionally, wherever labour market bottlenecks may be contributing to rising costs, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) will conduct major efforts to ensure there is sufficient supply of skilled workers to meet demand.
[ Translation]
And now, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the second series of measures dealing with the consumer's protection.
Following my statement of August 14, the terms of reference of the Food Prices Review Board have been extended so that from now on, it can investigate price increases in such or such commodity. Its staff has been strengthened: some experienced civil servants attached to its investigation section, are already busy detecting unwarrantable price increases. In addition, the research division and the administration services have been enlarged. The government, I can assure this House, is anxious for the Board to be in a position to detect unjus-
Cost of Living
tifiable increases as well as those responsible for them and to lay them to an unrelenting publicity. 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.
On the other hand, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) will introduce in the House a bill amending and widening the Combines Investigation Act in order, among other things, to define and provide penalties in the greater number of cases of misleading advertising and other unfair commercial practices. [English]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss measures to mitigate the effect of rising prices. Accompanying these measures to conserve and increase the supply of food, and to protect consumers in respect of food prices, the government will be asking parliament to approve a number of measures to protect the purchasing power of pensions and allowances.
First, legislation has been introduced to escalate the pensions under the OAS and GIS plans every three months instead of every year. This will make these pensions much more responsive to price increases. The legislation will take effect in October, 1973, when the basic pensions will increase from $100 to $105.30, reflecting the increases in the consumer price index for the ten-month period from October, 1972, to July, 1973; and the total pension, including the GIS supplement, will go from $170.14 to $179.16 for a single person.
Second, legislation will be introduced to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan. The provinces will be asked for their support of this change, as required by law. Parallelling this change in the CPP, legislation has been introduced today to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on cost of living increases of pensions paid to retired employees of the Government of Canada.
As for private pensions, the government proposes to remove the provision that only employee pension plans with a 2 per cent maximum on the annual escalation of pensions being paid may be registered under the Income Tax Act. From now on, pension plans which provide for full escalation of pensions in response to cost of living increases will be registerable.
Third, the government has already introduced a measure which will assist families with children to meet higher living costs: the virtual tripling of family allowances in January, 1974, to an average of $20 per month. To meet the higher prices which must be paid now, however, parliament will be asked to approve an interim increase in family and youth allowances to $12 per month starting in October next. The $12 allowances would not be taxable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As for the poorest families in Canadian society, the federal government shares 50 per cent of the cost of social assistance paid by the provinces to families in need. The government said in August, and repeats today, that it stands ready to pay 50 per cent of the costs of increasing these payments to compensate for higher

September 4, 1973
Cost of Living
prices. Certain provinces have already acted to do so, and others are undoubtedly considering taking such action soon.

The foregoing constitutes payments of income to Canadians.
The government also intends to take other measures to reduce the cost of basic foods, measures which will greatly contribute, I think, to maintain and even reduce the price of essential foodstuffs.

We are completing discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board to immediately reduce prices of wheat to millers and other users for human consumption in Canada. The reduction would be approximately to the level of the early August prices and would be part of a multi-year agreement which would provide guaranteed minimum and maximum prices to the Canadian farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would pay to the Wheat Board and other producers up to $1.25 per bushel of wheat consumed by Canadians-bread, pasta and all other uses-as a consumer subsidy. The result will be that a further bread price increase of about 5 cents a loaf which was inescapable in October will not now occur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Transla tion]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government wishes also to alleviate the burden of the price of milk for Canadian families and insists that any measure taken will benefit consumers. The government is therefore willing to guarantee payment of a 5 cent subsidy per quart of milk to the provinces where marketing boards will agree to maintain or reduce the cost of milk for at least one year. At the same time, the government will set up a program aiming at reducing by an equivalent amount the price of a package of powdered skimmed milk. In this respect, it will hold meetings with provincial representatives without delay.
To make sure that these measures will fully benefit consumers, the Food Prices Review Board will be instructed to closely supervise the results of the subsidy programs that I have just announced.
[ English]
Turning from food prices, another area of concern to Canadians and the government is the price of gasoline and heating oil. The world is going through a period of rapidly escalating petroleum prices and Canada is not immune from world conditions. The market in eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is dependent entirely on international crude oil supplies, mainly from Venezuela, Iran and the Arab states. Crude oil from these sources has gone up in price by more than 30 per cent in the past year.
In the rest of Ontario and the western pronvinces, which are supplied by Canadian production, the price has risen along with international prices. In part this is because about half of Canadian production is sold in the United States markets where increasing reliance on foreign sup-

plies has made the United States vulnerable to foreign prices. Canadian crude oil production has consequently been sold in the U.S. at the opportunity prices available, and the domestic Canadian consumer has seen this U.S. demand raise his prices too.
Prices of petroleum products, including gasoline and home heating oil, in Canada today have reached the point at which the government believes immediate measures are required to stabilize the action of the marketplace in the interest of consumers and the rational development of Canadian industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Accordingly, the following measures are now being announced:
1.	The oil industry will be asked to refrain from making further price increases affecting Canadian consumers before January 30, 1974. This price restraint would apply except where, to the satisfaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resouces (Mr. Macdonald), the increase in the cost of imported crude oil warrants a Canadian price increase.
2.	The government intends to seek a control mechanism whereby higher prices in the U.S. market would not automatically increase prices at home in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An export tax or a national oil marketing board are two possible control mechanisms. Discussions will be held as soon as possible with provinces and industry prior to the introduction of legislation.
3.	The government will also hold early consultations with provinces and industry on the extension of pipeline facilities so as to enable Canadian oil to be shipped into Montreal. At a time of rapidly escalating international prices, this would put Canadian oil into competition with international oil and would give additional security against international disruption of supply.


C (1630)
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, in present world conditions the most urgent task of the government is to ensure that those who are least able to defend themselves against the effects of inflation are protected. This has been a fundamental objective of the government. The measures which I have announced today are consistent with and will further strengthen the measures which the government has already taken to ensure that this objective is met.
The government must also ensure that the inflation which we face today and which reflects world shortages of foodstuffs and key commodities is not translated into escalating costs which might necessitate the imposition of income and price controls. The government believes there is a better way and a better course to follow.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The measures which it has taken to increase disposable income and thus offset the effect of inflation on real income should be taken into account by those who set prices, profits and wages. The government
September 4, 1973

expects them to behave in this way and not take advantage of the current situation to push up prices and costs.
These measures, Mr. Speaker, express the government's determination to deal with the problem of inflation in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at one point the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that we in the opposition were afraid of the contents of the paper he has just presented to the House. When one considers that the Prime Minister was not able to produce this document at two o'clock, the fact that at two o'clock we got the impression that we would receive it in plenty of time before four o'clock, and we received it between 25 and 20 minutes to four, it looks as though the Prime Minister was rather afraid of anybody seeing what was in it. I do not know how early in the afternoon the government decided on these measures, but certainly it had some difficulty getting them down on paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That kind of delay is not the sort of tactic or well organized endeavour that is likely to engender very much confidence in respect of what is in this document. There was a good deal of high expectation, which turned out to have been misplaced, that the Prime Minister would finally present a significant policy statement to this parliament. Instead, the Prime Minister has given us this afternoon a sort of pot-pourri of measures that deal with the most evident and discomforting symptoms of the sickness, or some of them-a review of the substantial measures previously announced-but no comprehensive assault on inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister then went back to talk about the great anti-inflationary benefits conferred by the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) last February. The government has evidently found it completely impossible to monitor the effects, because we have not had that monitoring report as yet and it has been clear for very many months that the budget of the Minister of Finance was a joke as far as an attack on inflation in this country is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In respect of the measures announced this afternoon with regard to the Food Prices Review Board-and I am sure this is disappointing for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and his colleagues- as I understand what the Prime Minister said, nothing effective at all has been done to put any teeth into the operations of that board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister announced some measures that will receive general approval, such as the subsidy in respect of milk and the increase to $12 in family and youth allowances, although a lot of us wonder what
Cost of Living
kind of improvising is going on when the government announces a longer term program involving income taxation regarding these payments or allowances when introducing an interim measure which involves no such taxation. However, I am not going to quibble about questions like that in discussing a matter of such general importance.
Let me just say, with regard to the increase in old age pensions announced, or boasted about by the Prime Minister-that is, the device or principle of escalating on a quarterly basis-that for a long time, and until very recently, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) have been saying that this is an impossible thing. They rejected it as impossible and as something very foolish for me to have recommended a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I express the hope that every member of this House will take a very careful look at the bill the government has put before the House and the contrived and complex methods the government has adopted to deal with this very urgent problem facing our older people.
We approve of the wheat subsidy. But here is a government coming forward, in the first part of September, increasing to $1.25 a payment which it reduced from $1.04 to $1 in July. In the meantime the government has sat idly by and watched the price of bread go up six cents a loaf. Now the Prime Minister says this measure will avoid a further increase of five cents which would otherwise be inevitable in October.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think a government that again has been idle while watching the price of bread go up six cents a loaf, and now puts forward this lame kind of proposal, is not one that is very much concerned about the ordinary people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will have something to say about petroleum in a few minutes. But there is nothing in this statement for the homeowner. The government has not even suggested removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and has made no proposal to remove the sales tax on clothing for all Canadians, following up the step taken last winter in respect of clothing for children.
There are those who for their own reasons characterized the proposals we put forward in February as either outdated or simply unworthy of a Canadian government.


An hon. Member:: Both.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I certainly do not concern myself with such criticisms coming from the government side, because they said the same thing about the proposals we urged in connection with unemployment. They said the same thing about the program we put forward with regard to indexing income tax. They said the same thing with regard to our

September 4, 1973
Cost of Living
recommendations that old age pensions should be adjusted on a quarterly basis. They kept on criticizing those policies until they turned around and implemented them themselves following that not very happy, from their point of view, election a while back.
Now the Prime Minister puts forward arguments about shortages and a comprehensive approach to controls as being inconsistent with an adequate supply situation. I say to the Prime Minister through you, Sir, that that is an absurd generalization. It is an insult to the integrity of Canadian producers, many of whom have already indicated through their various organizations that they would co-operate in keeping supplies at high levels during a controls program and would support such a program. But a producer's concern about his input costs is in fact legitimate argument against selective controls or attempts to deal with food prices in isolation. I have no reason to believe that an across the board program would not receive sincere support from Canadian producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just after the Prime Minister condemned the use of price controls or anything of that sort in a situation of world shortage, or in a situation where world factors push up prices, what did he do? He did not resort to a 90-day freeze, but a five-month freeze in connection with petroleum by itself. If there is one product in the world where international factors push up prices beyond the control of Canadians, that is it. I ask the Prime Minister how he can justify refusing to adopt a comprehensive and fair approach to controls while he is prepared to adopt isolated controls. How does he justify refusing to adopt a comprehensive system of controls, because they would create shortages, when he resorts to such a control at his own convenience?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to spend much time on the views of my friends to the left, but they seem to be in the incredible position at the moment of saying that you cannot make a freeze and temporary controls program work, but you can legislate roll-backs. There is neither consistency nor common sense in such an argument. The fact is that the government is fiddling around with selective quotas, freezes and other controls. All their suggestions and plans are oriented to each individual crisis as it comes up. Following that logic through to its conclusion, it would seem that when we get to the point of crisis in every facet of the economy, the sum of all their ad hoc responses will by that unhappy time constitute the sort of basic program which we put forward over six months ago.
Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing against measures of relief for those hardest hit by the cost of living squeeze as it now exists. Indeed, we have always advocated a number of such measures. These certainly are part of our over-all policy. We recognize, too, the need for certain support programs. We will support them if they are necessary, and we have always said that they are. We will support measures of this kind, but we must also, as a parliament, attack the problem.
We must stop the vicious circle that a widespread inflation psychology draws us further and further into, and we
[Mr Stanfield.]
must do this with two criteria in mind. First, we must attack the problem of inflation in a way that makes it possible to continue sustainable growth in productivity and jobs. Regional disparity dictates that we must do this in the national interest. One of the things which frightens me about the present tactics of the government is that their monetary policies, their high interest rates, will wreak havoc on the economy of the slow growth areas of this country long before we have a chance to get unemployment in those areas down to anything like a satisfactory level. So I say that we need, in the national interest, a policy that will enable us to continue the creation of jobs. Simple humanity dictates that we must do this in the interests of the individual Canadian. The discredited approach of slowdown taken by this government in 1969 and 1970 must not be followed again.
Second, the program of attack must be comprehensive, short-term and as fair as possible. Selective approaches are in many instances not fair, and in a larger sense are not perceived to be universally fair. I am not suggesting for a moment that the price of petroleum products should not be frozen for a period followed by a system of controls. I just say it should be a general approach. When you are dealing with the psychological side of inflation, this element of fairness-everyone involved, and all pulling together in the common interest-and this mood of fairness cannot be over-emphasized.
I am certainly no lover of government intrusion into the economy to the extent that our policy involves, but based on these two criteria and the urgency of the matter I am prepared to act in this way. Big government, big business and big organized labour can choose to sit on the sidelines and look after their own interests. But the ordinary citizen looks to this parliament for leadership, for concern and for action. And we in this parliament must provide that action. The government says, "It is an international problem". So are death and taxes. But we do not stop trying to improve living, and we do not stop paying taxes. Certainly inflation is an international program, and short-term, economic stabilization programs are the widely accepted international response to the problem.
This is the government whose Minister of Finance presented a budget some six months ago which the minister said was "aimed at increasing the real income and improving the standard of living of Canadians". The minister's words of February 19 are nothing more than a sick joke now on September 4. The minister said the budget was "aimed at reducing inflationary pressures . . . aimed at ensuring that older Canadians share more fairly and more fully in the growing national prosperity ... so they may better enjoy living in well-earned retirement."
This is a government that chose to cling to power in speaking through the Minister of Finance on February 19 of this year. A sick joke! Where are we today? For many Canadians, daily life has become simply a matter of survival. For those who have recently benefited from pension increases, the increases have been almost instantly consumed by rising prices of the very essentials of life. For those who work for wages, it is all too clear that inflation is destroying not only their incomes but the future value of their retirement benefits. In conditions such as this,
September 4, 1973

orderly investment is difficult and saving is almost impossible.
Canadian consumers are confronted now with endless rounds of demands, and very understandable demands, for higher wages which will make demands upon costs that can only be met by further demands upon the consumer. The cause of our even being here now, which was the national railway strike, was merely the tip of the iceberg: every hon. member of the House knows this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely what we must do now is to make it clear that we cannot carry on doing things in bits and pieces. We must make a comprehensive, concerted effort, I suggest, for two years. Two years is a very short span of time in the lifetime of a nation. It can be a very significant period in Canada's history. We should get on with it, and we should build upon it. Obviously this government will not do that, so the evident key to the problem is to replace it as soon as possible with a government that will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment we are dealing with a problem that is of great concern to all Canadians and to all members of this parliament. Every time the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and his colleagues deal with this problem they have a lexicon of words that they use and repeat all the time. The Leader of the Opposition wants a comprehensive attack; he wants a concerted attack; he wants a short-term stabilization program; he wants a temporary attack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: At no time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I do not really care whether the Conservative members keep up their noise or not, but I think it should be set down in the record that the Leader of the Official Opposition was afforded the courtesy of being listened to by all members of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -even by those who disagreed with him. But if they want to continue, they can. It is in your hands, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition wants these things-comprehensive, concerted, temporary. At one time he said there should be a 90-day freeze; at another time, a couple of weeks ago, it was a program for one and a half years. Today it has become two years. At no time when he or any one of his colleagues speaks about this over-all, comprehensive attack on inflation, as they call it, do they say how they would do it, how far they would go, how they would control the prices to the farmer, whether they would control the prices at one end or whether they would freeze wages at every point. We saw last week that if the Conservative program had been in effect then, not only would there have been a strike of the non-ops but we would have had a strike of all the railway employees-
Cost of Living


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -against the wage freeze which they would have imposed.
My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, says he cannot understand how someone could oppose across the board controls, and at the same time call for some selective controls and roll-backs. I cannot help him if he cannot understand it, but the logic is perfectly obvious and I want to state this as simply and as seriously as I know how. An over-all, across the board system of controls has been proved to be unworkable in the United States and in the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: But there are in an economy-particularly one as strong as Canada's-areas where controls can do the consumer good and bring justice to the people. Those controls are-I will come back to some of these in a moment-on interest rates which affect every house buyer and borrower, on the price of oil and gasoline which we can and should control, and controls and roll-backs on the gouging which takes place as a result of profits-to which I will also refer in a moment-by packers, supermarket chains, banks and oil and gasoline companies. There are areas where it is possible to impose selective roll-backs, whether they be on gasoline or oil, to subsidize the cost of bread and milk to the consumer, as well as the cost of meat, and to do all these things without imposing the kind of bureaucratic jungle which the official opposition is proposing to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: My last word on this point is to draw to the attention of members of parliament, the people of Canada and the media in the gallery, that it is not without significance that the administrations in the world which have insisted on these kinds of across the board price controls have been conservative with a small "c" or a capital "C", whether in Washington, in London or anywhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: How about New Zealand?


David Lewis: They do not have across the board controls in New Zealand. These Conservatives do not know what they are talking about. I had the honour and pleasure of spending a couple of hours with the Prime Minister of New Zealand when he was here for the Commonwealth conference, and I know from him that they have no such system of controls. They have what we have been demanding, that is, an effective, what they call prices justification tribunal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: What we have said, and what I want to emphasize today if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor will allow me to interrupt him for a moment because it is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that in ordinary circumstances at five o'clock we would proceed to the consideration of private members'
6188

September 4, 1973
Cost of Living
business. I assume it is the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the business which is now before us. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, what we have said from the start regarding the problem of increasing prices that faces Canadians is that there is a way in which these Canadians can be helped. I think it is thoroughly dishonest for anyone in the House or in Canada-and I hasten to say that no spokesman for the Conservative Party has suggested it, so I am not directing it against them-to suggest that this parliament or Canadians in general could in any way completely stop the pressure on prices in this country. It is just impossible, and it is not honest to suggest it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We believe it is possible to impose roll-backs and controls in areas which are of direct assistance to the people of this country, and it is possible to assist those who are worst hit by the effects of rising prices. It is possible for parliament to do those two things, and they would have an immediate effect for the betterment and the welfare of the people of Canada.
I remind hon. members of this House that almost 60 per cent of the consumer price index is governed by food and shelter prices. The food weight, if I remember correctly- if I am out, it will not be by more than a percentage point or so-in the consumer price index is about 27 per cent and the shelter weight is about 32 per cent. Together those two, food and shelter, represent 59 per cent of the total burden of the consumer price index. But if you took that consumer price index and, instead of applying it on the average, or in the over-all as the present CPI necessarily does, you applied it to certain sections of the community, to the lower and middle-income people, then I suspect food and shelter would represent not only 59 per cent of the cost basket of the consumer but probably closer to 70 per cent and in some cases 80 per cent.
It therefore stands to reason that if we apply will and intelligence to this problem, and if we are able to reduce the effect of the rising prices of food in one area and the effect of rising prices of shelter in the other area, we will immediately beneficially affect the welfare of the largest proportion of the Canadian people, of the Canadian consumers. But in order to do that you must have an agency with power, and the Prime Minister's statement is disappointing beyond description in that it still leaves the Food Prices Review Board, (a) limited to food and (b) without any power itself or without any power in the government to do anything about unjustified price increases.
I do not know what in heaven's name is holding back the government except its traditional failure to meet the situation with courage and with will. I simply do not understand. There is not even a constitutional argument. There is no constitutional obstacle that the government has to overcome, Mr. Speaker, since early in August fol-
[Mr. Speaker.)
lowing the meeting of the provincial premiers in Charlottetown, P.E.I., the premiers came out of that meeting and unanimously announced that they were prepared to co-operate with the federal government in any action it may take to deal with the rising cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That places in the hands of the federal government an undertaking by the provincial jurisdictions which enables the federal government to overcome any jurisdictional obstacle that one might have thought was there. It can do it by delegation of powers, by enabling legislation or by concurrent legislation. There are a whole number of avenues through which Ottawa and the provincial capitals could act jointly and simultaneously to give power either to the Food Prices Review Board or to the government on the recommendation of that board to roll back unjustified price increases. The failure to give us that undertaking in this statement is a great disappointment to everyone who thinks seriously about the problem at this time.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are delighted about the increase in family and youth allowances to $12 effective October 1, instead of having to wait for the increase until January 1 next year. That is of great value to most families. To the average Canadian family with children it means an increase of between $15 and $10 a month over what is received now in family and youth allowances. While it is not a large amount of money, it is certainly of very great assistance to Canadian families. I think anyone who does not recognize the value of that as being a partial answer to the rising cost of living is merely being political instead of being objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I welcome, of course, the increase in the subsidies on domestically consumed wheat, although I am always astounded by the little bit that the government is ready to give to help the ordinary Canadian, compared with the large chunks it is ready to give to the large corporations. The total expenditure, under the present plan, of $1 a bushel represents $60 million or $65 million. From my statistical knowledge, I understand that about 65 million bushels of wheat are consumed in this country. As I say, that means a total cost of $60 million or $65 million, and an additional 25 cents a bushel subsidy means an additional $15 million to assist the Canadian family buying bread and pasta.
I think it is shameful that the government should imit itself in that way. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that this would avoid an increase of five cents on a loaf of bread that was bound to come in October. But, Mr. Speaker, this evening's Ottawa paper tells us that this morning an immediate increase of six cents per loaf of bread was announced. I say the government should have had the courage to make the subsidy for wheat another 25 cents or so in order to roll back the six cents immediate increase in the price of bread, instead of leaving it at its present high level of cost.
I also, or course, welcome the five cents a quart subsidy for fluid milk, and the similar amount for powdered milk. I merely note in this case that the Prime Minister found it
September 4, 1973

necessary to say-I hope I have got the right place, because I am speaking from memory-that the Prices Review Board was going to be asked to serve in this situation to make sure that the subsidy will get to the consumer. That is precisely the point we have made all through.
You can give all the subsidies you like to the producers, but if there is no surveillance over what happens in the long chain of packaging, wholesaling and retailing, and if you do not have a body with power to roll back unjustified price increases, there is no way you can make certain that these subsidies out of the federal treasury get to the pockets of the consumers instead of being added to the profits of the corporations. The very fact that the Prime Minister makes reference to the Prices Review Board in that context underlines the correctness of our demand that the board, or the government on the recommendation of the board, should have power to do something about unjustified price increases.
This seems to be the day, Mr. Speaker, for opposition leaders to claim credit for what the government has done. But I think it should be obvious to everyone that even the inadequate measures which the Prime Minister has announced would not have been announced had we not a minority parliament where the government has to listen to the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I do not say it always listens to our party; I say it listens to other parties in this parliament as well. I think it should be underlined that a year ago the government could not have been moved to do this kind of thing. All the requests from opposition members to do something in certain areas were left without answers, without sympathy. But the evidence now is that in moving as far as it did, it is clear that this minority parliament makes the government move or else it would not remain in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Turning to gasoline and heating oil, Mr. Speaker, the proposal concerning the possibility of an export tax and a national oil marketing board, together with the proposal for freezing the price, are proposals we have made from time to time and we welcome them in the Prime Minister's statement. I merely point out to him that once again he has waited until the price has gone up very considerably and then he freezes it. We have had an increase of 95 cents per barrel of oil at the wellhead in the last nine months. I wish the government had had the sense and the courage to put the freeze on three months ago. If they had, we would not have the kind of increase that we have now.
Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to discuss this with every one of my colleagues, but those I consulted before coming into this chamber-and I am sure it is true for all-are disappointed and heartbroken that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has not made any announcement about interest rates. I am told that the Leader of the Opposition did not refer to them either.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he did.
Cost of Living


David Lewis: I am now told that he did. At this point I am not interested in that, Mr. Speaker. What I am interested in saying is that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act have no right to increase the interest rates on mortgages that go to the ordinary Canadian. They should be rolled back. The least the government could have announced was increased money for the assistance of home ownership so that some people would get mortgages at the 8 per cent level instead of having to pay 10 per cent or 11 per cent. The fact that there is no help for interest rates, particularly mortgage rates on housing, is disappointing and bad.
May I say fo the Prime Minister and his colleagues that it is not thoughtful or sensitive of them to say they are ready to pay 50 per cent of the increased social allowances that some provinces may be willing to pay. Time and time again all of us in the opposition have to remind this government that there are sections of the country that cannot afford to increase social allowances by themselves. The 50 per cent the government pays to Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia may be sufficient to enable those provinces to increase welfare payments, but I suggest that the Atlantic provinces, and probably Manitoba, do not have the means to increase the social allowance. If this government wanted to help the poor and those who are on welfare to obtain a good diet, they should have said they would provide 100 per cent, or at least 75 per cent of the cost of the additional welfare money from the federal treasury. The money is there. Just the other day the Minister of Finance found $500 million. Apparently he had miscalculated the deficit by that amount.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that it is time we looked at the profit picture of the large corporations and did something about that. You can be as certain as the fact that you are sitting in that chair, Mr. Speaker, that when workers across the country read, as they will, of the large increases in profits by the corporations they will justifiably demand a share of that additional productivity. Those additional profits are undoubtedly made at the expense of the Canadian consumer. An excess profits tax ought to be imposed to make sure that does not happen.
I should like to take a moment to cite a few figures, Mr. Speaker. In the second quarter of 1973, Dominion Stores increased their profits by 92.56 per cent over the same quarter in 1972, but sales increased by only 12.97 per cent. The Oshawa Group Limited, wholesale food distributors, showed an increase in profits of 57.26 per cent, and increased sales of only 22.43 per cent. The Ford Motor Company had an increase in profits of 48.1 per cent, but an increase in sales of only 21.66 per cent. Genstar Limited, a Montreal developer working in the west as well as the east, showed a profit increase of 83.6 per cent, while Cadillac Development Corporation, which has its headquarters in Toronto, with large development operations and holdings, had an increase in profits of 37.4 per cent. Two of the largest banks in Canada announced an increase in profits of 46 per cent and 50 per cent for 1973, compared with the same period in 1972.
Can anyone, objectively and conscientiously, suggest that the increase in profits for the retailers, the wholesalers, the car manufacturers, the developers and the banks was not an increase at the expense of the Canadian con-
26454-27;

September 4, 1973
Cost of Living
sumer by gouging them unjustifiably in the marketplace, by squeezing out of them everything the traffic will bear at the present time?
It is possible to control profits, to control prices and therefore to roll back the burden on the ordinary Canadian consumer. That is why the statement by the government that it will, maybe, in the future do something about giving itself power with regard to the Prices Review Board is not good enough. That kind of legislation should come before parliament very shortly. There is no excuse for inaction in the areas which can benefit all Canadians.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) kept his promises and his word. Last October in Shawinigan Falls he stated that he was about to distribute goodies to the people of Canada. Indeed, the goodies has just been handed out this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why we were called here was to settle the rail strike. And that settlement, I think, constitutes the pretext for the next strike that will be called in two years or 28 months. It did not settle anything, nor will it. It will result in freight rate increases, passenger fare increases and new price increases across Canada at the very time when the Prime Minister announces that the government is quite willing to help the Canadian consumers and producers, to promote employment, to retrain workers.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talked for half an hour but he failed to come to grips with the root of the problem-the reason why we are faced with the present situation-the financial system and its disadvantages. Nobody wants to talk about the debt money system which calls for prohibitive interest rates.
Interests are up to 12 per cent or 12 M>
per cent on housing loans. For example, this morning the Provincial Bank of Canada was asking a borrower 12!/2 per cent on a 25 or 30 year home building loan. In 30 years that house will have cost him $45,200, while it only costs $20,000. The Prime Minister did not talk about that. That house will more than double in price but nobody talks about that. Nobody says that interest rates have doubled in the last 10 years. As soon as we talk about the monetary question, we immediately hear crybabies say: Ha! ha! Let us rather pick on our people, let us tax the haves in order to give to the have-nots.
Mr. Speaker, we accept the 5 cents cut on the price of a quart of milk; we accept a more reasonable price for bread, but what makes me laugh, is when this is called consumer subsidies.
My colleagues and I from the Social Credit have been proposing consumer subsidies for exactly 30 years. The government begins to realize it. The opposition begins to realize it and even the New Democratic Party begins to believe that we must look to the consumers for their protection.
Mr. Speaker, we also approve of the increase of pensions and allowances. We approve of the good intentions of the government, but we believe that we must at the same time
| Mr. Lewis.]
increase old age security pensions and family allowances. We believe that welfare recipients should also see their incomes adjusted so that their buying power will increase.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditists have been laughed at in the past, but listen today to those who offer solutions. I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) say earlier that everything the government does is bad but, if he were there he would not do better.
However, he blames the government for not freezing incomes and prices. This has been tried, it is in fact still being tried in the United States, but it has been a complete flop. It produced the black market and discouraged producers to such an extent that they reduced their production and the problem is now worse than ever. That is what the Progressive Conservative would like to impose in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is not the solution.
As for the New Democratic Party, it used to be in favour of price controls, but not wage controls. This could not balance out. Today, the New Democrats believe that we must not impose price and wage controls. However, knocking down big corporations, seems to be their solution to inflation.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the profits of Chrysler Corporation Limited, Ford Motors Canada Limited and Noranda Mines Limited have increased. That is a fact. However, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) must know that the president of Noranda Mines Limited does not pile up profits in his bedroom. He must know, for example, that Noranda Mines Limited is spending this year $32 million to build a new ore processing plant. All profit-making companies-
[ English]


An hon. Member:: What about Ford profits?


David Réal Caouette: You can take any one company. They are not piling up their money in their bedrooms. They are spending money to expand the economy of Canada, but hon. members opposite do not understand that.
[Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to attack those who create employment because they make profits, those who develop the Canadian economy. The leader of the New Democratic Party does not want any control, but he would like to nationalize. It is another form of control: to nationalize so that the government could poke its nose into everything, exactly as in Cuba or in other socialist countries where free enterprise no longer exists and where the government has the last word.
Mr. Speaker, those are not proper solutions and this government is a little late in taking action. Some time ago, western producers were paid not to grow wheat; Quebec and Ontario dairy farmers were penalized because they were exceeding their quotas. Production quotas were set and today we fear a shortage of products. Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible for that. Had production been encouraged when it was time, we could have withstood better the competition in world markets and would not
September 4, 1973

have had to wait for the United States to make their decision before setting our own production.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister himself said, not so long ago, that our GNP would reach $102 billion this year, and owing to that gigantic production, our total national income, around $72 billion. How can we possibly buy a $102 billion production with $72 billion? Instead of trying to reduce production, let us find the means of increasing the purchasing power with which to buy Canadian production. This would be an efficient way of fighting inflation and the ever rising cost of living because, for my part, I do not think the present measures will prevent it from going up further.
The implementation of this whole program will lead to new taxes that will be included in prices, and so, lead once again to an increase in the cost of production. There is but one thing to do: issue new credits through the Bank of Canada to balance the Canadian purchasing power with Canadian production: then we will have fought off inflation and the rise in the cost of living.


INCOME TAX
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to table, in response to a request which seemed to meet the consent of the House last week, the Order in Council giving effect to the regulation concerning Canadian manufacturing and processing profits.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since no provision whatsoever is made to ensure an adequate minimum income to people aged 60 to 65, and considering the very uncertain financial situation of couples in that age bracket and in cases where one spouse has not reached the required minimum age, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That a special committee of the House be appointed to study the possibility of lowering from 65 to 60 the age of eligibility to the old age security pension and to make the pension automatically available to a spouse whenever the other has reached the age of eligibility.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, that motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Unemployment Insurance Act Mr. Speaker: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That a committee of the House be appointed to conduct a thorough inquiry on the ridiculous prices paid to western farmers for their meat, especially beef, as those farmers are being exploited by the various slaughter houses that control marketing, set prices and bring about as they please a false meat shortage in Canada for the benefit of slaughter houses and to the detriment of producers and consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, that motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.

[ English]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-221, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill is not only designed to provide Canada Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, or, more idealistically, a combination of the two with an inventory of all job opportunities in every field of endeavour, but it would also coordinate the efforts of the unemployed who are searching for work, on one hand, and industries, on the other hand, which are desperately looking for workers in most areas of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
September 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends at an early date to present a budget, either a mini-budget or a full-fledged budget, and, if so, whether he has any intention of eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building material. I am thinking, also, of the federal government sales tax on all clothing, not merely on children's clothing.


John Napier Turner: It is not
my present intention to do so.


SUGGESTED DISMISSAL OF MINISTER IN VIEW OF REVERSAL ON DOMESTIC SUBSIDY PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: One supplementary, in view of the hour. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, now that the entire cabinet is supporting a reversal of the domestic grain subsidy program announced by the responsible minister back in July, and in view of the fact that this minister also implemented the disastrous LIFT program, whether he will tell the House why he continues to keep that minister in charge of that particular responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt as to the admissibility of the question from the point of view of procedure. I do not think the question is in order.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbervt (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there was nothing about interest rates in the announcement he made this afternoon, could the right hon. gentleman inform the House whether or not it is the intention of the government within the next few days to bring forward a bill dealing with the interest rate situation, particularly with respect to mortgages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the housing legislation we passed shortly before the recess contained within it a proposal to assist home ownership, and since there is a relatively small amount of money set aside for that purpose, can the minister, as a means of ensuring a greater flow of money into the construction of homes for people of average income, undertake to substantially increase the amount of money going into this aspect of the home ownership program?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The assisted home ownership program would help those earning between $6,000 and $11,000 a year to purchase homes at rates which go down to 6 per cent. The sum of $134 million was set aside for this purpose and since the legislation only became operative for practical purposes in August, we have not nearly expended that $134 million. So at this point of time the question is hypothetical.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell the House whether he has received a telegram from the Quebec FPV whereby this organization expresses its dissatisfaction with the results obtained to date by Quebec farm producers, following the implementation of the new policy on feed grains for 1973-74? If so, what was his reply?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not seen any telegram from the organization the hon. member mentioned, but I do know I was requested to meet this group of people.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the statement the right hon. gentleman made today meets only two of the four conditions set out by the leader of the New Democratic Party in his shopping list of August 21-I refer specifically to the failure of the government to meet the NDP demand with respect to the food prices review board, and interest rates-
September 4, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member has reached the point at which he will ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to conclude by asking the Prime Minister whether he now intends to place a motion before the House to test its confidence in the government at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure there are many ways in which the opposition can express its opposition to the government. There are bills before the House, and we shall be discussing them later. If the opposition wants to defeat them, it is perfectly free to do so.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
David Lewis: A question to the Prime Minister arising out of his earlier statement. The statement repeats the undertaking by the government that if the Food Prices Review Board can show that there have been abuses, the government will take action. In view of the fact that the board will need some time before it can make any report, and in view of the fact that legislation also takes time, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider producing legislation to give the government or the board the powers that he thinks might be needed, in order that those powers might be available should the board find that they ought to be used?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is to some extent asking the government to legislate with a hypothetical situation in mind. In so far as the Food Prices Review Board does respond to that hypothesis and go through the various stages which I mentioned in August-the stage of identifying cases of excessive prices increases, the stage of bringing the responsible people in, of giving publicity to those increases, of asking those concerned to roll back prices voluntarily, referring the matter to the government in the absence of such voluntary compliance, the possibility open to the government of using various nonlegislative or administrative powers, powers it already possesses, in order to exercise moral or other suasion against such people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am saying there are a series of steps which are hypothetical, all of which the government is prepared to take, but we do not want at the present time to introduce the type of legislation to which the hon. member is referring. However, I repeat that if these various hypotheses materialise, or appear as though they are likely to materialise, I would convey the desire and the intention of the government to bring forward such legislation.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock!
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I often wish I could make a little speech on these questions such as the person replying is able to make. I will put it in terms of the time-honoured phrase "In view of". In view of the fact that there has already been factual information about changes in prices on the shelves which would clearly indicate excessive price increases, and in view of the fact that legislation which gives some power to roll back prices will frequently prevent something from happening, and having in mind the fact that this might easily have an influence on people to refrain from increasing prices unjustifiably, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I will recognize the hon. member. I am sure both the hon. member for York South and the Prime Minister will recognize that this is really a debate during the question period, and I would hope that questions can be asked in a more brief form.


David Lewis: May I now put the question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise on a point of order to suggest to you that this kind of business of the coalition might more appropriately be taken up in caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that we are in a difficult situation in relation to time. Perhaps the hon. member for York South could now ask his question, to which there might be a brief answer, after which the Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, based on the premise I suggested to the Prime Minister, I should like to ask whether he would want to reconsider his position and produce the necessary legislation to give the government or the board the power to control prices in given areas in order to avoid the difficulty that his own recitation has suggested?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my recitation could be summed up by saying there are many measures which could be taken now, and indeed the fact that one such incident is before the courts for prosecution should be an indication to the hon. member that there is power to act and that action is being taken against those who use unfair practices.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question originates from the matter raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Having been in this House for many years, it is my feeling that what was suggested by her today involves a most shocking matter. I would ask first the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he or his department made any complaint concerning this alleged document,

September 4, 1973
Oral Questions
and did he make any suggestion as to who might be in possession of that document?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my department did launch a complaint about the fact that some files had been stol3n, but there was no indication as to where they were. I was as shocked as any other member of this House when I learned that the police had gone into the office of the hon. member.


INTERROGATION OF MEMBER CONCERNING MISSING FILE-INQUIRY AS TO AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACTED
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Solicitor General. Were the RCMP acting under a search warrant, was that search warrant directed toward a member of the House of Commons, or were they acting under the tyrannical powers of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members of the House that earlier this afternoon this very matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The very point which is being made in the question asked by the right hon. member is a matter which is in essence covered by the motion moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I would hope that matter can be considered by the committee very soon to the satisfaction of hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, what will be considered is whether what was done was a breach of privilege of a member of this House, rather than the question I am asking. I should like very much to know whether we have "Watergate's" in our midst.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You ought to know.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the individual who made that intervention identify himself? Is he cowardly enough to make it without standing up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will identify myself. I was the one who said "You ought to know". I said that, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that normally the hon. member is known for his wit, but this despicable suggestion I throw back in his teeth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for St. Boniface wishes to rise on a question of privilege, but it seems to me again that we are not achieving very much by this kind of exchange.
I would remind hon. members that the situation which formed the basis of the questions asked by the right hon.

gentleman was the subject that was referred to a committee of this House by unanimous consent. I would hope that this matter can be dealt with expeditiously by the committee. Unless there is a general wish to pursue the matter I do not think very much can be gained by continuing this exchange, particularly in view of the fact that we have only 12 minutes left before we call it six o'clock. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, in view of the seniority of the right hon. gentleman in this House, I would refrain at this time from making any further remarks and will co-operate with the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: That is even worse than the other remark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not wish to prevent the right hon. gentleman from rising if he has a question of privilege, but obviously we are not getting anywhere or achieving very much by this needless exchange between the hon. member for St. Boniface and the right hon. gentleman. I would hope that we could get on with the business of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr, Speaker, with great respect, the hon. member made an innuendo.


An hon. Member:: So did you.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think he intended to do so. What I think he intended was a smart-aleck remark, but I do say to him that any suggestion along the lines he has made is a despicable falsehood.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You suggested it yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister speaks now, and I suppose he would use profanity under the circumstances.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. We have heard continuing reports throughout today that at least one union is holding up rail traffic in the city of Vancouver. Can the minister advise the House what the present situation is and whether trains are still not moving in the Vancouver area, as well as the steps the minister is taking in an attempt to remedy that situation today?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my officials are advising me constantly about the status of the situation in the city of Vancouver, to which the hon. member has referred, as well as in respect of one or two other cities. The reports I am receiving are to the
September 4, 1973

effect that the situation may rectify itself before the end of the day.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question. Would the minister tell the House whether any trains are moving in and out of Vancouver at this time or is this situation restricted to the trains of only one railway company?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the matter of trains moving in and out of Vancouver has as yet assumed that degree of importance. The fact of the matter is that over the weekend most of the activity necessary related to the assembly of railway cars for movement to Vancouver, and that was being done in the mid-western provinces.


EFFECT OF FAILURE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES TO RETURN TO WORK ON FEED GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the railway strike is not fully settled, as was so confidently announced by the right hon. Prime Minister, and that most employees have not returned to work, what steps is the government proposing to take to ensure that feed grains, for both human and animal consumption, will reach points throughout British Columbia, particularly Vancouver Island, in the quantities required?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should not want my previous answer to mislead the hon. member into exaggerating the situation. I believe the strike is settled for all intents and purposes, and, judging from historical comparisons, things are settling in very well. I believe the union leadership and the railway companies snould be complimented by all members of this House for the degree of responsibility they have shown. The fact of the matter is that this situation has not had any serious repercussions at the moment because almost all the activity in terms of the movement of grain involves the railways getting under way by the assembling of the cars in the western prairie provinces.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY RESPECTING SUPPLY OF HEATING OIL FOR EASTERN CANADA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the announcement made earlier by the Right Honourable Prime Minister concerning the transportation of Western oil products to Eastern Canada, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assure the House that these measures can be applied soon enough to provide
Oral Questions
the population with sufficient heating fuel at a reasonable price to meet next winter's demand in Eastern Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the measures suggested this afternoon by the Right Honourable Prime Minister do not apply directly to the problem referred to by the hon. member, but rather to the construction of a pipeline from Toronto to Montreal. However, I should add that my department, the National Energy Board and myself are doing everything in our power to provide an adequate supply of oil, and especially of heating fuel, for our population next winter.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister concerning the cost of living.
Since most senior citizens do not receive any pay or dividend on investments which would enable them to face inflation, has the Prime Minister ordered any study on the number of people aged 60 to 65 who are not yet eligible for the old age security pension but who would need to get from the government a fixed monthly income until a guaranteed minimum income plan is implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, personally, I have not ordered such studies, but the matter has of course been discussed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, other colleagues and myself, and if the hon. member would refer to statements made by the minister on this subject, he will then see what the government's position is.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
[ English ]


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope there would be as few sup-plementaries as possible because there are only five minutes left before I call it six o'clock, although of course hon. members may wish to conclude the question period before we rise for dinner. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe for a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar who has a supplementary to the previous question.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he inform the House what progress is being made about the guaranteed minimum income, and to what extent this study takes into account the very serious problem of the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there again, if the hon. member would refer to the documents published by the
6196

September 4, 1973
Oral Questions
Minister of National Health and Welfare last spring, he would know how the government deals with this proposal and other similar ones.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is also reported that pickets are still active at Thunder Bay I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether freight trains are being assembled and moving cargo either east or west at this time.


John Carr Munro: I am not
aware of any movement in or out of Thunder Bay at the moment.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the original trend of questions directed to the Prime Minister. Does the program announced by the Prime Minister today with regard to inflation constitute the so-called contingency plan which the government was holding under wraps until the situation with regard to cost of living got serious enough to justify bringing it forward?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the time I referred to a contingency plan this was not the particular one to which I was referring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Could the minister advise the House of the present status of the Youth Liaison Program of his department and could he advise whether Treasury Board has approved or rejected the funding of that program.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the situation remains the same. The program is working out as expected. As far as the procedure mentioned by the hon. member is concerned, I shall inquire and report to him.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement last Friday that our short and medium-term interest rates are two to three points lower than those in the United States, would the minister inform the House how he reconciles his statement with our mortgage rate structure in this country where mortgages cannot be written for terms of longer than five years and yet we find that NHA rates in Canada are 9.5 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that a question asked in those terms is debate and is not in order.


SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and refers to the statement of the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement of the Prime Minister that the government intends to build an oil pipeline to Montreal, has the government consulted the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Alberta in relation to the complexities and problems about volume, supply, markets and price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions we have had with all the relevant provinces, as a result of the energy analysis, we broached with them among other things the security of supply problem for the eastern Canadian market and, particularly with the officials of the province of Quebec, considerations that might lead to the construction of the pipeline into Montreal. I should say that the particular problem that is contained in the Prime Minister's statement was, of course, not discussed although it was communicated to the relevant provinces before the statement was made in the House.


SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE FROM SAULT SAINTE MARIE TO MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My question is still for information. In the minister's answer earlier he mentioned the pipeline from Montreal to Toronto. Now, I am asking whether the plan to build a reversible pipeline through Sault Sainte Marie, the northern route to Montreal, is abandoned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir, by no means. Obviously from a financial standpoint the continuation of the existing pipeline facilities from the Ontario market into Montreal
September 4, 1973

would be the cheapest although that would require some looping of the existing line. It does not rule out, however, the possibility that a northern tier line, if you like, might be added as an additional facility to western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. About 17 minutes ago you indicated that you would recognize me for a supplementary on the important question of housing, and since it is almost six o'clock and it is an important matter I wonder whether that could be done?


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the question which the hon. member was going to ask was so important, along with others, that members would want to conclude the question period before we rise,-there are some 13 minutes or so left-otherwise we would have to continue the question period at eight o'clock. I am in the hands of the House in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


WELFARE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that families on low income with children are suffering especially from the high food prices, and in view of the fact that my leader pointed out earlier that some of the provinces cannot afford this cost-shared assistance, will the government now offer, under the Canada Assistance Plan, to pay the full cost of increased provincial or municipal food allowances to families on social assistance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the hon. lady's leader that no province can afford this. It really depends where they put their priorities.


David Lewis: You said some provinces can.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government has acted to help all families with children by announcing legislation to effect an immediate increase to $12 of the payments under the present Family Allowances Act, lest some provinces not want to act along the Canada Assistance Plan lines that I suggested.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Recently, the minister dismissed all prospects of a new trial in the case of Notary Geoffroy and I agree with him.
Oral Questions
In view of the motives behind the minister's decision, motives of which the public is not aware, would the minister be willing to make them public or to explain why he would refuse to do so?
[ English]


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the statement indicating that a new trial had been refused indicated that this was done after a complete examination of the allegations which have been put forward as the basis for a new trial, and after the forming of a judgment which is properly that of the Minister of Justice that no special action of this sort was appropriate at this time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the lack in the Prime Minister's statement today of any real reference to a change in the economic policy, the fiscal policy, the monetary and especially the taxation policy, can the Prime Minister tell us if at this special session he has any plans for any other legislation, policy statements or announcements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member an answer today.


AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN SUBSIDY-RELATIONSHIP TO PRICE OF BREAD
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House whether the $1.25 per bushel subsidy on wheat announced today is over and above the $1 per bushel previously announced by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, or is the increase announced today 25 cents a bushel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is the latter.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Can the Minister tell us how he relates 25 cents a bushel on wheat to 5 cents a loaf on bread?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the House be advised whether or not the ministerial delegation to Japan will be proceed-
26454-28 J

September 4, 1973
Oral Questions
ing as scheduled and, if not, what alternative arrangements have been made?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the matters that are now under discussion and the necessity for the presence of various key ministers, I asked the Japanese government to postpone the ministerial visit, to which they have agreed. I, personally, will be going at the request of the foreign minister.


An hon. Member:: You are not a key minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister assure the House that in view of the importance to the Canadian economy of Japanese trade, both in so far as opportunities for our exporters are concerned and also in so far as the impact of Japanese buying on Canadian prices is concerned, that the full ministerial delegation meeting will be rescheduled at the earliest possible date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Japanese government is just as anxious as we are.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby should put his question at this time, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Since the obvious explanation for the AHOP funds not being used up is that his own department has just completed the regulations making the criteria available to the public, and since this is the only program under which we give mortgage money to the average income people at rates between 6 per cent and 8 per cent, would the minister assure the House that he will take steps soon to get an increased budget allocation for funds for this program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, during the course of September it is usual to review the CMHC budget to see what moneys have been taken up by the provinces and individuals under each program. That will be done to see what money can or should be moved around in the budget from one program to another. That will be done in this case in addition to the constant review of what action can be taken to deal with housing. We are obviously building houses in the country at record levels. Our problem is solely one of income distribution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is supplementary to others regarding his statement this afternoon. Could the Prime Minister advise what is the estimated cost of the pension changes that he has outlined to the House at the present rate of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave some figures in my statement. I said that the increase would be from $100 to $105 and some cents on old age pensions and $170 to $179 on old age pensions, plus the guaranteed income supplement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Could the Prime Minister give us the over-all total cost of pension changes if there is an estimate from the Treasury Board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe it is less than $100 million, but I would not like to be tied down to that.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In the light of the fact that the Prime Minister indicated in his statement that he was anxious to have some parliamentary discussion of inflation in the economy, and further an indication from the Minister of Finance that he foresees no immediate budget proposals, I wonder under what particular parliamentary device the Prime Minister foresees such a discussion taking place and, further to that, I wonder how soon we can have an outline of the legislative proposals which the government will be putting forth in the coming days to deal with the underlying economic causes of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would not be beyond the ingenuity of members of the House to express their views on inflation and the cost of living when they are debating the bills of which the government has given notice.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think the Prime Minister is well aware of the fact that the legislative provisions that are forecast here are mostly in the nature of assistance either under the family allowance program or old age assistance. Could the Prime Minister indicate in specific terms what the government has in mind by way of specific economic proposals with which this House can deal to get at some of the root causes of inflation?
September 4, 1973


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Would he tell us whether the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials has had any effects on the increase in the cost of living, and also on inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am under the impression that the hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to express an opinion.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General concerns the case of Frank Evans, convicted and sentenced some eight months ago to two years in a federal penitentiary. As this man is still at liberty, living in high fashion which includes several visits to racetracks and driving a Cadillac, can the minister advise the House whether the federal government will forthwith ensure that this man begins serving his sentence in a federal penitentiary?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that case, but I will check into it and report to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister extended to the parties concerned an expression of the gratification of the Canadian people and of many members of the House with regard to the Indo-Pakistan agreement of August 28, 1973 concerning the repatriation of Bangalees detained in Pakistan, Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh, and Pakistani prisoners of war in Indo-Bangladesh custody? It is a great humanitarian achievement affecting the lives of many thousands of people and affecting the reconciliation of the Indian sub-continent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's oration.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the hon. gentleman on the Indo-Pakistan war, its consequences and the great change that has taken place in relatively few days in the attitude toward a settlement. I had an opportunity of expressing similar views to representatives of both these
Oral Questions
countries urging them to this course of action, so I share his gratification personally.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the uncertainty of the strength of the livestock market, is the minister giving any significant consideration to farmers who normally feed their own grain, giving them any immediate specific encouragement to feed their 1973 grain production, rather than cashing it in now, which would result in still higher costs of living to the Canadian consumer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the programs the Prime Minister announced, particularly concerning the meeting I will be having with my provincial counterparts later this month, will take all of these topics into consideration.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the statement presented today by the Prime Minister said practically nothing at all about monetary policy, fiscal policy and exchange rate policy, which one would have thought would have been the foundation of any statement on inflation, would the Minister of Finance make a statement on how he feels these policies are affecting inflation in this country right now?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested that an appropriate vehicle could be found for this type of debate, and I am ready and willing.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding his statement today. In view of the fact that the statement made no reference to extending the Food Prices Review Board into a general prices review board and that inflation affects many commodities, is the Prime Minister considering changing the Prices Review Board to one that would consider all prices, not just food prices?

September 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government acted on the recommendation made to it by parliament last spring, and that recommendation did cover the area of food as opposed to others.


BARLEY-EFFECT OF INCREASED PRICE ON FEED LOT OPERATORS-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH MANITOBA FEED GRAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. As a result of the announced feed grain policy of the minister and the response of the Manitoba Feed Grain Commission in raising the price of barley to feed lot operators, so that many are considering reducing their operations or moving their feed lots across the border, would he consider consulting with the Manitoba minister of agriculture and the Manitoba Feed Grain Commission in order to resolve this serious matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no present intention of meeting with the minister of agriculture for Manitoba. I think that the producers of animals in the prairie provinces should recognize that the return on animals should still be adequate, even with the higher feed grain prices. I certainly will be encouraging them to stay in production and to increase the production of animals.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair may be allowed to recognize the hon. member for St. Paul's, and I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West has a quick supplementary, after which I will suggest to hon. members that we might return following the usual expiry of two hours, that is to say, at 8.15 p.m. Of course it is left up to hon. members to decide what they want to do.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister advise when he intends to introduce the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act or related legislation dealing with misleading advertising, which was referred to earlier today in the Prime Minister's statement?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I hope this will be very soon, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to that asked by my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth concerning Frank Evans. In the light of the fact that the minister and his department have indicated that they have no jurisdiction because the person sentenced never did reach Joyceville but was still in the custody of provincial authorities, will the minister take up the matter with his provincial counterpart so that he may apprise himself of all the facts in order to make a report to this House?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that hon. members have had time to digest the suggestion I made a moment ago that we return at 8.15 p.m., is this agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English\

Mr. Speaker:: Before leaving the chair and if hon. members will allow me, I wish to bring to their attention the questions which will be considered at the time of adjournment tonight. They are: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Energy; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Urban Affairs; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Consumer Affairs.
[ Translation]
It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8.15 p.m.
At 6.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.
September 4, 1973


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-219, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see that the first bill to come up for debate this week in the program which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined this afternoon to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer lies within my field of responsibility.
These measures will ensure that Canadians will continue to enjoy the standard of living that they should, one of the highest in the world. They will ensure that the recent unprecedented rise in food costs which has caught the world in its grip will not be allowed to erode the value of the dollars spent for necessities in our daily lives. In this program, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing measures to protect all sectors of our community, not just wage earners, not just pensioners, not just persons receiving social assistance and not just those faced with the increased costs of raising families.
Increased prices hit us all and must in turn be fought on a number of fronts. What we propose in this anti-inflation program is to act now to offset the immediate problem of food prices in particular while we continue to work for a reduction in the rate of inflation itself.
To date a number of measures have been presented which can deal with the longer term situation. I need not remind hon. members that in July I introduced a reform to the Family and Youth Allowances Acts which would almost triple the present payments to an average of $20 a month per child with provision for escalation in the future in response to increases in the consumer price index. Old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments are now escalated annually to reflect the full cost of living increase. Canada Pension Plan payments too will be fully escalated by changes in the price index beginning next January, subject to concurrence of the provinces as required by law. Pensions which the government of Canada pays to its retired employees will also be fully escalated.
It is fitting, therefore, and I might say in keeping with the tradition of Liberal governments, that we focus our attention first on those in our society who can least help themselves in the face of rapid price increases-that is, those on fixed incomes.
Canada has possibly the highest guaranteed income in the world for senior citizens. The basic benefit plus the supplement ensures that for each senior citizen there is a solid floor of guaranteed minimum income, over $2,000 in the case of a single pensioner and almost $4,000 in the case of a couple.
The greatest strides have been realized in a very short period of time. Just a decade ago, in 1963, the highest
Old Age Security
payment an older Canadian could claim from the government as a right was $65 a month, less than $800 per year for a single person, and only $1,000 for a couple. Moreover, the benefit was not payable until age 70. By the way, this was after five or six years of Conservative government rule.


An hon. Member:: How about "six buck Harris"?


Marc Lalonde: I will come to that. Since that time the benefit has risen to a maximum of over $170 per month in the case of a single person, and $325 per month for a couple, almost triple the former amount.


John Allen Fraser: Is it enough?


Marc Lalonde: In fact, the maximum amount to which a single pensioner is now entitled is one third higher than the former maximum for a couple. In addition, it is now guaranteed five years earlier, at age 65.
I have been asked, is it enough? One thing is certain. If we had to rely on the Conservative government to improve the situation, we would have had to wait another 100 years, if we judge by the record. Let us look at it another way. In the seven years of Conservative government


Mr. Woolliams:: You were not here then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You were one of the party men.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister of National Health and Welfare has the floor.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think someone is telling me that I was in the party opposite at the time. That was my problem. I left the party because they would not take my advice.


Mr. Bell:: Who said you were in?


Marc Lalonde: Let us return to the facts. It seems that they hurt those on the other side. In the seven years of Conservative government from 1957 to 1963-


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has been the government since 1963, and if the best they can do is talk about what happened over a decade ago it shows clearly they have nothing of merit to say about the needs of today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That point could be made after the minister has concluded his remarks. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has the floor.


Marc Lalonde: It is strange, but the Conservatives do not want to hear about the great things they did in their time of power, Mr. Speaker. In the seven years of Conservative government from 1957 to 1963 the maximum pension went up by only $19 per month, less than $3 per month in each of the seven years on an average. That is not a great achievement. In the seven years which will soon have elapsed since January 1, 1967-and I wish to compare those seven years of Conservative rule with the past seven years we have spent under a Liberal government-the

September 4, 1973
Old Age Security
Liberals have increased the maximum by more than $100 per month. Compare that figure with the 19 measly dollars that the Conservatives paid out from 1957 to 1963.


Mr. Baker:: Tell us about the cost of living.


Marc Lalonde: In the same period, total expenditure on old age pensions has risen from about $1 billion to approximately $3 billion a year, with an increase in the number of persons benefitting from the plan from 1.2 million in 1967 to the present figure of 1.8 million, owing mainly to the lowering of the qualifying age to 65. And on top of this, one must add the pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, another milestone in the provision of income security for retired persons introduced by the government of Lester B. Pearson.
If we compare the amount that a low-income couple aged 65 and over can obtain to the amount that a low-income couple under the age 65 receives under the provincial social assistance, we find that the maximum attainable for senior citizens is almost $4,000. Social assistance rates, however, range from a low of $2,000 to a high of $3,000 for a couple across Canada. In fact, the rate for a couple on full old age security is greater than the social assistance rate for a couple with one child in every province and the rate for a couple with two children in six of the ten provinces. This disparity is of very great concern to all of my provincial colleagues, and is one which is now being worked on.
One must not forget at this time that in addition to increasing the monetary benefits for our senior citizens, the budget brought down by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in February of this year increased the basic single exemption from $1,500 to $1,600 and the married rate from $2,850 to $3,000-this in addition to an exemption for senior citizens which now stands at $1,000 and which may be claimed whether or not the person is receiving the old age pension. At the same time the Minister of Finance reduced the basic federal tax by 5 per cent, a reduction which will result in decreases of between $100 and $500 in the basic federal tax payable.
Thus the Liberals have long demonstrated their commitment to the financial security of our older citizens. We have no wish to see that commitment eroded by forces beyond their control as we continue the fight to bring inflation under control.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a pure political campaign speech. He should tell us when the election is going to take place or admit that his speech is taken from Social Credit speeches of the last election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is anticipating a point he might like to advance in the debate at some stage of our discussion, but I do not think that the intervention just made properly falls under the heading of a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered by the compliment paid to me by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and, if this is a political speech, in which I am only reciting facts, I suggest that it

redounds very highly to the credit of the present Liberal government and the previous one.
As far as the introduction of a political element into a speech is concerned, let me say I would never even try to compete with the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).


An hon. Member:: You couldn't!


Marc Lalonde: It is to underline our commitment, therefore, that we bring forward the present bill at this time as one facet of our attack on inflation and its effects on Canadian consumers. This is not to make false claims that the bill represents a solution to the problems of inflation. I leave the field of panaceas to the Official Opposition.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that supporters of the party opposite remind me a great deal these days of the magic men from the travelling medicine shows, peddling the same thin sugar and water concoction as a cure for everything that ails us. Realism dictates otherwise. We are faced with extraordinary conditions caused by a situation which is world-wide, and a response on many levels is required to offset the immediate effect of food price increases while we continue to deal with the longer term problem. No amount of Tory hocus pocus will make it go away. What is required is an attack on the immediate concerns coupled with long term measures to get at the universal roots of inflation. The government has today put forward such a program.
[ Translation]
The excessive increase in the cost of living results in increasingly pressing needs which are a cause of daily concern. The proof of this is the number of persons of 65 and over with incomes so low that they must claim the guaranteed income supplement; 32 per cent of our older citizens receive a partial supplement under the guaranteed income supplement and 26 per cent receive the full supplement, which means that almost 60 per cent of pensioners under the old age security plan are in receipt of a supplement. When the cost of living increases and there is no income adjustment, all those with low incomes must greatly deprive themselves, and such a situation is unfair.
This is all the more obvious when it comes to food prices. While it is true that a family budget includes a certain number of fixed expenses, food costs on the other hand vary substantially. Consequently, when people are hard up, they generally cut down on the food budget. When food prices start climbing suddenly, as is the case at present throughout the world, the impact is particularly rough. According to statistics on family expenditures in Canada, a family with four children and an income of $10,000 spends 16 per cent of it on food. Another family of the same size but with an income of $4,000 spends nearly 28 per cent of it on food. Evidently, an increase of 20 per cent in food costs over a period of 18 months, as we have known, hits the low-income family twice as hard as the high-income one.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, that is another reason why the Canadian government assumes 50 per cent of the costs paid by the provinces to increase social welfare benefits as compensation for the present increase in food costs.
September 4, 1973

Through this provision, although social welfare services are a provincial responsibility, the federal government commits itself to share 50 per cent of the costs involved in giving financial assistance to the needy. In this connection, I was particularly pleased to hear that Ontario and Quebec, for instance, shortly after the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 13 last, announced a 5 per cent increase in social welfare benefits, in addition to previous increases granted since the beginning of the year. I have every reason to believe that the provincial governments will study the situation in their turn in order to find a solution to the problems of people on welfare.
This having been said, Mr. Speaker, it is that much easier for us to estimate the importance of the problem of those who live on a fixed income. Indeed, we have put Bill C-219 before the House today to reduce somewhat the economic constraints on those persons.
This bill proposes that, as of October 1973, the benefits paid under the old age income security and guaranteed minimum supplement plans be increased by 5.3 per cent of the rates now in force. This represents a minimum increase of $5.30 per month for single persons who do not receive the guaranteed income supplement and a maximum of $17.20 for married couples when both spouses are entitled to the pension and the supplement. This means that the basic pension will be upped to $105.30. The maximum supplement for a single person will be increased from $170 to $179.16, and for a couple from $324.60 to $341.80. This reevaluation takes into account the increase in the cost of living during the period from October 1972 to July 1973, compared with the ten preceding months. Among other things, the bill proposes that during the three month period beginning in January 1974 and all subsequent quarters, the old age security and guaranteed income benefits will be adjusted, with a two months' delay to the price increase registered on the official price index of the preceding quarter.
I will explain. The rates of benefits which will be paid in January 1974 are calculated by multiplying the rates in effect during the month of October 1973 by the proportional ratio between the average of the official Consumer Price Index for the period from August 1973 to October 1973 and the average of the official Consumer Price Index registered for the 1973 May-July quarter. The two months' delay is provided so that, on one hand, we may obtain from Statistics Canada all the necessary data on the fluctuations of the Price Index and on the other hand, we may take administrative action intended to insure the payments in accordance with the increase in the rates of both the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement plans.
I should say here of course that this bill provides that the pension will not decrease in case there is a decrease in the consumer prices in one quarter in relation to the preceding quarter.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak on the matter of the increase in benefits. It is not the first time that we have thought of adjusting pensions, at least among the Liberals. The government of the late right honourable Pearson government took this measure for the old age security and the Canada pension plan as early as January
Old Age Security
1968. I should say that I was flabbergasted to find out during the last election campaign that a number of Conservatives were suggesting a most original idea that of adjusting pensions on the cost of living, totally ignoring the fact that the government had already done so six months previously.
[ English]


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: That's not so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A fraud!


Marc Lalonde: Some hon. members seem to doubt that fact. I will send them the press clippings from the last campaign and they will be able to see for themselves in writing.

And I was also surprised to hear last week for the umpteenth time on the CBC news that the government would soon gear pensions to the cost of living. I must say that never one of our decisions got such publicity, and I thank our sponsors wholeheartedly.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, old age security pensions were raised since January 1968, although at that time a 2 per cent ceiling was imposed on old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplement. Calculations and ajustments were thus comparatively easy. In spite of a change in the number of pensioners each year and of a new yearly calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, benefits, the 2 per cent maximum still applied. But when, at the beginning of 1972, the government removed the ceiling gearing the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to the increase in the cost of living, the payment of a pension to some 1,800,000 Canadians became subject to another variable. However, the difficulty was not impossible to overcome. It is clear that by adopting a new formula like a full escalation in relation to the cost of living, one cannot and, in fact, one must not expect the system to work perfectly. We must devise a viable system which can be adapted, and attempt first of all to define a firm and broad basis to which further adjustments and improvements will be made.
This is what we tried to do when we removed last year the ceiling on the increase.
Today we propose another improvement.
Under the present law, as I am sure all hon. members are aware, escalation is made on an annual basis with payment in April of each year. This has meant that there is a six-month time lag between increases in the cost of living and adjustment of pensions benefits to reflect that increase. This allows us to obtain the consumer price index figures and apply the increase factor to 1.8 million cheques, which can vary from the basic single pension to the full OAS-GIS payment for a couple, and any amount in between.
We were not convinced that six months was the minimum time to which we could reduce the computation of

September 4, 1973
Old Age Security
changes and printing of amended cheques under the new system. However, at the time of raising the basic pension to $100 in April of this year we were not in a position to reduce that time lag. Since that time, however, we have been determined to find ways to overcome this delay while still maintaining the efficiency and accuracy of our administration. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a measure of our success.
I am proud to say that we have been able to reduce the processing time to two months from receipt of the consumer price index figures. This means the recalculation, printing and forwarding of cheques to 1.8 million Canadians is completed in just over 40 working days. I cannot imagine even the official opposition being unrealistic enough to suggest that it could be reduced to a monthly basis and remain efficient.
I noticed this afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself had opposed this idea. I can only refer him to the debates of the committee on March 13 last when this question was considered, and I was impressed by the remarks on this matter by the very able hon. member for York South-I mean York Centre (Mr. Walker).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I would say both are equally able, but at this time it was the hon. member for York Centre. We made it quite clear that we had tried to escalate this and that we might be able to come up with something, but that I could not be too hopeful. I said that it would be possible to escalate it twice a year, or possibly every three months; but that every time we do we would increase the cost of administration. We had estimated this would add about $2 million to the cost, and I pointed out that money spent on the cost of administration would not go to our senior citizens. I leave it to the Leader of the Opposition to refer to the context of those remarks.
Needless to say the administrative difficulties resulting from a change to quarterly escalation are considerable, but I am confident that we can continue to function efficiently for the benefit of our senior citizens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, I merely wonder whether the minister would permit a couple of questions.


Marc Lalonde: I only require another minute to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, after which I would be pleased to answer a question if the hon. member wishes to ask one.
As it is, this change will add between $1.5 million and $2 million to the cost of administering the program. I would much prefer to devote funds to benefits paid out rather than to administrative purposes, but there comes a time when such a measure is the only acceptable solution to a current problem, and I am afraid this is the case today.
Lest anyone be cynical enough to suggest that this is merely a bookkeeping exercise, I should like to point out that this change in procedure represents a significant additional financial allocation on the part of the govern-

ment for the benefit of our senior citizens. In the current fiscal year, for example, it will mean increased benefits for them of over $90 million. This increases our financial commitment to old age security to over $3 billion. I know the Canadian people would expect us to do no less.
This is one of the measures we propose on behalf of the Canadian consumer in response to the present inflationary cycle we now face. As part of our program to counteract the decreasing power of the consumer's dollar, it will ensure that those who must depend on fixed incomes do not lag behind in our society. Those who have contributed so much, and are still contributing to what Canada is today must be maintained in dignity. I would urge all hon. members to join me in seeking to expedite passage of this bill for that very purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister, who has delivered, if not a totally impartial, certainly a vigorous apology for his government's record in the field of old age pensions, whether he will concede that in the last 10 years the value of the dollar has decreased by 50 per cent, during which period his government has had custody of our circumstances?
Secondly, I should like to ask him whether he considers that here in the city of Ottawa, which is by no means the most expensive place in the country to live, a couple can live in dignity on $341.80 per month?


Marc Lalonde: On the first point, Mr. Speaker, we have examined this matter of the increase in the cost of living over the last while, and the indication is quite clear that the increases to old age pensions, brought about mainly by Liberal governments, have been greater than the increases in the cost of living during the same period. This is something of which we can be reasonably proud, and I think it is something which certainly shows that we have been very much concerned about the welfare of our senior citizens.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation but I do not suggest to the minister that we are dancing in the streets over the magnanimity he has displayed tonight. I listened with great pleasure to the presentation of the minister because in all my years here I have never heard such a modest proposal receive such an immodest introduction.
It reminds me of a story a former premier of Prince Edward Island used to tell about a farmer who had some difficulty getting one of his cows across a bridge. He tried to draw the cow from the front and push her from the rear and cajole her into moving across, but she would not go. Finally, another farmer came down the highway and said: "Let us scare her over". So he got behind her and blew the horn of his truck. The cow jumped over the bridge and into the river, whereupon the first farmer said: "That was a hell of big toot for such a small cow".
How could the minister take such a long bow for such a bit part? The minister once again found it impossible to resist the temptation of partisanship. After the first
September 4, 1973

speech he made here I advised him that this was not a good thing. I sent his speech to hundreds of thousands of Canadians and I feel my party received at least 75,000 potential votes for the next election as a result. I am going to send this speech of his out tomorrow.
Such partisanship has made enemies for the government which the minister has recently joined. I first met the minister in the great city of Fredericton in 1963 at a thinker's conference sponsored by the Progressive Conservative Party. At that time he made an excellent speech, learned, thoughtful and modest. We have heard a lot tonight about what is going to be done. I was impressed that the minister should mention the family allowances tonight and that we are to have a change; it is not going up, it is going down. Why? He did not tell us that.
We are also told again that there will be discussions about the Canada Pension Plan. Did it not occur to the minister before this that some amelioration might have been made, and did he not think of discussing this with the provincial ministers, his counterparts, before this? I fear that the minister spends too much time comparing Grits and Tories and adding up the facts, as he calls them, and too little time on proper consultation that would make for a better discharge of his duties.
This legislation tonight demonstrates several things. As I and other members of this House told the minister when he brought about the increase in the old age security, it is not enough. It has proven to be not enough at the present time. It also indicates that the galloping inflation is going so fast that we must jack it up every three months now instead of once a year. That is a fact of life. But he does not learn the facts of life. He likes to compute what went on over the past.
If he wants some computations and compilations he may recall that had the original pension as it stood in 1963 kept abreast merely in purchasing power it would now be $107.50, without any increase at all, maintaining the original purchasing power that it had on that dreary day when his party took over the reins of office in this country. The bill demonstrates something else. The people on fixed incomes, especially the older people, have been bearing too much of the burden of inflation which this government has allowed to get out of hand lo these many months.
Most significantly of all this measure, puny though it is, demonstrates and underlines and underscores that we have in Canada today a grave economic situation, and that in the face of that we have the government piddling. We are not dealing with the issues. We are not getting the economy straightened out. We are not bringing prosperity to the land. We are not controlling inflation. So we seek by bits and pieces and by transfers of income to tinker and gear up in a short-range way instead of tackling the problem.
The economy is sick; that is the problem. We pretty well recognize in this legislation that inflation has now become a way of life. I suppose that during the life of the government-if I may use that word a bit loosely-we will have eternal inflation. So we need to take these temporizing, band-aid measures such as the one before us. I intend to support this measure as I supported it when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) first suggested it several months ago.
Old Age Security
At that time the minister described the suggestion as a nightmare. That was the word he used. He said the administrative cost would be enormous and that they could not cope with it. Tonight he made that Freudian slip about which part of York was which and told us of his answer in March. I will repeat to him what he said on May 22 when an even more able colleague from Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) asked him about this. He said in the committee on May 22:
We have come to the conclusion that the costs of adjustments on a quarterly basis, for instance, imply a large administrative load and large administrative costs relative to the benefits that are really being given out.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So the nightmare of yesterday has become the glory of today. The minister talks a lot about visiting the provincial capitals for consultation. I think he has been somewhere else. He has been to Damascus lately too. Tonight we see that the stone which the builder rejected a few months ago has now become the cornerstone of the temple. But considering the ersatz temple of ad hockery being feverishly constructed by this government, I suppose we need not be surprised at such snatch-ings and graspings from the platforms of other parties. Indeed sometimes the more our policies are derided the more quickly they are snatched away. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and plagiarism implies certain value judgments. I suppose it is better to be right in the end than never right at all. It is well he went to Fredericton because he has made a belated judgment on a limited aspect of the suggestions of our party. He talked of the medicines we have put on display. He should analyze them pretty carefully because he is likely to be swallowing some of them, as he has demonstrated tonight.
The minister flatters us by taking our policies, but I would like him to do a little more and to note that we are a dynamic party and tend to keep abreast of developments. While we continue to suggest this, if he were listening carefully a short while ago he would have known that we had advised a degree of retroactivity on this. Had he listened a little more carefully, he would have brought forth a measure that would have put July there instead of October.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If he has had such a tremendous transformation of his department that he can do with great dispatch what was an impossible nightmare in March and May, surely there would be no great difficulty in gearing this measure to July instead of October. Because, God knows, there were plenty of price increases from July to the present day, and there will be plenty from July to October. Let the old people of Canada who bear the burden of these price increases in the long hot summer of Liberalism get a little more benefit out of this. That is the suggestion we made to him and he should have paid attention to it. It could have been July as easily as October.
I say to him also that he wants to take careful note of the many people in the country who may not benefit from this. He did not discuss the war veterans. What does this

September 4, 1973
Old Age Security
mean when they get an addition in one part of the pension and have it taken away in another? These are the sort of things that have to be considered.
If I were as partisan as the minister I could spend the next little while telling him some of the facts of recorded history-the high and low days of historic Liberalism or hysteric Liberalism. I also want to make a few comments and to suggest how he may improve this piece of legislation. I have given him a suggestion about retroactivity which I am sure will commend itself to the people of Canada, and since he wants to serve them will commend itself to him.
I would say that instead of the formula he uses it might be more meaningful and more helpful to the people whom he mentioned if we used the index in reference to the food, clothing and housing component rather than the statistical formula he mentioned. Because it is in this area that the burden of the increased cost is most painful to the senior citizens of the country. I suggest that this would have been a far better way to improve the situation.
There is nothing much to be gained by suggesting who thought of what first. I have no need to apologize for my role in public life and my concern for the senior citizens in those days when the minister was in the cabinet room but not in the cabinet perhaps-near the seats of the mighty but perhaps not in one of them. Nor do I have to apologize for my party. I think the older people of this country must be heartily sick and tired of having their needs and their sufferings paraded out for political purposes time and time again. I have no intention of going into the auction room and dragging the old political shibboleths out in an appeal for the vote of the older people. I will trust them as well as the middle aged and the young people of this country to make their judgment on to whom to turn if they want an efficient administration, if they want economic know how and if they want some compassion in the governing circles of this land.
On that I will rest my case. I would also suggest, if it finds agreement in other parts of the House, as it has been mentioned in part earlier by the House leader of our party, that we are prepared to allow my golden words to serve for my glorious party. We can then go into committee of the whole, pass this measure and get the pensions out into the hands of the old people as fast as possible. That is what we are interested in. Then perhaps we can get on to something fundamental, some significant legislation in the long delayed fight against inflation in this country.


Peter Reilly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister two questions. He did not answer the second question. There is in fact some dispute among us on this side of the House about whether he answered the first, but I will not go into that. I asked him whether he personally believed that it was possible for a couple of old people to live in dignity on $341.78. I would like a yes or no to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the question originally and perhaps it was not answered. It is a question that is really not a point of order but more a point of debate and could be asked when later the House composes itself into committee of the whole, where every hon. member would have an opportunity to ask questions of the

minister, including the hon. member who has just raised this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight, like so many bills brought in by Liberal governments, does not go far enough and does not come to grips with the real issue, and yet it does enough that this House will be anxious to get it passed as quickly as possible in order that the pension increase provided for October will come into effect at that time.
In speaking tonight the minister struck me as trying to expiate one of his sins, that of having spent a few years working for the Tory party. But I do not see why he needed to take it out on us or on the senior citizens of Canada who regard this legislation as extremely important. Now that the minister is an ex-Tory and has become a Liberal-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And God knows what he will be tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he delivered himself tonight of the remark that the bringing in of this bill is in keeping with the traditions of Liberal governments. I want to tell the minister that I agree with him, for the fact is that for 50 years it has been the tradition of Liberal governments, so far as old age pensioners are concerned, only to act when those governments are pushed to the wall.
We got the first old age pension in this country-yes, introduced by a Liberal government-because my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, in a parliament where the government was in a minority position, was able to use the support he had from a few others to force that first pension out of the Liberal government of that day. As hon. members know, because it is a story that has been told in this House many times, that was a pension of $20 a month payable at age 70, with a means test as long as your arm.
This place is not one in which there is any rule which says we must be modest. Therefore I am not going to worry about any such rule in what I say in the next minutes or so. That pension of $20 a month at age 70, with its vicious means test, stayed that way until I came to this place as a result of a by-election in 1942.
I am not going to be modest. I am going to take some of the credit for starting right in to try to carry on where J. S. Woodsworth had left off. By the summer of 1943, the first year I was here, we had got the first increase from $20 up to $25 per month. But that was not because the Liberals were that concerned about old age pensioners. It was because of the pressure we were able to exert here on the floor of the House of Commons, backed by the pressure and support we were getting from some of the provincial governments.
The Liberals can stand, as they do in pension debate after pension debate, and tell us the number of times they have improved the pension, and tell us by how many dollars they have increased the pension compared with the number of dollars by which the pension was increased when the Tories were in power. But the fact is that every
September 4, 1973

one of those increases, from $20 to $25, to $30, to $40, to $46, to $55, to $65, to $75, to $79.58, to $80, to $82.88 and to $100 came as a result of pressure on the floor of this House, mostly from us, and not because there was any love on the part of the Liberal governments for our senior citizens.
And that is what we are getting again now. The pressure of the high cost of living, which everyone is feeling is being felt in particular by our senior citizens, and this is being impressed on the government on the floor of this House by members in all parties, yes even by members on the Liberal side, and certainly by the Conservatives, the Social Crediters and by ourselves.
It is not to be overlooked that there was an election last October 30 which gave no one a majority, and that the Liberals have been doing their best to hang in there ever since. It is not to be overlooked that from time to time we have nailed some theses to the door, the latest occasion being on August 21 when we demanded action on the question of escalating old age pensions on a quarterly basis, and the result is that because of that pressure we are getting this bit of action tonight.
Every one of these increases has been welcome-the changes we have sought, the removal of the means test, all of the additions, and the lowering of the age to 65. As I say, they have all been welcomed, but let not this ex-Tory turned Liberal stand up in this House and try to convince us, and particularly try to convince me, that it is because of any Liberal traditions of concern for old age pensioners. The Liberal tradition he is following tonight is not to act until the Liberal government is pushed to the wall. And it is pushed to the wall tonight. So the Prime Minster (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon, knowing he was not able to adjourn the House after the railway strike debate was over, comes on and tries to give this so-called leadership. And this is part of the package. We welcome it, but let us have it presented to us in honest terms.
In my opening sentence or so I said that in my view this bill does not go far enough and does not come to grips with the real problem of our old age pensioners. Although the minister put the matter in the wider context of the cost of living problem of today, and I accept that, I am prepared while I have the floor tonight to talk only about old age pensioners. Their real problem is not just to get the annual escalation to which they are entitled on a quarterly basis. Their real problem is that they desperately need a substantial increase in the basic amount of the pension itself.
When this session opened last January the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a speech on which I was pleased to compliment him much more than I feel I can compliment him tonight, said on January 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 202, that there was soon to be announced an old age pension increase. I now quote his words exactly:
-and I hasten to add that it will not be a mere token increase.
He knew then that what was needed was a substantial increase in the old age pension. We told him that in our view that meant an increase in the basic pension to $150 a month. But the minister, having said he would not bring down a mere token increase, did just that. He brought down an increase from $82.88 to $100 a month.
Old Age Security
Every member of the House of Commons knows that that amount, that $17.12 increase in the basic amount of the pension, has long since been eaten up by the increase in the cost of living, and that the figure we were advocating in January of $150 a month as a basic pension is in fact now out of date.
Our party, the NDP, at its convention in Vancouver a few weeks ago, recognized this by declaring that it is now our policy that the basic amount of the old age security pension should be $200 a month. And don't let anyone smile, as the minister is now smiling, although maybe it is because of something somebody else is saying to him, because I have a long memory. I can recall when members were telling me I was out of my mind because I was asking for pensions of $30 a month, $40 a month and $50 a month. We won those amounts, and more. But the fact of the matter-and I pick up the theme of the questions asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly)- is that if our senior citizens are going to live in the dignity and honour to which they are entitled, $200 a month has become a minimum.
I accept the fact that this debate takes place in the context of the cost of living problem and the pressure it is imposing upon persons with fixed incomes. But there is a wider context. We still have not solved the problem of providing our senior citizens with what is really their right, and that is sufficient income that is not just charity, not just enough to keep them alive, but which recognizes the contribution they have made to our society, that recognizes their right to live in dignity and honour.
I am just as sure as can be that it was our efforts over the years that got the basic pension up from $20 a month to $100 a month, and I am equally sure that some of us will still be here to get it up to $200 a month. I call upon the minister to face the fact that what he should be bringing before parliament right now is not just a quarterly escalation that will produce an increase of $5.30 in October, but an increase in the basic amount of the pension itself.
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the minister picked up the minutes of proceedings and votes of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for Tuesday, March 13, 1973. I brought the same minutes into the House with me this evening intending to quote some of the same sentences that the minister quoted, although perhaps my emphasis, or the conclusion I draw, from what he said on that occasion, is not the conclusion that he underlined. In fact, neither did my good friend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie) underline that conclusion that really matters. At any rate, this is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said on March 13, 1973 at page 1:12 in response to an appeal from a Liberal, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), that escalation be put on a semiannual basis or quarterly basis; these are the words of the minister:
Of course it would be possible to have it twice a year. Theoretically it would even be possible to have it every three months. But every time you do that you increase your cost of administration; we have calculated, that it would add about $2 million to the cost. And the money that you add to the cost of administration would not go to the senior citizens. So my inclination at the present time

September 4, 1973
Old Age Security
is to try to increase more often the total amount of benefits, including escalation, rather than load the system, with more frequent escalation, a part of which at least would go into administration and not to the old people. I would rather save on the administration and try to get that money to the people through more frequent raises.
I ask my good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who said these things on March 13, what he has done in the cabinet to which he now belongs-not a cabinet which is in the front room while he is in the back room, mind you. What has the minister done in cabinet to try to get these more frequent raises in the basic amount that he declared on March 13 to be the important thing to do?
Later that same day in the standing committee the minister was pressed further on this question of semiannual or quarterly escalations. The point was made by Liberal members that the amounts getting through to the pensioners were lagging behind because of the time it took to bring the annual escalation into effect. At page 1:22 of the document to which I have already referred the record says:


Marc Lalonde: My point is that one way for Parliament to compensate for this unavoidable lag is to change the basic amount, every once in a while, as has been done at different times, and people catch up then-more than catch up-on what they might have lost in terms of the delays in the escalation. That is what I meant.
I was not scandalized, Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker seems to be, over the fact that the government has changed its tune about the cost of administration of a quarterly escalation program. In March, the minister said we must not do this because it would cost too much, but now the government is prepared to spend the money. What scandalizes me, what bothers me and what disturbs me is that the minister, out of his own heart and mind, said in March that what he preferred was to try more often to get increases in the basic amount of the pension. Yet he makes a speech tonight, does not refer to that at all, but refers to Liberal tradition and all that when all he is doing is putting escalation on a quarterly basis.
I know that by putting escalation on a quarterly basis the result will be that in a 12-month period pensioners will get a greater number of dollars than they would have got otherwise. But the fact of the matter is that in any fourth quarter the pensioners, in that quarter, will not be getting any more dollars than they would have got in the twelfth month as the result of an annual escalation. So, Mr. Speaker, to tell us how much this is going to cost and to suggest great generosity on the part of the Liberal government is, I think, an attempt to kid us.
The fact of the matter is that an escalation program is necessary, and I think a quarterly one is better than an annual one. I do not think anyone in this House is going to force a vote or oppose this measure, but to put it in its proper perspective it really is not answering the needs of our older people as individuals on fixed incomes. It is not coming to grips with the basic problem that faces us with reference to senior citizens. This is a problem we have been trying to solve for 50 years, namely, that they are entitled not just to charity and welfare, not just to enough to keep them alive, but to enough to enable them to live in the respect and dignity that they deserve as members of a
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).}
society, because they are human beings and because of the contribution they have made over the years.
Of course we will support this measure, Mr. Speaker; of course we will put it through with a limited amount of debate. I imagine there will have to be a number of Liberal speeches to boost it and try to dress it up a bit, but I plead with the minister to get back to that feeling that I thought he had for the old age pensioners when he made his first speech back on January 11. I ask him to get back to that approach, to that appreciation, and face the fact that what he is doing tonight is peanuts. It really does not meet the needs and rights of our older people.
I submit, sir, that we are doing the right thing in terms of the old age pension cause, that we are doing the right thing in the political life of this country when, as a New Democratic Party, we say that the time has come to go for a basic old age pension of $200 a month. Maybe we will do well if we get from the Liberals half of the proposed increase or get it up to $150, but we are going to keep working for the higher amount because we believe our people are entitled to it and that our economy can afford it.
I know there are those who ask what it will do to our tax bill and the economy, but the whole aim of society surely, Mr. Speaker, is to order its economy and order its arrangements so that there is justice and equity among our people. We have not really done that until we make sure that our older and our retired people get the standard of living to which they are entitled.
While I am on my feet and discussing the question of old age pensions, Sir, there are one or two other things I should like to say. When I was planning what I might say I confess I said to myself "Now watch out; it is a simple bill dealing only with escalation and there might be someone in the chair who would say we should stick to that narrow provision". But, Mr. Speaker, you have been stymied. Because in introducing this bill the minister made very few references to the quarterly escalation that the bill effects; rather he gave us this great history about the traditions of the Liberal Party. Of course, once he had made that speech the official spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party felt he could do the same, and so we have a wide open debate on the whole question of the Old Age Security Act and the amendments that ought to be made to it. Because the minister has opened up the act and told us what has been done over the years, I remind him again-I know there is no corner of this House in which I have more support than on the Liberal side, especially the members from the province of Quebec-that the time has come to lower the eligible age for old age security and also under the Canada Pension Plan.
I was hoping, after I made that generous reference to Quebec Liberals, that they would applaud!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now they are applauding, even if I had to ask for it. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that will not go away. The government cannot continue to insist that the pension be paid only at age 65. I note that the government of the province of British Columbia is making the first start. The provinces have to pay attention to their limited resources and have to apply
September 4, 1973

means tests that some of us may not like. In British Columbia, at least, the government is supporting the idea of pensions for certain persons at age 60. I advocate strongly that right now the eligible age under the Old Age Security Act and under the Canada Pension Plan should be 60 for all those persons who are out of the labour market. I am not advocating on this occasion that pensions be paid universally at that age in the way they are now paid at age 65. I am saying that persons who do not have income from employment and who are 60 years of age and over, whether they are spouses, single persons, or what have you, should now be entitled to receive the full amount of the old age pension.
I welcome strongly the support that has been given for this proposition not only by my colleagues, all 30 of them, but, as well, by quite a few Conservatives, most Social Crediters, and by members of the Liberal Party who are being pressed on this subject by people in their constituencies. I just do not know what has happened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the message has not got through to him.
This issue will not go away. I urge that further consideration be given during this present session of parliament to lowering the eligible age at least for those who are out of the labour market. As I say, this should happen not only with respect to the old age security pension but, as well, with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare already has before the House one bill amending the Canada Pension Plan. It deals with a few minor things; he has promised another one. Indeed, I was pleased to hear him say tonight that the 2 per cent escalation under that plan is to come off in January. The minister probably remembers the time when I asked him a few weeks ago what steps were to be taken to make sure that the 2% ceiling on that escalation comes off in January, as he had promised. He quickly corrected me and told me he had made no such promise; it was just a hope. Tonight he spoke more firmly. You see, that is the result of the pressure of the high cost of living and of the provinces. At any rate, I was glad to hear him say tonight that it is to come off in January.
I was also glad to hear him refer to the other bill that was introduced today by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) which will take the 2 per cent ceiling off the escalation of pensions for retired civil servants, retired Armed Forces personnel, retired RCMP personnel and so on. But I urge on the minister, when he meets with his provincial counterparts-as he has promised to do this month, I believe, or very soon-to discuss the Canada Pension Plan and finalize with them the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling as well as to do something about increasing yearly maximum pensionable earnings; to tell them a fact of life, namely, that the time has come for the lowering of the eligible age under that legislation as well as under the Old Age Security Act to age 60.
These are things that I feel should certainly be considered and acted on. If Your Honour feels that I have strayed a bit from the narrow terms of the bill, I am afraid I must agree. I did not think I could speak as I have done but for the fact that the minister made the far ranging speech that he delivered tonight.
Old Age Security
I shall mention two or three other things and then take my seat. I am glad that we are making some headway. I have to say sometimes to some of my colleagues who feel frustrated because things move so slowly around here- and they do move terribly slowly, as I can confirm-that over the years things do move. One does get pension increases for retired civil servants. Now we are to get rid of the 2 per cent escalation ceiling with respect to their pensions. We are to get rid of that ceiling with respect to pensions of retired Armed Forces and retired RCMP personnel as well. We are to get a kind of lowering of the age at which retired Armed Forces and retired RCMP personnel can get their escalation.
Although we are dealing with these things, particularly with the old age security and the guaranteed supplement that is included thereunder, I hope that our veterans on the war veterans allowance do not go through the experience of getting an increase in their OAS and GIS from one hand of the government and having it taken away by another. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) raised this question the other day in the question period and got an answer from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that was reasonably satisfactory, but I was not completely convinced. I join with my hon. friend for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in saying that this must be a certainty. There must not be an instance this time of war veterans who are on the war veterans allowance getting an increase in OAS and GIS and then having it cut back from their WVA the next month because they exceeded the ceiling set out in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The other major things I want to talk about I shall refer to only in passing. I think the federal government must look thoroughly into the question of providing protection to the people of this country so far as their private pension plans are concerned. There are many instances of employees not getting the benefits they thought they were entitled to; certainly, there are far too many cases of pension plans that are inferior. There are far too many cases of pension plans that do not provide for a proper escalation. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speak this afternoon of a regulation coming under the income tax department which at the moment will not permit the registration of private plans that escalate by more than 2 per cent per year. This regulation is to be changed so that such plans can be registered. I would go further. I would say that they should not be registered unless they make full allowance for increases in the cost of living to the full extent of the rise of the cost of living. Once the government talks to some of these employers in terms of what this will mean to them in income tax, we shall be surprised how quickly they will see the light. So I urge that attention be given to the whole broad pension question right across the board.
We made a few references to railway pensions last week in the debate on the rail strike. We pleaded in particular with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to give to John Deutsch much more than the commission to look into the value of the pension changes which have been made, which he has done. We pleaded with the minister then, and I plead with the minister now, to establish a commission to go into the entire question of the adequacy and fairness of railway pension plans. That is another issue

September 4, 1973
Old Age Security
that will not go away. The whole question is not just one that some of us like to talk about because we have been talking about it for years and cannot get over it. We think it is part and parcel of the whole idea that used to be known as the just society, if that phrase has not been spoiled. We think it is part and parcel of the idea of a decent, humane society, in which our older people are not just kept alive but in which they can enjoy the dignity, the honour and the respect that are possible because of the work they have done and of the wealth that our economy is able to produce.
We shall support this little bill, Mr. Speaker, because what it does is the least that can possibly be done at this time. But we plead with the government and we plead with this House to realize that the pension problem calls for a lot more than has been done. Some of us are going to keep talking about it until we get a full measure of justice and security for all our older people.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep satisfaction that I heard this evening the speeches of the spokesmen of the various parties in the House, because we seem to be heading at great speed towards the acknowledgment of human rights. I am greatly pleased, because there was a time when any reference to the rights of senior citizens, disabled persons, families or children seemed like preaching in the wilderness. However, at the present time, there seems to be a consensus which is heart-warming, as we all wish to bring greater security to older people and are ready to do so not only because of an election, but due to a rapidly changing situation.
Bill C-219 now under consideration precisely provides for an increase in the pension of people of 65 or over, according to their needs and the rise in the cost of living.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, whenever an increase in the cost of living is mentioned, a great many people think of an increase in food costs. They feel that these are the only costs which contribute to the cost of living increase, that is, everything we eat to rebuild our strength and live. Yet, there are many other factors which contribute to the cost of living increase which, although very important, are rarely mentioned.
I was very much interested in the statement which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made this afternoon and which, at times, sounded like a Speech from the Throne, in view of the various measures presented to hon. members who are urged to pass them in order to remedy a number of situations.
For example, when I heard that part of the remarks dealing with the increase in the price of gasoline, I was very interested because a couple of weeks ago I did in fact say in a press release that the increase in price of gasoline by the great oil magnates did contribute much to the increase in the cost of living these people were not forced to crawl in front of control boards to get higher prices as must do, for example, whole milk producers. In fact, the latter must submit a request to provincial control boards to ask permission to raise the price of their milk according to the contingencies of production costs so that they may
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
realize profits and keep operating. Once again, we have a policy for the rich and a policy for the poor.
As for the increase in gas prices, these magnates only have to decide, at a given time, that they are more hungry than yesterday and they boost their prices. It is an accomplished fact. All newspapers announce that the price of gasoline has risen by 2 cents, 3 cents or 5 cents and that is what contributes, to a great extent, to the higher cost of living because everyday we only have to watch, to see what happens on our roads, in our towns, everywhere, to understand that more and more gasoline is used for all sorts of things, to do things that will bring satisfaction or will give something likely to satisfy the needs of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, another thing greatly contributes to the rise in the cost of living; we hear very little about, at least it is not given much attention. This afternoon, I heard, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) utter a very short sentence. Then I heard our leader (Mr. Caouette) who mentioned what he has repeated again and again: the rise in interest rates leads to a much higher cost of living, and here again the government seems powerless facing those who enjoy the privilege of controlling credit and to determine the interest rates on the money loaned to the Canadian taxpayers, to the large corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to come back on that subject at a certain moment when we will make a thorough study of related matters in order to demonstrate once and for all- if it is possible-to all Canadians, to consumers and producers that farmers have some rights, they can exist and they have a mission to fulfill in Canada, that they must produce what is necessarly to appease appetites, to fill stomachs, that they have well-established rights, that they must be recognized and they are not responsible for the rise in the cost of living.
Once again, I would like to point out to all Canadian consumers that it is their interest to help farmers have their rights recognized so that they can continue to produce the necessary foods to meet the needs of the people; if we do not move right now, I am afraid the reduction in farm production will be accelerating and young people will no longer be interested in our most essential industry, the farm industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like also to call the attention of the House to the fact that many aged persons sent letters and telegrams to us, phoned us to let us know their needs and their hopes for more generous pensions.
Without reading them, I only wish to mention some of the letters received recently. I suppose that all members receive such mail. This means that older people ask their representatives to pass measures which will ensure their security, a security which they certainly deserve after their many years of work. As a matter of fact they used their energies, their power to achieve something in our country like clearing a farm, building a house or promoting an industry, building a railway, a road or a plane. Thanks to their energy, all these people have worked, often under very difficult conditions, giving their best to build a Canada in which they hoped to live happy years at
September 4, 1973

retirement without always worrying: Where shall we find the money to buy clothes, to keep warm and to eat?
I have here, Mr. Speaker, an excerpt from a letter writen by a man who is not from my riding. He is from Montreal. He gies his address and his name. The letter was sent to the right hon. Prime Minister in 1970 and I quote:
Honourable Prime Minister, to me and to other people you answered that you would try to improve our lives by a raising the old age security to $150 a month without restriction.
This means: without taxes, without means tests, without being bothered by investigators who come looking into my closets, my refrigerator or still my vegetable cellar.
Well, he wanted security. He was not asking for the impossible; he was simply asking for something possible.
He also said and I quote:
We have to file an income tax return and we are even paying a little tax. Why not grant us an exemption of $3,000 at 70 years of age . ..
Now I would add "60 years" because it is possible. I go on with quotation:
Don't you think that we have been paying long enough? How many years have we to live? An average of 5 years. What would such an exemption mean for the country?
Mr. Speaker, this is a wise and clever suggestion. He is not asking an increase for the sake of it, but at the same time he is offering the government a formula which would enable these people to get an increase, not directly in the amount of their cheques, but by sparing them the obligation of having to return too sizable an amount to the government at the end of the year.
Finally, he says this:
To end their days decently, the aged should receive a monthly $200 pension, bearing in mind the present cost of living . . .
A while ago, I heard the previous speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) express precisely the same views. I remember having supported a motion here, in this House, at the time a bill on old age security was being studied, proposing precisely a similar increase. Is it idle fancy, Mr. Speaker? We must study the situation in our country to see whether it is possible to face the problem. With $200 a month, will the age-and if I had the time, I would say how many of them there are; something like 1,800,000, I believe-gobble everything up so that there is nothing left for other Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, let's go back to Manitoba. Like everyone else, I have had the opportunity of seeing, from the air, the vast prairies covered with beautiful grain crops, where people toiled to reap and transform them in order to feed the people. We also had the opportunity to realize that some vast stretches of land were ploughed, ready to be seeded in preparation for next year.
So it is not these people with $200 per month who will exhaust the resources of our country. One has but to stop a moment and look around to see that we also have an extraordinary potential of young people from 35 to 50 who are still in good health and capable to bring their contribution to this country's production if we enable them to channel their energy, to use the hours that Providence puts at their disposal in order to process in detail all the natural resources of this country.
Old Age Security
Mr. Speaker, we must do everything we can to provide more security to older people, not only to those of 65 or over, but also to the 60-year old persons. I was pleased a while ago to hear the previous speaker mention again convincingly, the possibility for Canada of lowering from 65 to 60 the eligibility age to the old age security pension. As for me, I would add married people, even those whose age is below 60, because after all it is only logical whenever one retires that his or her spouse may be able to do the same so as to provide both with a happy retirement, spent in security, which would enable them to visit our magnificent country while they are still in good health, so as to see the work accomplished by our ancestors in order to build such a beautiful country which allows us to enjoy a security and freedom as no other country in the world can afford.
As far as I am concerned, I am willing to see Bill C-219 passed without delay. My colleagues whom I questioned about it, told me that they were in agreement with that.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) could also move, during the days to come, an amendment to the bill that would enable people aged 60 to become eligible to the pension and provide more generous family allowances.
I was pleased this afternoon to hear the Prime Minister say that the family allowance rate would be $12 per month as of October. Mr. Speaker, people who have children can easily understand, considering the high cost of living, the great service we could do to all Canadian parents, and especially Quebec parents, who are at present helpless.
I am concerned with the birthrate which is decreasing year after year in our province. Unfortunately, that is not due only to the pill but also to an economic context which is preventing them from being their own selves. How do you expect a couple to live in apartments in Montreal or elsewhere when there is room only for machines and none for human capital. Then it is time something should be done and quickly before it is too late, because with the little experience I have of life I have learned one thing, that when we fail to do something by ourselves and for ourselves it is done by others and against us.
Therefore if we do not want that to happen, let us act now, and work like responsible people and give each and everyone that security which lies in freedom.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether the acting government House leader or the parliamentary secretary would confirm that we will be going on with this bill tomorrow, hopefully to be completed before too long. In the event we have concluded the statute law supplementary retirement benefits amendments tomorrow, would the parliamentary secretary or the acting House leader indicate what we are going ahead with?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we will be dealing with this bill tomorrow and following that the statute law in respect of the pension plan. Following that, I am afraid it will depend on the House leaders to determine the future course.

September 4, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Gerald William Baldwin: In other words you have nothing else ready?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 I asked some questions of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). I notice he is not here tonight, nor apparently is his parliamentary secretary. However, notwithstanding that I notice the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is here, and considering the fact that the questions raised are matters of some concern to him perhaps he will hear my remarks and give me the answers I would otherwise expect to receive from the Minister of the Environment. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Rompkey) has just entered the House.
In March of this year I asked the Minister of the Environment what had been done by the Canadian government and the United States government to enter into control arrangements in respect of tankers on the west coast. Since that time a great deal has been revealed to us. I was about to say that a great deal had happened, but nothing very much has happened since the session ended on July 27 this year.
Before the adjournment I happened to have the privilege of speaking on the adjournment debate. At that time I pointed out to the House that, in view of the problems we now have in respect of United States legislation approving the tanker route, we are in the position that we do not know what the reaction of the Canadian government will be. Despite the brave words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we have only begun to fight, Parliament has been adjourned for a month now and we have heard little about the fight the Canadian government is waging.
On July 27, 1973 the Secretary of State for External Affairs took umbrage when I said that the government had assured residents of the west coast that everything was being done not just to keep tankers out of Puget Sound, as has been suggested, but to stop the tanker route entirely. The minister's reply was to the effect that he did not think that was so. I remind the House that on November 20, 1971, in the Montreal Star there appeared a Canadian Press story concerning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in which he is reported to have

said that they are still interested in a pipeline. The article goes on to say:
. . . Mr. Chretien rejected a reported statement by U.S. Interior Secretary Rogers Morton that Canada has lost interest in an Arctic pipeline.
"That is not the case," Mr. Chretien said. "We are interested." "We, as Canadians, are not too happy with the fact that they are planning to use tankers from Alaska to California . . .
I underline the word "California".
. . . because there would be great danger to the beautiful coast of B.C."
"That is why we have to consider the possibility of having the pipeline through Canada."
The Secretary of State for External Affairs may take some comfort from the fact that some time earlier, on October 8, 1971, he was reported in the Sun as saying that he was not quite certain that any oil protest was of any use. It seems strange the government has decided to fight-in the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and yet a month has gone by in which nothing has happened. We had a parliamentary delegation go to the United States. We recognize that the legal machinery of the United States Congress has taken effect and that we are to have a pipeline across Alaska, which means we will have a tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia, not just to California but into Puget Sound.
We simply want to know what has been done since we adjourned on July 27. What negotiations and initiatives are being taken on the part of the government vis-a-vis Canada and the United States to decide whether or not there is a quid pro quo between Canada and the United States to get the tankers out of Puget Sound? We want to know, in a word, whether the government has started to fight, and if not when it intends to do so.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, our concern about the risk to the environment entailed in the passage of super tankers through the Straits of Juan de Fuca to Puget Sound has been made clear on a number of occasions, both in communications with the United States and in public statements. Our preference would obviously have been for an overland pipeline route through Canada. However, developments in the Congress of the United States make it obvious that this is not to be so. However, there is still time for discussions on this matter because it is some time yet before the oil actually begins to flow.
The Canadian government is not able to prevent the construction of the trans-Alaskan pipeline since it is entirely within U.S. territory. The great bulk of the oil is being transported to California, as has been said before, in large vessels. However, some of it is planned to go into Puget Sound. There is no reason why Canada should be concerned about the traffic going to California. Our concern is with tankers going into Puget Sound through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. We have sought to influence the United States either to supply these refineries in Puget Sound in some other manner or to manage the tanker traffic in such a way as to minimize risk.
One proposal has been to supply the needs of those refineries overland from Canada. To do this it would be necessary to enter into discussions with the United States
September 4, 1973

on this matter. There would be problems of pricing, a guarantee of supply, and these might present obstacles in that direction. As congressional and U.S. government action to overcome the impediments in the way of proceeding with the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline is not yet complete, it has not been possible at this point to discuss this proposal with the United States.
We are considering what action might appropriately be taken to minimize the risk to the environment if the United States could not go along with this proposal and tankers enter Puget Sound. The first, of course, is prevention. By this I mean traffic management, navigational aids, tanker construction, and so on. We are satisfied in our discussions with the government of the United States so far that the best that technology can provide will be provided in the construction of these ships and that their quality will be the highest so far developed in the shipping industry anywhere in the world. They will be as safe as modern technology can make them. Nevertheless, spills can occur.
The second point is clean up. We are in the process of developing a joint oil spill contingency plan. This will make available trained personnel and first rate equipment.
The third area of action is compensation for damage. We are currently to develop a set of principles between our government and that of the United States which will form a basis for agreement with the U.S. in dealing with the settlement of environmental disputes.
The fourth area of action is joint research into the impact on the ecology of the west coast of any oil spills. Meetings with the United States have taken place. We would like to have a comprehensive, joint Canada-U.S. research program in this field.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret very much but I allotted as much time as possible to the hon. member and the time has now expired.


URBAN AFFAIRS-LAND BANK-INQUIRY AS TO AMOUNT OF LAND PURCHASED
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, on July 3 I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs if he could give an accounting to the House of the land purchased under the $100 million a year land banking proposition. Mr. Speaker ruled that the question I asked be put on the order paper. Fortunately an answer was given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 30 last-I might add, a flippant answer-to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) as recorded at page 6068 of Hansard for that date, and I quote:
Since he is interested in land costs, I might refresh his mind by recalling that the government has already approved $100 million per year for five years so that the provinces can embark upon useful land assembly programs. No province except Newfoundland has decided to act on this. I wish hon. members would urge provincial governments toward more action in this regard.
I am pleased that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is here tonight because clearly that whole program of land banking has turned out to be as inept as we suggested it
Adjournment Debate
would when the bill was presented to the House. With the exception of Newfoundland no province has bothered to take advantage of the scheme.
Two provincial governments have presented briefs saying that we do not need land banking today to solve the problem. We need land spending, because the problem is the cost of single family serviced lots on which to build. Since I spoke on this matter earlier this year the cost of a single family lot in the Toronto area has risen from $18,000 to $20,000, to $22,000, to $25,000, and in some cases to $28,000 and $30,000.
The time for action was last spring. Action is now needed more urgently than ever. The only way to solve the price of a commodity that is in short supply is to increase the supply. That is basic logic. That is something anybody can understand except the government. Having clearly been shown that its program for land banking is inept, the government should now use the funds set aside for banking land to spend land, to service land.
We have a limited supply of social capital in this community. While we have a sewer program under the National Housing Act, that program is clearly not enough. Some municipalities have sewer facilities, but they have not got water mains, parks, roads or commuter services. They have not got recreation centres and all the other things that go with the total package of servicing.
It is high time the government produced a program of loans and grants to municipalities that would make possible the servicing of land so that we could have land spending instead of land banking. Because clearly we do not need land banking. We certainly do not need $100 million in land banking. We need as much funds as possible devoted to land servicing.
That proposal has been presented to the ministry and to the government by experts in every field. Yet the government still relies on the bankrupt ideas of its own advice instead of the current advice given to it by people in the development industry, by municipalities, by people who want to own homes, by builders who want to buy lots on which to build but cannot find them.
What we need is a comprehensive program that will deal with the serious problem of the shortage of serviced land. There are many other problems in connection with the building of houses. There is the high cost of mortgages at 10*/2 per cent. There is the tax on building materials. The economics of building are that for every dollar spent on land you need $2 in buildings to make the project economically feasible. If the lot costs $25,000 the house has to cost $50,000 for it to be economically feasible. The minister knows this. CMHC knows this. Every trust company and bank in the nation knows it. If we are going to have houses at prices people can afford, we have to bring down the price of the land. Otherwise they cannot be financed. If they cannot be financed then people cannot afford to buy them. The only answer is to attack that horrible problem, the lack of serviced land. Not land banking, but something better.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have another Tory position on housing and land assembly put on the record. When the National Housing Act was before Parlia-

September 4, 1973
Adjournment Debate
ment for second reading last spring we had 18 Conservative spokesmen and 18 Conservative housing policies. I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) is diametrically opposed to the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who said that we should get out of the housing business. He is also opposed to his own Conservative colleagues at Queen's Park in Toronto where Mr. Grossman and the provincial treasurer, John White, have been talking about the need for land assembly. I am delighted that the hon. member is out of step with his provincial conservative colleagues and also with the mayor of Toronto, who has been urging the province of Ontario to allow the municipality of metropolitan Toronto to take advantage of the federal legislation.
The National Housing Act was amended this year to include provisions by which the federal government, through the land assembly arrangements, could support provinces or municipalities. I have made it clear that we are ready, willing and able to support municipal land assembly proposals on a 75 per cent-25 per cent partnership or by a loan of 90 per cent. There is also a totally new provision in the federal legislation for the development of whole new communities.
That legislation has been passed and at the federal level we have made it clear that we are prepared to provide a minimum of $100 million a year for land assembly and new communities, plus some $260 million a year which we are now spending for the servicing of land. I hope that the provinces and municipalities will take greater advantage of the program than they have to date. This year we have only had applications totalling $12 million from the provinces. I think that is shameful.
It has been shown that land assembly can work. Through provincial land assembly for Malvern, which is in a part of the country that the hon. member knows, the Ontario Housing Corporation has been able to put land on the market substantially below the market price, proving that public intervention in the land business can help.
At the federal level we are prepared through legislation and budget to put massive amounts of money behind the assembly of land and getting that land on the market. The hon. member is dragging a red herring when he says that the land is solely for banking and is never to be used. The provisions of the legislation are for new communities and for the use of serviced land now. The legislation at the federal level and the money at the federal level are there. I only wish people would take advantage of these measures, first to provide new serviced land for homes in markets of high land cost, and second, under the new communities provision, for the development of whole new communities to take some of the population pressure away from areas such as metropolitan Toronto and greater Vancouver. It is a successful program, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister's time expired 30 seconds ago.
[Mr. Basford.j


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-PETITION FOR CONTROLS ON FOOD PRICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION-POWERS OF PROPOSED PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some questions regarding the food prices review board. I also presented a petition from 20,000 people in my riding. After listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) it is going to be hard for me to be non-partisan.
After almost three months of inactivity and inaction, Mrs. Plumptre's food prices review board finally submitted its first report. Never has a more toothless, innocuous document been submitted to the Canadian people. It is little more than a superficial examination of problems that every Canadian is already fully aware of. The real nature and causes of drastic price increases, particularly in food, were not examined at all. Even to suggest that Canadian confidence has been restored in our system of production and distribution by virtue of this report or by the actions of the food prices review board is completely ludicrous.
One needs hardly to have wasted vast sums of money on this board to have it report that prices appear certain to rise sharply in the immediate future unless action is taken. Repeatedly one finds oneself asking, "What action?". Certainly the charge that the Canadian Wheat Board had changed its price support policy, a matter of only a few cents a bushel, can in no way account for a 35 per cent rise in the price of bread and a 300 per cent rise in miller's wheat. Nor can this account for a further 75 per cent increase soon to be expected in these commodities.
Today we listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) telling us that the subsidy for wheat is to be increased by 25 cents a bushel. This, apparently, will save Canadians five cents on a loaf of bread. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we consider that one bushel of grain is enough for between 53 and 60 loaves of bread, it follows, if we take the figure of 60 loaves per bushel, that it would take a subsidy of 60 cents per bushel to reduce bread prices by one cent a loaf. I submit that the Prime Minister was misleading Canadians when he suggested that the price of bread will be reduced by 5 cents a loaf, as I do not think that will be the case.
Further, no recommendations are made in regard to mass consumption meats, except that the board will watch closely these price movements. One would think by this statement that 20 million Canadians have not already been watching these price movements.
The recommendations by the food prices review board are enough to insult anyone's intelligence. In fact, as far as the retailers are concerned, recommendations such as were included in the report have been policy at major food outlets across Canada long before the board was in existence, and unit pricing and standardization of package sizes have been claimed months ago by the previous minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Basford).
To inform consumers that they should buy only what they need and that they should shop carefully and compare prices is to tell consumers to do something most
September 4, 1973

consumers have been doing for years. There has not been any report of action taken by the board on unjustified price increases.
In so far as suggestions to government itself are concerned, the board makes two suggestions. The first is that government should face up to the threat to consumer prices posed by recent price increases. The second suggestion, and perhaps the most far reaching, is that the government expedite proposed increases in family allowances to offset recent price increases. Everybody knows about this. The government today has introduced a proposal that will do just that. I hope the people realize that this increase will be swallowed up by inflation and that they are being bribed with their own money. The entire report must be regarded as meaningless and the sooner it is dismissed, along with Mrs. Plumptre, the sooner meaningful legislation can be introduced to deal effectively with staggering price increases.
I should like to close by referring to what the Prime Minister said on April 12 when I asked my question regarding my petition. He said, as recorded at page 3230 of Hansard, "I suppose there is a growing demand for all kinds of things in this country." In the last few months we have seen a growing number of pictures of the Prime Minister and his wife in the newspapers. This is publicity for himself. He is trying to gain publicity across the country. I say that the Prime Minister should take his wife and child and the members of his government should take their wives and children, into the grocery stores of our country. Let them shop like ordinary people and see how prices are increasing. Let them act to lower prices so that average people can make better use of the dollars they bring home in their pay packets.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's original question asked for the terms of reference of the food prices review board or what the terms would be when the board was set up. In the period of time since he asked his question this information has been made public and his question has been overtaken by events. He has used the opportunity, and he has a perfect right so to do, to attempt to cast doubt
Adjournment Debate
on the government's policies without putting forward any positive alternative, except possibly to suggest by implication that the proper alternative would be some form of price and wage control.
It is really strange how the hon. member and his colleagues in the Conservative Party have nothing better to offer Canada than a policy that has proven an abject failure in the United States, a country with an economy very like our own. Certainly that party has not much to offer Canadians except a policy of failure, a policy that has in the United States brought about shortages of food and greater price pressures than existed before that policy was in place. That policy caused an unfortunate fall out in Canada since it brought about upward pressures in the price of beef in this country, until the government wisely imposed export controls on beef and pork products.
In spite of the hon. member's attempt to cast doubt on some of the policies we have been using to help mitigate the effects of the upward pressure on the cost of living, he really has not succeeded, especially if by implication he wishes to see nothing more in their place than policies which have failed in the country to the south, causing worse difficulties than existed before they were put into being.
The first report of the prices review board did not simply suggest that the government take action to lower prices. It recommended that the government give consideration to subsidizing wheat used for domestic human consumption so as to moderate the increase in the price of bread and pasta products. This was a position endorsed by many commentators and editorial writers across the country.
The government responded constructively in the Prime Minister's statement today to this basic recommendation in the first report made by the board. That statement made it clear the government would set up a subsidy program aimed at making sure that an increase in the price of bread estimated at about 5 cents a loaf would not take place in October. I think this was a constructive move-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister but his time as expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, September S, 1973