1974-03-29

VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday members of all parties in this House gave unanimous consent wherever it was necessary and co-operated thoroughly so that Bill C-17 could be passed through all its stages. Bill C-17 is the bill that extends the Veterans Land Act which otherwise would expire, or at least certain of its provisions would expire, on March 31.
I think it is generally understood that one of the reasons for yesterday's co-operation was so that this bill could be dealt with in the other place, finally passed and given Royal Assent before March 31. I have discovered this morning, Sir, that the Senate adjourned yesterday afternoon until eight o'clock Tuesday evening.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Paproski:: Abolish the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize, Sir, that this House has no control over the other place unless we take the suggestion of my good friend from Edmonton Centre. However, the leader of the Senate is a member of the cabinet and therefore I believe it would be the will of this House to call upon the government to suggest to the leader of the government in the other place that that House should meet today or on Monday to deal with this legislation. I realize that no veteran will lose a grant because of this delay of two or three days, but the Senate knew the Veterans Land Act was coming to it-it is on the record-and its action is an insult not only to the members of this House but to the veterans of Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) and in accordance with my undertaking given to the House on February 19 and May 29, 1973,1 wish to table the
interim report of the Tax Measures Review Committee in both official languages.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the consent of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the revelation yesterday that in fact there had been a study by the government of the lobster fishery in Nova Scotia and a report presented to the Department of Fisheries about the middle of last year which has not yet seen the light of day. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls upon the government forthwith to table the report arising out of the study made, as a result of the commitment by the Prime Minister in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, in July, 1971, into the relationship between the deep sea and the inshore lobster fishery in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

[DOT] (mo)


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that an official Canadian delegation will participate in the events in France this June commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the Normandy landings. The ceremonies, organized by the Comite du Debarquement, have the approval and the support of the government of France.
The Canadian delegation will be headed by myself and the ambassador to France, the Hon. Leo Cadieux. It will include representatives of parliament, the armed forces, senior D-Day commanders, representatives of veterans organizations, and D-Day survivors from all the participating army units and from the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force.

March 29, 1974
Commemoration
The principal Canadian ceremony will take place on the afternoon of June 5 at the Canadian war cemetery at Beny-sur-Mer. The British and American ceremonies will be held on June 6.
I have arranged for the letters of invitation to the Canadians concerned to go out from my office today.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, we in our party are pleased to hear the announcement by the minister that he and representatives of parliament will be attending the ceremonies commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of D-Day on June 5. I am sure it will be pleasing to those veterans who are members of parliament that parliament will be represented. I am pleased to note also that the ceremonies will take place at Beny-sur-Mer which is the landing place of Canadian forces on D-Day. I am sure that for those who attend the ceremonies it will bring back many memories after 30 years. We whole-heartedly agree with the announcement and look forward to participating with other members of parliament.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that an official Canadian delegation will participate in the events in France this June. It is hard to realize that the event being commemorated took place 30 years ago. On the particular date I was on a barge waiting to go into Beny-sur-Mer. I suppose there will be many stories told by veterans of that time, including those who drove right into Caen while it was still occupied by the enemy. For Canadians it will be a sentimental journey, a reminder of the idealism of those times and of the sacrifices that were made by men and women of this country in order to achieve greater freedom in Europe. In some ways I hope it will be a reminder to the Europeans that in many ways Canada is part of Europe and entitled to a voice in European councils. We in Canada would like to have that closer association with Europe. I think we in Canada have earned it.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the announcement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to organize a Canadian delegation to the thirtieth anniversary of the Normandy landing.
I think it is a way for French Canadians to be reminded of the province of Quebec motto: "Je me souviens". Thirty years ago, Quebecers went to Europe to help some countries win a military as well as an ideological victory. I wish to congratulate the minister for organizing this delegation, but specially those who, thirty years ago, took part in the landing. I associate myself with the remarks made by the minister about those who died there.
Again, I commend the minister for this action.
(Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan).]


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy situation in the world and in Canada has changed dramatically. Surpluses have melted away and prices have risen. Dairy farmers have faced rapidly rising input costs for everything from labour, to feed, to fuel. As a result it is now necessary to inject confidence into the industry.
In order to provide increasing confidence in the dairy industry and ensure adequate supplies, the government will put a program in position that will better relate producer costs and returns. To this end the Canadian Dairy Commission has been authorized to enter immediately into discussions with producers and other groups to develop, for consideration by the government, proposals that will best meet these objectives while keeping in mind the interests of all Canadians. Dairy farmers will at long last be able to enjoy that measure of security enjoyed by other areas of the economy. It is the firm aim of the government to make the dairy industry an attractive one for young farmers, and this long-term approach should do just that.
Turning now to the 1974-75 dairy year, the government proposes the following action:
The support price on butter will be raised by six cents to 77 cents per pound.
The support price for skim milk powder will be raised 12 cents per pound to 50 cents from 38 cents.
The subsidy to industrial milk shippers will be raised to $2.30 per hundred pounds of milk and to 65.71 cents per pound of butterfat to cream producers. In addition, the subsidy will be extended to include all qualifying industrial milk and cream within market share quota and not just milk within the subsidy eligibility quota.
The export levy will be increased from 10 to 15 cents per hundred pounds of milk.
This action will result in industrial milk shippers receiving a total of about $8.50 per hundred for their within market share quota production.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as all members, we were looking forward to knowing the government's position on the dairy policy for the coming year.
I must admit that the minister's statement partly responds to the producers' requests. A few days ago we had the opportunity to discuss this urgent matter and last Friday we again requested that the government meet the initial requirements of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
I recognize that today's statement by the minister partly meets those requirements. However, he concluded his statement by saying that the dairy producers and the processors will get about $8.50 a hundred pounds. We must admit that this amount is not high since the basic requirements to the producers were higher. Taking into account the minister's expertise in this area he is quite aware that the dairy producers' requests were minimal and while



March 29, 1974

claiming at least $9 a hundred pounds of milk we were admitting that the dairy industry still made no profits but hoped that the production cost would decrease during the coming year. In committee the minister stated recently that he hoped those production costs would diminish; nothing is less sure and from this lack of assurance I must say that I am still concerned about this industry's future even though the statement of this morning leaves hope for an improved situation and is no warranty for the future of the dairy industry which had already outlined its absolutely basic requirements.
I hope that the hon. minister, when he says he wants to inject confidence into the dairy industry will be able to suggest long-term rather than short-term measures which will guarantee an absolute minimum for the survival of the Canadian dairy industry.
Our party did not hesitate to agree with the demands of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We will wait and continue to demand at least the minimum which the dairy farmers absolutely need.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the most hopeful part of the minister's statement is the declared intention of the minister and the government to review dairy policy in Canada. I hope this means that they are prepared to review the basic objectives and approach to dairy policy in Canada because that is what we need.
At the time the Canadian Dairy Commission was created the dairy industry was facing depressed prices. The Canadian Dairy Commission at the beginning followed a policy of creating larger units and actually restricting production. What we need now is a policy to expand production because we are short of butter and short of cheese. We need expanded production. Perhaps the increased prices set out in this announcement, will bring this about in the short term, but in the long term we need to look at production for use as well as for profit.
One point that needs to be examined, I suggest, is the cost of quotas and the practice that has evolved that when a man wants to get into the business he has to buy his way in. We need to ensure that it is not going to be too expensive for a dairyman to get into the business or to get additional quotas. This practice should be abandoned or at least a ceiling should be established or some other means found to discourage it. It is a capital cost which has to be passed on to the consumer once it is built into the industry.
I hope that somewhere along the line we will introduce a school milk program as part of the over-all program in the dairy industry. We not only need to produce milk but we also need to ensure that everybody has access to milk, the best protein food that we produce in Canada, and also cheese. I hope the government will ensure that it is available to everybody, starting at the school level. That is the purpose of production.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the new government dairy policy had been expected for a
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission very long time by farmers and farm workers across this country.
With the galloping inflation we now have farmers have ever-increasing costs to support. So I feel that even if it does not solve all the problems the new dairy policy will at least put a little balm over the wounds. Perhaps it might encourage farmers to stay on the farms provided however this government recognizes the principle of escalating grants on par with the increase in production and the cost of living.
The minister said producers of industrial milk will get in all $8.50 per hundredweight. We know it now costs even more to produce it, about $10.15 per hundredweight, while producers will get $8.50. So I find the profit margin is not very great. If the government wants to collect taxes from farmers it might consider allowing them to make a greater profit.
I now insist on escalation because I think that with the rapid increase in production costs it will be too late on April 1, 1975, to reassess the government dairy policy. The minister must absolutely stop introducing new policies once a year to provide for escalation with production costs as perhaps with old age security pensions. This way farmers would be less prompted to feel discouraged. I know that in the riding of Drummond in particular auctioneers are now booked up to the month of August because there are so many farmers who want to leave their farms. In concluding my remarks I would like to encourage farmers to continue their work.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion to deal with the deplorable circumstances in the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, renewed evidence of which can be found in today's press. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs immediately to make appointments to bring the membership of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission up to its full complement.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. It requires the unanimous consent of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.
Oral Questions ENERGY

March 29, 1974


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Sarnia to Montreal oil pipeline application is now before the National Energy Board, and in view of the fact there already exists an oil pipeline from Sarnia to Toronto with the capability of being upgraded and extended to Montreal, thereby resulting in a financial saving and the avoiding of environmental damage, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to reassess the proposed Sarnia-Montreal route.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


RAILWAY ACT
Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill C-269, to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill as indicated in the title is to amend the Railway Act to permit railway companies operating in Canada to issue half-fare passenger tickets to senior citizens.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to clarify very briefly the basis of the statements he and his officials made yesterday indicating that consumers west of the Ottawa Valley line will pay perhaps eight to ten cents a gallon more for gasoline and 
those to the east may face an increase of four or five cents a gallon, whereas on Wednesday, following the conference with the provincial premiers, he indicated that the new arrangement would mean perhaps a seven cents a gallon increase in wholesale prices west of the Ottawa Valley line and that prices east of the Ottawa line should hold firm.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate either the ten cent or five cent price increases with regard to feedstock. I think the calculation would be eight cents and three cents. Of course, there is a question outstanding as to the calculation of the gathering charge in Alberta. That is yet to be settled. However, those are the levels we anticipate, eight cents or perhaps half a cent more and three cents or perhaps half a cent more.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister speaks of three cents east of the Ottawa line. Would that be the figure for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as well or would their increase be greater in view of the greater transportation costs from the producing provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, of course, use offshore oil. The increase east of the Ottawa Valley line would be three cents. The rounded figure for oil landed up to December 31 is $6 rather than the $6.50 figure that was discussed in the past. Since the price of crude will be going up by the difference between $6 and perhaps $7.15, that will represent about three to three and a half cents at the gas pump.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister indicated in a telex to the oil industry that they will be permitted to increase their selling prices on Monday next for reasons other than the increase in the cost of crude. Have any guidelines been established with regard to this arrangement, and has the government any mechanism in place with regard to justification of any such price increase before the price increase is put into effect by the companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be seeking justification from the companies in due course for price increases of this kind. Proof will be required in relation to any price increases they make. We do not anticipate in effect scrutinizing them in advance. Any anticipated increase is estimated to be at the most about half a cent, if in fact the companies choose to take that.


GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING OIL-AMOUNT OF PRICE INCREASE GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact there are 35 gallons in a barrel of oil, which means an increase of slightly less than three cents per gallon for every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, having in mind the minister's statement in answer to a question at the press conference on March 27, that the price increase for gasoline west of the Ottawa Valley would not be more than seven cents per gallon, and in view of the fact the oil industry is now talking about 10 cents per gallon west of the Ottawa Valley and five cents per gallon east of the
March 29, 1974

Ottawa Valley, what price increases for gasoline in those two areas does the federal government propose to allow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just responded to a similar question from the Leader of the Opposition. In relation to feedstock, the price increase will be around eight cents west of the line and around three cents east of the line, depending, of course, on the calculation of the gathering cost in Alberta.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister had already said seven cents, do I take it he is now prepared to allow the price of gasoline to rise by eight cents, giving the companies another cent per gallon? What price does he propose to fix for home heating fuel in the two areas after present feedstocks are depleted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are variations within the various oil products. This is an approximation of what the change should be. The actual costs with relation to a particular product will be determined after information is received from the companies. Therefore it is difficult at this point to give a precise figure for home heating oil or any other product of the oil barrel.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for one further supplementary and then the hon. member for Charlevoix to complete the first round of questioning. I will return to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and others who have supplementaries on this subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister now saying the government is committing itself to keeping the price increases on gasoline and home heating fuel west of the Ottawa Valley down to seven or eight cents and east of the Ottawa Valley down to three cents? Also, what machinery does the minister propose to set up to enforce that decision and to monitor any increases that may take place above those figures?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that particular machinery will be in the bill which will be introduced to provide the new petroleum administration system.


MANPOWER
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has he divided, by riding, the funds allotted YOP projects and, if so, will this information be made public and when?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the allocation of funds for Opportunities for Youth will not be on the basis of a constituency breakdown. It will be on the basis of 33 labour market areas in Canada, as I have explained on two
Oral Questions
or three occasions in the House and on several other occasions publicly.


ACTION TO ENSURE DEVICES THAT WOULD INCREASE GASOLINE MILEAGE NOT BEING WITHHELD FROM MARKET
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by my leader. It is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the rise in gas prices in British Columbia by as much as 10 cents per gallon, have the minister and his department made an investigation to ensure there are no patents or devices that would increase the mileage of gasoline motors that are being withheld from production or held off the market?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, while my department is responsible for the law regarding the issuing of patents, 1 think such investigations really come more under the department of Science and Technology or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North for one last supplementary on this subject and then the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


INVESTIGATION OF INCREASE IN PRICES OF MOTOR OIL AND OTHER LUBRICANTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he will look into claims of industrial users such as truckers that during the so-called price freeze on gasoline there were substantial increases by the oil companies in the prices of oil, grease and other lubricants?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion on this point. Up until the first ministers conference, while we had exercised restraint with regard to the two principal products, motor fuels and home heating oil, we had not attempted to exercise restraint on all the other products that come from the petroleum barrel. As of that conference, we asked the industry both east and west to restrain their prices on all products, so it depends on whether the hon. member is referring to the period after the January 22 conference. If it is the latter, I would be glad to have details of any violation about which he may have knowledge.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture with
982

March 29, 1974
Oral Questions
regard to the beef subsidy program. In view of the continuing confused and depressed cattle markets across Canada, and in view of the meeting just last night with the cattlemen, is the minister prepared to make a statement as to the beef subsidy after two weeks of operation?
In particular, will the minister tell us whether he is prepared to extend the deadline for A-3 and A-4 cattle to ease the very heavy deliveries now being made of these heavier cattle, resulting in still lower prices? Further, will the minister be including grades B and C in the subsidy program?


Eugene Whelan: All I can
say at this time is that I held discussions, shortly before entering the House with people other than the Canadian Cattlemen's Association who feel they also represent beef producers. I feel I must make the statement that the present program will be continued or that a new program, if one is to be devised, will take its place. But a statement of this kind will be made later this day, Mr. Speaker.


DAIRYING-NEW SUPPORT PROGRAM-POSITION OF FLUID MILK SHIPPERS
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question relating to subsidies. Even though the minister's statement on the new milk policy for 1974-75 will be welcomed by the industrial shippers, may I ask what consideration the hon. gentleman is giving to the fluid milk shippers whose costs are also escalating and who will now be receiving only 40 cents more, in Ontario, than the industrial price?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. members knows that the fluid milk shippers come within the jurisdiction of their own provincial marketing boards and in general they are looked after pretty well. I think he should also recognize that industrial milk shippers are involved in a high quality type of production, practically the same as many fluid milk shippers, and many of their products are shipped in the same tank truck, though they are paid at different rates. A great deal of confusion exists even in that industry. The new policy we hope to establish for the future should place milk producers on a more equal basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that we have been sidetracked from beef to milk. Perhaps we should have tried to deal with supplementaries on the matter raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat before turning to this subject. But I will recognize the hon. member for Middlesex and then the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley. I assume he will be returning to beef.


William Charles Frank: I am well aware that provincial boards had the jurisdiction, as the minister stated, prior to his program last fall of subsidizing the consumers through the five-cent program. I am satisfied, though, that they are now controlled by this program and that individual provinces cannot raise their prices-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary. Without referring particularly to the hon. member's question, I am wondering whether an effort might not be made today by all hon. members asking questions, and all ministers replying, to limit the time taken for both questions and answers. I am sure this would be helpful.


William Charles Frank: My question is: does the program the minister introduced last year not prevent provincial boards from increasing the price?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker. Every agreement we have signed with the provinces has a provision in it whereby, if they can prove costs have increased by 71/2 per cent to 10 per cent-each province operates under a different formula-we have an obligation. We have always met that obligation when they have presented proper facts and figures to us.


SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-ALLEGED POOR ADVICE BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS AND LACK OF CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the chaos created by the recently announced beef subsidy, and in view of the fact proper consultation was not held with people in the industry, is the minister prepared to deal with those members of his department who misdirected him or, failing this, is he prepared to tender his resignation from the cabinet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norval Alic Horner: It is high time this government began to answer for its mistakes.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I could say that question was a lot of bio-mass material. Anyone who says that the trade was not consulted does not know the facts, and does not care to know the facts, either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DAIRYING-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO NEWFOUNDLAND MILK PRODUCERS BY LOWERING COST OF FEED GRAIN
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. What steps is he prepared to take to assist Newfoundland producers? The price of milk in that province increased by 5 cents recently raising the price of a quart of milk to 55 cents. Is the minister prepared to assist Newfoundland producers by bringing down the cost of feed grain, thus enabling the cost of milk in Newfoundland to be reduced?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that Newfoundland producers are assisted with respect to feed grain supplies to a greater extent than any other feed grain users in Canada. The rest would be up to the prov-
March 29, 1974

ince through whatever program it might wish to develop. We are also developing a program through the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to aid agriculture in Newfoundland to the extent of several million dollars so that the industry there can become more efficient.


ACTION TO ENSURE PACKING PLANTS PASS ON BEEF SUBSIDY TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, since the livestock market is still in an extremely precarious position, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising from the hon. gentleman's statement in the Standing Committee on Agriculture that some of the large packing firms were not co-operating in this program? Can the minister tell us what type of regulation and control he is considering imposing upon the packing plants to ensure that the subsidy is in fact passed on to producers?


Eugene Whelan: I can only reassure the hon. member that our desire is to ensure that this beef premium does go back to the producers. That is where it is supposed to go, and if everyone in the industry-I mean everyone, the organizations representing the cattlemen, the packers, the Meat Packers' Council, the beef producers organizations-if they all co-operate they can make this plan work.


ALLEGED CATTLE MALNUTRITION IN SASKATCHEWAN BECAUSE OF BAD WEATHER AND FEED SHORTAGE
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that bad weather and extreme shortages of feed have left cattle starving or suffering from malnutrition, with the result that the situation has reached emergency proportions in parts of Saskatchewan? What action is the minister prepared to take in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: This has been suggested before, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the health of animals branch for a report. I am sure the hon. member knows that the first responsibility falls on the provincial authorities. As yet, I believe they have not made representations for aid. Our figures show that in fact there is not the amount of starvation and malnutrition that some people are suggesting. This situation occurs every winter to some extent. It is a very difficult job to police every person who has a cow.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising from the statement by the acting chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that he is unable to carry out his responsibilities because of a lack of staff. Does the minister intend to fill the
Oral Questions
vacancies on the commission immediately and, if not, why not?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It had been the intention of the government to make appointments to the commission when we have a better idea of the decision of parliament on the form of the new competition law. However, this matter is under consideration and it is likely the government will be in a position to make an announcement shortly.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the fact there have been continuous vacancies on this commission for four years, would the minister tell us why the government feels it was suitable or proper for those vacancies to continue for such a long period? How does he expect parliament or the country to give credence to his assertions that he intends to give the commission greater responsibilities when he will not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative and not a proper question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On March 6 the minister announced plans in the House to reconsider the level of compensations to be paid to farmers whose herds had to be destroyed because of brucellosis. He was going to make a submission to the government. Has that submission been made, and when does the minister plan to make an announcement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the submission has been made and an announcement will be made soon.


Walter David Baker: Would the minister inform the House whether there was an element of retroactivity in respect of this matter in the submission made to his colleagues?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to be patient and wait for "soon".


AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES ON PRICE OF CANADIAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister in respect of the equalization aspect of the agreement reached with the provinces on Wednesday. The Prime Minister said there would be equalization payments of at least $100 million. Does this arise from some informa-
27398- 631

March 29, 1974
Oral Questions
tion that the provinces concerned, Alberta in particular, will be taking a certain proportion of the revenues into their general revenue and therefore this will be subject to equalization, or does it mean that if Alberta chooses to do so all this revenue can be put into capital projects and hence there would be no equalization payments? Was there at least some understanding that a certain proportion of the money Alberta gets will go into its general revenues?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. I can say it was discussed at length both at the general meeting and at the private meeting I had with the premier of Alberta. Indeed, the same question arose with the premier of Saskatchewan. The reason we gave the figure of $100 million is that it was based on an understanding we had as to what the premier of Alberta and the premier of Saskatchewan would do with their funds. I cannot, of course, speak for them with any authority, but both of them did give me enough facts that we were able to calculate this $100 million minimum. It is based, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, on the knowledge we have of what Alberta intends to leave as a minimum in general revenues as opposed to a capital fund.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter. Does this mean that if the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan decided to put all their receipts into capital projects there would be no additional equalization payments arising from this agreement of last Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, stated hypothetically, of course this is correct, but these are not the facts as they exist. If they did that, the Leader of the Opposition would be correct, but they have assured us they will not do that. I think that is the fairest and clearest way of stating it, but I could carry on the discussion if the Leader of the Opposition wishes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What I am really asking is, is there an understanding that Alberta is going to put a certain proportion into general revenues, or is it simply left to Alberta to do whatever it chooses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have Alberta's word that it will do as I state, leaving a certain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I don't know why hon. members are laughing, Mr. Speaker. This was a gentlemen's meeting, and we do not propose to legislate any obligation on Alberta. We could, of course, if that is the course the Tories opposite want us to take.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Mr. Bell:: It was the NDP that said that.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Don't be nonsensical.


An hon. Member:: No one here suggested that. That comment did not come from us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the matter of oil and following the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I could speak on a question of privilege in order to clarify a point. The answers the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave to the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition have caused me to want to make a clarification, particularly when looking back at the statement I made yesterday in the House on the average price of crude. I realize this is pretty complicated and technical, but I want to make sure that the effect of it is understood.


Mr. Fairweather:: The technical part is anybody's guess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, if the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is not interested I will give that directly to the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Go home and sulk, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: Friday morning!


An hon. Member:: Don't be insulted.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not insulted, I was trying to be helpful.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have never seen a thinner skin in my life.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he advise the House whether his department has already audited the books of the Indians of Quebec Association, and their lawyers, as is claimed by the president of that association and, if so, will the minister make any such data public immediately to clear up any possible misunderstanding that the $1 million allocated to their defence in the James Bay case has gone chiefly toward legal fees?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, civil servants of the department have been in contact with the Quebec Indians Association for months.
I understand that the assistant deputy minister wrote to the association on January 7, or thereabouts, requesting additional information but that he has had no reply. In any event, the matter is before the committee. To my mind, its members can really help clarify the matter. As for me, I have not intervened in the debate recently. This is the information I was given this morning.
March 29, 1974


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-REASON FOR REJECTION OF EXTENSION OF EXISTING SARNIA-TORONTO LINE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that half of the proposed Sarnia to Montreal pipeline will be built along an existing oil pipeline from Sarnia to Toronto which has enough space capacity to supply the Montreal region if extended, will the minister explain why the government rejected merely extending the Toronto pipeline, thereby resulting in a saving of time and money?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as the one I gave the hon. gentleman in committee last night, namely, that the size of that pipeline would not be adequate to provide for additional throughput in the case of an emergency in the Montreal market. Whether or not it would be adequate for the first 250,000 barrels a day, it certainly would not be adequate to provide additional security to Montreal.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. It follows the question I asked on March 6 of this year. Is the Solicitor General now in a position to advise the House as to the reasons the RCMP did not lay charges against any of the six employees of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for borrowing government goods and taking them to their residences? Can he give the facts and the reasons charges were not laid?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP made a complete investigation of this case following which they consulted with the Crown prosecutor for the Ottawa area. After consultations the Crown prosecutor advised there was not enough evidence to support a charge and as a result they followed the advice of the Crown prosecutor and no charges were laid.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that under the British North America Act the provinces have control of the administration of the courts but cannot administer something until it is before the courts, or cannot administer something unless a charge is laid, the RCMP must have adopted as their own the reasons of the Crown prosecutor. Therefore I wonder whether we can now be informed what those reasons were? If there was insufficient evidence for the laying of charges, why were these people then subjected to dockage of salary for a certain number of days?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: 
OLYMPIC COIN PROGRAM-ALLEGED IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX BY MANITOBA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Because of the many problems plaguing the Olympic coin program as far as production, the rise in cost of silver and other things are concerned, and keeping in mind the fact that the government has instructed some banks not to even accept coin orders, will the Prime Minister indicate what steps the government plans to take to clear up these problems of the coin program which is so vital to the success of the Olympics?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. The first Olympic coin issue was so successful that there are none left for sale in Canada. Our only problem lies with the packaging of the coins. Measures are taken to support the efforts of the Mint and that is the reason for the delay in the shipment of some of these cases. Further measures will be taken to prevent the same difficulties from arising during the issue of the second series.
Mb. Jelinek: Since the Postmaster General is answering the question, I wonder how coin sales are doing abroad because I noticed, for example, that in Japan there was an abundance of Olympic coins several months ago, but there was a delay in the first issue of coins in Canada. While I am up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General what action the federal government is taking to prevent the NDP governments of Manitoba and British Columbia taking a rip-off on the sales of Olympic coins through the imposition of a sales tax which was not originally planned?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I can say to the hon. member that we have completed the projected sales in Japan and the quotas set for the United States and Europe have been more than met. This means that we had no difficulty selling out the first series of coins. As to the second part of the hon. member's question, he said earlier this week that from now on he would have a thorough knowledge of the facts before asking questions on Olympic matters. I suggest therefore that he follow his earlier remarks and get to the bottom of all his questions before putting them.

March 29, 1974
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that known criminals are entering Canada through the Niagara Falls and Fort Erie ports of entry, and that the Hamilton and Burlington police run a shuttle service to the border returning known American criminals to the United States where they are able to re-enter Canada in a matter of hours, what immediate and specific action does the minister plan to take to alleviate this situation?


Robert Knight Andras: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have had no such representations whatsoever from the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. So far as I am concerned, this allegation may have some substance but there are no facts available to me to indicate it is the case.
Second, the whole set of immigration procedures has been tightened up to the degree that, with the co-operation particularly of the Toronto police, the situation is very much in hand. Third, it has already been announced that with regard to people who have been deported and who come back into Canada there will be stiff penalties imposed by legislation that my colleague the Minister of Justice hopes to place before the House in this session.


William James Kempling: Can the minister explain the breakdown in border surveillance recently when a well known American criminal was admitted to Canada through Fort Erie and subsequently apprehended by the Ontario Provincial Police?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are 40 million visitors from foreign lands who come to this country every year. Generally speaking we applaud this because it is tremendously beneficial to the tourist industry. When there is free movement of 40 million people there is bound to be the odd one who gets through who should not, but we are doing our best to control it.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact there are only 14 full-time psychiatrists in the federal penitentiary service and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General has admitted it is very difficult to attract psychiatrists to the service, what measures is he taking to solve this critical problem?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have asked our penitentiary officials to do all they can to attract more psychiatrists. I have met with groups of psychiatrists, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What did they find out?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend it to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: However, the difficulty is that in the past many of our institutions were built in areas or small towns away from the large centres and it is difficult to attract psychiatrists to those areas. In addition, it is difficult to attract psychiatrists away from very large, lucrative practices in the private sector. We are doing all we can to get more psychiatrists. Very often we have to go abroad to get them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister tell the House whether the proper regulation will be in place before April 1 so that oil-producing Indian bands can take advantage of the oil price increase by way of increased royalties?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An order in council was passed this week to that effect and starting the first of April the Indians of Alberta will receive a higher royalty for the oil that is produced on the reserves.


INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS BY WHEAT BOARD WITH GOVERNMENT OR RAILWAYS FOR PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister in a position to say whether the Canadian Wheat Board has entered into negotiations with the government or the railways for the purchase of hopper cars?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has not entered into such negotiations. The government has been considering this whole matter and we are making progress in the direction of ensuring that there will be adequate facilities for the movement of grain in the future.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not this will be in the form of purchasing more hopper cars?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it will in the sense that everyone has agreed for quite some time that new equipment is
March 29, 1974

needed for the railways to replace cars which are deteriorating and that the kind of equipment we need is the kind that was purchased previously by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the government, which are now fulfilling a very important function in the prairie region.


MANPOWER
Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
If I understood correctly, the minister said a while ago that the sums allocated for the Opportunities for Youth program would be divided among 33 areas. Could the minister now tell us what basic criteria will be used to redistribute these in each constituency or is he letting each area decide arbitrarily to grant the amounts it wants to the constituencies it chooses so as to favour those constituencies which are represented by Liberal members, as is now being done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will surely admit that a question asked in these terms is not acceptable. If the minister can reply to the first part of the question without reverting to motions, the Chair will allow him to do so. I remind hon. members that the end of the question period is approaching quickly and I hope that we shall be able to recognize rapidly some of the hon. members who wish to ask questions.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to hon. members in the House, and I wrote to every hon. member on February 28 clearly setting forth the formula for the allocation of OFY funds to the 33 labour-management areas in Canada. There has not been in the past and there is not intended to be this year an allocation as such to each constituency because the statistical base of that procedure, applied to this program, does not seem to fit. So the selection of projects within the 33 management areas will be on the basis of merit and we will do our best to administer it in favour of hon. members.


ALLEGED SHORTENING OF OFFICE HOURS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the public service has been allowed to stagger its hours of work, why is it that the Manpower office seems to be contracting its hours rather than expanding them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I know of no area or location in which Manpower offices are in fact contracting their hours. We have had some beneficial experiments in the
Oral Questions
city of Toronto where we have been opening later and staying open later to meet the experimental project requirements at the mall-at the market. We think it has been very good but, unless the hon. member can give me specific information, I do not think the premise of his question is correct.


Stanley James Korchinski: I will be very glad to give the minister specific information. The Ottawa office is open only until 4.30 p.m. and I wonder why in the world Manpower offices cannot stay open longer hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was hoping the hon. member would not try to convey to the minister the information he was seeking but would ask a supplementary question.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister asked for it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that in the United States in the last 18 months 1,039 injuries and 14 deaths have been attributed to defective television sets, which has prompted the imposition of mandatory safety standards for television sets and resulted in the recall of more than 40,000 colour sets for the correction of shock and fire hazards, would the minister inform the House whether similar problems exist in Canada and, if so, what steps have been taken by his department to protect Canadians from similar tragedies?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this has been under investigation in the hazardous products branch of my department. My recollection is that the design of sets in Canada has not caused the same number of problems, but the branch is prepared to act under the Hazardous Products Act if the situation requires it.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF TOLLS AND DOCKAGE CHARGES
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that shipping companies pay about $25 million in tolls and dockage fees, and that this amount, if released to the shipping companies, would enable them to make a fair settlement with the SIU now on strike, and having regard to the fact that if this strike continues wheat shipments will be greatly reduced, will the minister take under active consideration now the lifting of all tolls and dockage charges on the St. Lawrence Seaway system?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member does not know it but

March 29, 1974
Oral Questions
the Minister of Labour right now is in negotiations with the SIU. I would prefer at this stage, in the interests of the Canadian government, not to make any comment on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary followed by the hon. member for Meadow Lake and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, after which we will call orders of the day.


J. Trevor Morgan: I direct my question again to the Minister of Transport. My question was really aimed at the elimination of tolls, lockage and dockage fees throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway system. Will the minister take under active consideration their elimination?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. gentleman knows that this is part of the law and that normally the seaway is supposed to finance itself. It has never happened in the past, but this is part of the law. It is not an easy question to answer at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of both personal and newspaper reports from Ethiopia that there is famine and widespread starvation there is the minister's department considering some emergency relief to the stricken areas in that country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada, as I have indicated a number of times in response to questions in the House, is already engaged in a massive effort to help the situation in Ethiopia.


LAOS-REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos. Is the minister prepared to tell the House what prompted the government to announce recently its decision to seek an adjournment sine die of the commission. Is it that matters have improved so much there, is it because of frustration, or is it because the commission is no longer effective?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason is the final one mentioned by the hon. member, namely, that the commission is not effective, and our concern that we might be asked to take on responsibilities under the new agreement that has been signed in Laos, an agreement which we do not think attracts the obligations that we have under the existing agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra before calling orders of the day and the matter raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich might be pursued further during the next question period.


HARBOURS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Transport.
Is it his intention to allow the proposed developments for the port of Vancouver to start immediately, or will this have to wait for the submission of the conclusions of the joint study made by the federal and municipal governments?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not get the question exactly. I thank the hon. gentleman and I regret that I was not listening to the first part. Perhaps he would like to repeat the question.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. minister intend to allow the proposed developments for the port of Vancouver to start or will they have to wait until the federal and municipal joint studies are completed?


Jean Marchand: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. This is connected to the study we are making jointly with the province and the city of Vancouver.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved:: That a ways and means motion with respect to export of oil from Canada, notice of which was laid upon the Table, Thursday, March 28, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there a suggestion that there is to be a debate on this motion? I would remind hon. members that there is no debate or amendment permissible under Standing Order 60(10). That is why the motion was simply put, and I assume it is carried. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
March 29, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 27, 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.
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-7, which has been before us for a few days and which, I believe, has a great importance for Canadian consumers.
The bill before us has a bearing on many fields, of course, and its object seems to be to promote and encourage fair competition and above all to stem unfair competition. This bill will govern misleading and dishonest advertising, about which we often heard complaints. It seems that its object is to assure us and most especially the Canadian consumer that he will not to be taken in, not be abused by misleading advertising.
Mr. Speaker, considering my interest for a type of dealers, as I spent several years in the food and especially the confectionery business, I thought I would say a few words on this bill to invite the minister responsible for it to give special attention to what we call independent merchants.
We know very well that those merchants, those corner grocery store owners, are often a bit squeezed by competition from big food chain stores. To the extent that competition from major food chains is fair, they are beyond reproach.
However, we know very well that the minister was made aware of this situation through briefs from various associations concerning giveaway sales usually called "loss leaders". I think it is important to remind the responsible minister how significant it is for these various groups to be able to make representations to the committee; I would like to comment mostly on that, and I will remind the minister of a discussion I had with him on the matter of how the complaints presented by these groups are instrumental in making it possible for the independent merchants to compete against chain stores.
We are well aware of the fact that the consumer is very often impressed by the price of some product which at first may seem very low. Moreover, we know that these stores advertize "loss leaders" a lot, and that the consumer will have to pay, sooner or later, because all these stores cannot, anymore than any other, sell at a loss. The independent merchant, the "corner store grocer" has real difficulties with chain stores which can put up such competition. I think the minister is well aware of many
Competition Bill
remarks made by these groups, and I hope that when the bill is referred to the committee, their spokesmen will present grievances and will show proof of what they have been saying as we know for the past few months.
In my opinion, it is important to remind the minister to ask those agencies to give us a better understanding of the situation as well as all the pertinent data so that we, members of parliament, may submit the necessary modifications to protect the independant businessmen who have the right, as everybody, to live in today's society.
Mr. Speaker, I will therefore be brief. I would like to comment on the risk of exploiting young athletes. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) mentioned last week that an agreement had been reached between the National Hockey League and the World Hockey Association to give reasonable compensation to those agencies and club managers who made it possible for the young people to develop their skills.
I was very pleased to hear the recent statement made by the minister, because I know he has a very special interest for those young athletes who want to make their dream come true and practice their sport in a professional way.
The government must be on the alert and prevent any exploitation of young athletes whose participation in sport activities it is our responsibility to promote as much as possible.
Recently I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) talking about the extraordinary sports potential in our universities. I think it is the duty not solely of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) or of the minister responsible for amateur sport to advocate grants or legislation to encourage young people to participate in sport activities of all kinds. If at all possible, we must strive for full use of the potential of our university students.
I would also like to say now a few words on the position of the government regarding football, a question which seems to interest a great many people in Canada. The minister's opposition to the coming of an American club in Canada is questionable and is now being discussed on a national basis.
Canadian football stands up well at present as regards competition. It is perfectly normal that a new league be set up and should no one be surprised about it. We had the advantage of having the Expos in Montreal, surely not a Canadian team, but it did encourage thousands of young people to become professionals and a little more skillful in this sport.
Could the American Football League bring about the same motivation? This is a question which I cannot answer now. To what extent would American football be able to "kill" Canadian football?
Perhaps the minister did not provide us with the necessary information in this regard to enable us to come to a conclusion. I had the opportunity of discussing this with a few Montreal sport broadcasters and they seemed very surprised to see the present attitude of the minister.
If the minister wants to give us the assurance that the arrival of an American football club in Canada would "kill" Canadian football, I am prepared to consider the
990

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
importance of the Canadian football survival, but not being convinced that the arrival of an American club would be prejudicial to Canadian football, I have many reservations and I surely cannot suscribe to the minister's comments as regards this matter.
I dare believe that within the next few days we will have furhter information. Perhaps the bill that will be put forward will indicate whether there is really an obvious danger as the minister assumes.
On the other hand, we have quite opposite views and I believe that amateur sport would seem to favour the advent of American football in this country.
As I said, I am quite willing to consider the risks which may result from such a team joining the Canadian Football League. However, if the coming of such a team could result in some motivation and compete with the existing teams, I think that it could serve as an incentive for the other teams. Canadian athletes who are in search of excellence would be very happy to see a team which offers-we must recognize this-a performance of very high caliber.
I shall be satisfied with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker. Personally, I am very eager to meet the committee of organisations who are willing to give evidence or submit grievances to the minister in connection with the exploitation they suffered at the hands of these independent merchants. I take this opportunity to ask the hon. minister to seek considerably more information on American football before advising us that the establishment of such a team would harm, let alone destroy, Canadian football.
I hope therefore that adequate information will be made available to allow us to make a better assessment of the bill to be presented by the government and to consider if it is dangerous or if it is of sufficient interest to the Canadian people.
I would believe that these few remarks will be taken under consideration by the minister and that when the bill is before the committee we will be provided with additional information enabling us to improve on this bill, which is very useful and desirable. However, I do think that there is room for improvement and believing that the minister will welcome the amendments brought forward, we all hope as members of parliament and as Canadians that we will be provided with an effective legislation capable of giving better protection to the Canadian consumer.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, the topic we are discussing today, involvement of the public sector of government in the area of competition, is of keen interest to me when viewed in relation to the development of the industrial base over the next several years.
I suggest that competition legislation in Canada, through the Combines Investigation Act, and in the United States through the commissions that have been established there in the last 100 years, has been responsible for the development of some of the largest conglomerates that exist in the private business world today. A corporation such as IT&T has been able to extend its tentacles in the last three decades under the pretence that
(Mr. La Salle.]
legislation exists which calls for competition and the breakup of monopolies.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is crap; it is a coverup for collusion, for the development of oligopolies, of oligop-I will have to get the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to give me the proper word. The development of inter-related directorships in multinational corporations within our economy will continue and false advertising will continue under a government that will not establish a Combines Investigation Commission with enough employees to operate it in order to break up these monopolies.
An article in the "Report on Business" section of the Globe and Mail of March 28 deals with developments in agribusiness which affect the economy of western Canada. It states "Cargill Grain purchases feed farm operations". Note, Mr. Speaker, not just elevators, and not just some aspect of the industry in which Cargill has been involved since 1928; it extends its tentacles, as a multinational corporation, into all aspects of the farm and agriculture business. The article reads:
More than 280 prairie grain elevators, a retail feed business and a hog breeding farm have changed ownership in a multimillion dollar deal between Canadian subsidiaries of two large U.S. agricultural companies.
Cargill Grain Co. Ltd., of Winnipeg is purchasing the two principal operating subsidiaries of National Agri-Services Ltd., also of Winnipeg. Cargill is a unit of Cargill Inc. of Minneapolis and National Agri-Services is owned by Peavey Corp. of Minneapolis.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is consolidation of agribusiness and the expressed purpose of that consolidation is to expand that agribusiness in the farming industry. In my view that would be to the detriment of every individual producer in the prairie region.
No government, Liberal or Conservative, has ever legislated or taken effective action to ensure that expansion of a corporate entity in our economy can be curtailed or even properly examined, to ensure that competition will exist and that the western producers and western economy will be well served. So Cargill Grain will expand and take over National. I recall that when farm-owned wheat pools bought out Federal Grain over a year ago, both Conservatives and Liberals in western Canada raised a hue and cry. I can be just as critical at times of the pool operation, but now we see the private speculators of the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg attempting to consolidate their position in order to be able to expand into the ordinary aspects of farming. We do not hear a word about that from the members of the Conservative or of the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, this kind of legislation will have no effect on the conglomerates, the monopolies and the large corporations which are operating in Canada today. The expansion of agribusiness will become an ever-increasing and serious problem.
It is an amazing thing about our modern economy that certain parts of it have become a planning system; that the multinational corporations and the very large corporations plan their operations on an internal basis from the time they get the raw resources out of the ground, through the processing and until they are sold on the market as finished goods. This takes in the development of General Motors and the automobile operations in this country as well as those in the United States; it takes in the steel
March 29, 1974

conglomerates, it takes in rubber and tires and the operations in almost every major sector of the economy. There is no essential public control or demand that there be competition in the area of economic activity in which these corporations are engaged.
There is another sector of the economy in which some of my colleagues to my right and some members of my own party are involved. They run a small independent type of business which may have assets of a quarter million or a million or two million dollars. These businesses have to account to Statistics Canada and fill out the forms. Any action initiated by competition legislation will be directed toward them. They are operating in a market system of supply and demand where the rate of return is rather low and the profit marginal. In a modern economy such as ours they are constantly under pressure. One company may compete with another company with assets of between $1 million and $2 million, and the competition may continue until one company has its throat cut. Before they reach that point, they might make a deal and set prices. Companies like this are also under pressure from the public sector, in that they must observe certain minimum wage and salary levels. Such regulations may make their operations marginal.
Further, such companies can be under pressure because multinational conglomerates are always looking for new companies in which to invest money. They purchase small companies and absorb them. Thus, small companies often face frustration. They are hemmed in by regulations made by the public sector and frustrated in the market place, as they must often compete with multinational companies which plan their operation from the stage at which raw material is taken out of the ground until it is marketed in finished form. Further, these multinational conglomerates operate in the economy without being subject to public control, in that they do not compete. I submit that those who are concerned about the economy of North America or about the international economy should not waste their time, when dealing with multinational companies, in uttering pious hopes that the multinationals will compete. The suggestion, often put forward in this latter half of the twentieth century that any country by itself can force multinational conglomerates to compete, is preposterous. For over 150 years it has been proven that they do not compete that, indeed, they fix prices.
What alternative is open to us? I say that the democratically elected representatives of the Canadian people must make sure that there is a measure of public control over the activities of such corporations. I include the steel conglomerate in my remarks. We can no longer live in the dream world in which people believe that multinational conglomerates compete. The public sector, the representatives of the people of Canada, must have a voice in the operations of such conglomerates. It must have the right to involve itself in pricing policy; it must have the right to hold such companies publicly accountable with regard to taxes they pay. Operations which use our resources, many of them non-renewable, must come under public scrutiny.
We assume, as was assumed in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the earlier part of the twentieth century, that we can break up conglomerates and force
Competition Bill
them to compete. That thinking has been dominant in the philosophy of political parties in this country, including my own. The liberal theory has always been that you can induce competition if you break up the conglomerates. I suggest that such theories are outdated. They do not work, either in Canada or in the United States, as is evident from events. Therefore, any attempt to break up the conglomerates will be futile.
I suggested just now that these large corporations should be accountable to the public. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to make sure that smaller companies can operate and survive in the market. We must try to make them as flexible as possible so that they can survive and use what is called initiative in their operations. As for the large conglomerates, we cannot expect to break them up.
Let us see the extent to which directorships of Canadian corporations interlock. To that end, I want to direct the attention of the House to the board of directors of Canadian Pacific Limited. Directors of Canadian Pacific Limited also serve on the boards of many other companies. Consider, for instance, the directorships held by Mr. Sinclair, the President of Canadian Pacific Limited. He sits on the boards of Canadian Pacific Investments, Canadian Pacific Securities, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Midland Simcoe Elevator Company, Cominco Limited, Pacific Logging, Marathon Realty, Canadian Pacific Steamships, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, Great Lakes Paper Company, Soo Line Railroad, Canadian Pacific (Bermuda), MacMillan Bloedell, Sun Life Assurance Company, Cascade Pipe Lines and Pan Canadian Petroleum.
The foregoing companies all belong to the CP family. In addition, Mr. Sinclair sits on the boards of Royal Bank of Canada, Union Carbide of Canada, the firm which is telling farmers in my area that they must pay more for anti-freeze because there is a shortage but which will not tell them how much anti-freeze it has on hand; on the boards of Hockey Canada and of Canadian Marconi, which is connected to the Power Corporation, which, in turn, has connections with the Liberal party and with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who is present in this chamber. In addition, he sits on the boards of Canadian Investment Fund, Canadian Fund, Sun Alliance, London Insurance Group, the group which is supposed to be competing with Sun Life Assurance Company previously mentioned, Chase Manhattan Corporation, which is supposed to be in competition with Royal Bank of Canada, on the board of which Mr. Sinclair also sits, and, to show that he is interested in some public service, he also sits on the board of Royal Victoria Hospital.
What about other Canadian Pacific directors? Consider the case of Mr. William Arbuckle. He, too, sits on the board of Canadian Pacific Limited. As well, he sits on the boards of Canadian Pacific Investments and of Rio Algom Mines. Those companies are in the Canadian Pacific family. Turning our attention to companies outside the family, Mr. Arbuckle sits on the board of Investment Secretariat Limited. Actually, he is the president of the company. In addition, he sits on the boards of Owen, Owen Canada, of G.W. Robinson Company Limited, and Standard Life Assurance. He sits, with Mr. Sinclair, on the board of Sun Life, which, by these interlocking directorships, is connected to the Royal Bank. In addition, Mr. Arbuckle is on
27398-64i

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
the boards of Dominion Equity Investments, Standard Life Assurance, Tioxide of Canada, Great Plains Development Company of Canada, Asbestos Corporation, and Dominion Dairies. He is involved with the food industry. I say this for the benefit of hon. members who, in common with the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier), are concerned about rising food prices. Mr. Arbuckle also sits on the boards of Burma Mines and Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation, which may interest those who wonder why the price of gold has been rising on the international market.
Canadian Pacific, as an investment corporation, has connections throughout the entire economy in terms of their operations. I submit that neither the Combines Investigation Act nor all the legislation that has been produced to this time, have ever once tackled the question of the operations of the large multinational corporations within the economy with a view to doing a substantial job of trying to create real competition. Their pricing mechanisms, involvement in raw resource materials and getting funds for public investment goes on and on.
If Canadian Pacific cannot use the Royal Bank of Canada through Mr. Sinclair, they can go to Mr. Burbidge, a director of the Bank of Montreal. If they cannot get the money at the Royal Bank, they can go to the Bank of Montreal. If they cannot get it there, they can go to one of the insurance companies in which they have directors. If people are worried about the price of paper, they can go to another director of Canadian Pacific who is involved in the Great Lakes Paper Company and several other paper companies.
In terms of investment to take over more companies, they are involved in Royal Trust through Mr. Campbell who is a director of that company. He sits on the board of another railway, which is rather interesting.
If Canadian Pacific is interested in buying more and more raw resources to control the market, they have a Mr. William Bennett who is a director of such corporations as Iron Ore Co. of Canada, of which he is president, BNA Holdings Ltd., Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway Co., Gulf Power Co., Canadian Reynolds Metals, Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., Philips Electronic Industries, Labrador Mining & Exploration, Eldorado Aviation, Canron Ltd. and Gleneagles Investments. That gives him connections in the business world.
I could go on and on about other members of the board who sit on large corporations, such as National American Wholesale Grocers Association and IGA Canada Limited. In that way, they are involved in the food industry.
There is one who will be of great interest to my friends to my right. He is not only a director of Canadian Pacific. I wish to name him because I do not want my friends in the Liberal party to think I am picking on them. This is the Hon. Duff Roblin, a former Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba. He serves on the board of Canadian Pacific. For his service to the province of Manitoba, he was rewarded by Canadian Pacific. He is president of Canadian Pacific Investments. In order to make investments in Canada, he sits on the board of directors of the Montreal Trust Company so that funds and investment

are readily available. He also sits on the boards of Canadian Pacific Securities Limited, CanPac Leasing Limited, CanPac Minerals Limited, Fording Coal Limited, Pacific Logging Company Limited, Cominco Limited, Pacific Coast Terminals Limited and Project 200 Properties Limited.
My point in referring to the operations in Canada of the Canadian Pacific conglomerate is to try to get across my central point to the government, other opposition parties and maybe some of my own colleagues. In spite of all the talk about breaking up conglomerates and causing competition, it is utterly preposterous to suggest in any way, shape or form that they will be broken up. Historically, it has been proven that quite the contrary is taking place. Power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few select corporations which are spread throughout the Canadian economy. What we need from these corporations is public accountability and public control.
It is preposterous to talk about breaking up these kinds of operations. There is not a cabinet minister, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or a potential minister in the Tory shadow cabinet, if there is one, who will move legislation in this House in my lifetime to bring about real competition within the business sector of our economy.
It is an outmoded theory to say that legislation can be brought in that will break up the conglomerates. There is only one direction in which we can move. That is to accept the reality of their existence and recognize their power and influence in our economy. Using that as a basis of action, we must move toward some public accountability on the part of these corporations, and indeed some public control, so there is not private planning by IT&T and other corporations such as Canadian Pacific, Power Corporation of Canada and others which is in their own self interest. The Canadian people, through their elected representatives, should have some say in the overall planning of the economy by having public control. That is the only way to handle the operations of conglomerates in this country, not by the outdated Combines Investigation Act. That is utterly preposterous.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to welcome such a large and distinguished audience to this public meeting this afternoon, including the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who I am told will be making a great number of supplementary answers to questions which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his other colleagues found it difficult to deal with this morning. I understand that the minister in that good humoured way of his and with the knowledge which reaches out and encompasses so many things, is prepared
March 29, 1974

to answer any questions at all which may be addressed to him.
Just before one o'clock we had the pleasure of listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) making one of those typical enthusiastic tub-thumping socialist speeches which he does very well with great resourcefulness and ingenuity. It was, of course, a replay of what we have been hearing from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) with nauseating frequency for the last year or so, but at least it showed that his research department is able to produce the same names and the same figures.
To some extent I agree with the hon. member. There is a problem created in this country and in other countries by the in-breeding, the economic intermingling, of people in a certain walk of life, in a certain economic position, who have been elected to the boards of companies as the hon. member noted. I can say I do not regard this development with any pleasure, but while I agree with the hon. member to a limited extent, I would dislike even more what we would see under a socialist government-a particularly large complement of over-academic, over-educated, underknowledgeable academics of a pink tinge in the form of bureaucrats who would proliferate on the hundreds and hundreds of boards which a socialist government would create to run the affairs of this country to such an extent that in due course you and I, Mr. Speaker, would require a private briefing before we would be allowed to go to the bathroom.


Walter David Baker: An order of the Privy Council.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would need an order in council before we could make a motion in chambers.
The reasonably good case the hon. member for Assiniboia made is diminished by one significant fact. I should like to take hon. members back to the proceedings of the House last session. Hon. members then displayed the same intellectual and political dishonesty and fraud they have practised in this House since the last election. They talk to the left and they vote with the government. They say one thing and do another. At that time we were dealing indirectly with the question of combines. The government had seen fit, when it was confronted with a situation it was unable to handle, to act in its normal way. As in any situation in which this government gets involved, it panicked as a result of that confrontation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) panicked, as did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), and with incorrect statistics and wrong information they rushed into parliament and ultimately obtained the passage of a bill referred to as the allocations bill. Included in that bill were several clauses which provided that the severity of the combines legislation would be modified. In certain eventualities, the restrictive trade practices regulations would be inapplicable, and under a certain set of circumstances, they would be diminished entirely at the whim of the government.
I felt, as did the leader of this party and my colleagues, with that regard for the rights of the ordinary individual which has always prompted us in the positions we take inside and outside this House, that this was wrong; it was
Competition Bill
unjustified and unwarranted. There is no shadow of a doubt that it was the multinational corporations, and the evidence taken before the committee discloses this fact, who insisted on the energy allocations bill. Many of the provisions in it were brought forward at the assistance of the technical advisory committee which was dominated by people from multinational corporations. They were the ones who wanted this diminishing effect and, in some cases, the almost complete abolition, of parts of the combines legislation.
We did not believe this was necessary, and we proposed an amendment at the report stage which gave hon. members of this House, and I stress the word "honourable", the opportunity to agree with us that it was improper that large corporations should be entitled to evade the provisions of combines legislation. As might be expected, the government, which is very friendly with those corporations, went along with the corporations and opposed the amendment. I had thought that my friends to the left, the members of the NDP, whose principles I knew were dragging on the ground at that time, would at least recover sufficiently to vote with us and stop this monstrosity being perpetrated on the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You are not half as sweet as your honey.


Gerald William Baldwin: What did happen? Those hon. members pocketed their principles. They crept, they slid and they slithered into a position of reliance on our friends opposite in the government and voted against us. Now, they have the unmitigated gall and temerity to come into this House and, through their spokesmen, particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), who was speaking before lunch, and say they do not like these multinational corporations or the prospect that exists for this form of intellectual economic inbreeding. They say it is wrong and they say unctuously they are going to oppose this, even after giving us these figures and the names. I suggest that is fraud and hypocrisy. I would ask to what depths has this great national party fallen? I know it is no longer a new party, but ancient and probably one of the oldest in the country now. Perhaps we can forgive their sins of indiscretion on the grounds of the age of the party itself. However, I am certainly shocked and find it difficult to reconcile the stand of the New Democratic Party of that time with the speech the hon. member for Assiniboia made this morning.
I see my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) looking at me. I do not know whether it is with admiration or what, but I do find it difficult to make that reconciliation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would permit me to satisfy his curiosity. I am looking at him with compassion as he must not be feeling well.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: You should eat some of that honey you sent around.

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I at least got compassion, because it was hon. members on the government side who got the support from the NDP.
Having disposed of the NDP, particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia, I should like to turn to another aspect of this bill. In the debate that has raged on about this bill and its predecessors in parliament, in the press, by labour and in the country generally, many people have professed to see different things in it. To me, it is just one more episode in the long story of the growth of authoritarianism, the demand by the government to be able to interfere further in the lives and activities of all people, and that is not just shown in the bill itself but in what it represents and the trend it indicates.
This drab mediocrity of officialdom, confronted with problems beyond its limited comprehension, has posed one answer, and that is to give it more power so it can fix things up. The minister and his officials have stumbled and blundered away over the last year or so; they have advanced and retreated, then finally brought in bills and withdrawn them. Now they have come up with this scis-sors-and-paste job in this new proposal as a formula for what? To truly and effectively help the inflation-ridden consumer, is that its design? I suggest there is only a miniscule of effort in this regard. To exercise any real constraints over those in industry who are large enough and unscrupulous enough to victimize the public, is that the intent? Well, I suggest there is a little bit of that here and a little bit there, but not very much in total.
Does this bill do anything about the growing capacity of big labour to squeeze the people of this country, sometimes just in the interests of those professional labour politicians whose concern is in staying on top of the pile? I suggest nothing of that sort appears in the bill at all.
The history of legislation dealing with combines and restrictive trade practices here in Canada, in the United States, in England and in Europe has all been of a pattern; a checkered story of failure to find a legislative form which can contend with the natural forces of the market place, where the vaguely defined public interest often gets lost in the millions of individual transactions involving goods and services.
The chronology has been to legislate, litigate and prosecute, followed by a long list of court failures. Anyone who is at all interested in reading the court records or the law reports will find a long series of judgments on the appeal side of the court level which shows that I am correct, and that the failures of litigation under the combines legislation have been considerable. After these failures, it has been the practice to legislate again, with ringing statements that the right formulae have now been found. Then we see more litigation and again the admission of failure. This process has gone on like that ad nauseam. If this minister and his supporters really believe that this bill will be any different, then I say to his face that the government is either negligent, stupid or deceitful, or a combination of all three.
Some of my colleagues have dealt with this aspect of the matter in more detail, but I leave it by telling you just as forcefully as I can that when this bill is passed, as I assume it will be passed, we will be opening up a Pandora's box of litigation in the courts and before the com-

mission; a lawyer's paradise in which the arguments will run the gamut from lack of jurisdiction based on a constitutional position to technicalities as to the meaning of the fine print in this bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should bring everything out into the light. We should make the corporations, the companies and the unions aware that this government is concerned and will take action; but this bill is just another example of government shirking. It is much easier to pass off consumer complaints to one commission or another than to take an active role in finding solutions to these complaints.
Many years ago, before I came to this place, I was involved closely in a study of the workings of the combines legislation during the course of my private practice, always on behalf of the consumers. Since coming here, I have been concerned with it in this House, from 1959 to 1960 when the then government attempted to deal with the question of resale price maintenance and other amendments, and I have watched the attempt from time to time to bring in new laws. I kept track of the jurisprudence and read some of the statutes, so that I am not unfamiliar with the combines law and the restrictive trade practices regulations. I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, that I see nothing in the present bill which suggests to me that it will be any different or will offer any real relief or assistance to the people of Canada, particularly the consumer who is so monstrously overwhelmed by existing conditions. The fact is that events are in the saddle and ride mankind. This bill does not go to the root of the trouble; it does not even scratch the surface.
I shall not go into any detail in connection with the few clauses which deal specifically with aid to the consumer. Others have dealt with them effectively. They are apparent, they are obvious and have some value. I suggest they will have a minor effect here and there, but on balance in my judgment not a great deal. The answers to the real complaints of consumers in these times of skyrocketing prices ultimately will be lost in the legislative jungle of this bill. Canadian families will still suffer from such practices as double-ticketing and the like, and the stores will only become more adept at changing stickers. This bill is not the answer.
When we, as members, come to make the assessment of whether or not we can conscientiously in our opinion support this bill-and speaking for myself I say I have not come to that decision-we will have to put on the scales the defects which are inherent in the legislation, in particular, the wide extension of powers which have been thrust into the hands of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Man's seeking, probing mind creates many wonders, but also many problems and dangers, such as the Frankenstein of atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons which might well have destroyed us and still pose threats, or the pollution-producing industrial activity of the large overcrowded centres of population. To me, it is the institutions of government which are most likely to do the worst damage. History shows that invariably the means we establish to control and order our affairs end up by going out of control and, too often, a society commits suicide like a skier starting an avalanche and riding it down to destruction. So it is with the government. It grows bigger

and more powerful, more ominous and inherently more dangerous in its capacity to crush with its own weight.
Look at the power that it is proposed be vested in this commission. I shall not go into all the details but in effect it gives almost complete authority to the commission to order supplies for anyone who wants to get into a business and is prevented from doing so because he cannot obtain supplies. I suggest this opens up a very wide avenue of arbitrary authority. It gives the commission authority to cancel any arrangements which limit a dealer to selling one line of goods exclusively and so on. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) have gone into this in some detail. They have illustrated the extent of the authority given to the commission. The powers given are not really powers which a board of this kind with its experience, has the capacity or the knowledge to handle. It is a board which we learned as recently as this morning consists of only one acting chairman and no members experienced in these matters. I think it is outrageous to ask the House to pass legislation of this kind without giving the House some indication of the type of people likely to be appointed, having in mind the vast authority they will be allowed to exercise in interfering so intimately in every aspect of the lives of the Canadian people.
Even more important, these powers are to be vested in a board or a commission which is not really subject to parliamentary control. It is a board which would be quite definitely susceptible to government pressure. The bill will be passed and the minister and the government will then have to cast about to find personnel to fill the board. I do not suggest there is anything corrupt or improper about this, but the people who will be appointed to this board invariably will be subject to political persuasion by this government. I think that is completely wrong, and I shall make a proposal about it before I finish my remarks. It will be a board which, probably to a great extent, will operate in the darkness and secrecy of the closed rooms of the Ottawa bureaucracy. I know there are other provisions, but I wonder how extensively they will be used because, despite any suggestion that it will function on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis, there is nothing to compel it to act in that way.
Yet the board is authorized to make the most searching inquisitions, and to deal summarily with the affairs of people. My colleagues have demonstrated this in many good speeches. It needs no repetition. The contents of the bill speak eloquently on this score. So, I do not think there is any honest trade-off to persuade us to give up to a tribunal of this kind the arbitrary and impressive authority detailed in this bill in exchange for the very minimal proposals alleged to help the consumer. I am not prepared to collaborate in this unevenly balanced proposal by voting for this bill. I think this is a decision we have to make as we are frequently called upon to do. It seems to be the practice of this government to bring before us an omnibus bill, legislation containing a variety of proposals, some of which contain a few small measures of relief which are of some value. However, balanced against this always is the granting of excessive and arbitrary power.
We are compelled from day to day in this House to make this choice in respect on an omnibus bill of this kind. We
Competition Bill
must make a decision whether we will see that the people of Canada obtain the minimum benefits contained in the legislation or disapprove of things in which we do not believe. We must carry on this exercise of balancing the scales. The minister is asking us to approve things which in my opinion are defective and fall short of the standard we should follow. I shall find it difficult to say yes to this bill when the votes are being taken. When considering these powers, I think we should be entitled to a little survey to see to what extent governments make use of this authority, and how they use it, because I think that is the litmus paper we must use in this particular experiment.
For example, over the last few days we have been listening to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). I must say I admire the minister because he has probably found at long last the formula for which some hon. members opposite have been looking to find favour in the West. They have been criticizing the Liberal government and criticizing the CPR. By putting the two together, they hope to find the formula which will find favour in western Canada. But the minister has been complaining bitterly that he does not have enough authority and power to deal with the staggering problems of western Canada in particular, and of all Canada in general, which we face today with regard to transportation, particularly railroad transportation. I have to look at this in the light of the decision which we are being asked to make today. All one has to do is to examine the National Transportation Act, and having done that I say to you, to the House, to the minister opposite and to his friends, that the Minister of Transport has all the power he wants if he only had the guts to act on the legislation and to make something happen.
Under the National Transportation Act, for example- and I am not debating it but using it as an illustration- the railway company must-the word used is "shall" which has a mandatory implication-furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for carrying, loading and delivering of traffic and receive with due care and diligence. To me, the word "diligence" has one meaning, that is to do a thing diligently. It does not mean to come in here, as has the Minister of Transport, whimpering, whining, crying and saying: "I don't like this bill; it does not give me any authority. I must have a study and a new bill". The minister has all the authority he wants in this act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: As a matter of fact, one can go beyond that because, when we passed the national transportation bill-some hon. members here were present at that time- we debated this issue and the powers which were to be granted to the commission. At that time I challenged the then minister of transport, the very eloquent and astute Jack Pickersgill who piloted that legislation through, in respect of the powers which were being sought for the Transportation Commission. He said the bill contained all the power and authority which the commission wanted.
I think he was right, because if you look at section 46 of the National Transportation Act, you will find these words:
The Commission may make orders or regulations

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
(a)	with respect to any matter, act or thing that by the Railway Act or the Special Act is sanctioned, required to be done, or prohibited;
(b)	generally for carrying the Railway Act into effect;
So any time, at the request of the government or on its own initiative with the authority which was vested in the Transportation Commission, which is comparable to the authority that this government is asking be given to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Transportation Commission could make an order. It would also go beyond that. We had a fascinating debate at that time as well with regard to the power which Mr. Pickersgill sought for that commission to exercise sanctions.
Section 46 (3) of the National Transportation Act reads:
The Commission may by regulation or order provide penalties, when not already provided in the Railway Act, to which every company or person who offends against any regulation or order made by the Commission shall be liable.
So if the Minister of Transport, who has the authority, wanted to exercise it, he could say to the Transportation Commission: "I want you to order the railway companies to provide the cars and facilities to carry the freight and to do so diligently and carefully". Having made that order, the commission could include in the order a provision that if they do not do what is ordered, a penalty will be imposed. I do not suppose that capital punishment could be imposed; it is outlawed anyway. They could not hang any official of the railway company. But if you read the clause carefully, it has a very wide and significant effect. The commission could make an order and say: these will be the sanctions, the penalties and the punishment imposed for non-compliance.
What more authority could the Minister of Transport hope to secure in any new legislation? Surely, when we come to assess whether we should now give effect to the pleas of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and pass the bill giving these vast powers to the government or to a board created by the government, we are entitled to ask ourselves how they have acted, how they have used the powers which were given to them. When I think about it, I realize that all that the commission and the government did was to close down some branch lines and prevent some passenger trains from running. That was easy. They were hand in glove with the railway companies. But when they are asked to act on powers which they have been granted and they refuse to do so, using as an excuse that the transportation affairs in Canada are in a mess so we must have a new study and a new bill, that is transparent nonsense.
I have been talking about the National Transportation Act and I may have gone a little too far afield, but I was prompted by my enthusiasm. While I am dealing with the Act I want to talk about an amendment which I hope the minister, the government and the committee will consider when the bill receives second reading and goes to the committee for study. When the National Transportation Act was being passed, some of us in the House, I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), myself and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), whose constituency at that time had another name, were considering the implications of this granting of powers to the commission and the government. We thought there should be some check, some method by

which there could be at least a reasonable measure of parliamentary control. I believe that Your Honour was here at the time and participated actively. I know that you are now sitting in a very neutral and detached position, but if you cast your mind back to those days of glory in 1966 and 1967, you will remember that at that time I proposed an amendment. I will not read the whole amendment because it has different characteristics.
I proposed that a clause be added along these lines: as soon as practical after the commencement of the first session of each parliament, in any event not more than 15 days after the commencement of the said session, a committee of 12 members of the House of Commons, to be known as The National Transport Act Committee, shall be appointed for the duration of such parliament according to the practice of this House with reference to the appointment of members to serve on standing committees. Then I went on to lay down some of the details, making it quite plain, however, that the powers and duties of the committee were to examine the annual report of the commission made to the governor in council. I think that we might well apply that principle to the facts which we face today.
As I say, in spite of my opposition there is no doubt that this bill will pass. There is no doubt that in due course the government will get around to appointing a new commission, and that commission will start to function, again as I say subject to no parliamentary control. I would like to suggest that some consideration should be given to appointing a special committee or, if necessary, enlarging the terms of reference of the existing committee. The latter might be difficult because of its problems in dealing with legislation and with estimates. But we should not have this bill finally passed on third reading without inserting some provision in it for parliamentary control of the operations of the arbitrary and authoritative Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that will come into being when these powers are vested in it.
I keep harking back to the fact that this bill includes the two things, aid of limited value to the consumers and the granting of powers to the commission. I suggest to the minister that it would have been the better part of wisdom for him to bring in a bill dealing with consumer protection alone. But he has chosen to combine the two, as is invariably the policy of the government.
I hold no brief for big corporations or big unions. I say that I fear and worry far more about big government. It feeds on itself and grows. It hives-off. Small sections become large divisions, and some day may even emerge as departments. It does very well for itself financially by taking other people's money through the tax structure. It has now become so vast, so gigantic, so complex that there is not one single person in the country who can comprehend it or direct it, or certainly control it. To balance the puny values given in part of this bill against the monstrous grab of more government power does not appeal to me, and I have no intention of supporting the bill. As I say, it will likely pass, but not with my help.
I serve notice that in the future I intend to continue challenging bills of this character where the same type of authority is being vested in government, with the acquisi-
March 29, 1974

tion of new powers and the establishment of new governmental monsters which will have to be considered in comparison with the value and usefulness which otherwise appear in the legislation. And there will have to be some valid equivalent before such bills are acceptable to me. I would suggest that others in the House and outside it should do the same. I particularly direct my attention to many of those involved in big business and industry. I refer to them because many of them are opposed to this bill, but for different reasons than mine.
It is a common sight to see hundreds of leaders of industry and business hiking down here, briefcase in hand, to push and prod government into programs and policies which make them the beneficiaries of government hand-outs. It does not sit too well with me to hear these people, in face of this record, complain about aid being given to those who really need assistance. It weakens their complaint in respect of this legislation. You and I, Mr. Speaker, know the legal motto that he who comes into court must come with clean hands, and he who seeks equity must do equity.
Everywhere we detect cynicism and distrust of the processes of government. It is interesting that in the morning edition of one of our newspapers there are two articles dealing with this in both Europe and Canada. People note that the gap between promise and performance, in respect of the present government in particular, is wider than the Grand Canyon. The so-called remedies for our social and economic problems which are sought by men at the top level of government are always the same-power, authority and secrecy. This government has lost its credibility.
There is rot, and the sour stink of decay is apparent around the corridors of power in Ottawa, just as it is in other capitals. These are the facts uppermost in my mind when asked to support this bill which gives so little and demands so much, and which persuade me not to vote for the measure.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this is a bill that will give some small degree of assistance, and allow this or any future government to take some action on behalf of the consumers. This competition bill, if it does anything, will provide some of the means whereby the interests of consumers can be protected, if the government so wishes. That is the assumption, but it may be that the assumption can be called into question even at this point in time. Perhaps we are in the same position as nations going to war. Historians point out that nations have often gone to war using the weapons of the last war, which very quickly were shown to be obsolete. Much money had been spent developing them while an enemy country was in the forefront of the development of more modern death dealing weapons.
A quite significant statement was made in this House recently by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and made in a befuddled way. It was not surprising that he was befuddled because he had to admit he had a department over which he did not have control, that he was running a transportation system but did not know how it worked, and that the system had failed but he did not know why. One positive statement he made was that competition no longer existed in the transportation indus-
Competition Bill
try. That industry is pretty big in Canada, covering ground, air and water, and when the minister said competition does not exist in it he was merely stating the obvious.
At one point in time there was a controlling body governing rail rates. Then, the provinces gave franchises to truckers. Certain firms were given the exclusive right to go over certain highways and serve certain communities. The amount of load the trucks can carry on the highways may be different in each jurisdiction, and there is bargaining over rates within provinces. The air traveller, whether he uses Air Canada, CPA or Nordair also finds that competition just does not exist any more.
This morning the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said he had a new dairy policy. All it really amounts to is the provision of new rates of subsidy, different from existing rates. If the costs, and the price to consumers are set by government fiat, by government direction, we must ask ourselves how much competition exists in that industry. If you want to go further than that and consider the wholesale and retail level then, when one co-operative in the province controls 80 per cent of the sales of industrial milk and when one multinational corporation can control 60 per cent of the product, how much real competition exists in that part of the food industry? If this is the case in important sectors of the economy, then how are we going to control the price of certain foods or services to the consumer by pretending that competition exists or that by some device it can be forced to exist?
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been juggling the feed grains industry for years now. There is a secret document floating around that no one knows anything about-except all the major grain companies, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Farmers Union in Quebec and many others. Apparently the document proposes to put the Canadian Livestock Feed Board in control of the forwarding of grain. It is going to have complete control of the movement of feed grains, but at the same time they are proposing to open the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. I suggest they are labouring under a delusion because you cannot have controls and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange or any other exchange dealing with the same product. You must do one thing or the other. If you do both you get the worst of both worlds, and it is mainly the producer who suffers.
It is not what this competition bill proposes to do that bothers me or the manner in which it is proposed. What bothers me is that we have the minister and the government trying to deal with competition without recognizing how the real world operates, while the ordinary consumer is getting gouged.
In an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 15, 1974 under a Montreal dateline appears the following statement:
Crown Prosecutor Bruno J. Pateras said Monday that three of eastern Canada's largest sugar refineries overcharged their customers an estimated $125 million between 1960 and 1973.
Even if this competition bill had been passed, this could easily have happened. Eventually, somebody might try to

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
charge such companies with a breach of some law but they could easily have overcharged to this extent. They control the sugar market and so are not subject to competition; they are not going to support the type of bill that is being shoved through this House. The Canadian government could have done two things to control the price of sugar. It could have helped develop a sugar beet industry here, so that it was not held in bondage to the sugar companies and offshore suppliers. But even the sugar industry in Ontario was not protected. A British multinational corporation, part of a large sugar cartel, was allowed to close down the sugar beet industry in Ontario and the Conservative government of Ontario paid farmers to get out of the business.
The other thing that could have been done was to support the International Sugar Agreement. We did not do that because it did not suit the multinational corporations who now control the industry. Without that agreement they had freedom to rook the consumer and the producer, which is what the story in the Journal says they were doing very effectively from 1960 to 1973. I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) some time ago about this matter, and he said that we were not signatories to the sugar agreement but we were observers. The government is an observer while the people of Canada get robbed by the sugar companies! The government is an observer, not an actor, and I fear that they will not be actors in regard to this competition bill either.
I had a phone call from Regina from someone who complained that in Denver, Colorado, he paid $1.89 for ten pounds of sugar while a similar brand in Regina which came in from the United States, cost $2.69, and Alberta sugar, processed in Canada, cost $3.29 for ten pounds. Why is that happening to the Canadian consumer? It is at least in part caused by the failure of the government to develop and maintain a large sugar beet industry in this country, and its failure to sign the international agreement which would have stabilized the price worldwide to the producer and the consumer.
A headline in the Globe and Mail of March 14, 1974 reads: "Sugar Price Third Lower in Buffalo" and in the article appears the statement:
The price of a 10-pound bag of granulated pure cane sugar at Loblaw stores in Buffalo yesterday was $1.89. In the chain's Toronto stores the price was $2.99.
Does the minister really expect this House to believe that this bill will correct that situation? I do not think so. I do not think he would stand in this House today and say that he believes it because no one in his right mind could believe that a simple competition bill will correct such a situation.
This government is not prepared to use the full weight of its power in the interests of the Canadian consumer, and so they will not give any real clout to the board which was set up to look after consumer prices. That is where the crux is. We must be tough. The government will not be tough with these people, as is evident if one reads this bill. If an economist or some agency were charged with the responsibility of investigating thoroughly the prices paid to beef producers in the past three weeks, and the results of such investigation became known, I believe the Minister of Agriculture would have to resign. His program for

protecting the producer has failed. At the same time, the price to the consumer has been hardly reduced.
Why is the Food Prices Review Board not reporting daily or at least weekly on what is happening on the meat counters of Canadian stores? That is where action is required, Mr. Speaker, and it should be taken immediately. If you want to know what restrictive trade practices are being carried on, get a list of industries, go to the library and get a book from the shelf. There are books on the sugar industry and on the meat packing industry. If you read the 1961 report on the meat packing industry you will see that the industry is using exactly the same tactics today in its treatment of the producer and the consumer.
Consider production costs of the farmer. The price of fertilizer has increased by 50 per cent over what it was one year ago.


George H. Whittaker: In some cases the increase has been 100 per cent.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, the hon. member is right; the increase in some cases has been 100 per cent. That is an extra cost the farmer must bear this spring when he plants his crops. Those engaged in horticulture or grain production have additional costs. What will the government do to meet this situation? Even if this bill passes will mean nothing to the farmer in April, May or June of this year. It will not make any significant difference to his situation. This legislation will not help the farmer unless it is changed. Unless somebody works on the bill, it will mean nothing to the farmer.
I see no evidence of the government's anxiety to do something to reduce the price of food and the cost of food production. Extra costs are being built into the food chain right at the production end. This is bound to do one of two things: increase prices to the consumer to levels he can ill afford, or force the food producer into bankruptcy. This is happening in the food industry. It has happened to people in the beef industry and to those in the hog industry. We are not engaged in an academic discussion; the situation we face is very real.
If by any chance, and I do not suppose there is much chance, we can impress upon the minister the urgency of the situation, this debate will have served some purpose. If we cannot, then I am sorry. I think we should take immediate action in the areas I have spoken about, namely, in the production and distribution of food. Let us dash the hopes of some of the monopolies which determine the cost of living for Canadians. Let us change the present situation in which Canadians feel they are helpless in face of conditions beyond their control and apparently beyond the control of governments upon which they depend to protect their interests.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to foreign ownership, I would say that at the end of 1970, out of $31.4 billion which represented the assets of the energy industry in Canada, $11 billion, that is 35.1 per cent, were in the hands of foreigners, and 9.8 per cent of those $11 billion were concentrated in the oil industry.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people do not own their natural resources. In view of present-day technology and our many universities, there is no reason why we should be so far behind, why we should own so little of our natural resources, and especially no reason why we cannot develop them.
It is all very well to restrict the powers of foreign companies, to impose conditions of all sorts, and to ask that Canadians buy 51 per cent of the company shares. But that poses a problem, Mr. Speaker, because Canadians cannot afford them. Only the large companies listed on the stock exchange can afford to buy them and do something. And to be listed on the stock exchange is another story: first of all, one has to be rich.
A great number of Canadians cannot enter the stock market and through this means develop our natural resources or develop some industries and finish some products in Canada.
In the oil industry, exploration, production, refining and distribution are controlled by foreign-owned companies which control 91 per cent of the assets and over 95 per cent of the sales. About four fifths of the assets controlled by non-residents belong to Americans. The Americans are not to blame if they own industries in Canada, but our governments or government should be blamed since they failed to make the necessary tools available to Canadians, they failed to make the required funds available to Canadians so that they may become owners or stockholders in those big companies.
We have failed to earmark the funds required for the development of our resources, while the Americans have been doing it for a long time. They are issuing credits on our resources, they are cashing in on our resources and are using them to issue credits, and with those credits, they develop natural resources at home or abroad. Canadians did not keep their eyes open. This is our mistake and the minister could not care less. It is all very well to say to the Canadian people: Become owners, buy shares and own 51 per cent of companies' stocks, when most of them are too poor to buy them. Canadians are too poor, industrialists are overtaxed by the federal, provincial, and municipal governments and overburdened with school taxes, municipal taxes, all kind of taxes, and exceedingly high interest rates. No profits are left to industries. They cannot develop. If we want to develop this country, we should make some improvements.
Foreign control over the coal industry, which presently amounts to approximately 73 percent, reflects recent developments in the extraction of metallurgical coal in Western Canada for export markets. The uranium industry is partly State-owned and partly privately-owned 20 percent of the assets being under foreign control. So, that is one industry belonging to Canadians, but it is state-owned and not privately-owned.
Competition Bill
The most important source of investment in the oil industry is self-financing which, incidentally, constitutes an even larger share of the investment of foreign-con-trolled industrial corporations than that of the Canadian-controlled corporations.
Between 1961 and 1970, 66 percent of investments have been made that way, whereas 35 percent of external investments from Canadian sources, that is 23 percent of all capital invested in Canada, were from foreign sources.
Most regions where new supplies of oil and gas are expected to be found have already been allocated to exploration companies by way of permits. Canadian-controlled corporations hold only some 15 percent of permits and leases delivered to provinces the federal government.
Why, Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not invest anymore in these developments? It is one of the most predominant factors where there is a guaranteed market for years to come, and where considerable profits are to be realized. However, Canadians are unable to invest because they are too poor and because financial institutions do not lend to Canadians.
Canadian financial institutions want foreign capital. They promote the exportation of foreign capital and with $1 of this capital, $14 in capital is created.
Mr. Speaker, this is why large financial institutions recommend foreign capital exports. The market control achieved by many foreign companies makes it difficult for less important and newly created corporations to establish themselves.
Because of their vertical integration, the larger oil corporations have a flexibility with which the less integrated Canadian firms can hardly compete; they have also access to financial resources, thereby satisfying their considerable need for capital.
The national oil policy which divides Canada in two marketing zones has been detrimental to the competitive ability of the non-integrated independent firms.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from these reports that Canadians can hardly become holders of securities in view of the nonexistence of the profit margin, for the government went so far as imposing a capital gains tax, thereby depriving a number of corporations of the benefits they could make by investing. Whoever wants to invest, Mr. Speaker, must kneel before the higher financial institutions and borrow capital at rates as high as 10, 12, 13 or 15 per cent. The financiers are then those who are making profits. Industrialists and the people who work 24 hours a day do not make money; actually, it is those people who do not work who make money. Those who do nothing and use their pens to give credit are those who, because of their prerogatives, exercise their rights to take over the assets of the citizens and transfer them to their own accounts.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we have. This is why our society has large financial institutions which have no deficits. Mr. Speaker, the assets of the banks were over $15 billion this year, and I think that another $15 billion were invested elsewhere, that is into some type of reserves which are not disclosed for income tax purposes.
Several billion dollars are thus invested in these reserves while other companies are not entitled to build up

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
such reserves and to invest billions of dollars in them. These large financial institutions have all the powers and they use them at the expense of Canadians and for their own benefit.
The government itself earmarks hundreds of million dollars to assist various foreign companies, and when the Canadian people are in need, they have a very hard time getting small loans. One can apply to the Industrial Development bank, but it imposes all kinds of restrictions, which makes it extremely difficult to get credit. It provides funds only to large institutions without taking any notice of small ones, when it should help all institutions and at very low interest rates. And yet, the Industrial Development Bank is in collusion with all the large finance companies to maintain high interest rates across the board. In this way, they avoid competing with one another and exploit the Canadian people shamelessly. That is where we should concentrate our efforts, that is where the minister should do something, that is where the minister should intervene. However, he does not intervene in the field of finance, but he does intervene in other areas. As for the finance area he does not talk about it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a speech reported in Hansard for Wednesday, March 13, 1974, by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I congratulate him because I read over his speech that I find extraordinary and very appropriate. The hon. member said:
So, in the proposals, recommendations, suggestions that we make on various bills introduced in the House, we advocate an economic system based on private enterprise and not on free enterprise or, in other words, monopolies.
Through this bill, the minister meant to put teeth in the Combines Investigation Act. He has incorporated into this bill some positive political measures, but such measures without the adoption of positive economic measures at the same time does not solve anything at all.
That man has been supporting us for a long time and he understands what business means. He is a man who really knows what it is all about. I continue:
If we pass positive political measures which are not supported by economic measures enabling individuals to compete against monopolies, we will remain in the clutches of monopolies, mergers and combines, which will have to pay fines, but according to the figures quoted today, less than 1 per cent of the profits made by monopolies have been subjected to a fine.
The measures that the minister has included in this bill deal especially with the small businessmen who will be subject to this bill like anybody else, but they will have no effect on the multinational companies.
How can this bill bring about a change? What can Bill C-7 do against multinational companies which are now increasing overnight all prices at the same time, invoking the false pretext of the oil and gas shortage? Under such a bill, the minister cannot act against the multinational companies which hold sway over our economy. The only thing he can do is to fine them $2,000 or $5,000, a ridiculous amount for them which is tax deductible.
What shocked me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to note that the government is trying to punish and restrain everybody. However, at the same time, banks are given special privileges.
Mr. Speaker, I admire that man because he knows what business means, where the economic unrest is, where to go, where to knock to improve our economic system. I continue:

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, the banks are the basis of the existing monopoly which controls the others. According to its whim, the monopoly of money and credit can create a monopoly of production or destroy it. And when I hear people who strongly denounce monopolies, and rightly so, in such and such a sector of industry, and yet, refrain from attacking the very monopoly which creates all the others, I feel they fall short of the target. They go only after the small fry, overlooking the villain who will go on with his dirty work.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the hon. member for St. Paul's had to say in his speech. However, we have been talking about that for a long time and we never felt any support in this House. We are just starting to find support because generally speaking several members are beginning to open their eyes, to realize that we can no longer run this country in the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Reforms are a must, Mr. Speaker, but not in the industrial sector, in the research area or about citizens who do not want to work anymore. The reform must be made in the area of finance. Finance must be brought to the service of companies and citizens who want to do something. They will be allowed a certain profit margin so that they can go on growing, improving and developing. If all their profits are taken away from them, nothing will remain. Then nobody is encouraged and everybody is discouraged. They do not want to launch any more into institutions, developments which several people could do because they have the necessary expertise but knowing that they will not be able to succeed, they do not undertake them.
This is where the difficulty lies, Mr. Speaker. This is where the minister should step in. He should study this situation thoroughly and help us find the true solutions. These are easy to find because it is a matter of making credit available to those who need it at reasonable interest rates, in order to prevent price increases, because high interest rates push prices upwards.
With the present system, with inflation, with everything we are presently experiencing, the first cause and the first reason of the difficulty are interest rates which are too high and governments who have nothing to say on the matter. Nobody criticizes the increase in interest rates in general at least, not the ministers, not the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Nobody speaks up when financial companies increase their interest rates. It seems as if they were given a blessing. Not a word is uttered, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first cause of the economic unrest we are experiencing. The increase in the cost of living is due mainly to the increase in the exorbitant interest rates charged to Canadian citizens.
I would like to quote from a document:
It is difficult to appraise the importance of foreign control on these international operations and on the balance of payments. In spite of the size of the operations concerned, the industry's adjustments relating to the balance of payments do not seem to depend much on the owners' nationality. In view of the role played by direct investments in this area, the general trend of the balance of payments, account being taken of the time factor, could have been quite different without these investments.
The results of this foreign control are not limited to the economic sector and the industry; it is to be feared that the extent of this control might hinder the setting of priorities and the environmental action of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if the existing system had not allowed foreign companies to settle in Canada and develop our natural resources, our situation would be even worse.

Many Canadians were able to earn a living by working for these large monopolies, these large institutions. They were able to earn a living while giving away our resources. Our resources belong to us, but we do not take the necessary steps to develop them with our techniques. We have the same technical and financial tools as any other country. If the United States can issue credits to develop our resources, we should be able to do the same in Canada with all our institutions. We do not even need to create new institutions, we have all the institutions we need, and they are there to operate. Let us give them the power and the responsibilities, let us ask them to issue the required credits for all new developments at very low service fees and interest rates and we shall regain control over our own affairs. We shall regain control over our resources and we shall be able to create additional ones, develop new industries, and finish our raw products in Canada.
Generally speaking, companies have head offices in their own countries. They come here to get our raw materials, and they export them to their own countries. We produce only raw materials. We lack only the capital because we already have the required technology. We have all that we need. If we had the capital, we could finish in Canada most of our products, and we could export our finished products while providing employment for our workers of whom about 10 per cent are now unemployed.
This is not logical in a country such as Canada where we have all kinds of things to build and develop. Our natural resources are enormous but we have no funds to develop them. Our problem is to issue those funds and we will then be able to develop anything as far as this is physically feasible because we have all the necessary facilities.
Foreign investments are not the only ones nor perhaps the most significant at the root of the problem faced by Canada in getting maximum advantages from energy. However, they involve a whole series of expenses for the country. Therefore a single policy is not panacea in this field.
Probably many elements of a general policy in the field of energy will have some influence on the nature and amounts of profits which Canada will draw from these activities. Moreover, any further initiative should be compatible with Canadian objectives both in the industrial and international areas and in the federal-provincial relations field.
It is through wide ranging economic and industrial policies that we will be able to fill gaps which have prevented Canada from undertaking a number of projects, gaps which may be considered as having contributed to the inflow and nature of foreign investments.
Still it should be noted that changes in our energy and industrial policies in general are not likely to influence the factors which govern international investments and the way they flow into Canada; indeed many of those factors originate from foreign institutions and policies. Besides, it may well be that all our policies will not enable us to benefit from foreign investments while mitigating their drawbacks.
One may try to outline the advantages and drawbacks of certain political approaches suggested in public debates and which relate to foreign investments in the field of
Competition Bill
energy and among those one may mention Canadian participation in the social assets of all corporations, which means that 51 per cent of the capital stock of all new energy corporations or companies would come under Canadian control.
But it would have to be done, if we want this to happen. Then there should be agencies in the operations of which Canadians would participate-public or private organizations, the possibility for an official agency to reserve for itself the potential right of "participating" in the companies concerned, a nationalized corporation operating in that industrial sector, and more frequent control of investments in the energy sector.
There is no equivalent in other northern countries to our attitude towards energy. Forgoing austerity, we have chosen to use energy liberally and to have a style of living similar in many respects to that prevailing in industrialized countries having a warmer climate and a larger population. We wish to enjoy simultaneously both the comforts of city life and the pleasures of the countryside. We are used to living in big houses, surrounded with immense gardens. Our cities cover more land than cities with the same size of population in most other countries. It is all so normal for us to be able to move around as we please and to avail ourselves of local and intercity transit systems transportation, and there are a great many Canadians who, from time to time, enjoy the pleasures of a summer or winter cottage.
This way of living assumes the ready availability of large supplies of energy, because we also have to overcome the problems caused by our weather conditions, our wide-open spaces, and the relatively wide distribution of our population. Our energy policies must take this situation into account as well as its economic and social impact.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our problems are not due to a shortage of energy. We can develop energy. Neither is it a lack of resources that bothers us. We have more resources than we need, there are large quantities of them that are not yet developed. We will not have any problems for ages, Mr. Speaker, as regards the energy or natural resources we need for the growth of this country and to help other countries as well. We lack nothing.
We also have enough engineers. If our technology is not good enough, we can get some from abroad. We will be able to pay technocrats by voting the necessary funds.
To date, we have no problem in this regard. We often talk about it and we will never say it too often in order to convince hon. members and other Canadians: Let us use our financial institutions and put them at the Canadian people's disposal by making them charge reasonable interest rates on loans.
Besides, any new project, Mr. Speaker, should be developed with new credits and without interest. We should only pay for the administration costs. Then we could develop our resources, we could take over our own wealth.
Therefore, we will be able to urge Canadians to invest, to work, to develop and to control their own resources. When one is one's own master, when one owns something, when one has a small piece of land of one's own, it is

March 29, 1974
Competition Bill
possible to grow. That is the way to build a strong country, with energetic people ready to do anything. Men who have something to do, who own something, are not concerned about their own business only, but with social affairs and the business of others. Those men work in any field. They spend a lot of time and energy to help others and develop the economy of their province, their city, their country.
Mr. Speaker, we shall build a strong country with owners and not only with tenants. We do not need a stable government but strong industrialists to have a stable economy. We do not need a stable government that sits there on its hands, doing nothing. A stable economy is the work of prosperous industries and businesses, of men interested in developing them. Those were the remarks I wanted to make and which might help find some solutions. Our solutions are not miraculous, but reasonable and acceptable to all Canadians because they are logical and complete.


J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, when you read a fairly lengthy bill like this you sometimes become a little discouraged about what it is attempting to do. You become a little lyrical at times.
The minister of corporate affairs,
Comes to this House and he dares,
To present us a bill,
Like a sugar-coated pill,
Like Trudeau-as nobody cares.
This is what gets to you, that no one in the government really cares what happens to the people of this country. The government thinks this bill is going to solve the problems facing the people of Canada. Let me deal with two specific features, one of which is procedural and I think is a disaster, and the other the substantive part of this bill. In respect of the procedural aspect, I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in Canadian jurisprudence we are taking away the function of the criminal courts and giving it to the Federal Court. The government guaranteed the people of Canada some time ago that this would never happen. It said, in effect, not to worry; no criminal jurisdiction would ever be given to the Federal Court.
Look at what has happened in respect of sections 32, 35, 36, 38 and 46 of the act. I suggest that demonstrates criminal jurisdiction being implanted in the Federal Court. This is a serious incursion into the civil rights and liberties of the people of Canada, because the Federal Court has its own rules, regulations and procedures and, in addition, its own rules of evidence. I suggest this is the thin edge of the wedge. This government continues, in its arrogant way, to put more and more criminal jurisdiction and arrogant power into that court where so many of the fundamental rights contained in the British system of justice are denied. I suggest this must be stopped and it must be stopped now.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was asked, apparently, for an opinion by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) on whether it was proper to do this. He was asked at the committee the other day whether he gave his sanction and he replied in the affirmative. He was asked for his reason and he said we should ask the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have not heard during this debate any good reason why it should be done. If the minister is conscientious in his job, perhaps before the debate is concluded he will tell us why, for the first time in the jurisprudence of any Commonwealth country-certainly for the first time in Canada-a government has taken upon itself to set up its own court, transferring common law and criminal jurisdiction to the Federal Court. And, as I have said, the government promised last year, when this court was set up, that this would never happen.
What are we to expect? The government says one thing and does another. It is about time the people of Canada were alerted to the fact that what this government says one day does not mean a thing the next day. The government does just what it wants to do in its arrogance.
What does this bill really do? Does it deal with the problems of the multinational corporations? The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) gave many statistics in this regard. He made an excellent speech. His points were well taken and I shall not repeat what he said. However, what must we come to grips with? This is a negative bill: it does not attack the problems and tell us what we should do.
Let us look at the power of the multinational corporations. The minister knows as well as I do that most of them have more power than him. What does the bill do to improve that situation or to help the small businessman? It does nothing. What does it do in respect of the situation in some labour unions? They must also be considered multinational corporations. I speak for myself in this matter and perhaps not for my party. I think we must incorporate the labour unions because they can be as guilty of infringing fair bargaining practices as many national corporations. Why does the government not have the guts to incorporate the labour unions so that they will sit at the bargaining table as one incorporated company dealing with another incorporated company, so that both sides can sue or be sued and both will have responsible national officers who know what their type of business is all about.
Let us take the next logical step. We could set up a labour court composed of leaders and people who are sufficiently competent in the field to solve these problems. Our country is infested with strikes, fights and lock-outs; people say they do not care what the law says and they will do what they want in any event. What can we do while provincial legislatures and this parliament sit idly by and do nothing? I say that this government obviously is afraid to take a strong stand on this question. Surely some imagination exists in the minds of people on the other side, but so far we have not seen evidence of it.
This is a very lengthy bill. It is a negative bill. There are very few positive qualities to recommend it. If we gave the business community some economic incentive, we would not need this bill because the problem would solve itself. Consider what this government has done with regard to the extractive industries. The foreign-owned corporations receive a much better deal than Canadians from an income tax point of view. So why should they not get together and
March 29, 1974

set prices? It makes sense-but only because the government lacks the courage to bring in proper legislation to solve the problem.
We would not need much combines legislation if we promoted a good, competitive enterprise economy for which we are supposedly noted. The laws and the income tax provisions which this government impose upon the economy make it impossible for that to happen. Rather than give the corporations 9 per cent off the top, why not tell them that if they increase employment by 5 per cent, for instance, we will reduce the corporate tax by 1 per cent. Is this not the way to stimulate employment? Or we could say to the corporations that if they increased their export sales by 5 per cent, for instance, we would reduce the corporate tax by 1 per cent. These are the economic incentives that are necessary.
My hon. friend from Compton said that Canadians do not have the money to invest. I am sure the minister knows that Canadians have more savings per capita than people in any other country. The money is here and we should encourage its investment. We need investment in the country, and we would have it if we did what is necessary. We would not need negative legislation such as this. It has no positive qualities to recommend it.
The hon. member for Compton also mentioned taxes. The average Canadian is forced to pay a great deal through double taxation and interest rates. The minister does not seem to give a darn about this. We have a mortgage interest rate of 93A per cent. Why should we not provide some incentive to home owners by telling them they can deduct "X" number of dollars from their income tax payments. Then there is municipal taxation. We might put a limit on the amount that could be deducted, but if we allowed people to deduct, say $500, for income tax purposes they would have more to invest in this country, and the more investment we have the less will be the need for legislation such as this.
When one reads a bill such as this it is discouraging to realize the time and effort that has been given to it by public servants to produce what essentially is negative legislation. I do not think it will accomplish what the minister has in mind. I am told he will present some amendments in a couple of years. I think we have all received letters from the tobacco and confectionery people pointing out that the minister has told them he contemplates introducing more legislation in two years' time. They were told that last year. Surely by now the minister has had an opportunity to think about this reintroduction of old legislation. If he is contemplating amendments, he has had sufficient time to introduce them.
Does the minister have to test the marketplace? It seems to be the practice of this government to have measures or programs tested without considering fully what they will achieve. I suggest that the government practices "Ad hockery night in Canada" day after day without applying any consistency or logic. I become annoyed about the way in which we handle the estimates. We can talk about combines, but let us consider what the government does. They wanted to take over the DeHavilland plant at a price of $38 million. This item was sneaked through the other night. What opportunity did we have to consider the estimate in interim supply and see what is involved?
Competition Bill
When we ask questions about this, we are not given answers. We are not told about debts or liabilities. But the government wants members of parliament who are trying to be conscientious in representing our constituents to sanction the expenditure of $38 million for the purchase of DeHavilland. The government had an option for two years. The option must be exercised by the end of June. Surely after two years the government should know what it wants to do.
But do we get the answers? No, they just want a blank cheque for $38 million. To heck with the people of Canada, they are going to do what they want. This is what I object to. How can I go back to my constituents and say, "I am here to represent you, but $38 million is going out the window; I do not know what for or what the benefit is to the people of Canada. This government refuses to tell me"? Talk about a combine investigation! It is this government that needs to be investigated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Trevor Morgan: All I am trying to indicate to the government is that surely by now they could do a better job than this bill indicates. Surely they cannot deny the right of the people to take their case to the court of their choice. It is up to the Attorney General of Canada to decide, in the case of an indictment being preferred, if it goes to the Federal Court or not. It is his decision alone. Surely that is denying some of the rights of the people of Canada, and it is something this government said it would never do. That is how good their word is. They just do what they willy-nilly see fit to do. They do not provide any incentives. They do not attack the things that cause combines to occur. Their taxation policy invites combines. Surely the government could employ proper methods to combat this situation. If we were to help the small businessmen who cry out for help there would not be so much trouble with the multinationals. We should support the little guy in this country. This is not being done now. If it were, the minister would not need to introduce this bill; it would not be necessary. We are a nation of people with initiative and imagination. The government should use these qualities.
I do not like negative legislation and this bill is nothing but a bunch of negatives-thou shalt not; thou shalt not. Why do we not turn the coin over and make this legislation unnecessary? Let us not knock down the small businessman. That is what the government's policy is doing now; it is knocking the little guy out the window. Give him the economic drive that he needs and this legislation will not be necessary. Let us have the guts to face the facts of our economic situation. Who is controlling our economy these days? The multinationals and the labour unions. Let us accept that as a fact and go on from there. Let us start solving those problems. Then legislation such as this would not be required.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, a short while ago I said in the House that what this government lacks is what we all crave, namely, a sense of unity and purpose. The people in the area I represent are looking for leadership. For example, we hear the minister saying transportation is a mess. We know

March 29, 1974
Tax Rebate
that a new grains policy is to be announced at the start of the next crop year, but we see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board sneaking out press releases. There is a new, secret grains policy being circulated which is bound to cause nothing but anxiety and confusion in western Canada and, I suggest, in eastern Canada as well. Today we listened to the so-called new policy regarding a milk subsidy for the dairy industry. The new policy is nothing more than a small change in the subsidy.
In reading through this bill I found the definition of "business" in the all-encompassing language that is now popular. It is as follows:
"Business" includes the business of
(a)	manufacturing, producing, transporting, acquiring, supplying, storing and otherwise dealing in articles and
(b)	acquiring, supplying and otherwise dealing in services-
The provision goes on to deal with offences in relation to trade and marketing in Canada. I would like to deal for a short while with the question of government interference into some aspects of our marketing system and policies, particularly in the very important feed grain industry which affects Canadians from east to west.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICE OF MOTION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf) moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of granting an income tax rebate equal to the amount paid in mortgage interest on a family home and in municipal and educational taxes, the whole not to exceed $1,000 per year.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) who was kind enough to support this motion. I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity of discussing this motion since its purpose is to help Canadians who have made some sacrifices in order to become home owners as well as all those who are contemplating such an opportunity.
Needless to say that I hope to get the House's support so that the people involved will benefit as soon as possible from the passing of this legislation. In my opinion, it is urgent that Parliament should authorize the deduction of

municipal and school taxes for owners of family homes, as is the case with owners of apartment houses.
Evidently, large mortgages should also receive the same attention, if we really want to give Canadians a chance to become home owners.
With appropriate legislation, the government now help industrialists, tradesmen and various corporations. Businessmen can now contact the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for instance, and select the program they need, including those designed to increase productivity in the manufacture and use of equipment, accessories and building materials. There are also a number of other programs: the small businesses assistance program; the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the machinery program, the program to increase productivity, the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program, the shipbuilding assistance program. When we examine other government programs, we find that several sectors are assisted.
The services offered to employers by the Department of Manpower and Immigration include a service for employers, the manpower adjustment program, the business management training program and the industrial manpower training program. There are even special treatments concerning exports. To date, all these programs have given concrete results and precisely because these programs provide for loans at preferential rates and grants, we have to welcome them.
But only certain social classes benefit from these programs and that is why I think the motion I propose can supplement the plan in force; its implementation would be easy since it does not call for any expenses.
Even if most Canadian home owners do not contribute to the electoral fund of the old parties, I think they are entitled to a minimum of protection. To this day and without any real opposition, Canadian home owners have accepted all tax charges: municipal, school, and urban community taxes, sales tax and the 11 per cent tax on building materials. The list grows longer each year, and we know that this has resulted in trebling tax costs.
In the Quebec City area, houses built ten years ago for $12,000 now have an estimated value of $19,000 to $20,000.
Mr. Speaker, what businessmen and big corporations do with tax is resort to the wear and tear clause.
Unfortunately, that is not the case for the single family homeowners, since not only can the homeowner not do a thing about the depreciation on his own house, but he is forced to accept the assessment increases. So we see that as a result of scientific assessments, the value of the house is increasing with time.
For science's sake, we see a further rise in the price of our properties. There follows interesting results in the financial respect, since all over the country homeowners have seen their municipal and school taxes increase threefold in 10 years. The mayors of our cities, who know how to calculate, and who even show some honesty, are warning us that the tax increases we had to pay up until now are only a beginning, since we should expect to see the taxes increase twofold within five years. In other words, the homeowner who had to pay $300 10 years ago, and who
March 29, 1974
[Stage Direction]
is paying $900 today, should expect to have to pay $1,800 bills in 1980.
Mr. Speaker, unless measures are taken to correct the indebtment system we know, a costly and inhuman system indeed, we will witness many individual bankruptcies.
Families unable to pay their insurance premiums, school and municipal taxes as well as high mortgage payments will have to give up their home. The balance sheet of our cities and municipalities show an increase in public service costs, it is true, but these same balance sheets also show that, in some cases, debt servicing eats up 40 and sometimes 50 per cent of the budget.
Under the present system, no one can expect a reduction of this portion absorbed by finance. Indeed, a table published by Statistics Canada shows that Quebec municipalities that had spent $234,530,000 on their debts in 1971 had to pay $273,166,000 for the same service in 1972.
As for the increased cost of municipal and school services, we cannot put all the blame on local or regional authorities because, unfortunately, they are also dependent on the system. It is common knowledge that in order to promote the development of municipalities, the Social Credit has been suggesting for a long time that loans be granted to provinces at low interest rates. Therefore, provinces could distribute these funds in proportion to the needs and under the terms determined by municipalities or school boards.
But until such time as those steps are taken, our administrators will be at grips with the many problems that are growing worse every year. They have no recourse, to make ends meet, other than increasing taxes or else multiplying loans. But precisely because some cities are knee-deep in debt, we too often have tax increases. Until now, owners have managed to survive either by borrowing right and left, or because both the man or the woman have a source of income, or because the family head has had a recent increase in salary.
But how much longer, Mr. Speaker, will owners stand up under the burden of taxes over taxes? What about retired people on a fixed income, and the large number of low-income owners?
It is true that some workers get a small increase every year, but as salaries go up the staircase, taxes go up the elevator so you will agree that those increases, fall far short of what family heads need to meet their responsibilities. We recognize that the Canadian government has multiplied its housing activities. It has also multiplied the funds made available to the provinces for residential construction. We know that the loans granted for the construction of new houses can go up to 90 per cent of their loan value up to $20,000 and 80 per cent for the rest up to $25,000. But after the increase in interest rates, we note that a great many prospective owners have had to abandon their projects, especially in Quebec, where the housing crisis still exists. Moreover, it is important to remember that Quebec is also the province of tenants.
A Statistics Canada paper tabled in the House in the spring of 1971 told us for instance that in 1970 48 per cent
Tax Rebate
of Quebecers were tenants and 52 per cent were owners. These significant figures are quite alarming. We wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Canadian government does not aim in a small way at establishing a socialist system in Canada where everyone would be a tenant.
If that is the object of the government, Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can rest assured and conclude that he is on the right track, by comparing some figures: he could even set the date of his victory. The documents I mentioned a while ago, which were tabled in this House at the time, at the request of the honourable Member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), precisely reveal also that in 1966, there were in the province of Quebec 57.9 per cent of "propertied people" against 42.1 per cent of tenants, which means that owners are becoming tenants at the rate of 1 per cent per year. Therefore, the conclusion is rather simple. If there is no real improvement before long, in 25 years from now only one quarter of the people will be owners while three quarters of them will be tenants.
Therefore I repeat, Mr. Speaker, if that is what the government wishes, there is no problem, we only have to let things go their way.
On the other hand, if the Liberal government wishes to be the champion of capitalism, of private enterprise, I believe the time has come to show it by passing legislation to encourage first the head of family, owner of his house. If it has become a complicated thing for Canadians to own a house and to preserve what they acquired through their work, it is only, I think, because laws and regulations enacted by Parliament or the various departments do not reflect the opportunities that exist in this country. We have space and an abundance of materials and production could even be pressed on if necessary. And on a simple phone call, the manpower centre could send half a million unemployed people to work, since all they ask is work.
Therefore, considering that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials contributed to the housing rising costs, there are not two ways of proceeding, but only one: let us abolish it. If the increase in mortgage rates contributed to increase the cost of housing, let us reduce them. Since, on March 31, 1967, by a simple vote, the Canadian Government abolished the ceiling on the rates of interest, I suppose that the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could take the necessary steps so that this operation could be repeated in the opposite way. The Minister of Finance must know, I suppose, that we, members of parliament, have the power to set the rates of interest.
The housing problem is turning into a tragedy, the victims are many and apparently, no one feels responsible; even in private, the guilty ones, the members of the present government feel entirely innocent. Like some other members, I suggest that this little game has lasted long enough. Liberal members who are sitting here today should forget for a while about their campaign fund subscribers and care more about their constituents.
Today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) that the owners of single family dwellings get an income tax rebate equal to the amount of the interest on their mortgage and the amount of their municipal and school taxes up to $1,000 a year. I hope to get the support of all the members of this House because
[Stage Direction]
March 29, 1974
Tax Rebate
this is what all the people want. Even the liberal supporters ask for it.
Last fall, every newspaper in this country reported that the liberal supporters at their meeting in the federal capital passed a resolution to exempt from base interest paid and even mortgage interests.
The Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste from la Chaudiere, at their annual meeting last fall at ville Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, chaired by Mr. Andre Breton, a liberal organizer, passed a resolution to that effect. The members of the School Trustees Association from all Canadian provinces at their meeting in Quebec in May, 1973 asked for the same thing. The resolution reads as follows:
"That the Canadian School Trustees Association send a petition to the Minister ot Finance of the Canadian government and Ministers of Finance of every Canadian province asking them to adopt financial measures allowing owners and tenants of family dwellings to deducts their school taxes from their taxable income"
This resolution was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the provincial ministers of finance.
These school trustees coming from all over Canada and representing urban as well as rural communities, stated they were speaking on behalf of a majority of men and women who assume responsibilities in respect of Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the House also has responsibilities to assume in respect of Canadian taxpayers, and this is why the hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada are happy to join with the school trustees in an attempt to ask for a little justice for all Canadians who have made efforts and have showed a sense of responsibility.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this private member's notice of motion to grant an income tax rebate on mortgage interest paid on the family home. This measure is long overdue and it is one that I and other members of the Progressive Conservative Party have advocated for some time. This party supports the principle that a proportion of municipal property taxes and interest on mortgages should be deductible from the federal taxable income of home owners, and that a comparable tax benefit should be extended to tenants.
The Canadian family's dream of owning a single family dwelling is fast fading. Housing costs are soaring daily and mortgage interest rates are at the 10 per cent level. Whether the housing crisis is one of shortage or price is of little consequence to the average Canadian taxpayer who, at best, must be making about $17,000 annually simply to obtain a mortgage before he is able even to consider purchasing a home. Otherwise he is forced to live in an apartment or row housing.
Approximately 70 per cent of Canadians want to own a single family home on a decent sized lot. Today, in Toronto and other Canadian cities, only 5 per cent of the population can afford to buy a home and many of these must pay up to half of their income in mortgage payments. When one hears of such a situation it is very easy to understand why the bill of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) must be accepted by the government and

immediate tax concessions granted under the terms of the bill for home buyers and home owners.
Here are a few reasons why this bill should be passed. Every Canadian should, as a right, be able to obtain and live in suitable, reasonable-cost housing with the amenities of landscape. However, within the natural constraints of geography and necessary economic and social limitations, the aim of government policy should be to generate sufficient housing stock of various forms so that all Canadians may exercise their freedom of choice as to the style and tenure of housing in which they live.
The CMHC annual report for 1973 states that the thrust of housing in Canada under their administration and that of the Department of Urban Affairs is directed mainly at low or modest income groups. Undoubtedly, throughout 1973 more and more assistance was given to these groups, but there was no government action designed to alleviate the plight of the average Canadian who cannot afford to buy a home. The government has done nothing to ease the current situation of persistently increasing housing prices or excessively high interest rates, except to announce that more research will be undertaken and that it will be approximately five years before the study is completed and another five years before Canadians can expect relief.
This resolution would alleviate the plight not only of new home buyers but present home owners who are being taxed to death by all levels of government. The $100 million that the government is spending on its urban demonstration program would have been more wisely spent on assisting, taxwise, new home buyers and new home owners. I cannot express too strongly, Mr. Speaker, the necessity for this resolution to be accepted. The mechanics of it can be debated in committee. Many other countries have such a tax rebate system, and it is long overdue in Canada.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I oppose the principle that we should pay a bonus to people who own homes. Such action would create class divisions in our society. We would divide people into those who rent homes and those who own homes. As it is, our present laws confer enormous benefits on home owners because home ownership is a non-taxable benefit. I will mention figures later to demonstrate how our present tax system distorts the entire housing market by giving a bonus to home owners. Any attempt to reward home ownership more can only backfire and make the housing situation worse than it is.
The idea in the hon. member's motion may look good. Home ownership is like motherhood. Historically, municipal and provincial laws in Canada have tended to favour property owners. Unless you owned property, you could not vote and you were considered a second-class citizen in this country. As far back as 100 years we tended to classify people on the basis of whether they were or were not property owners. Property qualifications were necessary if one wanted to vote. At one time one had to own property if one wanted to be a member of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That still holds true for the Senate.
March 29, 1974


Max Saltsman: I suggest that although this qualification may have been valid in a frontier society-and I suspect it was not valid even then-it has no place in a modern society. The tax system, which undoubtedly confers a bonus on the home owner, is inequitable. This means that one group is more favourably treated than another. I do not think any member of this House would say that a person who owns a home or owns property is more worthy of consideration or is a better citizen than the person who rents or does not own property. Although we do not make such distinctions, our tax system makes them; and if we were to accept the hon. member's motion the situation would be even worse. As I said before, it would create serious distortions in the housing market and throw the burden on people who are not home owners.
Members of this House often suggest that the government should abolish the sales tax on building materials. Although getting rid of the sales tax may be highly desirable, I wish people who make that suggestion would say how the government is to make up the lost revenue. Compared with the losses which would be sustained if we paid this bonus to home owners, the loss occasioned by abolishing the sales tax on building materials would be modest. I notice that nobody has told us how much the proposal would cost. Figures have not been given. If you are to provide a bonus to home owners, you must obtain the lost taxes from some other source. If you suggest that we should get them, or part of them, from corporations I would listen sympathetically. Yet corporations are not a bottomless pit. So those who advocate changes in our tax system which confer benefits on one class of persons and not on another must tell us from where the money to make up lost taxes is to come and how we are to make up the difference.
I can understand why my friends in the Social Credit party support this proposal. According to Social Credit theory, the Bank of Canada should make interest-free loans available to our municipalities. Although I disagree with their theory, I at least understand why they are bringing forward this proposal. It looks good in theory. I am only surprised that the Conservative Party has backed it. I think it owes a debt of gratitude to the Social Credit party.
As I said earlier, this kind of bonus would create new class conflicts. At one time, virtually everyone who lived in the city was an actual or prospective home owner. Today that situation has changed markedly, 50 per cent of our people owning property and 50 per cent living in rented accommodation. For a variety of reasons, such as that some people cannot afford the price of a home or cannot afford to maintain a home, although that is not so important, housing today is beyond the reach of the majority of people. Many people in this country do not want to be home owners. Their life style is such that they prefer being free to change their accommodation. They do not want to be tied to a home. They do not think that living in a single family home is the preferred way of living.
That being so, why should parliament say, "We think that is the preferred way of living. We think there is some virtue in home ownership and we will confer extra benefits on the home owner"? If we said that, we would be
Tax Rebate
grossly unfair to the poor and to newcomers who are trying to become established. In some ways we would be acting like the people who form neighbourhood groups because they want to preserve their areas. I can understand their thinking. Too often they are motivated by nothing but self-interest. They do not care about other people who want to come to the city. Their attitude is, "This is my place; I have a special preserve here and I intend to keep it". The fact that some people are coming to the city from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Manitoba does not concern them in the least. They say, "If as a consequence of my actions house prices across the city rise, so be it. I don't care as long as my own property is preserved".
Looking back, I can recall that I wanted to become a socialist partly because of my distaste for people who place fantastic emphasis on property as opposed to people. Some think property is far more important than people. They do not care what happens to human beings so long as they preserve their property. It has been said that this great attachment to land, this great attachment to property is the root of virtually all human selfishness. Any law which increases selfishness is not a good law.
I want to illustrate how we subsidize home ownership, how we give benefits to those who own property. An investment in property will bring greater returns than almost any other investment in our society. I shall mention a hypothetical case, but it could well be true. Let us assume that an individual wants to invest $30,000. He can put it into Canada Savings Bonds, into a trust company, or buy a piece of property-assuming he can buy property for $30,000. I think $40,000 is nearer the mark. The figures really do not matter; they are merely used for illustrating my theme.
Let us assume that an individual buys a piece of property in a rural or small community. Its carrying charges would not exceed $100 a month. That is, $100 per month would cover his taxes, heating and some repairs. Therefore, he can live in that house for $100 per month. He can also expect, if present conditions continue-and I do not see why they will not-his home to appreciate by at least $1,200 per year. I know of few homes which have appreciated less. That appreciation is the equivalent of a capital gain on which the owner pays no tax. This means that the individual has invested $30,000 and has provided himself with rent-free accommodation. He pays absolutely nothing for rent in the time he lives in the house. I know there are complicating factors; He may not have the money to put down. The point is, whether he borrows the money or puts it all down he is in a position to obtain a capital appreciation. Home ownership is a non-taxable benefit; he therefore receives a considerable benefit.
I will now consider the other man. If he takes his $30,000 and invests it in Canada Savings Bonds at 8 per cent, or in a trust company, bank investment or even Bell Canada, he gets a return in interest of $2,400, every cent of which is taxable. If he is in the 30 per cent tax bracket, and you do not have to be earning a great deal of money to be in that bracket, he loses $800 in taxes. This leaves a net return of $1,600 on his $30,000 investment.

March 29, 1974
Tax Rebate
What can this man rent for $1,600 a year? That works out to about $125 a month. If he has children and wants comparable accommodation to the home which cost him $30,000, he has to pay between $275 and $300 a month. He is being disadvantaged to the tune of about $150 a month because of the distortions in the tax system. The tax system does not have a concept like an imputed benefit. There is no imputed tax in our society and there is no wealth tax.
What are the consequences? The consequences are that anyone with any kind of intelligence in the investment field puts his money into a house, whether he owns the house or not. There are many people who buy homes to increase their investment portfolio or as a hedge against inflation. This results in all kinds of homes being taken off the market. It raises the prices of homes because of the increased competition for the available supply of housing. It puts more pressure on the rest of the people in the housing market whether they are renters or owners. Today many apartments are being converted from rental units to condominiums. The owners can get a better price from buyers of condominium units because of the tax benefits which a condominium owner receives. In some cities serious shortages of rental accommodation have occurred as a result of this.
Rather than take a system which is now very unfair and make it more unfair, this House should try to find a way of levelling off the differences between owners of property and persons who rent. I have no illusions. I hope what I am saying will not be taken out of context or misunderstood. Those who wish to own their homes should do so. What I am suggesting is that we should be fair to everyone in our society. While there are many middle income people who own their own homes, they are still the better off in our society. They at least have the down payment; they at least have some capital as compared with those who rent.
If we want to help those who need help the most, we should to a far greater extent be making public housing available to persons who do not have the down payment for a home and cannot afford to maintain a home with the idea that one day they will benefit from capital appreciation.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) the adoption of which would mean that the personal income tax act would be amended. I intend to address myself to that particular point and explain the effects of such a measure, without dealing with the reasons invoked by the hon. member for Portneuf, to justify those amendments.
Now, in the course of my remarks, I shall discuss amendments to the income tax act. I believe the former speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), spoke on this matter.
The mover proposes a rebate on municipal taxes and the mortgage interest the citizen pays on his house. He seems to indicate that the amount paid in municipal taxes, or mortgage interest, to the extent of $1,000, could be deducted from the individual's income tax.

It is taken for granted that the hon. member for Portneuf does not suggest a direct payment to the taxpayer whose municipal taxes and mortgage interest exceed his total income tax.
Mr. Speaker, the present income tax act does give, even now, a tax rebate or, as is more commonly called, tax credits in one case only: when the income of the taxpayer has already been taxed.
For instance, when a taxpayer receives income from abroad where a tax has already been paid, the income tax act grants a tax credit to be used against Canadian taxes up to a maximum equal to the amount paid to the foreign government. That credit is known as the foreign tax credit.
The dividend exemption is granted because it is acknowledged that dividends paid to a taxpayer originate from incomes already taxed at the corporate level. Apart from those two exceptions, the Income Tax Act grants no further rebates. Moreover, this legislation is based on the principle that personal expenses cannot be deducted. Municipal taxes and mortgage interests for a family dwelling surely belong to the category of personal expenses.
I would like to make now a few general remarks. First, the proposal of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) is contrary to both principles of the tax legislation previously mentioned. By suggesting a tax rebate when no taxed income has been received, he is in fact suggesting that the government should pay the first $1,000 in interest on the mortgage interest and municipal taxes of each taxpayer.
Second, the proposal goes beyond the area of tax deductions. The cost of deductible expenses is at least partly supported by the taxpayer whereas the proposal of the member for Portneuf shifts the whole cost to the Treasury. In this connection, it is more generous than the deduction and therefore even more contrary to the income tax principles which forbid deduction of personal expenses.
First, let us consider the deduction of mortgage interests and municipal taxes while taking into account that anything true of a deduction is also true of a tax rebate except that the proposed tax rebate is even more generous than a deduction.
In principle, the purchase of a house is no different from that of any other asset intended for personal use even though it is generally the most important expense incurred by a taxpayer during his lifetime.
When the Royal Commission on Taxation reviewed some years ago the income tax system, it recommended upholding the principle that personal and living expenses be not deductible. It did not recommend to government a deduction for municipal taxes and mortgage interest payments.
Mr. Speaker, at the introduction of the tax reform in 1971, it was recognized that an incentive to becoming a homeowner was desirable. On the other hand, it seemed preferable to stick to the fundamental rule mentioned above concerning personal expenses deductibility.
The Income Tax Act provides therefore two significant incentives to acquire a home. The first is to allow the
March 29, 1974

taxpayer to realize a capital gain on the sale of his house without incurring any tax obligation. The second is to continue the practice of not including in the taxpayer's income the economic advantage of owning a house. This advantage, which is the value of the house, can be considered the return on the capital he invested. Incidentally, notice should be taken that other countries, including Great Britain have added in the past this "alleged income" to that of the tax-payer for income tax purposes.
A comparison between the owner and the tenant of a dwelling should illustrate this. For instance, let us say that Mr. Leblanc and Mr. Tremblay each have $20,000 to invest. Mr. Leblanc buys a house and Mr. Tremblay, securities bringing him $1,000 a year.
Every year, Mr. Tremblay must add $1,000 to his income while Mr. Leblanc is adding nothing. Furthermore, Mr. Tremblay must pay rent and, of course, rent is not a deductible expense. It is unlikely that the $1,000 a year, once the income tax is paid, could get him a dwelling like the one Mr. Leblanc got with a capital outlay of $20,000. The result is that Mr. Leblanc is in a better position than Mr. Tremblay from the income tax point of view.
For example, let us assume that, 15 years later, Mr. Leblanc's house is worth $40,000 and Mr. Tremblay's securities are worth $40,000; should both decide to sell, Mr. Leblanc would get all the proceeds of the sale tax free, but Mr. Tremblay would have to add to his income half his capital gain, that is $10,000.
So, Mr. Leblanc has again the advantage compared with Mr. Tremblay. At the present time, the Income Tax Act favours considerably the home owner.
If the government, Mr. Speaker, were to pass a proposal for the granting of a tax deduction or rebate for the interest paid on mortgages, Mr. Leblanc would be still more ahead of Mr. Tremblay because he could purchase a house at a higher price, get a mortgage and deduct the interest. Not only would he not be taxed but also his eventual capital gain would be higher.
Thus, we see that the acceptance of such a proposal would be unfair to the tenant. It would favour the higher income taxpayer in two ways. Firstly, those who are too poor to save the down payment on a house could not avail themselves of this provision. Secondly, the person who owns a dwelling but who has only a small amount of income tax to pay could not take advantage of the full rebate. The maximum rebate of $1,000 would be a very important relief.
Even if the proposal were changed so that the amount was deducted from the income rather than from the tax, it should be much more beneficial to the higher income taxpayer than to the lower income taxpayer.
Having studied in general the advantages the Income Tax Act gives now to home owners and the effect that the deduction of mortgage interest and municipal taxes would have from the point of view of fiscal equality, let us examine now some examples of what would happen if the proposal of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) was adopted.
Let us say that a taxpayer named "A" has a yearly income of $5,000, claims deductions of $4,000 and a taxable income of $1,000; his federal income tax in 1973 would be
Tax Rebate
$75 and his provincial income tax, if he lives in Ontario, would be about $24, which totals $99. If he paid municipal taxes of $200 and made interest payments of $800, it seems he has a right to the $1,000 rebate.
However, the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Portneuf refers to an income tax abatement. The federal government would grant a credit of $75 and his income tax account would become nil. Likewise, considering that provincial income taxes are assessed in a number of provinces as a percentage of the federal income tax, his tax rate would also be nil.
The total benefit to the taxpayer would only amount to $99, or a little over 10 per cent of his housing costs, and this amount of $24 would have been contributed by his province of residence.
I should like to compare this case with that of another taxpayer identified as Mr. B, whose income amounts to $9,000; because of his $4,000 deductions, his taxable income amounts to $5,000. In 1973, he would have paid $875 in federal income tax and approximately $300 in provincial income tax-as an Ontario resident-making a total of $1,175. He would pay $400 in municipal taxes and $600 of interest on his mortgage. According to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Portneuf, this taxpayer would be entitled to a $1,000 income tax abatement.
He would then be entitled to a $875 abatement; therefore, his federal income tax account would become nil, and so would become his provincial account. He would therefore receive a benefit, not of $1,000, but of $1,175, that is, $875 from the federal government and $300 from his province of residence.
Let us now consider the case of Mr. C, a rich man with no mortgage to pay. Because he occupies a very expensive accommodation his municipal taxes amount to $1,000 per yer. He is entitled to a $1,000 exemption from the federal government and a $305 one from the provincial government, if he resides in Ontario. In fact, he has made a tax-free benefit of $305, or 30.5 per cent, simply by paying his municipal taxes.
Mr. Speaker, those three examples illustrate some interesting suggestions. First, the abatement would favour high-income taxpayer at the expense of low-income taxpayers. Second, the overall effect of the abatement would yield an amount greater than the taxpayer's taxes and mortgage interest or the maximum amount of $1,000, because in several cases, provincial tax is related to federal tax. Third, any abatement of this kind would represent a major cost to the provinces.
It must also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that two provinces, Manitoba and Ontario, in cooperation with the federal government, adopted a plan designed to grant tax credits in order to ease the burden of municipal taxes. But those plans have four major imaginative characteristics. First, they are meant to bring as much relief as possible to low-income people. Then, they reduce provincial taxes rather than federal taxes, with the result that provinces subsidize their own municipalities. Furthermore, they help tenants as well as owners. Finally, they pay money directly to people when the credit exceeds the amount of income tax.

March 29, 1974
Tax Rebate
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Portneuf would change those provincial plans by giving equal or greater assistance to those who own their own homes and pay high income tax. However, his proposal would not help those who benefit now under those provincial plans.
In conclusion, I will say that the possibility still exists that municipalities could increase their taxes and interest rates on mortgages could go up if the proposal made by the hon. member for Portneuf was accepted. In each case the homeowner is relieved of a major part of his cost which is passed on to the federal government. The result of this is that higher interest ra*es and municipal taxes would become less burdensome for homeowners. However, the federal government would have to raise in some way or another the money required to finance those abatements.
In conclusion, as I said before, we must consider the matter of revenues, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible to assess what would be the cost to the federal and provincial governments of the tax rebate proposed by the hon. member for Portneuf, but a tax rebate of $500 for half the Canadian taxpayers, that is to say 4 million people, would already amount to $2 billion. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that consideration must be given to the fact that if the federal government revenues are reduced by $2 billion, new taxes would have to be imposed in order to meet the requirements of government spending.
I have often heard in the past some remarks to the effect that spending could be reduced. But between 1958 and 1963, for instance, the government of the time, which had promised during an election campaign to reduce government spending, increased it every year.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who, with all the warmth of an undertaker at a funeral, dealt with the social problem which this motion attempts at least to begin to deal with in terms of an accountant. Surely there is much more to this problem than the cold, stark statistics the hon. member gave us just a few moments ago. Whether we like it or not-and this is not the place to assess blame-there is a housing problem in Canada and housing represents a prime social, economic and physical requirement.
The unmistakable fact is that, whoever is to blame-the hon. member for Gatineau can accept the blame on behalf of his party and the government he supports, if he wishes, and he was among the government's apologists a few moments ago-there is still the housing need to be resolved. I would rather look to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), who at least came up with some rationale as to the principle, and I do not agree with everything he said, than the hon. member for Gatineau. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge suggested there was a danger that in this proposal we would be considering persons who own property as more valuable citizens than those who do not. To that extent he is right. If the wording of this motion represents the limit of our imagination in respect of an attack on the problem, then certainly the shortcoming of the motion is that it

does favour home owners. That is not to say that during the study a committee would make, if the matter were allowed to go there, its good principle could not be extended to those who rent.
The hon. member said that some 50 per cent of our people rent property, and I have no reason to doubt that. In any event, I think the principle is sound in terms of permitting a lower rate of cost in respect of renting premises, and a lower number of obstacles in respect of ownership of premises or encouraging ownership. Because this is merely a first step, the hon. member for Gatineau speaking for the Liberal Party, ought not to oppose it.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge asked where we would get the money and how much it would cost in terms of revenue. My researchers have indicated that it would require something in the order of $1 billion a year. I want to say in passing that the contribution the Liberal government made to the corporations when it embraced them in the last budget-


An hon. Member:: You supported it.


Walter David Baker: This government made contributions to the corporations through the tax cuts, and if you read the reports you will see that this has not done them very well. Those tax cuts were worth $800 million to the corporations, and I suggest that would make a good start in finding the funds to make up any deficit which there would be under the program proposed in this motion. The point is that the matter of housing and accommodation is extremely important and ought not to be treated with the coldness of an accountant, particularly when you consider the burdens of renters and homeowners today because of difficulties largely created by the ineptness of the policies of this government.
I was surprised to hear the supporter and apologist for this government take the position he did. Our policy, and we make no apology for it, is to go further than the principle behind this motion, which unfortunately is limited to only those who own houses, in an effort to assist persons who are renting property.
I notice from the reaction of hon. members on the other side that they are somewhat uncomfortable about the housing situation which bears as its monument to ineptitude a 9.7 per cent increase in the consumer price index as it relates to housing. Another monument to the government's ineptitude in housing matters is the fact that in the one year, 1972-73, the average increase in the price of a home in Ontario was 26.2 per cent, in British Columbia it was 22.9 per cent and in Alberta 20.3 per cent. Those figures are a condemnation of this government.
The average selling price of a house in the cities of Canada is an indication of the failure of this government. We had an increase in one year in this city of Ottawa of 21.7 per cent. Let hon. members opposite not speak coldly, in terms of tax statistics, because housing in this country has become a social problem largely because of the ineptitude of the government which those apologists are prepared to support in denying the goodness and reasonableness of this motion which represents a first step.
March 29, 1974


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The private members' business hour is over. It being five
Tax Rebate
o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME I