1974-03-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
\Enqlish]

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House demands that the government take effective action to ensure that the threatened general strike by the International Seafarers' Union shall be prevented from taking place, otherwise, as stated by Charles Gibbings, Commissioner of the Wheat Board, there will be far-reaching detrimental and disastrous consequences to Canada's international wheat trading relationships and loss to the Canadian farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Again the Liberal members are against it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the milk industry and the problems facing milk producers.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House consider without delay all the problems facing milk producers because of the considerable increase in production costs and the alarming reduction in milk production, and that recommendations be made to remedy this situation before the announcement of the milk policy for the coming year is made.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43 to request leave of the House to move a motion regarding the difficulties municipalities are having in paying their way. In view of tax exemptions granted to provincial departments and institutions I ask leave to move:
That the government be requested to consider exempting municipal boards and commissions from federal sales tax on materials required for capital works.
The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.

March 20, 1974
National Building Code


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the government admits that the prices paid to meat producers are too low at the present time and that it will give a 7 cents a pound subsidy to the producers to compensate for the low price of beef, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Minister of Agriculture reconsider the subsidy given by his department so that this subsidy may be granted in such a way as to benefit the producers, contrary to the present one which is much more profitable for the dealers than for the producers, and that this may be done in the same manner as the program once implemented for pork producers, in other words, that the government subsidy go directly to the beef producers.


Mr, Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this 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.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the many incidents throughout the world of fatal fires in high-rise buildings and the recent collapse of the overhang at the Winnipeg Post Office. I would move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the National Building Code be referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Affairs with instructions to review and update this code,


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important motion.
Since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), when he was Minister of National Health and Welfare, stated that a guaranteed annual income scheme would cost $1.9 billion and that the Senate committee on poverty estimated that it would cost $900 million a year, while yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said that it would cost some $25 billion to set up such a scheme, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That a committee of the House be asked to study, check and correct the miscalculations whose results give a difference of $25 billion between those of the former Minister of National Health and Welfare and those of the present minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this 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 unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


TABLING OF ARRANGEMENT REGARDING INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN TEXTILES
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table of the House in both official languages a document entitled "The Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles".


CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
March 14, 1974-Mr. Reynolds-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act."
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer now to the first of the three bills which stands in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. When the proposed measure to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, standing in the name of the hon. member, was called yesterday the hon. member provided some assistance to the Chair in relation to the procedural acceptability of the bill. The Chair is very grateful to the hon. member for his assistance and
March 20, 1974

since then very careful consideration has been given to his submissions. But even after taking into account the hon. member's argument it does seem to the Chair that the bill proposed by him would create a new and a direct charge upon the treasury.
The hon. member suggests that additional money will not be required since sufficient funds have been provided for this purpose in the statutory vote created pursuant to the parent act in 1964. That, of course, is a very interesting argument which gave me cause to ponder and reflect. It is after, as I said, serious reflection that I saw the flaw in the hon. member's argument.
The Chair appreciates that the recommendation which accompanied the parent statute in 1964 was stated in general terms and might not have precluded on that occasion an amendment such as that which is now being proposed. I do not think it can be contended that a financial proposal that might have been permissible as an amendment in 1964 when the original parent statute was introduced can now be put forward under the provisions of a recommendation which had effect only in relation to the initial student loans plan.
I refer the hon. member to section one of Standing Order 62, which says:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session-
These are the operative words.
-in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
In other words, it is suggested that the recommendation which was presented to the House in 1964 had force and effect for that session only. It would not be procedurally acceptable to suggest that the same recommendation could be valid a decade later for a proposition which would create a new and what I consider to be a direct and a substantial charge on the treasury. It is suggested that even the government would be required to bring in another recommendation to support a bill such as that which is now being proposed by the hon. member.
As I said yesterday, the bill is an interesting one which the House might want to look at and study. If the hon. member could find a way to obtain the required recommendation from His Excellency, I would be pleased on his behalf to put the motion to the House.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.
Order Paper Questions


LIP FUNDS ALLOCATED TO FEDERAL CONSTITUENCIES REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CABINET, 1972-73
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of LIP funds allocated in 1972-73 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by members of the cabinet?
2.	(a) What is the name of each constituency that is represented by a cabinet minister (b) what is the name of the minister (c) what was the specific total of LIP funds allocated to each such constituency in 1972-73?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. $26,879,633.
2. (a) Constituency
(b) Cabinet Minister
Mount Royal, Quebec
Eglington, Ontario Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Nova Scotia Westmount, Quebec Langelier, Quebec Ottawa-Carleton Saint-Maurice, Quebec Rosedale, Ontario
Hamilton East, Ontario Hochelaga, Montreal,
The Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau
The Hon. Mitchell Sharp The Hon. Allan J. MacEachen
The Hon. C. M. Drury The Hon. Jean Marchand The Hon. John N. Turner The Hon. Jean Chretien The Hon. Donald S. Macdonald
The Hon. John C. Munro The Hon. G6rard Pelletier
Capilano, British Columbia The Hon. Jack Davis Restigouche, New BrunswickThe Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube Vancouver Centre, British The Hon. Ron Basford Columbia
Burin-Burgeo, Newfoundland The Hon. Dona'ld C.
Port Arthur, Ontario Winnipeg South, Manitoba Saskatoon-Hum boldt, Saskatchewan Windsor West, Ontario York-Scarborough, Ontario
Dollard, Quebec
Etobicoke, Ontario Parkdale, Ontario Essex-Windsor, Ontario
Notre-Dame-de-G race,
Quebec
Peterborough, Ontario
Papineau, Quebec Cardigan, Prince Edward Island
Outremont, Quebec Ahuntsic, Quebec
Jamieson
The Hon. Robert Andras The Hon. James Richardson The Hon. Otto E. Lang
The Hon. Herb Gray The Hon. Robert Stanbury The Hon. Jean-Pierre C ioyer The Hon. Alastair Gillespie The Hon. Stanley 11aidasz The Hon. E. F. Whelan The Hon. Warren Allmand
The Hon. James Hugh Faulkner
The Hon. Andre Ouellet The Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald
The Hon. Marc Lalonde The Hon. Jeanile Sauve
(c) Total funds allocated $
615,102 298,838
2,823,987
2,646,315
1,710,761
205,883
1,782,918
1,669,213
74,924
689,437
834,767
2,134,637
3,028,982
1,483,020
629,067
801,342
776,040
486,621
115,551
688,751
51,246
176,719
186,054
331,379
417,162
278,437
713,900 971,643 256,937


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of LIP funds allocated in 1972-73 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by (a) members

March 20, 1974
Order Paper Questions
of the Liberal party (b) members of the Progressive Conservative party?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) Liberal party, $106,692,373; (b) Progressive Conservative Party, $59,552,779.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,361 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament that the earliest date that milk powder prices could be expected to be reduced and contained was October 15, 1973, for what reason have Dominion Stores Limited in Brockville, Ontario been selling such milk at 25 cents per quart package for some months which is considerably more than was being charged by the same company on September 4, 1973 when the subsidy was announced?
2.	Is the government planning to take some action in regard to the fact that Dominion Stores Limited in Brockville, Ontario have raised the cost of powdered milk instead of either decreasing or reducing the price level as a result of the government subsidy and, if so, what will be the nature of this action and when will it be taken?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: It is
assumed the quart package in question is a four-ounce package of Carnation Instant Skim Milk Powder. Prior to October 15, 1973 there was no control on skim milk powder prices at the retail level. On October 15, 1973 Carnation Company Limited reduced its wholesale price by four cents on a four-ounce package of skim milk in accordance with the agreement and this reduction was to be passed on to the consumer. The four-ounce package which was selling for 25 cents prior to October 15, 1973 in Dominion Stores, Brockville, Ontario is selling at 21 cents.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Saskatchewan since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 199; October 1970-present, 8. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. Meadow Lake, 42; Regina-Lake Centre, 9; Mackenzie, 27; Prince Albert, 30; Saskatoon-Biggar, 13; Battleford-Kindersley, 27; Moose Jaw, 6; Yorkton-Melville, 17; Sas-katoon-Humboldt, 16; Regina East, 5; Assiniboia, 2; Swift Current-Maple Creek, 3; Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, 10. It is not possible without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


Mr. Laprise: For each year since 1964, how many loans to foreign countries were cancelled, what are the names of each country involved and what was the amount in each case?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: None.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the policy of the Canadian Transport Commission to delay sending Members of Parliament information copies of orders made by that Commission respecting decisions falling within their respective federal electoral constituencies for a period of 21 days after such decisions and orders have been made?
2.	Is this practice supported by regulations of the Commission and, if so, on whose authority were such regulations made and on what date were such regulations formulated?
3.	Is this practice supported by the responsible minister?
4.	If such is not a matter of policy, for what reason was decision number R-17686, being ordered November 21, 1973 not sent to the responsible Member of Parliament until December 13, 1973?
5.	With respect to order R-17686, on what dates were (a) the province of Nova Scotia (b) the city of Dartmouth (c) the Canadian National Railways (d) Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Ltd. (e) the Nova Scotia Power Corporation informed officially of the decision taken on November 21, 1973, by the responsible Commission?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. When information copies of orders of the Canadian Transport Commission are forwarded to Members of Parliament, as a courtesy, they are dispatched at the same time as to interested parties.
4 and 5. In the normal course, orders of the Railway Transport Committee of the Commission are dispatched within three days to a week of the date of the order. In this instance certain administrative processes led to a considerable delay, which is regretted, between the date of the order and its dispatch. Copies of Order No. R-17686, dated November 21, 1973, were mailed to all nine parties, including those specified by the Member of Parliament, and the Member of Parliament, on December 13, 1973.


Mr. MacLean: Is Information Canada opening a Citizens Inquiry Centre in Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) where will it be located (b) how many full-time employees will be employed (c) will a bookstore be operated in conjunction with this new Citizens Inquiry Centre?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: Yes. (a) Charlottetown; (b) three; (c) no.
March 20, 1974


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each month of 1973 (a) how many applications from veterans or veteran's widows for pensions under the Pension Act were received (b) how many such applications were dealt with and settled?
2.	How many applications did the Canadian Pension Commission have on file on January 1, 1973 and January 1, 1974?
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): 1.	(a)	(b)January	624	822February	786	982March	732	827April	675	679May	882	559June	643	706July	743	866August	672	811September	806	1194October	697	1062November	749	1007December	722	961
Motions for Papers
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.


Mr.Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of corporations or organizations receiving grants or subsidies under each of the following programs during each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date (a) Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act (b) Grants in aid of transportation research (CTC) (c) Maritime Freight Rates Act (d) National Transportation Act (e) Operating Subsidies to Regional Air Carriers (f) Railway Grade Crossing Fund (g) Steamship Subventions for Coastal Services?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts of money involved?
3.	What are the objectives of the above programs?
4.	Have either the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission conducted any evaluative study of the above programs and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.
2. January 1, 1973: 9,591; January 1, 1974: 7,846.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mather: Of the over $1 billion worth of goods and services purchased by the Department of Supply and Services each year, what is the amount, in dollars, represented by orders placed in British Columbia?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of Communications on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-1974 to date by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?



CIVILIAN AND DEFENCE CONTRACTS AWARDED BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES

Mr. Grier: What was the total value of civilian and defence contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services under DSS contracts and contracts delegated to DSS by other government departments or agencies for goods and services in each of the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date to the following corporations: Ayre & Sons Ltd.; Avis Transport of Canada Ltd.; ABCO Ltd.; Bata Ltd.; British Columbia Telephone Ltd.; Bell-Northern Research Ltd.; British Columbia Packers Ltd.; Bombardier Ltd.; Canron Ltd.; CAE Industries Ltd.; La Compagnie des Ciments du St-Laurent; Consumers Glass Ltd.; Crang & Ostiguy Inc.; Canada Steamship Lines Ltd.; Casgrain & Co. Ltd.; Cleyn & Tinker Ltd.; Delta Electric Ltd.; Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Ltd.; FPE-Pioneer Electric Ltd.; GSW Ltd.; Geosearch Consultants Ltd.; Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Les Industries Aird Ltee; ITL Industries Ltd.; Interprovincial Steel & Pipe Corp. Ltd.; Kenting Ltd.; Maislin Transport Ltd.; Mannix Co. Ltd.; Noranda Mines Ltd.; P.S. Ross & Partners; Pacific Truck and Trailer Ltd.; Spiroll Corp. Ltd.; Standard Brands Ltd.; Trimac Ltd.; Western Construction & Engineering Research Ltd.; Wright Engineers Ltd.?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 20, 1974
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, who recently indicated in the House that he had been given certain responsibilities with regard to transportation but not the powers to carry out those responsibilities. I would ask him whether it is his position that too much authority has been delegated by statute or placed in the hands of the Canadian Transport Commission, or is it his position that neither he nor the CTC has the necessary powers to discharge the responsibilities imposed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that, at the present time, the relationship between the authority granted the department or the minister, and the responsibilities assigned to them is absolutely disproportionate. Now, I should like to see some balance between them. I have made no distinction between the authority of the CTC and that of the department or that of the other government agencies and I say-and of this I am convinced, and I believe I mentioned it to the press yesterday-there is no one in Canada today to control all fields of transport because no one is authorized to do so. I am not asking that the Minister of Transport or the department really have the authority to manage all transport operations in Canada: this has no bearing on the matter. But, to my mind, the department does not have the authority required to set up an efficient policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has described the present transportation policy, to use his words or a translation of his words, as a mess and has indicated it will take some six months to place an appropriate policy before cabinet to be considered. Who is developing this new policy? Is it being developed within the minister's department or by consultants?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. It is at this moment being developed within the ministry. Following that, it will have to be submitted to cabinet. Will we have to submit some aspects to consultants after that? We will have to wait and see whether we are faced with that problem. For the time being, it is being developed inside the ministry and inside the cabinet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I then ask the minister why a United States consulting firm has been retained to make a study of the revenue position of the railways?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government, the railway companies and even the committee of

western transport ministers have retained the services of many consultant firms.


Mr. Lawrence:: Why don't you appoint some of them to that committee?


Jean Marchand: Am I out of order?
I say that many consultant firms are now hired. Some are even hired by the western transport committee to look into various matters, like roadbeds-

-roadbeds in English, and on cost pricing and all these things. We have consultants who have been hired. However, on the new policy, to which I admit I was referring quite vaguely, nothing has been referred to any firm of consultants.


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of a report in this morning's paper indicating that corporate profits showed an enormous increase in the fourth quarter of 1973 for various sectors of the economy. Of particular relevance is the sector of food processing which had an increase of 81.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 1973 compared with the fourth quarter of 1972, obviously as a result of unjustifiable higher prices. Is the government considering doing something with regard to these inordinately excessive profits being made by the corporations of this country, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's statement that the government would not permit profiteering and gouging of the consumer?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that was a full question. I hope the Chair will allow me a full answer. As I said to the Canadian Labour Congress and yesterday to the Canadian Association of Railway Workers, the profit situation is a healthy one and we have reached a stage now where I can say to the business community that in my view not every cost increase need be passed along by way of a price increase. A good deal of the profit picture is reflected in higher inventory valuation. What I am particularly interested in seeing is that a good proportion of the profits has been translated and reflected in increased capital expenditures for plant and equipment which will be translated into new jobs, particularly in the manufacturing and processing industries. Insofar as profits are reflected in new investment, I would think that is a positive result. Insofar as profits are reflected in an untoward payment of dividends, that would not be as favourably received by me or by the House. The Prime Minister and I have both said that if there is evidence that profits reflect an unconscionable taking advantage of a shortage of supply or the economic situation, the government will take action.


David Lewis: I did not ask the Minister of Finance to give me the answer I would hear from spokesmen for the
March 20, 1974

corporations. I asked what the government would do to stop this profiteering. What other evidence does he require that it is taking place in view of the range of profit increases?


John Napier Turner: I look to the ultimate purpose of the economy and the ultimate purpose of profits to be the expanding of the industrial base of the country. That is happening, and the ultimate purpose is jobs. I think the hon. member and I can agree on that.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since a member refused a few moments ago the unanimous consent required by Standing Order 43 for the debate of the serious problem of dairy producers, may I ask the minister whether he is aware of the representations of industrial milk producers and, if so, will he give them serious consideration in preparing the dairy production policy for the next year, beginning April 1, 1974?


Eugene Whelan: answered similar questions put to me by one or two hon. members along the lines that I had to make an announcement in connection with dairy policy by April 1. And we shall do this. We are taking all representations into consideration.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York South rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not unusual for a first questioner to ask two supplementary questions rather than one, and I hope to get that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member was a little slow in rising for the second supplementary.

The hon. member will excuse me.
In the meantime, I had recognized the hon. member for Bellechasse; maybe we can go on with the supplementaries later on, if in fact there are supplementaries to the first question, the one asked by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.
Of course, we will afterwards come back to the hon. member for York South, but for now the hon. member for Bellechasse has the floor.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
In view of the importance of the matter and the concern prevailing at this time along industrial milk producers, could the minister tell us, whether the application for a net reimbursement of the increased $2 for a hundred pounds, and I emphasize on the word "net", to the producers will be included in the government dairy policy for the year 1974-75?


Eugene Whelan: I said it was being considered.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister of Transport. In light of the minister's straightforward statement in the House on March 7 about his lack of a transport policy, I should like to ask him whether he is now prepared to bring forward legislation in connection with the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act, and measures to separate Air Canada from the CNR, which his predecessor promised two years ago, stating at that time he would do it soon?


Jean Marchand: If the
purpose of the question is to find out whether we intend to split Air Canada from Canadian National, I can tell the hon. member that no decision has yet been made.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: With respect, that was part of the purpose of the question. Can the minister inform the House whether he or his colleagues have received any cost disclosure information from the railways respecting the freight rate charges on the 28 commodities specified at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in July, 1973, and, if not, when this information may be forthcoming?


Mr. Marchand (Langeliar):: I think it is about to be received. I do not recall the exact number of cost disclosures we asked of the CTC but we expect to receive them very shortly. The western ministers are quite satisfied with the delays that we know are necessary in these cases.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Would the minister indicate, in view of the fact he said that he has little control over the operations of the railways and in view of the fact that the railways are so heavily subsidized, particularly the CNR, whether he would consider, in order to assert his authority, reducing or holding back some of the estimates until he has received the cost disclosure information so long withheld by the railways?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that for the time being we have a satisfactory arrangement with both railways concerning cost disclosure. That is not an understatement; I think it is true. We are ready to go further if the present arrangement does not work. As far as the use of subsidies is concerned, I know this is a very

March 20, 1974
Oral Questions
strong weapon but I am not ready for the time being to put any of the railways into bankruptcy in order to obtain information.



MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-USE OF CONTROLLERS AT VANCOUVER AND THUNDER BAY

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Would he advise the House what has happened to the two people whom he had acting, I believe, in the role of controller, one at Vancouver and one at Thunder Bay? Are they still acting and, if so, what are they doing? If they are not, why not?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a change of personnel in one case, but the functions are being continued.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will see the hon. member for Vegreville for a supplementary and will then recognize the hon. member for York South for his supplementary.



SHORT-TERM MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEM OF GRAIN TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that the government has no transportation policy but one is in the process of being developed, during which time this country is suffering severe dislocation as a result of disruption of transportation, may I ask the minister when we can expect an announcement regarding short-term measures to alleviate the problem of grain transportation? The other day he indicated the appointment of a co-ordinator or transportation supervisor with respect to the movement of lumber and other commodities, having regard to the fact that railway loadings are 3.5 per cent less this year than the previous year.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member is asking is what will be the long-term policy, not the short-term policy. As far as grain is concerned, I think the hon. member should put his question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board. As far as lumber is concerned-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he going to be the new transport minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I interrupt the hon. minister? It seems to me that we are getting involved in a debate rather than in a period of questions and answers. I shall recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which also arises out of the fact that the food processing industry has had such a huge increase in profits, and out of the fact that, despite a steady drop in the price of beef to the producer since about the middle of last month, there has not been a decrease in the price of beef to the consumer. May I ask the minister whether the government is considering necessary action to force a rollback in the price of beef to the consumer? If anything is obvious, it is that the consumer of beef is being gouged at the present time.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, various alternatives are constantly being studied. We have previously informed the House of the special study of beef price margins now under way and which will be completed in approximately two to three weeks. The results of the study will, I think, form a useful basis for the consideration of action by the government.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the chaotic conditions in cattle marketing and in the whole cattle industry, is the minister prepared to sit down this evening or tomorrow morning with industry representatives and reconsider the whole question of the beef subsidy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant touch with the industry. The latest report as of ten minutes ago seems to indicate that the whole buying program is levelling out and doing what we hoped it would do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I am not saying it is perfect, but it has certainly moved a long way in the right direction today. As the day goes on the market trend seems to be to do what it should be doing, which is marketing beef according to the procedure they have followed in the past. If hon. members have any sound advice they can give-


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Eugene Whelan: -we are ready to accept it. Up till now there have been some suggestions which we are following up. Otherwise, if there are no further suggestions for improving the position, what else can we do?
March 20, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot will be recognized for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
Oral Questions
reveal in advance the means of breaking down the will of the workers so as to maintain conditions they cannot accept.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am worried about the popularity of the Minister of Agriculture, and for this reason I will direct a supplementary question to him. Would he consider spending the $3 million a week that he is now spending in an attempt to save the livestock industry on the price of feed grain, which would not interfere with the marketing of the end product?



TRANSPORT


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly taken a look at this suggestion, which has been made not only by the hon. member for Crowfoot but by other people in western Canada. I have met many different people in western Canada who are concerned with the beef feeding industry, and if the hon. member can find any really unanimous point of view on this subject he is better than I am, because I certainly cannot.



HARBOURS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's statement that the railways are not interested in buying hopper cars to transport wheat because they lose money, has he pointed out to the railway companies that they have a mandatory and statutory duty cast upon them under the provisions of the Railway Act to provide suitable accommodation and, with due care and diligence, receive carry and deliver all such traffic? Has the minister pointed that out to the railway companies and is he prepared to carry out his constitutional responsibility to see that the law is observed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PORT OF MONTREAL-MEASURES TO ENSURE SHIPMENT OF GRAIN NOT INTERRUPTED BY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Although he stated openly that his own problems and those of his department were plenty, could he say what immediate measures he and his colleagues of the cabinet are considering to make sure that the port of Montreal will not be condemned to a complete shut-off or continued jeopardy because of the present situation which makes it less and less profitable?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe wrapped it up in the over-all policy of the department. The question is much simpler. What is the situation at the port of Montreal? An extremely serious one. We are trying to solve it. Dock workers in Montreal harbour are numerous considering modern technology. It must be determined how to solve this problem. We have not yet found the solution and if the member for Saint-Hyacinthe has any suggestions, I shall listen to them.


Claude Wagner: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
I suggest that the government resign and give way to a responsible party capable of governing the country.
Having answered the Postmaster General, rather the Minister of Transport who perhaps will become the Postmaster General, I ask him the following question: in the event of a strike or a work slowdown by the Seafarers' International Union, does the minister intend to set up an inquiry or use some means to find alternative transportation for continued shipment of grain to Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I have spent 23 years of my life in the labour world, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe can rest assured that I will surely not


Jean Marchand: Everyone may applaud, Mr. Speaker, but there is something lacking in the law which you will see if you read it, and I am sure the hon. member has done so. They have a legal statutory obligation to move grain, but there is no time limit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: That is not provided in the law. There is no time limit. There is nothing to compel them to buy up to date equipment with which to really move the grain in due course and in due time. That is why we have this problem in respect of hopper cars and why we as a government must solve it when normally the railway companies should probably do it.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is rising on a point of order, but I will have to seek the co-operation of hon. members again as we will soon be running short of time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very simple. The minister did not respond when I read to him the statement of the law that the railways must carry grain with due diligence and without delay, which constitutes a statutory obligation on them.


Jean Marchand: This is probably a legal point and, fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, but in reference to the phrase "with all diligence and without delay" they can always say that is what they are doing with the equipment they have.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have to buy more equipment.


An hon. Member:: You are the minister, tell them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 20, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the legal argument might be adjourned for the time being or referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply to a previous question that beef marketing had settled down-this is largely because commission agents and producers are being bludgeoned into accepting a pretty unworkable policy-I should like to ask him whether he will modify his policy at least to the extent of paying the premium on all cattle that fall into the A and B grades so the premium can be paid directly to the producers with the result that they will at least get the benefit of this program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is being considered. There are people from different parts of Canada in the offices of the Department of Agriculture discussing this with officials of my department at the present time to determine how workable and practical this may be. There are other suggestions being made by farm organizations and members of parliament which are also being considered at the present time.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the suggestions the minister has received on the subject, will he consider introducing a policy of putting a direct support feature into this program so the producers will have a support level under this program at this point in time which they really do not have now?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have said in my reply to the previous question that I disagree to some extent with what the hon. member said about prices. I checked the prices at Toronto today and found that they are much better than they were yesterday, and they are doing what we wanted them to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is that for the U.S. cattle they were buying?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Crowfoot has interjected a question about U.S. cattle. They have dropped in price on the Omaha market, on which the price is based. If we are to have some kind of a system that has nothing to do with the North American market, and that is perhaps what we should have, then I should like to know if that is what the hon. member would support.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Middlesex on a supplementary question, to be followed by the hon. member for Simcoe North.



SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-DETERMINATION OF GRADE OF CATTLE KILLED IN SMALL ONTARIO PLANTS

Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in respect of another area of concern on which hopefully the Minister of Agriculture can shed some light. In light of the fact there are a great number of fat cattle killed in small killing plants in Ontario where there is only a provincial inspector, and consequently there are no federal grading slips, I should like to know how the grade of the cattle killed will be determined for the retroactive period?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we know approximately-I should say quite accurately-how many cattle are slaughtered in a week in Canada and what the grades are and if we take seven cents a pound for A-l and A-2 and average that out at say five cents a pound-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. minister and the hon. member that this is argument.



REJECTION OF QUALIFIED CANADIAN APPLICANTS BY MEDICAL SCHOOLS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that large numbers of qualified applicants are being rejected by our medical schools, I should like to know why over the last ten years more doctors from outside Canada have been admitted to practise here than ever before instead of training more doctors in our own schools, and when is this discrimination going to stop?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for raising this question. Indeed, this very matter was raised at the last conference of ministers of health in February. As the hon. member knows, the matter of schools of medicine and medical practice in each province is a matter for provincial governments to determine. However, I have opened discussions on this subject with my colleagues and I hope there will be general agreement on a policy by the federal and provincial governments in the next few months after further meetings on the subject. I share the hon. member's concern about providing Canadian students with opportunities in this field.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in respect of transportation and is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he discussed with the Chrysler Corporation of Canada their review of
March 20, 1974

prices and, if so, can he report to the House the results of these conversations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the last advice I received on this matter, perhaps about an hour ago, was that the Canadian company is considering its position but has made no decision.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was not in respect of what advice he had received from the company by some means but whether he had been in direct contact with the company in order to make known the views of parliament, and to express the opinion put forward in the House today by the Minister of Finance, that some of these huge profits should be converted into price reductions and that under no circumstances will an increase in the price of cars be welcome at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department were in touch with officials of the company today who were reminded of their undertaking in respect of narrowing the differential. They indicated that they are quite prepared to live up to that undertaking.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ACTION TO IMPROVE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF CORPORATION

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister indicate whether he has received suggestions from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in order to solve their financing problem and does he intend before long to take measures to correct the poor financial position of the authority?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are two different problems in the question that has been asked: one concerning the labour relations between the Seafarers' International Union and the Seaway Authority, and one concerning the financing problem of the Seaway Authority. I do not know which one of these questions I should answer, but I will certainly not handle both at the same time.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I think my question is very simple. The new president, Mr. Normandeau, made suggestions concerning the financing of the St. Lawrence Seaway. We know it already has a debt that is almost beyond reimbursement and I ask the minister what steps he will take to settle the matter, and whether he will take into account the recommendations the Carter report made a few years ago?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give is the following: settlement of the collective agreement between the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway has abso-
Oral Questions
lutely nothing to do with the latter's financing. With regard to financing the seaway, it is a question of deciding whether we are willing to increase the rates to allow it to become more profitable. We are now studying precisely that question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In light of the fact that we all want to see goods moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway as they should, is the minister now in a position to tell us whether he has made an accurate assessment of the Seafarers' Union dispute at this time, in the knowledge of the disastrous error he made last Friday when he said he is hopeful and optimistic that no strike will occur?


John Carr Munro: Without in any way indicating acquiescence in the gross misinterpretation by the hon. member of what I said last Friday, I would indicate that yes, I have made an accurate assessment of the situation to the best of my ability.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the light of that answer, has the minister now taken upon himself to introduce special initiatives in order that the parties can return to the bargaining table? Has he done at least that?


John Carr Munro: I do not know exactly what the hon. member means by "special initiatives" but if he is asking whether we are doing everything we possibly can to assist the parties in resolving this dispute, the answer is yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West on a second supplementary, but we have reached the point in the question period when I have to appeal to hon. members to limit their supplementaries because there is not much more than five minutes left before I will have to call orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact the minister has indicated that he feels his personal intervention in this matter would be a little premature, can he now advise whether he is waiting until April 1 before he takes a personal interest in this matter or whether he is at least getting on the telephone to discuss these matters with the parties involved?


John Carr Munro: I do not know from what information the hon. member draws his miscellaneous conclusions but they are totally erroneous, and that should concern him.

March 20, 1974
Oral Questions AIRPORTS



PICKERING-SUGGESTED HALTING OF DESIGN, PLANNING AND LAND ACQUISITION IN LIGHT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERCITY TRAVEL

Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the minister's statement yesterday to the effect that planning for major airports at Montreal and Toronto did not take into consideration modern developments in intercity travel, does the minister intend to use whatever power he has, if any, to call a halt now to design, planning and land acquisition with regard to the ill conceived airport at Pickering?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, during a very straightforward discussion with the press yesterday, I talked about all the things that could have happened, including what could have happened if we had known 20 years ago what we know today. I think that the newspaperman reported this discussion very honestly, but to conclude that this was a judgment made upon the case of Pickering and Mirabel is to go too far.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the reluctant minister.

I return to the point just made by the minister. In view of the fact that the hearing which is now going on will not take into consideration the knowledge the minister claims was there and was evident before the decision to build the airport was taken, will the minister please undertake to review the whole decision to proceed with the vast expenditures involved this year in the planning and design of the airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I said, and I think that everybody in the House will accept it as being reasonable, is that if we had known, say 10 or 15 years ago or maybe even five years ago, that it would be possible to have trains running as fast as 200 or 300 miles an hour, maybe we would have made a decision that would have been different from the one we made. That is all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



LABOUR RELATIONS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the Minister of Transport who spoke of trains travelling 300 miles an hour. It indicates how far ahead he is of actualities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He is thinking of Air Canada. In view of the fact that no action at all has been taken by the pusillanimous Minister of Labour, will the minister look into this situation regarding the Seafarers' Union dispute and do what he can, because all over western Canada people such as the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board and others are saying that failure to act will constitute a terrible blow to this country. Apparently nothing is being done. I appeal to him because he gets things done.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret to hear the hon. member say that because some things are being done, and I must admit publicly that the Minister of Labour is not only my colleague but one of my good friends and I have a lot of confidence in his capacity and ability.


John George Diefenbaker: You are alone.



INTENTION TO BAN TORONTO FRANCHISE IN WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE-SCOPE OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATION

Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of further statements by the minister over the weekend concerning his intention to ban a Toronto franchise in the World Football League and the additional indication by the Minister of Justice in committee last night that his officials are drafting legislation together with the minister's officials for presentation to cabinet tomorrow, would the minister indicate whether such legislation will apply to sports other than football and will it involve restrictions on the televising of American sporting events by Canadian stations?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that, contrary to the party opposite, this government and this party are not speaking with one voice in the west, one in the east, one in Toronto and one in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Your party has no national character.


Marc Lalonde: What I said over the weekend, while the hon. member was otherwise busy I have no doubt, was that a recommendation will be made to my colleagues in cabinet, and that when a decision is made in cabinet it will be announced in due course. As the hon. member knows, the content of legislation is a subject that is made known when the bill is put forward for first reading. As to the latter part of his question about television, I do not intend to look into this matter at this time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: May I ask the minister whether, in the preparation of the legislation, he has been consulting with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to clear up the inconsistency between his policy of protecting the
March 20, 1974

monopoly of the Canadian Football League and the other minister's policy of promoting competition?


Marc Lalonde: I think that the question itself indicates the very type of confusion that exists in the minds of members of the opposition on the whole issue of Canadian ownership and protection of a Canadian identity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the advertisements appearing in newspapers across Canada this week for more than 25 senior staff positions in his department in various places across the country, can the minister indicate to the House whether in effect this means that transfers of people from the Ottawa area to the various regions and provincial capitals have been completed or whether that is to be continued, and the number of transfers that have already taken place?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether certain I can answer in detail. I can say that the first phase of offering various positions to those who are eligible for such offers within the Public Service has been completed. This has now enabled us to carry out the second stage which is to have people from the regions in the various offices who know the conditions in those particular areas. Whether a full assessment of the total complement of people in each area has been completed by the various public service organizations is something I would have to check and give the hon. member a written reply.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that to date there has been very little public information except for these advertisements, about the nature of the staffing arrangements in the various regions and provincial capitals and the extent of the transfers that have taken place, would the minister agree to make an early statement in the House or to make this information generally available so that we could be aware of the situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course, the situation changes daily, but to the extent that it exists at this moment in time I would be glad to make information on it available to the hon. member or to any other hon. member who wishes to see it.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS



PICKERING-REQUEST THAT MINISTER HAVE REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO BOARD OF INQUIRY IN LIGHT OF NEW EVIDENCE

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the statements made yesterday by the minister to the Canadian Railway Labour Association, the answers he has given today to the hon. member for Scarborough West respecting the Pickering airport proposal, and the fact that the independent inquiry that was set up is entitled to look into new evidence and the minister has indicated there is new evidence, would the minister be prepared to make representations through his department to the inquiry board respecting the kind of questions he alluded to yesterday and today?


Jean Marchand: In all
honesty, Mr. Speaker, I think I cannot give an answer different from the one I gave a few minutes ago. I was just talking about things that could happen and did not happen, and I do not want to interfere in any way with the inquiry that is taking place.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Greenwood; the hon. member for Yukon rises on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I raised this question of privilege in the previous session in connection with the propriety of parliamentary secretaries, who are part of the ministry, taking up the time of the House by asking questions. Those hon. gentlemen, sir, have telephone lines open to them. Ministers' offices are open to them. Further, these hon. gentlemen are paid an extra $4,000 a year to answer questions, not to ask them and spuriously take up the limited time of the question period which is supposed to be used by the opposition for eliciting information from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised this question previously. I have looked at past precedents and have found nothing in them, and certainly I cannot find anything in the rule book, which says that because parliamentary secretaries receive an additional emolument they are not allowed to ask questions. Neither can I agree with the hon. gentleman's proposition that the question period is reserved for the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Again, that is not so. If the hon. member would study the precedents and Hansard over past years he would see that that proposition is not supported by the precedents. However, I have tried to be as conciliatory as I can in this regard by, let us say, not encouraging parliamentary secretaries to ask questions because I really feel that to some extent there is a difficulty in that the Chair
702

March 20, 1974
Oral Questions
often wonders whether a parliamentary secretary is rising to ask or to answer a question. That very fact is sufficient to pose a question in my mind. But as long as that privilege is not abused, perhaps we should not insist on a strict interpretation of the rule, whatever the rule may be. I would hope we might be able to continue on the basis of what we have done in the past.
My feeling is that, although the hon. member's point may be well taken to some extent, there must be some leeway allowed the Chair in the interpretation of the rules. That is what I have been trying to do, to take into account the point of view expressed by the hon. member, which has some validity, and the point of view which I take it the parliamentary secretary is now going to expound on the question of privilege.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you very much for the remarks you have made in respect of this matter. However, the point I wish to make is that in my capacity as a member of parliament I have constituents to represent. I intend to represent them and I will not be intimidated by anybody on either side of the House in the fulfilment of that responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The second point I would like to make is that I wish members in the official opposition would at least try to be consistent on this matter because, as others in the House realize, there are members on that side who think that parliamentary secretaries should not answer questions and others who think we should not ask them. The simple fact is that the rules allow us to do both, in my humble submission, provided a parliamentary secretary does not address a question to his own minister, which I think would indeed be an abuse of the House. I think that I am as entitled as anybody else to ask questions of anybody in a position of responsibility in the House of Commons, on any subject, in the interests of the people I represent, and I shall continue to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has made his point and the hon. member for Ontario has responded to the question of privilege. I am not sure whether we should allow the matter to develop into a debate. I recognize the validity of, and the interest in, the points of view expressed by both the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Yukon. I am not sure that there is an easy solution, but I shall try to take both aspects of the matter into account.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a personal matter arising out of your remarks from the chair, I am sure if the Chair had heard me correctly you would have appreciated the fact that I was not advancing-and the record will show I was not advancing-the proposition that the question period should be reserved for the opposition. I said that the purpose of the question period was to enable the opposition, primarily-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -but including all members, to make inquiries of the ministry. Certainly at no time did I say the question period should be reserved for the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have now lost ten minutes or so on these questions or alleged questions of privilege. I point out that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was waiting yesterday for a chance to ask a question. Before the first question of privilege was raised, the hon. member for Greenwood had the floor, so perhaps he might be allowed to ask his question. Then, with consent, the Chair will see the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who, as I say, was cut off at the end of the question period yesterday.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of a non-controversial nature. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has not had too many questions today. Has the Canadian government threatened or considered withdrawing Canada's contribution to the International Control Commission in Laos unless certain conditions are met and, if that is the situation, what are those conditions?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not threatened to withdraw from the International Control Commission in Laos. What we have done is to advise the Laotian government, which we did on March 13, as well as the co-chairmen of the 1962 Geneva conference and all other parties, that we intend to move the adjournment sine die of the Laos commission at a meeting which we have requested for that purpose.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, but he seems to have disappeared. In view of the fact that it has taken me as long to ask this question as it takes the Postmaster General's department to deliver the mail, perhaps I could address it to the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for maintaining happy relationships in the Public Service. Now that the Union of Postal Employees has launched a postal code boycott in protest against the difference in wage rates between the postal coders and the postal sorters, would the President of the Treasury Board review this policy with a view to establishing equity between these two job classifications before Canada's unhappy postal service suffers complete collapse?
March 20, 1974


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this question with the Postmaster General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the public accounts for the years ending March 31, 1972, and March 31, 1973, and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, together with the evidence adduced by the committee while considering the said matters in previous sessions of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the system of readjusting representation in the House of Commons, including the method of determining the number of members for each province established by section 51 of the British North America Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-7, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on resuming the debate on Bill C-7 I believe we should first realize that the government is using a rather featherlike approach in this bill. I suggest that the legislation will perhaps hurt competition rather than make it freer and easier in Canada. In a sense, the government is being quite naive in their approach concerning the matter. I suggest that there are four large elements bearing upon competition in Canada any one of which will have greater influ-
Competition Bill
ence on competition, its restriction or its freedom, than the legislation proposed by the government.
I refer, for example, to the foreign ownership of industry in this country and to the fact that in the international economic report of the President of the United States, tabled in February, 1974, we find there is listed total American investment in this country of $44.1 billion. As we know, Mr. Speaker, there has been an incident in recent weeks affecting part of that investment. MLW-Worthington in Montreal, because they are 52 per cent owned by their parent in the United States have encountered some restriction with respect to a deal they hoped to make with Cuba, because of legislation now in force in the United States.


John Napier Turner: What restriction was that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I understand it is still under review in the United States whether the parent company will be prosecuted if the subsidiary company goes ahead with the deal which they would like to make with the United States.


John Napier Turner: With Cuba.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, with Cuba. I mention this because not only is this featherlike legislation but the Canadian government have followed a consistent policy of tolerating foreign investment and have encouraged it at every opportunity through the utilization of government funds to support such investment in Canada.
It is interesting to consider the record of the Export Development Corporation which this government proposes to enlarge further and to expand to a $4 billion organization. I think it is interesting to note that that organization has been oriented by the government so that over 50 per cent of the benefit of their loan goes to foreign-controlled companies in Canada. The minimum loan from that organization is $1 million, and we find that in 1972 the Export Development Corporation made loans on an average of $23.3 million, while the Industrial Development Bank made loans on an average of $45,000. The interest rate in the EDC, effectively, to foreign borrowers was approximately 7 per cent, while Canadian borrowers who turned to the International Development Bank paid 9.8 per cent.
I will demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not know whereof they speak when they talk about competition in this country. If it is seriously suggested to the House that somehow this legislation will free competition and, as the Prime Minister has indicated-I am pleased to see he is still with us-that it will even contain inflation in this country, then I say God help this country if this is one of the pillars that the government intends to use to resist or to contain inflation.
With inflation at 9.1 per cent, I think it is time we demanded that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brought in a budget to show us exactly what he intends in the way of fiscal and monetary measures to contain inflation over the coming months. For the Prime Minister or any of his ministers to suggest that somehow this legislation will help contain inflation is, I strongly suggest to
27398-45 J

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
hon. members, misleading. In fact, it will likely increase rather than lower the cost of goods in this country.
I come back to the broader spectrum, Mr. Speaker, which is: what are the forces in this nation that are working against free competition? I suggest that hon. members should look at the large corporate power units, the large union power units and the large banks in the country. I suggest that any one of those groups has an extremely important role to play when we consider whether there is to be freerer competition in Canada. Take banks, for example. With their assets standing at $55 billion and general loans at $30 billion, perhaps the best role for any person in this country is that of director of one of these banks. Each director of our banks represents assets which on average amount to some $170 million per director. Each director controls loans amounting on average to almost $100 million.
I grant that the Liberal party is heavily indebted to the chartered banks in that it receives substantial campaign funds from them. Nevertheless, the government should not go through the charade of saying that somehow Bill C-7 will provide for greater competition. It should not be allowed to ignore the fact that it is not doing anything substantive to ensure competition with regard to foreign ownership, the large banking interests, the large corporate interests and the large unions in the country. Not only is it extremely unlikely that this bill will increase competition in the country and reduce the inflation rate, but it may damage business in many respects. It will hurt especially smaller businessmen.
When I last spoke on this bill I mentioned a constituent of mine, who, having been subjected to government bureaucracy and red tape, wrote to me in exasperation. I quote as follows part of his letter to me which expresses his concern about government controls:
I cannot help but speculate on the costs to business and the resultant effect on our profits in carrying out the seemingly endless tasks demanded by various governments. The very same governing bodies who order that we carry out these tasks free of charge unhesitatingly expand their various departments to better carry out their functions of harassment, interruption and annoyance. Let's take a brief look at some of these government imposed workloads: we must keep accurate records for, make accurate deductions for, prepare accurate returns for, provide inspection facilities for, and in certain areas make prompt payments to the following government departments or government controlled agencies: Workman's Compensation Board, provincial income tax, Canada Pension Plan, provincial department of labour, federal sales tax, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Transportation, Minister of National Revenue, federal income tax, unemployment insurance, provincial hospitalization, federal Department of Labour, provincial sales tax, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of the Environment, corporation tax divisions.
These services can only be classified as additional forms of indirect taxation which unfortunately are very real costs to the Canadian business community. I would speculate that the figure runs into multimillions of dollars.
This letter was sent by a relatively small businessman who does on average half a million dollars' worth of business and makes on average about $20,000 per year. He has referred to the type of red tape which frustrates business people more and more, including himself. I suggest that the government should introduce legislation which will deal effectively with the big power blocs of this

country. Such action Would be more effective in bringing about competition than the present bill, or the setting up of a new commission whether it is called the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or by any other name.
Surely, if the government intends to subject businessmen to this new type of review and investigation, it should in fairness include in the legislation some provision for providing funds to companies who are being investigated. The money would enable the companies to present a proper case and do the necessary red tape work in connection with any review or investigation which will be undertaken by civil servants who will administer the act. I agree that large corporations can probably live with this type of investigation. I think smaller businessmen deserve protection from the unrelenting efforts of civil servants who often investigate for the sake of investigating.
The bill is alarming in some respects. The provision for giving wide discretionary powers to the commission referred to needs to be questioned. I think every member of the House should question the extremely wide powers to be given to civil servants with regard to investigation. Surely no one suggests that such investigations in the past have always been objective. Personal influence has sometimes been brought to bear by competitors on civil servants to ensure that other competitors are put at a disadvantage in the market place. I think this House ought to move cautiously in dealing with legislation like this and should bear in mind that it is superficial legislation which may do more harm than good.
It should be noted that in our country the inflation rate has reached 9.1 per cent and, according to unofficial predictions, may reach 10 per cent; yet no budget has been introduced. The government has given priority to the bill before us.
Housing starts fell by 36.8 per cent in the last three months compared with the previous three months, yet the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has not brought forward legislation which will ensure a plentiful supply of housing at reasonable prices. I remind hon. members again that since this government took office in 1968, housing in my area has risen in value by 72 per cent. Yet here we are, expected to give precedence to a bill which will do little to help us meet our housing needs.
This bill is to have precedence over legislation dealing with the unemployment insurance fiasco which is costing the nation well over $1 billion in needless pay-outs. This bill is to have precedence over other bills even though the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has said flatly that he cannot or will not do anything to establish an industrial strategy in this country. Having said that, he has told us that he will not intervene in any attempt to control commodity prices in this country, even though commodity prices have risen by 25.7 per cent within the past year. We are asked to give precedence to this bill even though the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand), on March 7 in this House, virtually threw up his hands, said the entire department is out of control and that there is little he can do. Today he was asked the direct question whether he proposed to bring in any legislative measures to attempt to control the out of control
March 20, 1974

situation to which he referred, and the minister declined to answer.
Speaking of things out of control, there is also the matter of energy. Not only do we have a government that has failed to make this country self-sufficient as far as transportation of oil is concerned, but we have a minister who last night had to admit that the American officials know more about internal affairs concerning the importation of oil into this country than he or his department. I am referring to the fact that according to the latest economic report from the United States, it is estimated that the cost to this country of foreign imports of oil will be $4 billion in the current year. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was not able to furnish that figure to the committee last evening.
To return to Bill C-7 and to deal with clauses in it specifically, I first wish to mention that I believe the wording is too wide in clause 31(2). It gives virtually unlimited discretionary power to the commission to control the distribution system of individual suppliers in most industries in Canada.
I would point out there is no onus placed on the director to be appointed under the act to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities. Surely the director should be expected to be more precise and state the findings on which he bases his decision or judgment. Once an inquiry has been initiated by the director, we must remember that the commission will become its own investigator, judge and jury. When it reaches a decision on a purely subjective basis, on its own appraisal of the facts which it has elicited, there is really no effective court of appeal to which one may refer.
The term "market" is used in Bill C-7 but it is not defined. While we recognize this is the case under existing law, the vagueness of this concept becomes more serious because of the extended scope of the commission's power under the bill. I feel it is not clear whether the term refers to the market area of the complainant, of the supplier or the international market for the article in question.
The term "adversely affected" is used. Surely that is a broad term that virtually anyone could use to show that he could probably sell an article at a profit if he could obtain supplies. He would thus meet the test that it is suggested has to be met in this bill. There is a reference to usual trade terms but unfortunately it is very vague. It is clear that it includes a credit worthiness and willingness to buy in usual quantities, but the term "and otherwise" which appears with the phrase is undefined. I am mentioning these points because I feel that in spite of the fact the legislation has been under review for many months, if not years, it is ineptly drafted and will bring hardship to those now in the business community, especially the smaller businessman.
I have already referred to the costs that will be incurred by businessmen who will have to deal with this commission. I feel it is unfortunate that these costs should be mounted, as I have indicated, mount on mount on the back of the businessman. I would again point out that these costs are inherent in clause 4.1 of the bill. They apply to manufacturers, retailers and customers. They far out-
Competition Bill
weigh any possible benefit to persons who are unable to get supplies. I believe this bill is inconsistent with the aims of a competition policy and will work to the disadvantage of most manufacturers, retailers and consumers. It will not in fact benefit small business people or bring competition into the marketplace of Canada.
I would again emphasize that the type of legislation being contemplated by the minister is really the brainchild of his civil servants. It is their method of handling, or their suggested solution to increase competition in Canada, but they are talking of a field about which they know little. We have had other examples of such new commissions or bureaux being set up by this government. The majority have been most unhappy. Last year, for example, the foreign investment review bill was passed by this House. The foreign investment review board was established as a result of that legislation. Subsequent to the passage of that act I had informal chats with civil servants who were drafting the regulations they hope to issue from time to time concerning the workings of the legislation. It is not an overstatement to say it is shocking to learn what little knowledge those civil servants have in the field they are attempting to regulate. If they were Tories, I would hope they would be a little more capable than the people to whom I am referring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Those in this House who are members of the legal profession have undoubtedly noticed that in the bill there is a reference to the solicitor-client privilege that has been assumed to exist in this country for many years. While the amendments to section 20 do not appear to cause a problem, it has been learned from the Department of Justice that they intend to take the position that the privilege attaching to communications between solicitor and client will not be available under this section. If that is so, I feel we must be gravely concerned. Such an intention by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be contrary to established legal precedents. It may be that if the government and the House is determined to pass this type of legislation, we should at least insert in the bill something similar to section 103(2) of the United Kingdom fair trading act of 1973.
That provision reads as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be taken to compel the disclosure by a barrister, advocate or solicitor of any privileged communication made by or to him in that capacity, or the production by him of any document containing any such communication.
I feel we must consider the right to cross-examine statisticians, civil servants and others who may appear before any commission to deal with this subject. It is of the greatest importance that all persons giving evidence of such a nature be subjected to cross-examination, and I would again urge that a provision in terms similar to those in section 45(3) (2) should be included in this legislation.
I know the minister treats this bill lightly because in his own brief remarks he said we should get on with it, pass it at second reading, get it into committee and then dispose of it quickly. At least, that was his hope. I would suggest otherwise. If the government and the House are seriously

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
concerned about the absence of competition in this country, they should step back and take a look at the entire economic competitive fibre in this country. There are some hard decisions to be made if we wish a free and totally open marketplace in Canada. The suggestion that another commission should be set up to deal with largely superficial matters will not ensure a completely free market.
In many ways this is an unfortunate example of the government's tendency to gloss over an issue rather than deal with it effectively. This is not the first time they have come up with a solution which in their hearts they realize is ineffective-something like Mrs. Plumptre's board which we all know has been totally powerless to deal with inflation.
The time has come to ask ourselves whether the banking industry in Canada should not be reviewed again, whether there should not be another Porter commission inquiring into banking, which has grown from $20 billion to $80 billion. Should we not ask ourselves whether the banks are ensuring a truly competitive marketplace in Canada as far as their lending activities are concerned? Surely we should take steps to make certain that this industry is competitive in the sense that a businessman with proper security and a legitimate need gets the credit necessary to enable him to compete, regardless of his size.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. He may conclude his remarks if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With over 90 per cent of our banking business controlled by five institutions, perhaps we should look into the establishment of a commission to ascertain whether the industry is serving the needs of the business community effectively, rather than deal with superficial matters such as are touched in the bill before us. I suggest, also, that there should be a thorough investigation into the activities of foreign-owned corporations in this country to make sure they are adding to, not detracting from, the competitive nature of our business community. The large corporate blocs in our country should also be reviewed, as should the large union power blocs. I am sorry to say it, but I believe Bill C-7 is an ineffective measure, one which does not deal with the real need in this country, which is the enhancement of a truly competitive business community.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, one of the strong points of our democratic form of government is the fact that we allow all sorts of debates to take place, not only in the House of Commons and in the various legislatures but in the rfewspapers, on radio, television, and so on. But one of the weak points, at least in my estimation, is the length of time this process is apt to take. Just how long should we allow debate to take place before a decision is reached? Surely at some point along the line debate has gone on long enough. Discussion of a bill such as that we are considering this afternoon should result, without too much delay, in the bill being sent to committee where it can be examined in detail and either chucked out or brought back for final reading in order that the people of

Canada might have the opportunity of enjoying the benefits of the legislation.
I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I am constantly amazed by the variety of viewpoints held by members in the official opposition. The hon. member has just told us that in his opinion the bill before us would, in the long run, hurt competition. This is certainly not what has been said by other members of his party. I wonder if it is fair to ask whether members of the official opposition are not just holding the bill up for purely political reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If they will study the views which have been expressed in newspapers, on television and elsewhere across Canada they will find that the vast majority of media commentators have accepted the bill. Some have expressed criticism on the ground that it does not go far enough, but the majority have stated that in their opinion it is a good bill and it should go forward; and they believed it should go forward, not a month from now or five months from now or five years from now but immediately. Indeed, some members of the official opposition have expressed a similar view. Members belonging to the NDP, too.
One of the leading members of the official opposition, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has been quoted in the Ottawa Journal as saying the bill proposed worth-while measures of consumer protection. He said it offered a lot more than he expected. He called it an important piece of legislation. And he has not disclaimed this quotation in the course of the debate here. That is not what the hon. member for York-Simcoe said. All of us watched on television the meeting the Conservatives held in the Chateau Laurier. We admired the unity which was evident in that great meeting. It is unfortunate they do not show the same unanimity in the caucus meetings they hold every Wednesday morning, because it seems to me that one member says one thing and another says something quite different; they do not know where they are going. As a result, the Canadian people know they are holding up certain laws which ought to be passed if for no other reason than the need to get on to considering other and more important laws. For example, my hon. friend from York-Simcoe suggested inflation, and who am I to say he is not correct that inflation is a major problem in Canada today? But before we can tackle inflation and the many other government bills that are ready to come before this parliament, we have to get this measure out of the way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend from York-Simcoe asks why. One reason is that the hon. member for St. John's East has said that it is a good bill. So not only does the government say it is a good bill, but members of the hon. member's own party opposite say it is. I know the press says it is a good bill, that television says it is a good bill and so does radio, yet the government is up against members like the hon. member opposite.
March 20, 1974

The chief whip of the opposition party on "Question Period" broadcast on Sunday, March 17, had this to say, and I ask hon. members, particularly of the opposition, to listen:
We are still waiting for legislation and we have been here for two weeks now. We are still waiting for legislation to deal with inflation and the immediate problems thereto and there has been nothing come forward at all. We are on the combines law which has been talked about for years. It is going to take months to get through that combines law.
I say shame. Surely the people of Canada are fed up with this attitude that has become so evident in this House of Commons for the last year or so of deliberately holding up legislation, legislation not only that the government and people of Canada want but in many instances which many members of the chief opposition party want. Yet that is the party that holds up the democratic process, which in my opinion, and I might add in the opinion of many other people, is unfortunate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the hon. member would accept a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter whether it is or not; I am willing to accept a question from my hon. friend at any time, as long as he accepts my answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was wondering whether the hon. member would not agree that the act has two main divisions, one dealing with consumer orientation and the other dealing with the establishment of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and that we have attempted to make it clear that we are not in disagreement with the consumer portion of the bill, whereas we do have misgivings about the corporate side. If the minister would like to divide the bill or somehow deal with it differently, then we can facilitate passage of the consumer provisions without delay.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of my hon. friend, if one may call it that, I would be sympathetic with his views and would suggest that perhaps he might have a question there. But he emphasizes the problem faced by the government. He said that if the bill were divided he would be pleased, as far as he is concerned, to let the bill go through. But that is not what the hon. member for St. John's East, a member on his own side of the House, has said. He did not say that half the bill was worth while; he said that all the bill was worth while, that it gave a lot more than he expected and that it was an important piece of legislation. Let hon. members opposite hold a caucus so they can get together and find out exactly what they want. Then this government, of which I am a backbencher, can bring forward other important pieces of legislation that will benefit all Canadians, not just members of the Liberal Party or opposition parties but the taxpayers of Canada who, after all, are the most important people as far as this country is concerned.
Competition Bill
One of the things that my hon. friend did not mention is this. When I had the honour of being a member of the Ontario legislature, for years this question came up periodically; Can Canada sell trucks to China, or to Russia, or to some country that the United States regarded as an enemy, without getting permission from the United States? That was a very touchy question. Certainly I as a Canadian could never accept such a state of affairs. I have always felt that we should be able to sell manufactured goods, raw materials or any type of goods we wished to sell to foreign countries with whom we were friendly, whenever we wanted to do so, provided a satisfactory deal could be arranged. But in the past such deals have been stopped.
As a matter of fact, only a week or ten days ago there were many questions from members on the opposite side of the House about a proposed sale to Cuba of railway locomotives, and it appeared we had almost to bow to our United States friends and ask the United States government for permission to sell these locomotives to Cuba even though they were made right here in Canada. As far as I am concerned, this is a ridiculous situation. This bill will make it absolutely clear that we as Canadians can sell to any country in the world we wish to. In this regard I have a clipping from the Ottawa Journal reporting that this train deal has gone through. I am sure that all of us, not necessarily as parliamentarians but as Canadians, are proud of this. The report is headed "$14 million train deal: Cuba signs rail pact". It is datelined Journal Wire Services, Miami, Florida, and reads as follows:
Cuba has signed a $14-million contract for 30 railway locomotives with a Canadian firm controlled largely by a U.S. company.
Havana radio, monitored in Miami, said today the pact was signed in the Cuban capital by MLW-Worthington Ltd. of Montreal and the Cuban railway enterprise.
Fifty-two per cent of the Canadian company is controlled by Stude-baker-Worthington Inc. of Harrison, N.J.
The contract had been held up because of U.S. laws prohibiting U.S. firms from doing business with Cuba. But the directors of MLW-Worthington voted earlier this month to pursue the negotiations despite U.S. state department objections.
The sales by U.S. corporate subsidiaries in Canada are likely to stir long-stifled desires of some U.S. companies to do business with Cuba.
More trade would be seen as a step toward eventual resumption of diplomatic relations with Havana.
The embargo on trade with Cuba was proclaimed by President John F. Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962, "in light of the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet communism with which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned."
Under the trading with the enemy act, according to officials, the embargo applies to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations as well as to the parent companies.
What this means is simply this. If the United States had had its way, it would have stopped trade with Cuba as far as Canada is concerned. Without this law, Mr. Speaker, in every instance where a trade agreement was reached or a deal of this sort, as we like to call it, was made, the government would have had to make a special plea to get the deal through. Bill C-7 will make it absolutely legal from now on for us to trade with whomever we wish, and indeed the bill should have been passed many years ago in my opinion. Surely this is something that is good for Canada, yet it is not mentioned by my hon. friends opposite.

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
As a matter of fact, there are many other things in the bill that they have not mentioned. I would be the first to admit that perhaps this is not a perfect bill by any means. My hon. friend believes that the only thing that is perfect is the seat in which he is sitting, but let me tell him that there is no such thing as perfection around here. I am not perfect, and with respect I say to my hon. friend that he is not either. Neither is the government. We have not said that. We are doing the best we can, but we want to get this bill to the committee so members of all parties in this House and the people of Canada can examine it. We do not appreciate the eternal frustration we have had to endure as a result of speaker after speaker from the opposition saying the bill is no good and it should be examined for a few more years.
I am sure you understand, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been before the Canadian parliament and the people for years. If anything is said about this matter at all, perhaps it should be that it should have been passed by this House years ago. Perhaps it should have been passed when our Tory friends were in power. They are great ones to tell us what we should do now, but we should remember that they did not do a darned thing about this matter when they had the opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: There are many provisions of this bill that will be of assistance to the Canadian consumer. I have heard members of my own party and members of other parties in the House, as well as the media on television and over the radio, say there has been misleading advertising in Canada. While this bill is not perfect, and I am the first to admit it, at least it does something to protect the consumer when he buys goods in any store.
Part of the bill deals with warranties and guarantees. I agree with the hon. member for York-Simcoe who pointed out that there is nothing wrong, as a whole, with Canadian business but that unfortunately there is a bad apple in every barrel whether it be in the political or business sense. This country has been built by hardworking people through a system of free enterprise. As a result, we have one of the best systems in the world, with the best standard of living. So I do not want to be too critical of business or offer carte blanche criticism but I do suggest that the odd business takes advantage of the consumer, who will be offered some protection under this measure.
So far as warranties and guarantees are concerned, this measure will make absolutely sure that goods cannot be offered until they have been subjected to adequate tests. We have heard talk of pyramid selling. I agree that these things may be of little consequence in the over-all picture, but they are very important to the individual Canadian. We have also heard talk of referral selling. In this regard, someone may buy a washing machine, and if he gives a list of 25 or 100 prospective purchasers of washing machines he gets the machine cheaper, or for nothing, whatever the case might be. That practice will be banned under this bill.
How many times have we read advertisements of cars for sale saying that the price has been cut by $100, but on going to the agency involved people have found that only
(Mr. Whicher.]
two cars were offered for sale at the reduced price, with the remainder being sold at the original price? That practice will be stopped by this measure, and I am sure my Conservative friends will admit that this will at least offer some protection to individuals who are in the market for a car; they will be sure of the opportunity of buying such a car at the advertised price.
During the last few months we have heard a lot about the practice of double-ticketing, particularly by grocery chains. An article may have sold for 22 cents, but when the housewife goes to purchase it the price has been jacked up to 27 cents, or whatever it might be. From now on, according to the law, when there are two prices on an item, the customer will have the right to purchase the item at the lowest price.
There are many other things covered by this bill, including services. The hon. member for York-Simcoe referred to the fact that there are many lawyers in this House. In my experience in politics I have found this to be necessary because those of us engaged in politics are making and changing laws. However, the fact is that lawyers have shown a tendency to submit to inflationary pressures by charging increased fees for their services. Let me point out that it is certainly not unknown in various areas of Ontario that every lawyer will charge the same fee for the same service. I should like to know whether it is fair that the legal profession should do this. The fact is that lawyers have been able to get away with it, but they will not be able to get away with it in future because services are included in this measure.
Lawyers will no longer be able to get together to create artificial costs for their services. After the passage of this measure, lawyers will not be able to follow this practice, just as glass companies and other companies will not be able to fix prices as many of them have in the past. The fact is that they will be subject to this Canadian law and can be brought into court if they do not live up to it.
It is my opinion that the fines being levied against companies which have been found guilty of collusion in fixing prices contrary to the Combines Investigation Act have been far too low. I hope the fines in respect of such practices in respect of personal services will be substantial because services represent an important part of our economy. I am sure services will be considered within the terms of this measure when it becomes law.
I have no intention of continuing much longer as I think that everything that might be said in respect of this bill has been said not only in this House but outside through the media. I think the bill should be thoroughly examined. Without in any way trying to cut off the debate-I have not the power to do so if I wanted to-I would urge hon. members to send the bill to the committee after a reasonable period of time, say a couple of days, where it can be examined thoroughly.
Before I sit down I should state that I hope members of the official opposition will hold a caucus not only in respect of this bill but all others that come before the House in order that they can decide where they stand, rather than waste the time of parliament and the Canadian people bickering among themselves through not knowing on which side they really stand.
March 20, 1974


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great part of this debate and have read the rest of it, and frankly I am beginning to wonder what the fuss is all about. Among the major protagonists we find the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), whom I regard as the typical Canadian response to Ralph Nader, urging us to pass this omnibus bill to the committee with all possible dispatch. He regards the bill, obviously, as a substantial part of the government's plan to protect our inflation-ravaged consumers.
On the Conservative side, starring roles have been assigned to those staunch defenders of collective bargaining rights, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and, of course, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who essentially say, "Let's go easy," "Why so fast?" or, "Don't hustle this bill into committee in unusual or unseemly haste".
I have heard them and others in that party insist that it is only fair and democratic to give Canada's consumers a chance to prepare briefs for committee presentation. Pity those poor consumers; they need time to prepare arguments, their voices are muted and they are underfinanced. Few, if any, references have been made by the Conservative Party, the hon. member for St. Paul's, the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), about the well-heeled Chamber of Commerce or the CMA's louder voices who will also want to jam the committee with representations to repeat their arguments for the third monotonous time.
As for my position, I honestly do not care much one way or the other. I think Bill C-7 is largely cosmetic or tokenistic. I do not believe that its passage will make very much difference in ensuring improved competition in Canada. And even if it does, I fail to be convinced that the resulting benefits of improved competition-if there are any- will be passed on to the Canadian public. Very impressive, I thought, was the admission of the hon. member for Trinity that in an oligopolistic industrial and commercial society, which is our present one, price leadership and other under-the-table deals were never made in written form. Usually, the hon. member reported, in such instances where price-fixing and combine arrangements were agreed to, they were made among the boys on the golf course, at lunch in the club or in some back room and sometimes hardly a word was spoken. I found that admission particularly revealing and I thought he displayed unusual frankness.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) told us a moment ago that this legislation will do a great deal to protect us from being gouged by lawyers, doctors and glass companies. Under a situation where there is no cartel per se-that is, a formal one-and when only the informal one exists I do not see how this bill can protect us from unwritten professional tariffs.
Another impressive revelation on the subject of competition was made a couple of weeks ago by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who in an equally rare moment of candour admitted that in terms of a Canadian transportation policy, at least, the policy of competition between carriers had been both ineffectual and costly. The whole
Competition Bill
policy appeared to him to be a blunder and we urgently need a new policy. Naturally, when two distinguished members of parliament representing the major political parties, such as on the one hand the hon. member for Trinity who tells us that in industry dominated by a few major firms competition does not occur, and the Minister of Transport who says that in transportation competition has not worked, how does a person's faith in competition remain firm?
I am at once impressed and distressed because both the major parties have been selling the Canadian public on the joys and benefits of competition for as long as I can remember. If competition does not work or does not happen, and when it does happen it does not work, what are we left to believe in? It is shattering, I think. It is like discovering for the first time that there is no Santa Claus.
This bill does little, if anything, to enhance fairness in the marketplace. This came through as the theme of the hon. member for St. Paul's; the bill's passage is not to the benefit or to the detriment of either business or the consumers. And at least that much was implied by the hon. member for Trinity who also said that he will vote for the bill eventually. If Bill C-7 is a "nothing" bill, what is the point of hanging around here for ever and ever debating second reading? I agree with the members of my party, the hon. member for Bruce and the minister who urged us to hurry passage of the bill to the committee for detailed examination. If we just want to hang it up, then that is political strategy in itself. All parties are guilty of that from time to time-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: -except, of course, the Conservative Party! I therefore opt for an early delivery of the bill to the committee so that this House can get down to more crucial matters.
Now, to heed my own advice, I should like to get down to discussion of some aspects of the bill. There are numerous details because this is an omnibus bill which covers a variety of subjects. However, I will limit myself. I should like to discuss only some of the aspects of the bill which I believe require elaboration and explanation. My first reference will be to section 7 on page 5, which requires six persons over the age of 18 to bring forth an application to the director before an inquiry can be launched on an alleged contravention of the Combines Investigation Act. Under paragraph (2) of that section, the rights of those six persons are further limited by requiring them to provide evidence and name names to support their request to the director.
I think the thrust of this section is all wrong. I think it is wrong to leave it up to citizens to prod a possibly reluctant director into action. I think its further limitation is in the evidence-gathering provision, because all of us know that the evidence-gathering abilities and powers of citizen groups or even, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out, small business groups is quite limited and, in addition, evidence-gathering can be costly. At the moment the director is free to respond or not and to remain in his customary comatose posture.
What we need in this country, and what we want is a self-starting, vigorous ongoing monitoring by the commis-
710

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
sion of all aspects of Canadian business and commerce. We need a commission that is busily engaged in launching its own investigations, not waiting for citizen groups to bring infractions to his attention. The commission should be investigating in an ongoing way possible price-fixing, gouging and all the rest of the unfair and criminal business practices wherever they might exist. For instance, citizens may suspect that they are being gouged by a concrete company, a steel company, a sugar company or any other company, and therefore their right to request an investigation should continue to be acknowledged. I have no objection to the provision, but I think that in addition self-initiated investigation should be the constant preoccupation of the director.
Clause 9, dealing with private inquiries, also causes me some concern. Why "private"? Certainly parts of the investigation might benefit from privacy up to a point, but any representation and evidence set before a tribunal should have the full force of publicity as a deterrent to further transgressions. When criminal trials are conducted in this country, except in cases involving minors the cause of justice is better served by public ventilation. We only encourage the law to be broken by in-camera proceedings which protect the reputations of those people who may or may not be wrong. We do not apply the same kind of rules to criminal cases whether the person is subsequently proved guilty or not.
At this point I should like to make a comment or two on restraint of trade which could result in undue restrictions in the Patent Act and the Copyright Act or in general restrictions on profits of intellectual properties. I suppose this sort of thing could be compared to the often repeated story about the carburettor in a Cadillac which would give you 60 miles to a gallon being repressed. While there may be some examples of a limited manufacture, transportation of dissemination of intellectual properties causing either business or consumer economic hardship, the representations which I as a member of parliament most frequently encounter are directed in quite the opposite direction.
When we were considering Bill S-9 in the previous parliament we heard many representations from actors, authors, dramatists, writers and musicians to the effect that inadequate legislation existed in Canada to protect the legitimate interests of the creators of intellectual properties. Suggestions to improve this ranged from readership logs for libraries to more adequate rewards for Canadian writers. We heard about performance fees to compensate Canadian actors and musicians. The then minister, now the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), assured our committee that the whole copyright legislation was being reviewed. Considering the elapse of some two or three years, I can only assume that this review must be exceedingly exhaustive and detailed, because the House has heard no more about that issue. You yourself, sir, now acting as Mr. Deputy Speaker, were involved in those committee deliberations and I am sure you can corroborate what I have to say.
Nothing has happened in the interim despite the fact that one of the major people making representations before the committee at that time was the Minister of

Science (Mrs. Sauve) who was then a private citizen. To date we have heard no more about adequate rewards for Canadian artists' creative and intellectual properties. But while we are on the subject of the recording industry and recording rights societies, may I say it appears to me that the copyright appeal board might well consider a substantial review of the present regulations relating to the payment of fees by radio stations, clubs, Canadian Legion branches and even fairs and exhibitions from which fees are levied by the large performing rights societies such as BMI, an American outfit, and CAPAC, the Canadian equivalent of ASCAP.
I think we can all agree that some of the jukebox radio stations get their most important product, music, dirt cheap through these performing rights societies. But other radio stations which specialize in such things as talk shows and which employ music sparingly pay through the nose for this product because they are asked to pay a 2'/2 percentage of gross fee to U.S. and Canadian performing rights societies. And what about the injustice accorded by our legislation to a non-profit fair or small club which cannot afford a list so that its manager can select between BMI and CAPAC properties? In the United States a fair is considered a non-profit organization and as such is not subjected to these fees.
It is time we had a look at this matter and it is time that through our laws we provided a list of the properties belonging to these performing rights societies so that the manager of a fair, of a club, of a Canadian Legion branch, or even of a radio station can play music for his customers from one or other of these lists. Of course he will have to remit his fees to one or other of the societies, but hopefully the manager would select a Canadian performing rights society such as CAPAC.
I would now like to draw attention to part IV of the bill which deals with those matters "reviewable by the commission." This concerns itself with the preclusion of a person to meet competition because of inability to obtain adequate supplies anywhere in the market on his usual trade terms. I would like to recount the recent experience of a manufacturer in my riding. The case is not at all unusual, and I think it is representative all over western Canada because of western Canada's lack of a steel mill and/or equitable freight rates. Incidentally, I am glad that the Minister of Transport is still in the House.
The story is that my constituent, a steel fabricator, bid on a $250,000 contract for a national company, in this case Air Canada. The contract was for the manufacture of animal cages. When preparing for his bid he was saddened to learn that the raw product, in this case steel wire material, cost $20 a hundredweight imported into Vancouver from Japan. Upon inquiry he discovered that the same grade of wire was produced in Quebec by Sidbec corporation, a government-owned corporation and the grateful recipient of generous federal government grants. Sidbec was selling this steel wire for $10 a hundredweight, or approximately half the cost of the stock imported from Japan. But when my constituent attempted to purchase this wire from Sidbec he was advised that since he had not purchased raw material from that corporation in the past year, and because Sidbec had export commitments-which was later denied-he was not eligible to become a custom-
March 20, 1974

er. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that is what part IV precisely attempts to remedy.
He later discovered that he could buy the wire from a Winnipeg firm, wire allegedly produced in Canada but imported from the United States, at a cost of $14 a hundredweight. What this story points out is that it is virtually impossible for the west to compete in manufacturing with central Canada as long as in the west raw materials are far more expensive and no law enforces the concept of price equity. If this bill helps here, then it is worth while.
Under the loophole clause in 31.2(c) of the same part, "ample supply" as stipulated there would perhaps, I am afraid, enable a supplier to get out from under his obligations because what constitutes ample supply is a very debatable matter. I suppose that any supplier could plead short supply. I find that throughout this bill there are some other very equivocal words and statements which, although they may not be deliberately vague, should be tightened up in committee. As I say, any supplier could plead short supply, somewhat in the same manner as the U.S. oil companies which deliberately refrained from going ahead and building refineries during the past five years. As a result, they can deliberately and accurately plead short supply simply because they have not built the refineries, and premeditated refinery shortage is used as an excuse to raise prices.
With special reference to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), we welcome the reference in proposed new section 32.3 to professional and amateur sport. For far too long sport has been regarded as of no particular concern of government. Of course, other countries have not felt the same way and as a consequence were much quicker to see the cultural, physical and propaganda benefits of sport. Our country has only belatedly begun to interest itself in sports promotion and regulation. It is fair to say that over the past five years we have spent only about half of the annual $6 million budget for fitness and amateur sport. So lethargic has been Canada's approach to sport and fitness that some $15 million allocated over this period was never used for the benefit of our citizens.
In spite of this underspending, Mr. Speaker, I notice that this year the budget is increased to $17 million from $12 million in 1973. I take it that the extra budgeting is somehow related to pre-Olympic preparations. I do not know whether it is for the fitness of our citizens or for hot-housing some athletes-the minister shakes his head- but it is interesting that, not having spent the money budgeted over the past five years under a different minister, now the budget all of a sudden is increased to $17 million. As I say, I find it interesting.
But far outstripping the growth and support for amateur athletics, the past five years have witnessed an outstanding growth in professional sport both here and in the U.S.A. Professional sport is no longer the preoccupation of a few sports-minded hobbyists. Coupled with our affluence, both gate and TV revenues from sport are extremely attractive to the diamond-studded aristocrats who can afford to buy sports franchises in major centres of the continent. There must be a number of these men in North America because the expansion of leagues and frianchises, certainly in football and hockey, is enormous.
Competition Bill
But, I insist, we are no longer dealing with simple game playing but a developing sports industry of major proportions. This major industry, I submit, should be subject to legislation and control, as is any other business. It is a business, and that is why I cannot accept the argument of those people who say it is not the government's business whether the World Football League is allowed a Toronto franchise or whether the proposed $178 million Olympic stadium in Montreal, paid for by the people of Canada, will or will not be the future home of an NFL franchise. A Montreal NFL franchise would be attractive, of course, not to benefit the people of Montreal but for the economic benefit of whichever mogul or covey of private entrepreneurs is successful in securing such franchise.
In supporting the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his attempts to arrive at some solution to American Athletic imperialism, many members of my party are extremely concerned about the future of the Canadian Football League and especially about the community-owned teams in western Canada. We are concerned about the current World Football League player raiding of the CFL, and that is why we back the minister in his stand against the WFL Toronto franchise application.
Incidentally, if some members of the official opposition can justify keeping out American beef to protect the Canadian cattle industry, why can't they extend the same logic to keep the WFL out of Canada? To get back to the sports provisions under section 32.3, while we welcome them I would remind the House that they seem to be a bit equivocal and raise more questions than they adequately answer. The appearance of the word "unreasonably" as in 32.3(1) (a) "to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate as a player," etc., or in section (b) "to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate", or in 32.3(2) (b) "a reasonable balance among teams", seems very subjective to me and naturally subject to a number of interpretations depending upon who is making the determination. As a result, we are not at all sure what the whole section means to professional and amateur sports because in spite of the fact that much explanatory space is given to the other sections of the bill, the pages opposite pages 27 and 28, the sports sections, are blank. There is no explanation at all for the rationale behind the clauses given for members of parliament or the interested sports groups who are following the legislation with much interest.
I suggested that the section raises a great many questions and I will list three. First, will the section disturb the cozy reserve and option clauses which are rampant in pro sports and which have been the subject of much heated controversy both in Canada and the U.S.A. over the years? When I speak of the reserve or option clauses, I am speaking of the extra year after a contract runs out which binds the player to a kind of peonage for one year after he has fulfilled his obligations. I do not know of any other business or vocation where this sort of thing is allowed. It is a practice which was criticized vehemently by the government's task force on sports in their report issued a few years ago.
Second, will this section ensure that cities wishing franchises-like Vancouver which wanted an NHL franchise
27398-46i

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
some years ago-will be guaranteed a reasonable opportunity to receive them? Or will the practice continue that the league governors will be permitted to dally for years as they did in Vancouver's case. Parenthetically, I suspect this section appears at the behest of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs because of the Vancouver situation when the delay in granting the franchise caused the price tag to go from $2 million to $6 million, when it was finally granted to a group of American entrepreneurs. I find a good deal to agree with in the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe about American-owned interests and what the hon. member for Bruce said about the extraterritoriality of foreign loans relating to our own exports.
Third, will the section guarantee that a minor hockey player or team will be allowed to play other hockey teams in organized leagues even if that team is not part of the league? What happens is that certain minor leagues gang up and will not let their teams play against rebel teams even though the boys are in the same age group. It is these questions and many others that are left unanswered in this section on sports. The section indicates merely what certain players and leagues may not do, but nowhere does it spell out in any detail what they may do. For this reason I am certain that at least a dozen sports groups will be anxious to appear before the committee, if we ever get to committee stage.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like the House to know that others besides the hon. member for Trinity are concerned about oligopolies which, as we know, are informal cartels operating in Canada. Oligopolies can result in unfair prices for the Canadian consumer. We have heard from a number of people that there is virtually no way of controlling the excesses of oligopolies either through this bill or through any other legislation. An article in the business section of today's Globe and Mail tends to confirm the suspicion that large, informal cartels do exist, that they co-operate and indulge in price leadership schemes to the detriment of the consumer. It is interesting that firms in the best position to control prices because of limited competition in their respective fields have also shown the best performance in terms of profits for the past year.
What is the answer to this gouging? Certainly not this bill, as there is little in it that deals with today's corporate business realities. This bill will not do it, but I am certain that a flat excess profits tax would be a partial answer and I call on the government to introduce such a measure with all possible haste. What would be wrong with using the returns from an excess profits tax to subsidize food for consumers? Naturally, I do not mean only domestically produced food, but the excess profits tax or the returns from it could be used to subsidize also the food that we import from developing countries. All of us are familiar with those foods-sugar, bananas, oranges and other things not grown in Canada.
Internal cartels are illegal, but external ones are not. In the developing countries, which have a monopoly on certain commodities upon which the world is dependent, we see a flexing of combined muscle, a getting together in an external cartel to ensure themselves a better slice of the world's economic pie. I do not believe we can blame poor countries for that. There is nothing wrong with giving

developing countries a fair price for their products, provided that price in Canada is not increased and inflated by excess profits of our own domestic cartels or informal cartels.
To lower prices we should provide ourselves in this parliament with power, as suggested by my party earlier, to roll back unwarranted price increases; otherwise Bill C-7 will be largely ineffectual as an inflation fighter. It will not help much. I think we should refer the bill to committee as quickly as possible, as I am sure members of my party will agree. Let us close off this debate and deal with the bill's details in committee.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, let me straighten the record. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) more than once in this debate referred to comments made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Let me say that the hon. member for St. John's East has not yet spoken in the debate. Any comments he made were made outside the House or to the press. It is appropriate to record that. Before commenting, the hon. member should wait and see what the hon. member for St. John's East has to say. He should not comment on remarks made outside the House.
I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-7. The title of the bill is somewhat misleading as it suggests that this is a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act, as well as other acts. On reading through the bill you will see that the proposed legislation leaves Canadian banks pretty much alone. When the bill goes to committee I think we should take a really close look at why the Canadian banking system is not to be regulated along with other businesses under the amended Combines Investigation Act.
Before coming to parliament I spent many years in various types of businesses, in manufacturing, in distribution and, in one period, in construction. I have worked with and for relatively large companies, multinational companies and several small companies. What I know about business I learned by doing it. I have had the experience of a large corporation "lifting" a product line from a company I was associated with, merely because the large corporation had decided to follow the policy of vertical integration. Let me say that I would not wish to repeat that experience.
After you have built up a large sales, installation and service organization and find that by a simple boardroom decision 75 per cent of your business is suddenly taken away, you are left feeling very, very empty. When that happened I reached for a book on business law and began to read the Combines Investigation Act. Actually, I consulted some learned friends in the legal profession, only to be told that they had rarely consulted the act since leaving law school. I found, after inquiring, that if I wanted advice on the Combines Investigation Act I would have to go to Toronto. Although my office was some distance from Toronto, I found that if I wanted advice I would really have to go there because that was where the action was.
March 20, 1974

The changes in the act are timely, but I cannot stress too strongly that we should proceed with extreme caution for there is much more to this bill than meets the eye. I have spent a good deal of my business life making businesses work, making them operate better, making them operate more profitably and efficiently. I have turned businesses that were in serious trouble and making losses around until they broke even and then made profits. There are no academic courses on this. There are few guidebooks to follow. It is a job you accomplish with the application of common sense and looking reality in the face during this process. That is the procedure we should follow here. We should look reality in the face when we discuss this bill in the House and particularly in committee.
I have mentioned the foregoing because my approach to this debate and these amendments is not that of the legal expert or of the idealistic academic whose concept of business never seems to go beyond a flow chart. My approach is that of a practical, practising businessman for I am still involved in the operation of a business. I mentioned just now that I will want to hear argument in committee to show why we should not include the banks under this legislation. I think this is a very serious matter for if there is one group that should be examined closely by the committee, it is the group of banks making up the Canadian banking system. The banking business is probably without exception the most pampered, catered to and protected business in this country. Leaving the supervision of competition in the banking business to the Inspector General of Banks is just pure sham as far as I am concerned.
Let us see, for example, how the various banks handle loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I ask any member to go to the local branch of a chartered bank and ask about a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act or any similar type of legislation. The manager will see you and tell you first of all that you do not qualify because he does not really want to lend you money under such legislation. Why should he lend you money at 814 per cent, the rate presently set under such legislation, when the going rate for bank loans is 10 per cent or 11 per cent? Even the Industrial Development Bank, which charges rates well beyond those charged by the chartered banks, never advises the use of the Small Businesses Loans Act. The IDB has a form which it asks you to sign. It says that you have been unable to get financing from private, commercial sources and you are therefore applying to that bank. In other words they are saying, "We are not supposed to be in competition with the chartered banks."
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that many chartered banks refer clients to the Industrial Development Bank or to similar provincial agencies. It is well known to anyone who has ever floated a loan with IDB that your bank manager and the IDB people put their heads together very closely. You will find various tactics used by the chartered banks to discourage small businessmen from availing themselves of the facilities of the Small Businesses Loans Act. I am bringing this fact into the discussion on this bill which is to amend the Combines Investigation Act because to my mind and the minds of many small businessmen there is a conspiracy afoot.
Competition Bill
As I said, you will find various tactics used by the chartered banks. A favourite tactic is referring you to a small branch bank which is remote from the downtown business centre. If your business is in a downtown area of a large urban centre, the bank will say, "Yes, we can handle the loan, but you will have to go to our branch bank." It may be four or five miles away. In other words, they will make it as inconvenient as possible for you to use the facilities of the act.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has been less than helpful in this matter. I have asked him in the House and in committee about the inability of many small businessmen to get loans under the act, and about the practices of the chartered banks in connection with the Small Businesses Loans Act. Let me read into the record, if I may, the reply given to me in committee by the deputy minister. I had been reassured that the minister was again going to look into this matter of banks not giving small businessmen a good break with regard to the Small Businesses Loans Act. He told me he was going to have a chat when he had lunch with the chairman of the Canadian Bankers Association and would see what they could do. That did not reassure me at all.
At the committee meeting I asked the deputy minister the current rate for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. He could not tell me offhand. I do not say that as a criticism; I realize he has many more things to think about in these times. I eventually got a reply. This is the reply that came through to my office. I wonder whether hon. members can decipher it better than I can. I quote from the Canada Gazette, part II, volume 102, November 27, 1968, page 523. Under item 2 it reads:
The base rate for each interest period shall be equal to the simple arithmetic mean of the Wednesday closing mid-market yields for all Wednesdays in the averaging period immediately preceding the interest period as computed from the yields as published by the Bank of Canada on all Government of Canada bonds payable in Canadian currency and due to mature in one to ten years, rounded to the nearest one-quarter of one per cent or, if the result would be equidistant from two multiples of one-quarter of one per cent, to that multiple thereof that is the lower.
I asked someone the interest rate. He said he would write me. That is what I got in the mail. Hon. members must admit that is hardly very helpful. I leaned a bit heavily on the Department of Finance. We had a few words over the telephone. I eventually received something that said in fact the rate was 814 per cent and that it was adjusted on March 31 and October 1 each year, based on the average yield of government bonds. This is what all that means. I took that quotation to a banker and asked if he could tell me the rate from looking at government bonds. He replied that he could not. I took it to an economist; he was unable to decipher it.
Before I leave the bank provisions of Bill C-7, let me press this point a little further. I think that statistics with regard to the Small Businesses Loans Act bear out what I am saying. The average loan in 1972 was $9,000, below the limit of $25,000. I might point out that a new bill was given first reading in this House which, among other things, will raise the limit to $50,000. I certainly welcome that. I hope that after we have a chance to look at that bill we will be

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
able to facilitate many more small businessmen with these loans.
For the calendar year 1972 there was a total of 2,846 loans made to small businessmen in Canada. I can guarantee that in any large urban centre in Canada any one bank could make 2,846 loans. It is interesting to see the distribution of these loans. It is as follows: British Columbia, 456; Alberta, 275; Saskatchewan, 174; Manitoba, 133; Ontario, 596; Quebec, 1,096; New Brunswick, 45; Nova Scotia, 37; Prince Edward Island, 31; Newfoundland, 5. There was one in the Yukon and two in the Northwest Territories. That makes a total of 2,846 loans for the whole year throughout all of Canada.
I have a question which I hope the minister will answer when we get into committee. Will the provisions under section 31.2 of this act, refusal to deal, apply to a bank? If all we can do is underwrite 2,846 loans to small businesses in one year, when there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses operating in Canada today, there is evidence of a conspiracy on the part of the banks, and perhaps even the Department of Finance, to restrict these loans. There have certainly been enough questions put to the minister on this subject, but we have never had a clearcut answer.
I will now move on to other matters. Contrary to the views of some members opposite and their colleagues in the NDP, I do not feel we should rush this bill. The hon. member for Bruce implied that we were holding up the bill. This legislation in various forms was before this House in 1971 and 1972 as Bill C-256, last October as Bill C-227 and now as Bill C-7. It is only fair to remark that it is the government's responsibility to bring in legislation. It is not the responsibility of the opposition. The government has the responsibility to put legislation on the order paper, not the opposition. If Bill C-227 had been introduced earlier last year, it probably could have been sent to committee. It may have passed last year. The responsibility for introducing legislation in this House rests strictly on the government. When the hon. member for Bruce implied we were holding up the bill, he was not quite as straightforward as usual.
I am worried about this bill. Any piece of legislation that will affect the sale or distribution of products in this country deserves a really good look. Irreparable damage could be done to a system which although perhaps faulty in places has served the people of this country well. I am not saying there is no room for improvement; there is always room to improve anything. In my business experience I have met businessmen from all walks of life. The vast majority are honest, sincere, law-abiding people. They contribute greatly to the economic and cultural life of Canada. They are proud of their achievements in business and the part they play in the life of the community. You will find them at various times of the week at Rotary, Lions, Optimists or Kinsmen clubs performing a public service to their community.


An hon. Member:: What about the Rideau Club?


William James Kempling: Yes, and possibly the Rideau Club. Any attempt to rush this bill through its various stages could do damage to the consumer as well as the supplier, manufacturer and business community. There is a supply prob-

lem in many product lines today. The thrust of this bill implies that the interests of the consumer will be best served if price competition is maximized and by this action the problems of the consumer will be lessened if more competition is created by applying the "refusal to deal" section of this bill.
The drafters of this bill are saying that by creating more competition the consumer will have lower prices. This is what they are implying. That is not necessarily true. They seem to be saying that by providing protection from pyramid sales, bait and switch, product guarantees and warranties, the consumer will be protected and will in effect get the most for the least. As many members know, many provinces have this legislation in effect today. I feel the people who drafted this bill have only an academic knowledge of the Canadian marketplace. Price is only part of a transaction. A sale is a two-way transaction. There is hardly anyone in a legitimate business who does not want return customers. The whole idea of a business is to develop a market, which means creating or supplying products or services which people will purchase over and over again.
I do not believe anyone ever designed or invented or created or caused to be manufactured a product or article by first looking at what the law said he could or could not do with that product or article. I do know that the universally accepted practice of purchasing low bid has caused products to be designed or manufactured to minimum specifications, and that the consumer has been the lower. Eventually machinery is designed to these standards and in the long run both consumers and taxpayers are the losers.
Millions are spent each year in researching and developing products and on trademarks and patents, product testing and market research, to put into the marketplace products which will be serviceable, useful and attractive enough to cause consumers to purchase them again as required. Yet the bill before us implies that trademarks, patents and brand names could become worthless if the refusal to deal provision is not clearly defined. The bill does not say refusal to deal is an offence, but that it is subject to review.
Another clause mentions injunctions against someone refusing to deal. I think clearly defined explanations of this clause, together with examples, must be forthcoming. At stake here is the distribution in Canada-a unique system. Because of the nature of our geography, market dimensions of roughly 2,500 miles in width and 200 miles in depth, market practices exist here which are not found in other countries. They have been developed to suit our particular geography.
Consider the machinery business, for example. In order that a manufacturer of machinery may offer proper technical and service representation in a remote market area, it may be necessary for him to arrange to grant exclusive distribution rights. It may be necessary for the manufacturer of a product to agree to select a dealer to sell his products exclusively because the market will only support one dealer. The dealer may quite rightly demand an exclusive arrangement with the manufacturer and distributor
March 20, 1974

in order to justify the cost of product inventory, service parts inventory and technical staff for servicing.
Some segments of our distribution system may become a jungle if the right to deal provisions set forth in this bill are not closely examined and defined. This will certainly not be to the benefit of the consumer. It might well be that a complete segment of the sales and service industry which supports and sustains our manufacturers could be seriously jeopardized. Again, the consumer would not be well served by such a development.
Consignment selling has been mentioned and the practice has been questioned. Mr. Speaker, there is scarcely a manufacturer or distributor who has not at some time been offered goods on consignment or been asked for consignment inventory. The suggestion has been made that this is wrong, that the consignee may be caused by the consignor to act in a certain way. This is possible, but usually the consignor is acting as banker for the consignee as a result of the monetary and fiscal policy of the government which subsequently becomes the loan policy of the chartered banks. The effect of this policy is that the consignee cannot get access to the necessary financing.
We say without fear of contradiction that the banks in this country have not kept pace with the changes which have taken place in manufacturing and distribution in Canada. Examination of most manufacturing processes reveals that the marketing arm of the manufacturer requires that someone in the distribution stream forecast annual requirements so that production runs may be planned. It may well be that the fiscal and monetary policy of the government is designed to cool out the economy. The dealer downstream finds he cannot get financing for his industry from the banks, and consequently he asks the manufacturer for a consignment inventory.
The question which comes to mind at this point is: Where is the fault? Does it lie with the banking system or with the manufacturer? I do not deny there have been occasions on which dealers have been pressured by manufacturers to get rid of the items in the inventory at a certain price. Other sanctions may be imposed in these circumstances. But in my opinion this is a rather rare practice today. I agree, though, that this is a matter which one should take into account, not superficially-let us not rush it through-but we should take the time to hear competent witnesses who can discuss all these matters in committee.
Most dealers establish a line of credit at their banks. The collateral they offer consists of accounts receivable and negotiable securities, in most cases, plus personal guarantee. In other jurisdictions the inventory which will be acquired may be offered as security under certain circumstances, but in Canada the Bank Act does not allow this. The act does, however, under section 88, allow a manufacturer to offer raw material and unfinished inventory as collateral, but no such provision exists for the dealer downstream. In these circumstances it is possible for some questionable practices to be engaged in as between manufacturers and marketing dealers. The situation bears looking into, though, as I said earlier, we should also inquire into the banking facilities made available to the dealer.
Competition Bill
There is also the question of provincial licensing as it affects some areas of machinery sales. In many provinces licensing bodies to protect the consumer and see that machinery is repaired and serviced by competent people have long been established. The automobile industry is a good example. Garages are required to be licensed and in a number of provinces automotive mechanics are required to possess licences before they can repair or service motor vehicles. We must examine carefully the provincial implications of certain of the provisions contained in the bill before us. I realize the minister has sent copies of the bill to all the provinces, and no doubt submissions will be made to him. But this is an area in which no confusion should be allowed to arise. In considering legislation of this kind where both federal and provincial jurisdiction is involved, we should move carefully and do our best to bring all requirements into harmony and make it smoothworking for the benefit of all.
Another point I should like to discuss is the right of the supplier to choose his customers as he sees fit. It is the only way to ensure a stable market in some products. The consumer may be better served if sellers compete with quality of service rather than price alone. It may well be that there are products with regard to which the manufacturers feel their customers' only concern is price, and that quality of service, service after sale, warranties and so forth are not necessary. But the decision should be determined by market forces and conditions, not by rules established by an act of parliament and interpreted loosely by a quasi-judicial group. The right of a manufacturer or distributor to select his customer is a long established business practice. I do not know of one jurisdiction in what we call the free world where this practice does not exist. I have travelled and done business in 31 different countries and I know whereof I speak.
One need only examine the distribution system to see the disruption that will be caused if the right to deal section of the bill is not given the closest scrutiny. For example, manufacturer A could establish distribution of a technical product that requires a high level of skill to market. He may invest money and considerable time in downstream distribution processes, assuring that the dealers he selects have adequate financing and technical know-how to sell, install and service his product. Manufacturer B who has a similar or competitive product, but does not have the desire or resources to market his product in this way, will now find that under the provisions of this bill he can market his product through the distribution system of manufacturer A. In my view, if the refusal to deal section of the bill is strictly enforced, manufacturer A would be discriminated against.
Everyone recognizes that there are price levels. We all recall the famous statement that what this country needs is a good ten-cent cigar. There are many people who are prepared to pay only a certain amount for a given product. We should be cautious not to enact any regulations that will circumvent patents, trademarks and brand name products. As I read this bill, it could be necessary for manufacturers, under the refusal to deal section, to sell a proprietary product that they have been manufacturing under a brand name to anyone who feels that he is being

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
denied a share of the market and who meets the other terms and regulations regarding conditions of sale. This is bound to create problems with other statutes and regulations and I am sure would work to the disadvantage of the consumer in the long run.
The section of Bill C-7 dealing with services demands that there be a period of time allowed for adequate consultation with the provinces. Some provinces have legislation covering the fees of some service groups. Some provinces have legislation pending. I believe that we should approach the matter of services in the fullest spirit of co-operation with the provinces so that the final regulations will meld or dovetail with provincial legislation, to the advantage both of those in the service field and those who use the services offered.
It seems to me that since coming to this House much of the legislation presented has had an underlying direction away from the courts or parliament, that it tends to endeavour to place quasi-judicial power in the hands of boards or commissions. I do not disagree that much of the technology of today is beyond the competence of the courts, and I do not find fault with this particular process provided the right of appeal is given to those persons who are the object of the rulings of a group such as the Restricted Trade Practices Commission. But I do object to legislation that in fact removes the power to act from the courts and from parliament.
There has been concern expressed by business groups across the country over the powers that will be given to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to regulate Canadian business. These business groups, indeed any group or individual, must be given an opportunity to express their views and to request the exact terms of reference and powers to be given to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It is not enough to suggest, as some members of the NDP have suggested, that because Bill C-256 was discussed by the business community, enough representations have been made and that those representations should serve for Bill C-7. That is not consistent. I agree with my colleagues that adequate time must be given to allow for discussion of the bill and for representations to be made by the business community and the service industry as well as by professional sport.
Recently we had the example of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) telling the House that under the Transport Act he cannot remedy certain situations because he does not have the power to act. We do not want another situation like that, and this is why I suggest a more cautious approach here so we are sure to cover the matter thoroughly.
We find reference in the bill to amateur sports, and I should like to read into the record a letter recently received from a constituent of mine that is typical of a number of letters that I have received on this subject. I know other members are going to speak about professional sports, but this is a letter that I received on March 14 last:
Dear Mr. Kempling: This is the first time that I have written my member of parliament about a subject which concerns me. Since this is a "first" in my 20 years of electing people to parliament, I trust that will indicate the degree of my concern.
I am most disturbed over the attitude taken by Mr. Lalonde towards the Toronto Northmen. Firstly, let me state without qualification that I am a supporter of the Canadian Football League and have been since I

first started regularly attending games in the late 1940s. I intend to continue this support even with a WFL team in Toronto.
What bothers me is having my freedom of choice legislated away. Giving people, by government law, only one choice whether it be football games, newspapers, beer or toothpaste is to me a very dangerous course to embark upon. The right to compete and offer an alternative product is basic to our way of life.
I am afraid I cannot accept this image of the CFL as being a great Canadian institution with 90 per cent of the coaches and general managers and 50 per cent of the players being American. The teams in the east are private enterprise situations and are in the "football business" with the hope of making a profit. Surely the Northmen are entitled to the same right.
If the CFL is going to survive, as I think it will, it must be on the basis of the calibre of their product and not the fact that they are a government backed monopoly. It is the right of the public to choose where they spend their sports/entertainment dollar.
Surely with unresolved problems like unemployment, inflation and welfare abuses, the government of Canada has more important issues to command their attention. The CFL is a great thing but not deserving of becoming a government protected monopoly if it is done at the expense of eliminating the personal right of choice of millions of southern Ontario citizens.
That is signed by my constituent, Mr. Jack G. Williams, and 1 think it expresses adequately my feelings on this matter.
I see my time is drawing to a close, so in the remaining 60 seconds I should like to say that another section of the bill that I am concerned about is the part dealing with the power of the commission to forbid foreign judgments or court orders directing Canadian subsidiaries away from export trade. I really do not think we are handling this in the right way. Quite frankly, I doubt whether the decision of a board or commission would have any effect on United States law. I do not believe this provision will be effective. I believe that this section of the bill has to be negotiated at the highest level in this country and in the United States before we can resolve the matter. With that remark, Mr. Speaker, I conclude.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 which we are debating today on second reading has the following rather cumbersome title:
An act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
It seems more and more to be referred to as the consumer protection bill. I want to deal this afternoon with two particular aspects. Amendments in this bill are aimed at bringing improved benefits to consumers, small businessmen and to Canadians in general. The principal features of the bill include additional measures to deal with undesirable trade and advertising practices and the creation of a new civil function of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission enabling it to issue orders to modify or prohibit certain trade practices put before it, and provisions that would bring services in general under the legislation.
A major concern of the construction industry is that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will apparently have wide discretion in determining what acts or practices are to be entertained as complaints and considered prohibitive. There are very long standing trade practices and procedures in the construction industry which could
March 20, 1974

be considered suspect unless qualified, and therefore the commission must be regulated.
The clauses to amend the Combines Investigation Act could create several new offences, including bid rigging. The practice is defined as either an agreement to refrain from bidding in response to calls or the submission of bids or tenders arrived at by collusion, and the prohibition against the practice will extend to services as well as physical articles. The proposed revision to the act is expected to make it easier to prosecute in cases involving bid rigging because it relieves the Crown from having to prove that the practice lessens competition unduly, as is currently required. Generally, proof of undueness has rested upon showing that the participating firms had substantial market control. However, cases of bid rigging that come to the attention of the Director ofTnvestigation and Research sometimes involve only local firms with a small share of the construction market. Because of the requirement of proving that rigging of construction bids would have an undue effect upon competition, successful prosecutions of these practices have been thwarted.
The bill's proposal to remove this hindrance to bid rigging prosecutions by making the practice per se an offence flows from a recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada in its interim report on competition policy. It recommended that section 32 of the Combines Investigation Act be revised and suggested that bid rigging is a practice that could surely be prohibited without any qualification whatsoever. The construction industry agrees that bid rigging per se must be prohibited, but the terminology referring to collusion, conspires, combines, etc., all used in the same sense, must be clarified. An honest agreement or arrangement between builders with the owner's knowledge could mistakenly be considered a breach. If the owner or customer initiates or is aware of agreements between contractors, this should not be prohibited.
The bill now makes so-called bid rigging an offence. The Canadian Construction Association has stressed that the application of this provision to the contracting sector of the industry would go beyond the required prohibition and could adversely affect competitive tendering procedures. The vast bulk of construction work is carried out on the basis of competitive tenders submitted by prime and subtrade contractors. This involves the allocation of expensive resources for each individual tender call inasmuch as there is no homogeneity in construction and design, location, topography, weather and supply conditions all affect the bid amount.
Tenders are based on plans and specifications which on many projects are extremely complex and may require special explanation to enable bidders to tender competitively and equitably. Pre-tender conferences are very often convened by the owner or his consultant designers to clarify many aspects of the project. In some instances, agreements between the owner or his agent on the one hand and the tenderers on the other are necessitated by the complexity of a particular tender call. Such agreements should in no way be considered as being either price fixing or bid rigging, but could be construed as coming within the intent of section 32.2.
Competition Bill
In connection with bid rigging, I feel it might be just as well at this moment to give two very specific situations which under the present act could quite easily lead to the prosecution of the participants. I am going to use instances in the cities of Toronto and Montreal, and I do not want that be construed as the expression of an anti-west sentiment. When tenders were called in respect of the new Toronto city hall-I guess it could still be termed new- the construction industry considered that the conditions imposed by the city were grossly unfair and could lead to all kinds of abuses by the owner, the city of Toronto. After meeting together, the group of tenderers agreed among themselves, with the full knowledge of the construction industry, to include in their tenders a qualifying clause. It is interesting to note that when these tenders were opened it was found that one general contractor had decided not to include the qualifying clause. His was not the lowest bid; nevertheless, the city of Toronto awarded this contract to the contractor who did not qualify his tender. The contractor lost a small fortune in the construction of the Toronto city hall and the company is now bankrupt.
The other instance, in what I like to term as my file of the city of Montreal concerns, relates to Expo '67. At the beginning of this mammoth construction program representatives of the construction industry met and discussed the terms and conditions under which the contractors would be obliged to bid for work on the Expo site. The terms and conditions were considered unacceptable to the industry and could only lead to disastrous consequences, either financial or, what would be even worse, the failure to complete construction on time ready for the opening. As a result, all members of the Montreal Construction Association in unity agreed that there would be a qualifying clause in their tenders.
They all used the same wording which, I submit, under the legislation as it is before us today could very easily have led to prosecution. When the tenders were opened, there was no choice; there was unity in the industry. All tenders included a qualifying clause. The result was that the purchaser, the corporation of Expo '67, recognized that it was not going to be able to proceed in the fashion that it intended; it had to take a more reasonable approach to the construction industry. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the result was a fantastic success in that the contractors were able to complete that huge undertaking on time, and most of them with a reasonable profit margin.
The bill before us also states that a company can be forced to deal on usual trade terms. The construction association suggests that there is really no such usual arrangement in the industry and that the question of reputation, financial status and payment practices all pertain.
Referring to allowances, discounts, etc., this brings us to the question of the buyer's over-all reputation, financial status, volume of business and the like. No businessman should be forced to do business with all would-be customers. Financial institutions are permitted to grant favourable interest rates on comparative risks. The construction industry should be afforded the same privileges and permitted to evaluate customers. Again, the Canadian Con-

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
struction Association recommends that those agreements related to the clarification of tendering provisions made with the full knowledge and consent of the owner or his agent should be expressly exempted in the interests of efficient and economical tendering practices. They further request that the necessary practice of evaluating whether a customer is bona fide, together with the other risks of undertaking a project resulting in differing prices, not be the subject of discrimination charges.
I think there must be very few subcontractors in this country today who would not readily admit that the amount of profit they are likely to make on any one project can vary enormously depending on who the general contractor may be. It depends on such factors as the scheduling of the general contractor, his efficiency in keeping the site clean, the manner in which he provides access to the site, the ease and the timing in providing equipment for hauling materials to higher levels, and so on. All these factors have a tremendous influence on whether a subcontractor will make a profit or a loss.
Unfortunately, in the public image the contracting business is big profit business. This comes about from the fact that it is a very high-risk business. It is acknowledged that in some instances a general contractor and his subcontractors can make what might be considered, on a percentage basis, high profits. However, because of the fact that it is a high-risk business, these high profits have to be balanced against losses or often jobs on which the margin is negligible. I might refer hon. members to an interesting study that was done in my company several years ago. We found that by taking all the projects that we had undertaken over a period of several years and looking at the profit margins, if we had had the foresight-or call it ability if you like, but there is a certain amount of luck in the construction industry also-to have picked only the profitable jobs, we would have done about one-third of the total volume of work and we and our partners in the company would have been millionaires. I can assure you that that situation does not exist; I am not in that fortunate category today. All I want to emphasize is that in the construction industry we have to permit more discretion than is applicable in other lines of business.
The minister, in speaking of the situation where some contractors are not considered to be good business risks and would therefore not receive bids from subcontractors at the same level as contractors enjoying their full confidence, admitted that this might well constitute a breach of section 34(1) of the act. In other words, a subcontractor might be forced into a position of loss. I think this is contrary to the intention of the act.
I want to speak now about the complaints of small businessmen in connection with this bill. Small businessmen are clamouring to protect themselves from the growth of large corporations. They are particularly concerned about two practices-predatory pricing and loss leader selling. Let us look at section 31(4) of the bill, which is new. It deals with tied sales, exclusive dealing and market restriction imposed by a supplier of products. The government's view is that while these practices are often acceptable business methods, they may in other instances have an adverse effect upon competition, especially when

engaged in by a major supplier or when they are widespread in a given market.
The common objection is that they prevent the free operation of market forces and consumers' choice. Accordingly, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would be empowered under the amendments to review such situations and to make remedial orders as required. The term "market restriction" has been adopted for the practice in which a supplier requires his customer to sell only in a prescribed market area or to pay a penalty for selling outside it. One European car manufacturer adopted it and allotted precisely defined territories to his dealers. This discouraged dealers from seeking business outside their allotted area and had the effect of depriving customers of effective price competition for that particular product.
Under his system, dealers who sold outside their franchise area had to pay part of their profit margin to the dealer in whose territories the customers resided. I must say that in this particular proposed amendment I am most pleased to see that provision is made to terminate this market restriction, because at the present time-again referring to the construction industry-we are aware that by agreement, or perhaps by chance, suppliers will find it more economical to supply in areas near their warehouses and supply depots, so that the materials in short supply in the construction industry at the present time are being restricted by region, thus making it impossible for contractors to obtain competitive pricing when in effect there is only one supplier open to them.
The term "tied sales" describes the situation where a supplier requires his customer to purchase a second product as a condition of being supplied with the product he really wants. One example of this is where a film distributor requires exhibitors to rent additional films in order to obtain the film of their choice. Another example is where makers of machinery have made it a condition of sale or rent that supplies used in connection with the machinery be obtained only from them. Tied sales also extend to a requirement that the product not be used in combination with some other product. This covers a situation where more favourable terms of sale are offered in order to induce the customer to engage in the tying arrangement.
Again referring to the construction industry, there is a practice common at the present time where, for example, if one wants to buy insulation material the supplier may state that the customer must stay with a particular brand and purchase other materials which he is already purchasing elsewhere. So at the present time we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where a contractor, placing an order for materials that are quite plentiful, suddenly finds a tied sale condition imposed upon him, and in certain instances he has had to return materials already delivered to his construction site to the original supplier and receive alternative materials from the supplier of materials which are not in plentiful supply.
Exclusive dealing and tied selling are dealt with in section 31.4(1) of the proposed amendments which include certain criteria for the guidance of the commissioners. The commission would not prohibit the practice where it is found that an exclusive dealing or market restriction
March 20, 1974

arrangement is temporary and for the purpose of facilitating the entry of a new product onto the market or where there is some technological justification for it. Exclusive dealing takes place when a supplier requires his customer to buy certain products only from him, or from someone he nominates, or when he induces his customer to do so by giving him more favourable terms. Farm implement companies, for example, have required their retail dealers to stop selling the products of competing manufacturers, some of whom specialize in a few products not constituting a full line. The tendency of this is to deprive the market of products which are in demand and which would produce needed price competition in the market. Major oil companies have also engaged in exclusive dealing. This practice can damage competition if it unfairly prevents other suppliers from having access to outlets.
It has been brought to my attention, and I think it is worth mentioning here, that there is one practice which has not been dealt with in this proposed section and, if I may, I will read the complaint of the National Association of Tobacco and Confectionery Distributors as follows: [Translation]
The distribution industry for tobacco products, preserves and miscellaneous goods greatly contributes to the welfare of the consumer by its efficient distribution system at economical prices through small retailers and other retail centres.
This system and its benefits for the consumer are being threatened by the tactics of the large distribution chain predators. No present or proposed legislation offers any protection against these tactics, of which the most serious is the use of loss leaders.
Not only must we protect the competitive structure against the acts of predators, but also promote the system by allowing the additional functions and services that it provides to be recognized.
We suggest two basic changes to the Combines Act: one to prevent the use of loss leaders, not only when this is an established policy, but also in the case of repeated offers, and the other to enable the suppliers to offer functional discounts for additional services.

I felt it best, in dealing with this bill this afternoon, to concentrate on one or two particular points. I am also aware that the minister has received many representations. I am personally somewhat disappointed that Bill C-7 is a reprint of Bill C-227 which was presented to the House in the last session, but I am assured that reasonable changes will be discussed and amendments proposed in committee. It is my belief that with the co-operation of all parties we should be able to produce a good bill, and therefore I recommend passage of the bill on second reading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think some answer should be given to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who spoke earlier today. He suggested there should not be any debate and said the bill should go to committee as soon as possible. There is a purpose for debate in the House of Commons; it is to make the country aware of just what is intended in a bill and how a bill will affect people's lives and livelihood.
This bill touches on many things. It is a bit of an omnibus bill in a sense, covering a number of things. It has what is called a consumers' section, it includes some changes to the Bank Act and proposes changes in competition among corporations. It also reaches into the amateur and professional sports field. It will affect a wide number
Competition Bill
of people throughout Canada in various occupations and walks of life. All bills discussed in parliament go to committees where they are studied. Interested parties can appear before committees, ask for changes and demand clarification of certain provisions in order to determine how they will be affected by a particular bill.
Many governments believe that pieces of legislation will affect the community or the country in such and such a manner and then, as soon as the legislation is passed, to their surprise and amazement it has the opposite, or the wrong effect. We see a glaring example of that today. In his concern for the livestock industry, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) convinced the cabinet that they should offer a subsidy of 7 cents per pound for beef sold in Canada. I am sure that his intentions were the very best and he really wanted to help the livestock industry. But his action has caused chaos and hardly any cattle have been sold in auction marts across Canada for the past three days. This was done by order in council, a short-term method by which governments can impose their will upon the people. Legislation is harder to bring in and harder to change.
I do not think members of parliament should ever be apologetic about looking at legislation which the government wants to implement. We should take the time to understand it and to explain it to the country so that the people will know exactly how they will be affected by it. That is particularly true of a bill as encompassing as this one. People and groups should be alerted so that they can seek permission to come before the committee to present their views and have some of their fears set aside.
There is no question that the development of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in recent years has brought safety measures and improvements to products offered for sale on the Canadian market. But as legislators I think we should ask if it has paid for itself. Has the safety that it has brought to the Canadian consumer cost too much? The more security, the more safety measures we have, the more difficult it is to manufacture a product and to meet government requirements.
I am sure that if a survey was sent around the food processing industry asking for their biggest complaint with government today, the first would be that too many forms have to be filled out. That is not so difficult for a firm like General Motors. They hire a lot of secretaries anyway, so I suppose they just hire one more to work for the government. But for a small concern it is pretty difficult to fill out all these forms and it adds to the cost of the product. We must make certain that consumers are going to get a fair deal and also a safe product.
I think all of us feel that Canada is one of the most fortunate countries in the world. Very few of our people are illiterate. But the higher the standard of education, the more knowledgeable the buyer should be, the more capable the buyer should be and the more able to determine what he wants to buy. If a poor product comes on the market, an educated buyer should be able to reject it and, if it does not sell, the company either goes broke or changes the product. That is the principle to which I have always subscribed. But if you have a society where 97 per

March 20, 1974
Competition Bill
cent of the people do not have a higher education, then the government should move in and attempt to protect them from the sharp dealers, the pyramid sellers and all the rest. If you have the direct reverse, a highly educated society, I think you need less and less of this type of protection.
This bill deals with a lot of things. It has tried to outlaw pyramid selling, which I am not in favour of but I think it is a recognizable practice and people should be able to reject it. If the government wants to pass laws prohibiting it, however, I guess I would support that. We have price maintenance and a number of other things in this legislation, as well as a section dealing with amateur sports. There are many would-be athletes, many retired athletes in this House and many people sympathetic to the younger generation, who feel that we must do something to control this contracting of amateurs and younger people in our society. One could become very sympathetic toward the youth of society, but of course there is another side to the story.
There used to be only 16 teams in the NHL and many of us felt that there should be more. Many hockey players could have made the NHL if there had been more teams. Competition actually broke the close combine that operated in those 16 teams-competition and the demand for entertainment. On this continent we now have 28 professional hockey teams. I do not think the calibre of play is as good as it used to be, but certainly we must encourage a great many hockey players. Canada can be proud of its record in this sport. We are training a lot of hockey players to meet the demands of the 28 professional teams. For this training we have to build arenas, and many parents have to give freely of their time.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I should like to expound a great deal further on this bill and I hope I will be in the House when it is next debated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 21, 1974