1974-03-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that arrangements have been completed with provincial ministers of education for renewal of the federal-provincial program on bilingualism in education. Under this program, the federal government will provide funds to assist the provinces with the supplementary costs of providing minority language education and second language instruction for a five-year period, starting April 1, 1974.
You may recall a letter dated January 13 to members of parliament in which I mentioned how impressed and encouraged I was following a series of meetings last fall with ministers of education during which I discussed renewal of this program. In that letter I also mentioned the renewed determination of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec to preserve their language and culture and of a related desire on the part of many English-speaking Canadians to establish bonds of co-operation and understanding between the two language communities of this country.

Since 1970, the federal government has financially assisted the provinces to maintain and improve the educational facilities available in the minority official language, and to improve the teaching of the second official language in the educational systems of Canada.
The objectives of the program, as agreed to by the federal and provincial governments, are twofold; to ensure that, insofar as it is feasible, Canadians of either official language have the opportunity to educate their children in their own language, and that Canadian students have the opportunity to learn, as a second language, the other official language of Canada.

It was gratifying to note that the Commissioner of Official Languages shares my optimism over our progress toward these objectives. In his report tabled on March 21, the commissioner speaks of some important trends, including a desire among English-speaking parents to extend and improve the teaching of French.
The commissioner has also spoken of the commendable leadership demonstrated by the federal government and
sees it as playing the role of an increasingly effective catalyst in the field of language programs. The commissioner stated his conviction that the contributions made by the Department of the Secretary of State constitute a program deserving renewal and expansion.
As under the existing program, the bulk of federal financial support after April 1, 1974, will take the form of payments made to the provinces based on the number of students enrolled in second language programs and the time spent on these activities. In addition, a federal contribution of 1.5 per cent of the annual per student cost will be paid to the provincial governments for administrative purposes and will be based on the total number of school children in each province belonging to the minority language group.
The importance of supporting innovative and experimental measures in minority language education and second language instruction continues to be recognized by the federal and provincial governments and the new agreement makes provision for continuing shared-cost projects designed to meet such needs at any level of the educational system.
I expect federal funding to continue at much the same annual level as at present for most elements of the program. Cost of the over-all program during the past four years has averaged some $70 million annually.
As I mentioned in my letter to members of parliament in January, I feel that the real answer to recognizing the bilingual reality of Canada is through the school system. If bilingualism is to work, the base must be established within our schools.
I am extremely gratified by the level of co-operation I have encountered in discussions with the provinces about the renewal of this program and I look forward to continuing collaboration for the forthcoming five-year period.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome most assuredly the minister's announcement. This is a program which in our view merits the support of each and every member of parliament in this House of Commons.
It has always been my view that our educational system as such has a primary role to play in emphasizing the positive benefits of bilingualism, and this the minister certainly emphasized in his announcement.
We on this side of the House have displayed concern and are still concerned that moneys voted by Ottawa to the provinces for second language instruction are not in fact used in all cases for this purpose. Nothing the minister has said in the past or today has assured us that this situation has been entirely rectified. Of course, if second languages are to be properly taught, we need more good teachers and

March 27, 1974
Bilingualism in Education
professors and better teaching methods. At the present time there is a serious lack in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, as an English-speaking Quebecer, I can state that my language rights have always been protected and respected. I am sure that this will continue to be the case. For instance, as an English-speaking Quebecer, I have always been able to communicate with the federal government in my mother tongue. Unfortunately, in the past and even recently, the same situation has not always existed for French-speaking people throughout Canada, even if there has surely been some progress.

The minister's announcement should be greeted with a high degree of what I would call bipartisan spirit. Journalists and other individuals often ask me about our party's stand on bilingualism. Under the leadership of our leader we recognize, and we have said this time and time again, the positive benefits of the bilingual and multicultural nature of Canada. It has always been my view, and I have said this in both official languages, that when individuals or politicians play with the question of bilingualism or language rights for what they feel to be short-term advantage or political gain they in fact hurt this institution and Canada as a whole.
To reiterate, and I have spoken to many members on both sides of the House in this regard, there should be no specific Liberal, NDP, Social Credit or Progressive Conservative position on bilingualism. There should only be one united House of Commons bipartisan position. In this spirit of bipartisanship, I welcome the minister's announcement.


Mr. Mark  Hose@Fraser Valley West: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Anyone listening to my pronunciation of those words will be convinced that I suffer as one of the victims of the lack of a bilingual program in our country in earlier years. My party and I have traditionally supported the bilingual program. We welcome the minister's announcement along with his courtesy, extended to the spokesmen for the various parties, in making certain that his statement was available at least an hour and a half before the House opened. Having said that, I have to ask myself: what was his hurry? I can see nothing in the new program that is not really in fact a continuation of the existing program, and he implies in the statement that funds appropriated some three or four years ago for that program have not been used.
The old program supported minority language instruction and second language instruction. What we cannot ascertain from the minister's statement is what proportion, within the broad parameters of the program, is assigned to each. It seems to me that phrases such as "the bulk" and vague language of that kind do not help parliamentarians or the spokesman for any party very much in judging whether this program is designed as a tokenistic approach or whether the government is serious in its stated objective of attempting to increase the degree of bilingualism and the number of people capable of biling-
[Mr. Grafftey.l
ual communication in Canada. We really do not know how much is allocated for each program in each province.
We are concerned as well about the contribution of 1.5 per cent of the annual per pupil cost to each provincial government for administration. In British Columbia this amount may be relatively minor because of the approach of the former government of the province. I am happy to report there is a new approach now, but the former provincial government either did not take advantage of the program or, if it did, the money was used to finance the status quo across the province and very seldom if ever passed on to the school districts.
Last year the Commissioner of Official Languages called second language instruction in Canada a national disaster. I notice that in his new report he has backed off somewhat from that statement. Perhaps he has been speaking to affluent English-speaking Canadians at cocktail parties, because I think there exists among the affluent and better educated Canadians a keen desire that second language instruction and bilingualism be enhanced. This is not true. What is actually happening in our country is that bilingualism and second language instruction are not increasing at all. In spite of the government's programs and policies the bilingual program is actually on the decline. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to cite briefly a few figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that at this point I should perhaps interrupt him just for a moment. I realize he has not completed his statement, but I think I have to remind the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and all hon. members that under the Standing Order comments should be brief. I have said before and I repeat that it is difficult for the Chair to determine the extent of brevity. I would think the guideline should be the length of the original statement by the minister, and when the statement takes five minutes and the comments ten minutes perhaps the hon. member who makes the longer statement is not respecting the spirit of the Standing Order. I mention this for the guidance of the hon. member and all hon. members who offer comments within the terms of the Standing Order.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your advice and will be guided by your suggestion. I did not realize I had exceeded or was likely to exceed the time taken by the minister in making his statement. It seemed to me that he spoke for a lengthy period. I will skip the documentation of my argument that second language training is on the decline.
I suggest that a much larger program in the schools would accomplish our bilingual objectives much more expeditiously than the kind of programs that are embarked upon at the adult level. In my view it is much better to spend the available language instructions funds on school children than on 50 year old members of parliament, civil servants and about to be retired brigadiers.
I should like to observe in closing that universities across Canada by and large no longer require a second language. What we are doing about bilingualism through the program the minister has just announced today is a
March 27, 1974

mere drop in the bucket compared with the $500 million we are spending on post-secondary education. I should like to ask the minister, parenthetically and rhetorically, what he intends to do and how he is going to use his influence to increase second language instruction in universities. It does not necessarily have to be French, but I suggest it is the mark of an educated person to be able to converse in more than one language and I think that we in North America are unique in the world in being limited in our ability to communicate in a language other than our mother tongue.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I am not as
satisfied as the hon. minister, and I should like to make a few comments to prove it to the House.
We have often heard fine statements about the intentions of the government, and I think this is mostly what this is, since we would have to know exactly how these programs will be applied for the simple reason that we agree with the suggested assistance for the teaching of a second language. However, as concerns the teaching of the language of the minority, Quebec has had experience in this field with Bill 63, which was introduced with the best of intentions and allowed everyone to choose the teaching language he preferred. This experience was a catastrophe and all Quebecers now want to have this bill amended.
We are faced with a somewhat similar situation. Mr. Speaker, when it is a matter of teaching the language of the minority, we must distinguish between the French-and English-speaking groups. I find the reason in the first page of the minister's statement where he says that he sent a letter to his colleagues in which:
... I mentioned also the renewed determination of the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec to preserve their language and culture and I spoke of a related desire on the part of many English-speaking Canadians to establish bonds of co-operation and understanding between the two language ...
Mr. Speaker, there is the difference. For one group, the French-speaking minority, it is a matter of survival while for the other group it is a matter of understanding. Now, considering that distinction, the special assistance granted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec is unjustified. There is in Quebec an important English-speaking minority which as a result of historic circumstances or others, is richer and has better structures than French-speaking Quebecers. Therefore, helping this linguistic minority would only serve to worsen even more an already quite disastrous situation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a way to solve this problem. The money would be used wisely if it helped create in the province of Quebec an education system where, at the elementary level, French only were taught in French schools. English-speaking Canadians would benefit from that. I am sure, as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) himself indicated, that if he had had the opportunity to attend a French school at the elementary level up to Grade 7, and then move on to an English school at the secondary level, he would be a lot more fluent in the language spoken by Moliere and could represent more effectively the 80 per cent of his constituents who speak French.
Veterans Land Act
These are facts, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly deserve being emphasized. We agree with the assistance given to the teaching of the other language, but as far as the minority in Quebec is concerned, we must discriminate, for there is no linguistic problem for the Englishspeaking population in Canada. There is only one such problem in Canada, and it is the one with which Frenchspeaking Canadians are faced and which affects the French-speaking minorities in all Canadian provinces, except Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I felt it was necessary for me to make these remarks, and I hope these programs will be directed along these lines.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the chaotic condition that prevails in the beef industry, aggravated by the government's subsidy program which has caused panic selling, the accumulation of large numbers of unsold cattle at yards, markets and feedlots, together with a serious depression of prices to the extent that the subsidy of 7 cents per pound has now been nullified. Reports today indicate that a number of major markets have suspended their operations in Alberta. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Hollands):
That the deadlines of April 13 and April 6 on A3 and A4 grades of beef, respectively, be removed and that eligibility for subsidy on these grades be extended until the market returns to orderly and profitable levels.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On page vi of the notice paper attached to today's order paper there appears an indication of the introduction of a bill entitled "An Act to Amend the Veterans Land Act." According to the notice paper it is to be introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Mr. Speaker, there are a number of instances of ministers intruding into portfolios other than their own, but I hope that in this case this bill can be presented to the House by the distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
902

March 27, 1974
Railway Car Shortage


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. Although the notice was signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, possibly in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, it was a faulty entry, and the bill will appear in tomorrow's order paper as being sponsored by the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. Representation by concerned western Newfoundland fishermen, supported by the provincial government, urges protection for inshore fishermen against gill-net operators on the west coast of Newfoundland who tend to destroy our marine resources. Since the situation can reach emergency proportions I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House urges an immediate investigation by the Minister of Fisheries and that the matter be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 
TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continuing shortage of railway cars in Canada for a variety of commodities and the absolute, thorough and complete inability of the Minister of Transport to rectify the situation. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to raise with Dr. Kissinger of the United States the question of the more than 24,000 Canadian railway cars that were as of the end of
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
February in the United States, with a view to having them returned to Canada for use in the Canadian interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas it has been reliably reported that up to 65 employees have been laid off at two packaging plants in the Richmond area of British Columbia, namely, Belkin Packaging and Capital Bag, and whereas the reason for these lay-offs is that major suppliers are exporting so much of the liner board and bag craft paper needed for processing of finished products that lay-offs are occurring for lack of supplies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to co-operate with the B.C. provincial government in taking immediate action to ensure that domestic needs are given priority.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.) [Text]
Mr. Rowland: 1.	How many cases are now awaiting handling by the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	What is the average amount of time involved in the processing of a case once it has been received by the commission?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to again increasing the number of commissioners in order to more rapidly reduce the backlog
of cases?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Seven thousand three hundred sixty-two as of February 24, 1974. This includes a number for which a notice of intent has been filed with the commission to establish an effective date in the event of an award being
March 27, 1974

made, but for which the actual detailed application has not yet been received.
2.	The commission does not maintain statistics on the average length of time it takes to process a claim.
3.	No.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many retaining walls has the government built along the St. Lawrence River, in the constituency of Lotbiniere (a) where is each wall located (b) what was the total cost (c) what was the date of construction?
2.	If repairs or improvements were needed (a) on what date was the work done (b) at what cost?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Forty-seven, (a) 21, Deschaillons; 3, Lotbiniere (St-Louis de Lotbiniere); 8, St. Emmelie and Leclercville; 3, St-Croix; 7, St. Antoine de Tilly; 5, St. Pierre les Bec-quests; (b) $484,225. (c) The retaining walls were constructed during the following years: 1939, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1971, 1973.
2. (a) Repairs and improvements were carried out during 1947, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1971. (b) $52,740.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Department of the Environment received a resolution from the city of St. Catharines dated November 19, 1973 requesting the government to provide municipalities bordering Lake Ontario and Lake Erie with regular up-to-date information on water levels of these lakes?
2.	What action has the government taken on this matter and, specifically, has it agreed to this request and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date will municipalities start receiving the information?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
2. The Minister of the Environment wrote to the City Clerk of St. Catharines on December 21 stating that his department already publishes a Monthly Water Levels Bulletin for the Great Lakes and Montreal Harbour, which includes a forecast of probable future levels for the ensuing six months. The Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of St. Catharines is now on the distribution list. Daily information on water levels and their trends can be obtained by phone from the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, telephone 416-637-4268. (a) Not applicable, (b) As soon as they write to the Hydrographic Chart Distribution Office, Department of the Environment, Ottawa K1A 0E6 and ask to be put on the distribution list.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mather: Are negotiations between Canada and the United States relative to supertanker transport of oil through the Strait of Juan de Fuca confined to an oil-spill clean-up agreement?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canada-United States Oil Spill Contingency Plan which will soon be in effect will apply to the east coast and Great Lakes as well as the west coast. While important in itself, the plan is only one component of a comprehensive package the government is proposing to the United States as part of extensive bilateral negotiations to deal with whatever increase of tanker traffic may develop in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Rosario Strait.


Mr. Laprise: What was the cost of publication of the pamphlet number EN42-173 published by Environment Canada and how much did Workshop Inc. receive for the numerous drawings printed in the pamphlet?


Bill Rompkey: The total cost of publication of the pamphlet EN42-173, "Air Pollution in Canada", was $11,500. Design Workshop Inc. received $5,340 for their services.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce established a marketing and distribution group known as the "Newsprint Distribution Research" and, if so, on what date was it established, what companies are involved and what were the terms of reference?
2.	Will such study be broadened to include the shipment of newsprint from regions other than Quebec including the Atlantic Provinces?
3.	What are the names of the principal personnel involved in such study and what were the criteria for their selection?
4.	Has any computer work been allocated to companies based in the United States and, if so, for what reason was such work not given to Canadian-based firms?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. As part of the government's strategy to improve the international competitiveness of Canada's pulp and paper industry, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is contributing to the costs of a feasibility investigation on possible methods of reducing distribution costs for newsprint. Under the Trade-Industrial Program separate contributions are being made to the Canadian National Railways and to Newsprint Distribution Research, who are conducting separate parts of the investigation at arms length. Newsprint Distribution Research was established May 1, 1973, and is an association, formed for the purpose by a group of five newsprint producers based in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The companies involved are: Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Limited; The Price Company Limited; Domtar Limited; Abitibi Paper Company
27398-58^

March 27, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Limited; Consolidated-Bathurst Limited. The purpose of the investigation is to determine the most economical and feasible distribution channel or channels for the transportation, warehousing and delivery of newsprint from eastern Canadian mills to the United States.
2.	Before the investigation was undertaken, other Canadian newsprint producers were approached but only five were in a position at that time to contribute manpower and financial support. If intensive studies now under way indicate that there are significant transportation and warehousing cost savings to be achieved, other Canadian newsprint manufacturers will be urged to join in the formation of a non-profit distribution company. All Canadian rail carriers will be eligible to compete for the tonnage to be shipped by the distribution company.
3.	The Chairman of Newsprint Distribution Research is Mr. J. P. Lunderville, the Project Director is Mr. S. French. Both have had many years experience in the manufacturing and distribution of forest products with Canadian companies.
4.	No computer time has been purchased to date.


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


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. None.
2.	None.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: At any time during the production process of the June, 1970 issue of the Labour Gazette, or subsequent to the production process, were copies destroyed and the issue reprinted and, if so (a) what was the reason (b) was any material which appeared in the first production not included in the second and, if so, what was the nature of this material?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: (a).The first printing of the June 1970 issue of the Labour Gazette was not distributed because the author of a short article failed to clearly identify the source of the editorial opinion quoted therein, (b) Yes, the material mentioned in (a), concerning autonomy of Canadian unions.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Have charges been laid against the Toyo Maru and its captain?
2.	What are the charges and what are the maximum penalties on conviction?
3.	(a) Who owns the Toyo Maru (b) what is the name of the operator? 
4.	How long was the Toto Maru at sea on this voyage and how long in the vicinity of Canadian fishing grounds?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Yes, against the vessel master.
2.	Under Section 3(2) (a) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. "No person, being on board a foreign vessel or being a member of the crew of or attached to or employed on a foreign fishing vessel shall in Canada or in Canadian fisheries waters, (a) fish or prepare to fish." (Penalty (maximum) $25,000 or two years or both). Under 7(a)(i) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. "Every person is guilty of an offense who (a) being master or in command of a fishing vessel, (i) enters Canadian waters contrary to this act." (Penalty (maximum) $10,000 or one year or both).
3.	(a) Owner: Hokuyo Fuifan Ltd., 7-9-13 Chu Kigi, Chuo-Kuj, Tokyo, Japan, (b) Captain: Tatsuya Itoh.
4.	Left Japan December 1, 1973. First known off B.C. Coast, January 24, 1974.
Note: Name of Vessel is Koyo Maru II, not Toyo Maru.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What office space is rented and/or leased by the Department of Justice in each of the major cities in Canada?
2.	What is the price paid per square foot as per above?
3.	How many car stall spaces are rented and/or leased in each of the above buildings, or other buildings and what is the price paid per month?


Otto Emil Lang: (Part of total
	i.	2.	3.	accommodation
		*		service)
Halifax	1,990 sq. ft.	6.95	3	Montreal	11,282 sq. ft.	8.09	3	Toronto	18,457 sq. ft.	9.50	10	Winnipeg	3,710 sq. ft.	6.35	1*	Edmonton	4,164 sq. ft.	6.90	5	Vancouver	15,825 sq. ft.	7.54	15	
*Note: Winnipeg, four additional, $59 per month.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	How many information kits entitled "The Safari Kit" were produced by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
2.	What was the total cost of producing and printing same?
3.	How many kits have been distributed to date?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1, 2 and 3. The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and
March 27, 1974

not through a minister. Questions may be put to him directly.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the list of all items included on the Prime Minister's Cadillac that are classified as extras or options and what was the exact cost of each such item?
2.	What was the basic cost of the vehicle before the addition of such extras or options?
3.	What is the mileage registered on the odometer of the vehicle as of the date the answer to this question is prepared and what is such date?
4.	How many gallons of gasoline have been purchased for this vehicle since it was acquired?
Return tabled.



NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM-PROJECTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF ABITIBI

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since the inception of the New Horizons Program (a) what are the names and numbers of each project in the constituency of Abitibi (b) which ones have been approved (c) on what date (d) what is the amount involved in each project?
2.	What were the reasons for rejecting projects?
Return tabled.



DREE-GRANTS TO NEWSPAPERS


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


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


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-RESERVE SCHOOLS
Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	How much money has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development allocated for a school on the Tobique Indian Reserve?
2.	Have there been consultations with the Indians of Maliseet to ensure that they approve of the design and construction of the proposed school, in accordance with the government's new policy of Indian control of Indian education?
3.	(a) What were the dates of any such consultation meetings (b) who participated on behalf of (i) the Department (ii) the Tobique Indian Band?
4.	Has the architect been selected and, if so, what is his name?
5.	Has the design for the school on the Reserve been finalized?
6.	(a) Have the Maliseet Indians made recommendations not yet incorporated into the design of the school (b) are these proposals being considered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the architect and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Does the contract drawn up by the Department and architect for the school include a clause specifying that there be consultation with the Tobique Indian Band?
8.	(a) Which school grades will be taught in the school on the Tobique Indian Reserve (b) has this decision been reached in consultation with the band council?
9.	(a) Has the Department previously drawn up a master plan for the education of these Indians of the Reserve in conjunction with the Perth-Andover Public School system (b) at which grade will these same Indians be required to transfer to the Perth-Andover Public School system for further education once the Tobique Indian Reserve school is built (c) how much is the government contributing to the cost of the extension for a commercial and shop area to the Perth-Andover public high school?
10.	(a) What is the meaning of the term seed money in reference to agreements between the Department and Indian bands wishing to build reserve schools (b) is the seed money to be used for capital costs or for operations and maintenance costs (c) can the Indian band involved apply for any of the seed money?
11.	(a) How much is the seed money for the contract for the Tobique Indian Band School (b) how much of the seed money (in dollars) for the Tobique Indian Band School will be spent on (i) architect fees (ii) Indian consultation (iii) preparatory study for a school by the Maliseet Indians?
12.	Will the unused balance be added to the Tobique Indian Band Council funds or will it revert to the Department?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1. For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 what amount of the total expenditures for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were spent (a) outside of Canada (b) within Canada (c) in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?

March 27, 1974
Manpower and Immigration
2. (a) What was the total number of employees in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as of March 31, 1973 (b) how many of those employees would be considered employees of the headquarters and are employed on the (i) Quebec side of the national capital (ii) Ontario side of the national capital (c) how many employees does the department have in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
Return tabled.


INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many international treaties, conventions and agreements has Canada been a signatory to since and including the year 1919?
2.	How many such international treaties, conventions and agreements (a) have been ratified by Canada (b) have been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament (c) have been made law in Canada and before our Courts by an Act of Parliament being passed?
3.	Does any court of Canada interpret international treaties, conventions or agreements which have not been made the law of Canada by an Act of Parliament and, if so (a) which court (b) under what authority?
4.	How is a treaty, convention or agreement between Canada and any other state or group of states, which has only been signed by Canada and ratified by Canada by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, enforced?
5.	In what manner is the Chicago Treaty of 1944, under which ICAO was set up in Montreal by the United Nations, enforced?
6.	During the Royal Visit of 1973, did Her Majesty the Queen state "You may be assured that my Government of Canada recognizes the importance of full compliance with the spirit and terms of your treaties"?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION ALLEGED DEPARTMENTAL MALADMINISTRATION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 26 to request leave to make a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the government's administrative responsibilities with respect to immigration, manpower and unemployment insurance. It specifically relates to maladministration of these responsibilities which has already resulted in the laying of criminal charges against certain aliens and immigration officials, poor morale among immigration employees, and further suspected criminal activities arising out of the improper possession of unemployment insurance certificates. If you decide, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is proper to be discussed, I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has provided the Chair with the notice required by Standing Order 26. The hon. member proposes that the House set aside the business proposed for today, that is, the consid-

eration of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, to debate instead, and I quote the hon. member's words, "the government's administrative responsibilities with respect to immigration, manpower and unemployment insurance".
The Chair cannot agree that there is in the matter proposed for debate by the hon. member the aspect of sudden emergency which is essential to justify the adjournment of the day's business under the terms of Standing Order 26. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member that a debate alleging, generally, maladministration in a department should be considered in other ways provided by the Standing Orders, perhaps on a motion under Standing Order 58 or in the course of the examination of departmental estimates before the responsible standing committee of the House. I suggest to the hon. member and to the House that the requirements of Standing Order 26 preclude the Chair from putting the hon. member's motion today.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity rises on a question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Councf? (Mr. Reid) could advise the House, through you, when notices of motions Nos. 3 to 6 inclusive will be dealt with? The fact that these notices of motions for the production of papers, which were originally put on the order paper on October 16, 1973, have not yet been dealt with is as inexplicable as it is unconscionable.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate being able to deal with 10 or 15 notices of motions for the production of papers next Wednesday.
March 27, 1974



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises as a result of the very discouraging revelation that there is an unsavoury practice going on in the minister's department which resulted in 1972-73 LIP distributions amounting to $106 million going to Liberals and about $59 million going to Conservatives. In the first instance, this is blatant partisanship and, second, it indicates that there is no unemployment in the Conservative ridings. In order to clear up the answer of the minister indicating that moneys were sent to ridings but not necessarily spent in those ridings, in order to clear up this matter of some concern to all members of the House, can he tell us whether the cheques for the jobs involved in the LIP program go to the constituencies with high unemployment?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the grants are paid to the sponsors and of course the grants are paid in the form of a cheque. Those cheques are mailed to the sponsor's mailing address in one constituency or another. That is the location and that is the basis on which the calculation of actual distribution between regions and between constituencies is identified.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the minister certainly is not satisfactory by a long shot. In view of the minister's November 8 statement in the House that the allocation of LIP funds would be based on so-called "pockets of unemployment", and in light of his recent statement that "the prime factor" in the allocation of grants is the "assessment of unemployment rates", would the minister explain why the moneys granted were not granted to persons living in areas of high unemployment as exhibited by the ridings of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the President of the Treasury Board? Money went into those ridings but for some reason or other disappeared into other areas. What is the answer?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out the other day, the hon. member is continuing to confuse two fiscal periods. He is talking about a statement I made in November which would apply to 1973-74 local initiatives project allocation, whereas his prior reference was to the period 1972-73, the details of which were tabled the other day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact the government is having an over-all review of social security programs which will probably result in a permanent job creation program, and in order to get away from this unsavoury practice and questionable methods of the minister, will he assure the House that any such program will be implemented by legislation so that members of the House can keep their eyes on it?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if and when the details of the community employment program are decided upon, of
Oral Questions
course they will be presented to the House for consideration in one form or another.

e (1440)


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recent high profits of the major food retailers, and as a means of reducing food prices, will the government consider following the example of the British prices commission by ordering the major food retailers to cut their profit margins by 10 per cent?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a general system of price controls as they have in the United Kingdom, which they have carried over from the previous Conservative government, the failure of which has led to that government being out of office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend refers to the adoption of such a policy. All alternatives, obviously, will continue to be available for consideration by the government.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about a general system of price controls. I was talking about a selective measure ordering the major food chains to cut back their profit margins by 10 per cent. Would the minister please attempt to answer that question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the measure the hon. lady refers to was taken within the context of a general system of controls put into effect by the previous Conservative government in the United Kingdom. As I said, this is something that can be taken under consideration.


FINANCE
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs lacks the flexibility to consider the question in a selective way, I shall direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Alternatively, because of the apparent unwillingness of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to consider the possibility of the measure I suggested, will the government consider the imposition of an excess profits tax on the major food chains?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government is reviewing a number of possi-

March 27, 1974
Oral Questions
ble measures. Whether or not we will consider the hon. lady's suggestion I can neither confirm nor deny. The hon. lady's suggestion is a matter which would be budgetary in nature.


PREDICTED FIFTY PER CENT LOSS IN BUYING POWER OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that I already put the question to the right hon. Prime Minister who was to refer it to the Minister of Finance, and that I have yet not received an answer, I believe it necessary to reiterate my question.
Economists of the Royal Bank of Canada indicated recently that within 10 years the Canadian dollar would depreciate by 50 per cent, which would reduce by the same rate the buying power of Canadians, has the minister studied this report and, if so, what does he intend to do to limit this loss in buying power for Canadians?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty hearing the question because of the enthusiasm shown in certain parts of this House. In any case, I considered the report. The hon. member's question is based on an assumption and I have no other comment to make.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Although the minister considers it to be an assumption, I would point out that serious people undertook this study. Is the minister prepared to examine it more seriously and accept its conclusion that one of the major means of increasing the revenues of Canadians is to reduce taxes?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would study and read again the report. The question as to whether I agree or will agree with the conclusions of the report will depend eventually on my opinion of it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Are nuclear or atomic warheads for missiles or weapons held at Comox, B.C., or at any other site or sites in Canada?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, none of our aircraft are equipped with nuclear missiles, but we do have in storage, and this has been public knowledge for several years-nuclear missiles at Comox and at the other bases from which our interceptor squadrons take off.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Are such warheads solely under Canadian control and, among the aspects of such control, could a decision to return the warheads to the United
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l
States be taken unilaterally by Canada, or are we bound by the NORAD agreement to accept NORAD combined directions?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the missiles are under the joint control of Canadian and American authorities. They could be sent back by Canadian direction.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the answer given to me last Friday by the Acting Prime Minister that it was not government policy to have a Canadian citizen change his legal name in order to secure a new social insurance number when it is known that the original number is being used illegally, what immediate, specific action will the minister undertake to secure for my constituent a new social insurance number?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about the ridiculous nature of the situation as he described it. I am checking all the facts to see that it is exactly as it was presented. If that is the case, we will simply have to find some better way to handle such cases.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise why, when a request was made by one of my constituents on January 12, 1973, for an investigation of the fraudulent use of a social insurance number, no such investigation was made? Further, will the minister advise if an investigation is now in progress?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the function of my department to investigate the fraudulent use of social insurance numbers. However, I have asked my department to do everything possible within its jurisdiction to assist the hon. member's constituent, and I hope we can help to resolve his difficulty.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Some months ago, after studies by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transit at Queen's University had shown that a railway from the Arctic to haul oil and gas was feasible, I suggested that the government should look into this. The Department of Transport then set up a CP-CN study which has
March 27, 1974

now declared such a railway to be, to use its words, "totally feasible". Will the minister say whether or not this latest recommendation made by this task force is being considered and is going to be accepted with one change only, I suggest, that the terminus be in Saskatchewan rather than in Alberta?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to be more precise, I understand that the terminus would be in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, if it is to be anywhere in that province.
I have received the first volume of the combined CN-CP study with regard to the rail shipment of oil in particular. I have not yet had a report on it. We would regard this study as being an important factor to be considered by the National Energy Board and, ultimately, by the government with regard to the proposal for a Mackenzie Valley pipeline.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister assure the House that no decision will be made by the National Energy Board until the several reports provided by the CN-CP task force have been considered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that assurance. It is anticipated that the hearings on the Arctic gas proposal will not be finally determined by the board for more than a year. Without knowing exactly the final termination date of the rail study, I think it is obviously important that the full effects of the rail study should be up for consideration before any final decision is taken on a pipeline route.


WELFARE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of reports that in urban centres welfare families are paying half of their incomes in rent, and in light of the uncontrolled and ever rising rentals, with disastrous consequences for people on low and fixed incomes, will the minister convene, on a basis of urgency, a federal-provincial meeting to discuss joint action by way of increased shelter allowances to which the federal government might contribute under the Canada Assistance Plan and by encouraging flexible rental controls and other means to deal with this grievous problem?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for a special meeting for this purpose. The Canada Assistance Plan at the present time provides for all the flexibility to which the hon. member has referred. It is up to the provincial governments concerned to set Canada Assistance Plan payments at the levels they wish. As the hon. member knows, the federal government contributes to the extent
Oral Questions
of 50 per cent of such costs. Those costs are determined by the provincial governments concerned.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister encourage the provinces, in light of the emergency, by suggesting that they consult with him about this question of shelter allowances?


Marc Lalonde: I am reasonably satisfied that the officials of the provincial government and the members of the Ontario government also read the Globe and Mail and that this fact has been drawn to their attention. Obviously, if consultation is required I shall certainly be pleased to hold discussions with them on this subject. Again, the initiative is theirs. The Prime Minister said as early as last fall that he was encouraging the provinces to take the necessary steps to adjust social assistance payments so as to take into account the increase in the cost of living.


FINANCE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister now tell the House at least the approximate date when he will be introducing the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the meeting of provincial finance ministers and treasurers that I was considering bringing down the budget some time in April or May after we had had an opportunity to stabilize the benefits and burdens of a uniform energy pricing system in Canada.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Will it be before or after Easter?


John Napier Turner: As to the precise date, I still wish to consult further with the Prime Minister and the leader of the House. I can assure the hon. member for Crowfoot that it will not be before Easter.


INQUIRY WHEN DECISION ON DOW-DOME APPLICATION WILL BE MADE PUBLIC BY BOARD
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of recent press speculation concerning the decision of the National Energy Board with regard to the Dow-Dome application, can the minister advise when this decision will be made public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It had been the intention to make the board's decision public next week when it was hoped it would be available in both official languages. However, because of the speculation in the press we have decided it would be desirable to make the English portion available, very probably tomorrow, so that an end can be put to the speculation as to what the board has recommended.

March 27, 1974
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Since this decision by the Board requires either amendment or ratification by the cabinet, can the minister tell us how soon the companies may expect cabinet action on the report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At a very early date, we would hope.


ACTION TO FORCE WORLD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION TO DONATE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's recent and sudden interest in professional sport, and keeping in mind the fact that the National Hockey League donates over $1 million a year to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association as well as to clubs responsible for the promotion of amateur hockey in this country, as a result of its universal draft system, can the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to force the World Hockey Association to do likewise?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that an agreement has been signed between the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the World Hockey League, as one was signed between the National Hockey League and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. Those agreements will provide for the payment, to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, of comparable compensation in both cases. This is the result of the pressures I exerted upon and the representations I made to both leagues last year.


WORLD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION-AGE OF PLAYERS DRAFTED
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear these views expressed. Since the minister apparently has secret ways of ousting the World Football League team from Toronto, can he assure the House that he will take similar measures to make the World Hockey Association limit its draft age to 20-year-olds, as does the NHL, so as not to jeopardize amateur junior hockey in this country any further?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the hon. member to the House after his extended absence. I can assure him that the arrangements made with the World Hockey League are similar to those alreadv made with the National Hockey League but that they meet with the approval of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.


Otto John Jelinek: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that the Minister of National Health and
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
Welfare has welcomed me back to the House although I was here more than ten days ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: May I add that because of the fact I had an opportunity to visit Munich, Germany, at my own expense-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -where I was able to study the results of the aftermath of the Olympics which were held there two years ago, especially Olympic housing and other problems arising from the construction of the Olympic Stadium and other facilities, I can represent this party on Olympic matters better than some of the people on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIGNING OF CANADIAN LACROSSE PLAYERS BY AMERICAN INTERESTS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this question, too, is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's determination to exclude the World Football League from Canada in spite of the agreement by Metro Toronto to permit the Toronto Norsemen to play in the CNE stadium, and in view of reports that American interests have signed more than 50 Canadian lacrosse players to play in the United States, is the minister considering any intervention in this area and, if so, what specific action does he plan to take?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member took the trouble to read my statement on that, he would realize that the situation is completely different. I have no intention to take measures regarding lacrosse. He would also realize that the present developments have the complete support of the Canadian Amateur Lacrosse Association. I suggest he read the statement made on this by the representatives of the association.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Since this matter is of considerable concern to Canadians, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions regarding the government's policy toward what seems to be the policing of Canadian sport?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will soon have the pleasure of tabling a bill in this House that will enable to govern ment to take a position on this matter. I will then also have the pleasure of listening to all the points of view of this opposition members.
March 27, 1974


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO QUEBEC ON EXTERNAL TRADE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell this House if he is aware of a statement made by the Quebec delegate to the Annual Congress of International Relations Club, Mr. Jean Deschamps, who said that Quebec should have access to the economic records governing the Canadian external policy when decisions being taken have a direct incidence on the economic growth of Quebec and, if so, could he tell us if these records will be made available to Quebec at the request of the province?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report mentioned by the hon. member. We do co-operate with the provinces in providing them with information that would be useful in their industrial development, and we are always happy to co-operate.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the statement made earlier this week by the Minister of Supply and Services that there is likely to be a massive immigration of some 30,000 Koreans to construct 20 tar sands plants in northern Alberta, will the minister say whether his department has been involved in this planning; and in view of the short time-1980-within which to complete these plants, will he say whether his department is now already involved in planning to move these people to Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that is not the correct interpretation of the minister's comments. I can assure the hon. member that there has been no such formal suggestion made to my department with regard to individuals from Korea. I would also add that we are, however, working very closely with the Alberta government through the Alberta manpower needs committee, which is a federal-provincial mechanism, in discussing the manpower requirements for development of the tar sands.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In view of the fact that closer to 60,000 people with special skills may be required to meet this construction demand, will the minister undertake to advise the House very shortly where the government envisages these employees coming from, and when such a plan will commence?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Alberta government through the manpower needs commit-
Oral Questions
tee that kind of figure has not yet surfaced. However, we are in very close contact with them and the situation seems to be developing very satisfactorily as far as they are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Supply and Services rises on a question of privilege.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on record, so that hon. members will know, that I never said that in my project we were going to attract 30,000 Koreans to Canada. I am ready at any time to give hon. members on the opposite side a briefing, but the problem with the Conservatives is that they sit and think, but mostly sit.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow. In the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canadian National Railways has announced that it will increase passenger fares by up to 15 per cent on April 1, an increase that follows hard on another increase of the same dimension in November, is the government considering the possibility of approaching the CNR, however humbly, with a view to their not bringing this increase into effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question in regard to which I could not be expected to have an intimate knowledge, but I am sure that my friend the Minister of Transport or the acting minister will be happy to reply at an appropriate time.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that even the Canadian Transport Commission cannot bring about a review of railway passenger fares unless an aggrieved passenger makes an application and asks leave to have an increase in fares reviewed, would the minister undertake to act on behalf of that endangered species, the Canadian railway passenger, and file an application in his own name?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken an initiative along these lines in providing a special grant of $100,000 to the Consumers Association of Canada to enable them to carry out a consumer advocacy program whereby they may make representations of this sort before regulatory bodies, both federal and provincial.

March 27, 1974
Oral Questions HEALTH


SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL MANPOWER-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALLEVIATE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the critical shortage of medical manpower in many areas across Canada and the great dissatisfaction at the disparity in the delivery of medical services, and in view of the threatened cut-off, has the minister discussed this question with his provincial counterparts, and can he assure the House that this condition will be corrected?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice. As I have said before, this question was discussed at the last meeting of federal-provincial health ministers and is being reviewed at the present time. I have asked my officials for a report concerning whether medical schools are planning to increase their intake in the coming fall, and when I receive a report I will certainly be very happy to let the hon. member know.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister that I have some correspondence on this that will immediately enlighten him. Of 2,400 applicants, all qualified, 200 are being considered and only 40 will be chosen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Has the Department of Labour any ongoing studies or is it conducting research into new and improved methods of adjudicating labour disputes with a view to developing alternatives to the painful and costly experience of strike action?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INFORMATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it relates to the problem of protecting the privacy of Canadians in light of the disclosure that dossiers exist in American data banks on literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians and that the government cannot even guarantee the security of its own data banks. Could I ask the minister whether the legislation that he will be

presenting, and which he has indicated is not yet ready, is awaiting a report on this matter by the Minister of Communications, which was referred to by the Prime Minister last week when he said of the Minister of Communications: "He has not yet brought to me or to cabinet any specific recommendations, but we are anxiously awaiting his report"?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the legislation to make effective security measures within government in regard to our own information will be coming forward. It will incorporate work that is being done at the interdepartmental level involving the Departments of Communications and Justice, among others, which are devising the draft rules that will apply to all information within governmental control.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is it
correct to infer from the minister's answer that at the present time the government is concerned only with preparing legislation on the internal procedures within government and that the minister is preparing no legislation to deal with the problem of storage of data on Canadians in foreign data banks, though the government has been aware of this for two years now?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be a correct assumption. The most advanced work likely to lead to legislation at the earliest date is in the field I have just mentioned. A good deal of other work is going on, particularly in the Department of Communications, on the very serious technical questions that arise in connection with the control of computer information, whether in the hands of government or private sources. In addition, work is going on, in co-operation with the provinces, concerning the privacy of information or the right to privacy of individuals, the control of information in the hands of private institutions, and such other questions as what right a person ought to have to get access to information that is used against him. This very definitely involves provincial jurisdiction as well as federal jurisdiction and therefore this co-operation is essential.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize that there are only five minutes until the end of the question period and there are some 25 or 30 members still seeking to ask questions. Rather than supplementaries and extended questions and replies every time a question is asked, I would think in all fairness to those hon. members who are waiting that questions should be brief.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the rate of inflation in some western European countries is now over 10 per cent and that the rate in the United States and Canada is increasing, can the minister
March 27, 1974

say whether the Canadian and world economies are now entering a hyper-inflation phase?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of judgment and vocabulary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not say that I necessarily agree with the answer by the minister, but I do take exception to the question from a procedural standpoint. The hon. member has asked for an expression of opinion and a question in those terms should not be asked.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the government of Turkey has lifted its three-year ban against opium poppy cultivation, contrary to the wishes of many western nations, and in view of the fact that up to 80 per cent of the heroin in Canada is said to originate in Turkey and is causing untold crime and human suffering here, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether he has made any representations to the Turkish government urging that it reimpose its ban on poppy cultivation? Is he considering reductions in our economic and military aid to Turkey as a means of making Canadian views felt on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Turkish government has not yet taken a decision to renew cultivation of opium poppies, and at the meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Geneva last month the Canadian representative commended the government of Turkey for its humanitarian effort up to the present in reducing production.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that many municipal councils pay a share of Canada Pension Plan contributions on behalf of their elected representatives, and in view of the fact that most councillors are otherwise employed and are therefore able to recover their portion of Canada Pension Plan contributions when they file their income tax returns, will the minister review the 1969 cabinet decision and give consideration to exempting municipal governments from making these contributions in cases where elected officials are otherwise employed?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture which has to do with the cattle situation at the present time and the possibility that United States cattle coming into Canada contain the growth stimulant DES. Can he very briefly explain the government's position on this matter and indicate more specifically whether there will be any move in the very near future to restrict United States cattle containing this growth stimulant from coming into Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and myself have stated in the past that it is illegal to sell meat in Canada that comes from cattle that have been implanted with or fed the growth stimulant DES, and we are going to make sure that none of that meat is allowed into Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since cattle that have been implanted with DES could be coming into Canada in quantity as early as the first part of April, what methods will the minister use to stop these cattle from entering Canada?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He can recognize them.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are discussing several methods.


BEEF CATTLE-SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENT OF TIME LIMIT ON SUBSIDY ON GRADES A3 AND A4-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked of the Minister of Agriculture and relates to meat prices. In view of the fact that dressed meat in shopping centres and chain stores in Montreal fell three cents this morning, and in view of the fact that 2,500 head were held over in Toronto from yesterday because of the chaotic situation in the industry, is the minister prepared to adjust the time limit on his subsidy on grades A3 and A4, particularly because of the situation in the market right now?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this has been suggested by other hon. members of the House, and also by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. It is being looked at. I can only say that I would hope we do not build up any false hopes in the trade and that they will continue to go about marketing cattle like good corporations should.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are destroying confidence in the industry.

March 27, 1974
Oral Questions


BEEF CATTLE-SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF GRADES B AND C IN SUBSIDY PROGRAM
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we are rapidly reaching the point where there is no hope at all, let alone false hope. I should like to ask the minister in respect of the question of subsidies on beef whether he will include grades B and C as well as A grades in that subsidy program so that the confusion which now exists in the stockyards can be straightened out, and so that the producer as well as the processor will have some confidence in this program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct any wrong impression I may have given in my answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot. I meant the packing firms. Some of them have been co-operating and if they all co-operate this program can be successful.
In answer to the last hon. member's question, we are considering these things, but I am not holding out any false hopes again because in the North American market, where the actions of one country complement those of another, the United States government is spending $45 million to take red brand meat off the market and they are just using the top brands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Laval and then the hon. member for Vegreville.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Minister of Transport is absent, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
This question is very important, Mr. Speaker, since it concerns the proposed construction of an electric train rapid transit system using the existing CP and CN rail lines between downtown Montreal and Mirabel Airport via the City of Laval. What will be the terms of the agreement between the various levels of government to deal successfully with the realization of such a project?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer in French. If I give the answer in English I will probably be criticized once again, but I know we are in a bilingual country.

The recommendation respecting the utilization of an electric train transit system is the result of a joint study by the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Quebec Department of Transport. The government wishes to continue its consultations with the other levels of government in this respect before fixing its choice on a particular transit system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not comment on the procedure we have just witnessed and about which I have serious reservations.


AGRICULTURE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the government has now become very deeply involved in the meat marketing process I should like to ask whether he is monitoring and examining the purchasing policies of the various packers throughout the country since evidence would indicate that packers have been taking undue advantage of producers through the manipulation of prices and by deliberately refusing to purchase cattle from a number of producers, thereby creating additional chaos and confusion in the marketing process?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are getting replies from our people and others in all parts of the country, and we are trying to put these together because we are to meet with officials of the cattle industry tomorrow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Vegreville could be allowed to ask his supplementary question, after which the Chair will have to call orders of the day.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether his department intends to take any specific action if the evidence indicates there is undue manipulation and deliberate withholding of purchases in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if we find evidence, as the hon. member is suggesting, that this practice is taking place and is contrary to any law we certainly will recommend that action be taken under whatever legislation is on the books that would allow us to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Calgary South rises on a question of privilege.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the usually sensible and practical Minister of Supply and Services made a statement to the effect that the Conservatives sometime sit and do nothing. Earlier this week the Minister of Supply and Services made some impractical, irresponsible statements regarding a plan for the development of the tar sands in Alberta. No doubt he is able to do so because he expects in the near future he and his colleagues will be sitting in opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member indicate in what way he feels his parliamentary privilege has
March 27, 1974

been infringed so that the Chair may determine whether debate should be pursued on the hon. member's point.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I shall not pursue the point any further, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 20, 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.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, when this subject was last debated I had barely touched the part of the bill dealing with sports, and amateur sports specifically. On that occasion I said that there used to be only six teams in the NHL. Hansard, as recorded at page 720, indicates I said there were only 16 teams in the NHL. Obviously, the Hansard people are not hockey fans of old time standing because it is a well known fact that in days gone by there were six teams and there are now 16 teams in the NHL.
I was leading up to the subject of hockey, amateur sports and the question of amateurs being signed to contracts. Basically, the situation we have in Canada is that the NHL pays a sum of money to the amateur teams for the development of capable hockey players, those who would be able to play in the NHL. Now, we have the World Hockey League which is grabbing off some of the players without making any payment to the local teams which developed the players. This, to me, is a weakness in the present situation. I believe competition will soon take care of this, but if it should not then we will see the development of professional junior hockey teams. The CAHA has failed to make any strong move in this regard when dealing with the World Hockey League. There are rumours in western Canada that there might be a senior-junior professional hockey league formed, and in that case the juniors would be signed and would be the property of the team for which they were playing.
Now, before everybody jumps on the bandwagon and says what a sinful thing that would be, let me point out that many juniors who now play in the NHL or the WHA previously spent plenty of time in perhaps three minor leagues. Someone suggests that those leagues are even semi-professional. The junior leagues in Canada today are semi-professional. Let us take a look at these young hockey players. Canada basically is the talent area for the professional teams on the North American continent.
Competition Bill
There are 12 teams in the World Hockey League and 16 in the NHL.
It is necessary that we help keep alive and encourage the junior, juvenile and midget hockey teams, and the NHL and the WHL should pay something for the development of the talent these leagues provide. Today there are thousands of active people all across Canada who take their kids to hockey school and to hockey games. These people who are keeping the kids healthy, keeping them off the street and contributing to the pool of hockey talent, should be given some help. These thousands of citizens do this, of course, for the benefit of hockey but also for the benefit of young Canadians. I believe the CAHA has failed to ensure in some way that the local teams, as far down the line as even midget, receive some benefit for the development of this talent. If this is not done we will see a professional junior hockey league.
I read an interview with the owner and coach of the Calgary Centennials, one of the better western junior hockey teams. He advocated professional junior hockey teams. He said this is coming. Why did he say that? Because he was very annoyed that the World Hockey League and the NHL intend to grab off three of his stars this year. They intend to take three of his stars and give the Calgary Centennials very little in return. Sometimes these kids have spent five years in organized hockey in the city of Calgary. This has been possible because of the contribution made by volunteer workers. These volunteers are not prepared to continue to deliver the talent unless there is some compensation. If we had professional junior hockey teams these would sign up all those teenagers. This may be the way we will have to go in order to protect the volunteer work that has gone into the development of the athletes which Canada has proven to have such an ability to produce in the field of hockey. I do not think this would be all bad. I believe we must protect and maintain that community of interest and spirit which has developed so many good hockey players and good hockey teams in the past.
While speaking on this particular aspect, I should like to say a few words about the controversy which is taking place in the football field. At one time there were two national football leagues in the United States, the AFL and the NFL. These two leagues have now amalgamated and formed a conglomerate of something like 16 professional teams. Now, we hear about the starting up of the World Football League. It really does not matter whether the Toronto Northmen get off the ground. It is a fact that on the North American continent there will be 10 or 12 more professional football teams whether or not the Toronto Northmen are allowed by this government to operate. A fellow by the name of Davidson has substantially proven the fact that he has a hold on the World Football League which will have ten or 12 teams on the North American continent.


An hon. Member:: Are you in favour of it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will get to that in a moment. Let us work from that premise. There are 26 teams in a conglomerate now playing professional football in the United States and nine in Canada. There will be an additional 10 or 12 teams on the North American continent

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
playing professional football. As a young lad I never tried my hand at football and had no particular liking for it. I wanted to get into hockey. There were only six NHL teams and it was a pretty difficult test. Perhaps I could have done it, perhaps not. I chose ranching instead. But that is not the point. There are many young Canadians, among them my sons and my grandsons, who want to get into professional sports. It pays big money and it is an entertainment. They can get their names in the headlines. As my friend suggests, it is also an industry.
I remember playing shortstop in a ball team and a kid I played against was a good shortstop player. He was sixteen years old at that time. He could have been on my team. He ended up playing professional football. If somebody had come along at that time and said to me that kid will play professional football in Canada, I would have said that that kid does not know the shape of a football; he is sixteen and there is no hope for him at all. That was true then. But he made the Calgary football team and was named rookie of the year. He ended up playing football for the Toronto Argonauts. I would not have thought it possible. It may well be that there is a Canadian star in the NFL. It is an entertainment and Canadians have proven that they are good entertainers if nothing else.
I am thinking of the Toronto Argonauts right now. Years ago I played hockey with Jim Cahill's father. I remember those cold days when his father and I used to get up, light the stove and watch the smoke curl over the roofs of the town. Nobody could have convinced me that Pat Cahill's son could have been a star for the Toronto Argonauts. Toronto was a long way from northern Saskatchewan. I would not have believed that Jim Cahill would have made it, but he did.
Some day a Canadian will get into this conglomerate which operates in the United States. Some day there will be plenty of Canadians playing in the Canadian Football League. Why should the government restrict those Canadians and keep them at home? We did not keep Anne Murray at home. We are proud of her singing ability whenever the government gives her a chance to advertise Canada with a song or two. We said to her; "go forth, young girl, and conquer the entertainment field on the North American continent if you want". We did not keep Lome Greene home. We sent him to Hollywood, or at least he went himself and he became a star and made "Bonanza" famous. He was one of the most well-liked newscasters in Canada. We did not say to him that he was limited and could not break into that field, that there was no future for him in the United States. We wished him well. We call him back every once in a while and we are proud to say he is Canadian.
Why should we say: a curse on the world football league; you will rob us of Toronto, you will rob us of Canadian talent? I look upon it completely differently. To me, it is a window on the world for a football player. Knowing how much money they are making in football, if I were younger I would take a whack at it. I would not look at the nine teams in Canada and hope to sit warming a bench for one of them. I would say: there are 26 teams in the conglomerate operating in the United States, ten more teams in the world football league, that makes 36 teams, nine teams in

Canada, that makes 45 teams, and they all carry a roster of some 40 players.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the hon. member for Crowfoot thinks of the fact that several Canadian athletes go to the United States to further their studies and that we are allowing American professional teams to enter Canada while in most of our universities where there is tremendous athletic potential, they received no help.
In my opinion, the federal government and most provinces have failed their duty. So, I would like to know the hon. member's opinion on that matter, because I think that is where the potential is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not disagree that there is a great potential in the universities in Canada. That was the very point I was making. But let us not act hastily against the world football league, the Toronto Northmen or any other team. By cutting off our nose to spite our face, we will limit the potential ability of some Canadian down the road. I am no friend of the Bassett family, none whatsoever. I disagreed with them a time or two. But what is the offer they have made? Mr. Bassett owns the franchise to the world football league in Canada. No other team can be formed to enter the world football league without the consent of Mr. Bassett. Whether or not he should have that privilege, I do not know.
However, I know that he is prepared to give that privilege to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) if the latter wants it. He is saying: "Let us operate the team in Toronto. I will not actively put another team in the world football league in Canada and I will give the Minister of National Health and Welfare the privilege of deciding whether there should be a world football league team in Montreal or one in Vancouver". He is also saying what I, as a westerner, fully appreciate, namely, that the Toronto Argonauts have paid into an equalization fund to help support some of the less fortunate teams in western Canada. He also said publicly-and I believe I heard a newscaster in Calgary state it-that he is prepared to make certain that the equalization payment paid last year by the Toronto Argonauts will be met for the next ten years. That is a pretty bold guarantee.
What he is saying really is that, since the Toronto Argonauts paid into the equalization fund $40,000 last year and if, because of reduced gate receipts as well as the world football league entry, their equalization payment is only $20,000, Mr. Bassett would personally make up the difference. Being a westerner and somewhat sceptical of
March 27, 1974

some people in Toronto, I might want that guarantee in writing. I think that Mr. Bassett would probably put it in writing.


An hon. Member:: It already is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am pleased to know that.
The only point I want to make abundantly clear is that he is not trying to deliberately destroy the CFL in Canada. A colleague of mine, Dick Beddoes, an old Albertan who studied agriculture at university with me-he probably does not remember me but I remember him, he ran the university paper-said in the Toronto Star that all 19 Albertans would support the CFL. You bet I will support the CFL. I will also support the potential opportunity for young Canadians to get into the entertainment field. Mr. Bassett stated publicly that he will not televise any of the world football league games in Canada. To me, that is proof that he is not trying to destroy the CFL. He is making three conditions: he is guaranteeing that the equalization payment will be met; he will not televise any of the world football league games in Canada; and he will not promote any other entries from Canada into the world football league. If he tried to promote another team in Calgary, one in Vancouver or one in some other city such as Montreal which has often been mentioned, that might have harmful effects. If Torontonians want to be entertained by football, that should be their privilege. If they do not like the American style game, I certainly hope they will register their feelings at the box office. That is where they should cast their ballot in that regard. If Bassett loses money, it won't hurt me at all. In fact I have been led to believe that he can afford to lose a little. And as someone behind me suggests, he is not going to ask for a grant.
Governments do not belong in business. They do not belong in the entertainment field, and really that is what football is. We can make a great case about flag waving, saying this World Football League entry will destroy the Regina Roughriders. Mr. Speaker, I have watched the Regina Roughriders play in Taylor Field. I watched them beat the pants off the Calgary Stampeders a couple of years ago. That was a very disheartening game. But we are only fooling ourselves if we think that a stadium the size of Taylor Field will pay as much as an 80,000 seat stadium in Detroit or Chicago. We must take a longer range look at this whole matter.
We are opening the door for Canadians. Canadians will be playing in the World Football League in Toronto. I am certain of that. The Jim Corrigills of Ontario will make it their business to make that league, and when they do, their performances will be televised all over the United States. Then, managers in the United States will say, "That is the place we have to go for our football players. They grow them tough, up in Canada. They have cowboys and Indians up there. We can get some good players in Canada." Mr. Speaker, we should be saying, "Thank you, Mr. Bassett, for allowing Canadians to play in the United States." An hon. member says that we should open up the States to our beef. It is open to beef already, and in fact I would like to sell a little more in the United States.
This silly Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) thinks he has a great issue. He thinks that westerners will back him, and that he will get votes in
Competition Bill
western Canada on this issue. He may get some votes in western Canada on this issue, but we must look at what is good for Canada. I remember a young Albertan saying that to him the Grey Cup meant more than the flag. I told him that was an awful thing. I was not one of those who promoted our flag, but it is Canada's flag. Some Liberals like to think it is Pearson's flag, but I say, it is Canada's flag. Grey Cup games and Canada's flag should not be compared with each other, but the minister has attempted to do that. He says that with the Grey Cup and waving the flag, Canada will march on to greater heights. That is not the issue.
The issue is potential opportunities for Canadians. Are we going to deny Canadians the chance to show their wares? It will be selfish to do that. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare is worrying about the city of Montreal breaking into the AFL, or whatever that conglomerate south of the border is now called, I say that is something for Montreal to decide. I am certain that if Mayor Drapeau said he wanted an American football team in Montreal he would get it. The mayor has that ability.
Many Canadians are very proud to have the Montreal Expos located in Montreal. That team is made up of a lot of Americans playing ball in Canada. It came along too late for me, or else I was born 30 years too soon, but I am certain, there are many young ball players in Montreal and throughout the Quebec area who now will have the chance to play baseball in the United States. They may not make the Montreal Expos, but they might make the Boston Red Socks, or for that matter the New York Yankees. I am certain that the Expos have opened the door for many Canadians to play professional baseball in the United States. The Expos have broadened opportunities for Canadians. The Expos have paved the way for Canadian ball players to reach highly paid jobs. As I say, we should be thanking Mr. Bassett for doing the same thing for football players, instead of placing stumbling blocks in his path. The proposed entry of the World Football League will not hurt the CFL, and I believe Mr. Bassett has gone to great lengths to prove his intentions are not to hurt the CFL.
With respect to competition and the robbing of players from the CFL, we must remember that there are 26 teams in the United States. If they want to outbid Canadian teams in the CFL for player talent, then with their huge gate receipts they can do that right now. No doubt they have done so on many occasions in the past. I suppose the World Football League will be no different, but just as our CFL professional football teams opened up opportunities for Americans to play in Canada, the World Football League will open the door for aggressive young Canadians who want to get into the big money in the football entertainment field. I for one will do my utmost to kill the bill that the Minister of National Health and Welfare threatens to introduce, because I think it would be wrong for Canadians, wrong for young athletes whom we admire so much and for whom we should be doing our best as legislators.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is some time since the House had an opportunity to deal with what might be called an over-haul of the combines law. I think that probably throughout the country there is a general

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
feeling that we should look at the Combines Act and combines law as something sacred, as something that should not be questioned.
It has a good atmosphere about it. It is that type of legislation which, at least superficially, is designed, and is extolled as being of general value to the public because it seeks to protect the public from price fixers, from those who would agree to set up a cartel and carve the country up into distribution areas, so that one company will do business only in one area and will stay out of another fellow's territory. It is looked upon as protecting the public against predatory price cutting which drives companies out of business, just as the Eddy Match Company did a few years ago. It is looked upon as protecting the public against monopolies, oligopolies, unfair trading practices, and a variety of other bad features connected with the activities of corporations.
Probably this was a valid assessment at the time of the inception of the Combines Investigation Act just after the turn of the century, taking into account corporate structure and its relationship to the country 60 or 70 years ago. However, the corporate structure since that time has changed so dramatically, and become so large in many instances, that some corporations are more powerful and have a larger budget for expenditures than governments. In this situation, the combines investigation law, as an effective piece of legislation to protect the general public, has probably outlived its usefulness in its present form. It tends to cover a smaller and smaller segment of the corporate world, and a smaller and smaller segment of corporate activities. Multinational corporations have such a dominant position in the marketplace that they need not engage in any price fixing activities. They need not conspire with other companies to establish a fixed quality for their products. They need not engage in any of these activities because of their size and thus are aloof from the law, or above any feeling or idea that the Combines Investigation Act will protect the public from the rapacity of their operations.
Members of my party have very serious doubts, as I have, about the effectiveness of the Combines Investigation Act. We have very serious doubts about the effectiveness of the bill before us which seeks to amend the act, and we have very serious doubts about the attitude of government in enforcement of that act. I look upon this bill as a patchwork approach, despite the view expressed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) the other day that it was a major and dramatic move-


Ronald George Atkey: And dangerous.


Frank Howard: -in certain areas so far as restrictive trade practices are concerned. He just reiterates what he said then. I did not hear him speak but I read what he said in Hansard, word for word, which is unusual for me I might say. I think this is a patchwork mechanism. It is like trying to repair an old inner tube; there might be some effect from the installation of one patch on the tube but it is so worn that it is a shorthrun measure. Like the tube, the effectiveness of this bill is extremely limited.


Ronald George Atkey: Is that your party's position?


Frank Howard: I look upon the sanctions in the bill as something that can be easily circumvented. I would not be surprised if some corporations know a great deal more about the Combines Investigation Act and its operation than most of us, and have already found ways of circumventing it.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) very effectively dealt with the provisions of the bill and laid out this party's position with respect to it. We have no doubts whatever about the general lack of effectiveness of this type of approach in dealing with the market structure of this nation or the North American continent or, indeed, the world, and of the impact upon the economy of the multinational corporations. In this regard the bill is not worth looking at; it has no effect on these questions.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore dealt with the matter of food prices in great detail. He spoke of the limited supply of specials that are advertised, the question of double ticketing and raising the price of food on the shelf. The latter will be prevented by this bill but already the food chains have circumvented the intent of the bill. They do not double ticket now; they do not raise the price of the product on the shelf by putting one sticker over another but take it into the warehouse or the backroom and do it. Now, they tear one sticker off and put another one on. That circumvents the intent and purpose of this bill, and to that extent it is meaningless legislation.
He spoke of marketing practices like the red light over the meat counters to make you think that the beef is almost alive-as if anybody would want to buy beef in that condition. This has been going on for years, Mr. Speaker, and the bill does not touch that practice. Food chains put up great posters in vivid colours that say "Special, regular 13 cents-today 3 for 39" or something like that. The thing that catches your eye is that word "special". You get three for 39 which is the same as 13 cents a piece. The bill does not prevent such practices and they are still being followed.
A number of years ago Vance Packard wrote a book called "The Hidden Persuaders" in which he dealt with the methods used by the chain stores to get people to buy things they do not want or need at exorbitant or misleading prices. This bill does not touch that problem at all. There has been, and I expect there will continue to be, an attempt on the part of the administrators of the combines investigation branch to assist companies in circumventing the law. This may be a harsh statement but I think that this practice has been upheld by the immediate past Director of Investigation and Research, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the annual reports and the statements that he used to make. I should like to quote what he said in the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1973. Indeed these words were contained in previous annual reports, so there was no need to bother resetting the type but merely insert new figures. Here is what he said at page 10;
Businessmen have for many years come to Ottawa for advice respecting the application of the Combines Investigation Act.
I bet they have. When the Conservatives were in office businessmen were here seeking advice, too. He continues: Consultation with businessmen about their problems has been encouraged as a positive program. It has been referred to in former

annual reports as the program of compliance and it is intended to be a vigorous and sustained program involving education and explanation, discussion of business problems and the giving of opinions concerning the application of the act.
As part of the program, businessmen are encouraged to discuss their problems before they decide to introduce policies which might prove to be in conflict with the Combines Investigation Act.
You know what that is doing, Mr. Speaker. The explanation of how to comply with the act is, in fact, an enticement to the businessman to go right up to the borderline, to see how far he can go without getting caught. These explanations not only tell him how to comply with the act but how to do so in a minimal sense. We know that decisions about prosecutions under the act are made by the Department of Justice. I submit that the department's lawyers are ill-equipped to make decisions of that nature. It is beyond their scope, beyond their comprehension. They are solicitors, not barristers, lawyers who sit in their offices and make sure every comma is in place. What do they know of the market place, or what it is like for the housewife to run up against conditions which steal the dollars from her pocket every time she goes into the store to buy something? This situation, apparently, is to be continued.
That brings me to my point. It is suggested that, apart from its limited effectiveness in protecting the consuming public, the bill makes provision with regard to banks. I suggest that is not so. It is true the bill refers to banks, but the provision with respect to banks is not worth the paper on which it is printed. It is ineffective, meaningless. Why? Because of the way banks set their interest rates. Only two questions are involved: how much interest will banks charge for the money you have borrowed, and how much interest will they pay on deposits? Whether the smile of one manager is more attractive than the smile of another manager or whether you are served by a pretty, buxom girl, wearing a button which says, "Let's talk"-the implication being that she wants to talk about something other than lending you money-is not important. That is not the question. Really, we are considering interest rates.
Banks set their interest rates either according to the rate the Bank of Canada sets, in which case they are not free agents but follow the lead of the Government of Canada, or they set them according to the price leadership approach. Mr. Speaker, the price leadership approach is the most effective mechanism yet devised by which corporations can fix prices without being found guilty of contravening the act. The price leadership approach for fixing prices has been used effectively, for instance, in the pulp and paper industry. It works something like this: one day the president of a company will say, "Today we will announce that the price of pulp is to be increased by $4 per ton." He makes his announcement. Two days later the president of another company says, "Say, that is a good idea; we will go along with it." The same sort of thing happens with banks. That is how they establish interest rates.
Clearly, in this area the value of the bill is nil. It is nothing more than a conscious, deliberate attempt to deceive the public into thinking that something will be done to protect them against the banking interests of this
Competition Bill
nation, when the bill will not do anything. Does the bill imply that interest rates for home builders and homeowners will come down? No. Does it indicate that such people will get a better deal from the financial institutions of this country? No, sir. This is window dressing, designed to satisfy those who have complained in the past that the Combines Investigation Act deals with commodities, not with services. In the past, banks have been looked upon as providing a service. You could more appropriately call it a disservice to the public the banks serve, and to the country as a whole.
In 1960, when the Combines Investigation Act was amended, there was a conspiracy entered into right in this chamber involving the then minister of justice, Hon. Davie Fulton, and the then representative from Newfoundland, Jack Pickersgill. We referred to the amendment as the Pickersgill-Fulton amendment because the Tories and Liberals rushed so happily into each other's arms in putting through that amendment to the Combines Investigation Act which we felt to be offensive and designed for no other purpose than to permit corporations to circumvent the price fixing provisions of the act. The present minister is not only carrying forward the spirit of that provision; he is expanding it. I am talking about the provision which provides a defence in case you are charged with fixing prices, or restricting the quality or quantity of a product in the market place, and so on.


Mr. Leggatt:: Which section?


Frank Howard: I am referring to section 32(4) which provides that in a prosecution under subsection (1), which deals with limiting supplies, fixing price and so on, the court shall not convict the accused if the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relates only to the export of articles from Canada. Clearly, the term "articles" can be interpreted broadly and may have broad application. This, then, is a sanction for fixing price. It is an authorization to establish a combine. True, on the face of it, it is limited to the production, marketing, distribution, etc. for the export market. Nevertheless, this is authority to fix prices, and will apply to the domestic market by osmosis, if by no other means.
For example, consider the fish canning industry of British Columbia. It is dominated by two companies which are linked together at the top. Actually, there is one dominant fish canning company in British Columbia. Under our corporate laws these two companies are two corporate entities; if they enter into a combination, they are liable to prosecution under the act. Yet, they are completely at liberty to sit down together and work out a fixed price for canned salmon for the export market. You can bet your boots that once they have worked out a fixed price for the export market, that price will become the fixed price for the domestic market as well. It is all perfectly legal, perfectly legitimate. The minister seeks to carry that situation forward in this bill.
May I deal with another aspect of the bill? It is deficient in that it does not apply to the Crown. The government is exempt. The government can engage in conspiracies. It can do a number of things. It can enter into a conspiracy with private interests which wish to move towards a monopoly position. At the moment we are engaged in a controversy

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
regarding oil. In particular, we are discussing the future development of what are loosely called the Alberta tar sands.
In this connection I wish to refer to the Hudson Institute, an organization which has been in existence in the United States for a number of years. Its activities have centered on the defence industry of the United States. It has become almost an agency of multinational corporations. Recently, I understand, it opened a branch or subsidiary office in Canada. I am told that Mr. Kahn, the Director of the Hudson Institute of New York, has met with the cabinet and discussed the tar sands. That is what I have been given to understand. If I am wrong, I will gladly withdraw anything my remarks may imply. As I say, I am told that he met with the cabinet, primarily on the question of developing the tar sands. His position was this: do it quickly; do it with borrowed foreign money; pay for that money with the oil production; sell out our resources to the highest bidder, for the quickest buck. That is exactly the same type of pitch the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) made a few days ago to the Chamber of Commerce meeting at Calgary. He said in so many words, "Let us find $20 billion of foreign money; let us get it any way we can; let us build distillation plants, refinery plants and what have you as quickly as possible. Let us sink $1 billion per year into them." Then he said, "Let us develop the tar sands and use every nickel we get from them for paying off as quickly as possible the $20 billion we borrowed in the first place, and let us defend the position of the oil producing monopolies of this world."
I submit it was not by coincidence that the Minister of Supply and Services made the same kind of pitch in Calgary as was made by the Hudson Institute. First, it had the full blessing of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In fact, he stood up in this House on one occasion in the last couple of days, turned with glowing features to the Minister of Supply and Services and said: Yes, he has continued this research; he is permitted to say whatever he wishes with my complete blessing. To hell with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and what he is trying to do. From now on, it is the Minister of Supply and Services. Why? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is simple, and it is based on the concept that blood is thicker than water. The Prime Minister, on this question is much closer to his friends in Quebec than he is to his friends who may be elsewhere in this country, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Prime Minister got to be leader of the Liberal Party through a kind of minor conspiracy,-I do not say that in any unfair sense-that is, through an involvement of power groups. He got his votes from the people and his money from the Power Corporation of Canada whose headquarters is in Quebec.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Nonsense!


Frank Howard: Somebody said "Nonsense". I submit that the Power Corporation of Canada is now asking for repayment-and it will probably get it.


Jean Robert Roy: Don't be an idiot!


Frank Howard: The hon. member said "Don't be an idiot". I am convinced there is probably no greater expert on that subject in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Frank Howard: Some of his own colleagues said "Right on!"
Let us examine the connection. There is a gentleman by the name of Claude Frenette who used to be executive assistant to the Mr. Sauve when Mr. Sauve was in the cabinet for a short-lived term as minister of forestry. Claude Frenette then moved from that position to become a senior executive in the Power Corporation of Canada. He is now, I gather, to be transferred, or to proceed, if he is not already there, to a position of some prominence in the Hudson Institute, the group which made the presentation about the tar sands.
In the fall of 1967, there was wonderment in this country as to who was going to be leader of the Liberal Party- who would be the candidates, and that sort of thing. Various people were holding meetings in the Province of Quebec, and quite rightly so; there was a contest going on to determine who would be the leader and it was a question of who they should support. That is all right. Of that group, one came into prominence, and if there was a leader it was this same Claude Frenette who met with a gentleman by the name of Marc Lalonde who later became principal secretary to the Prime Minister and is now the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Another of these gentlemen who engaged in these meetings with Mr. Frenette, Mr. Lalonde and the others is the gentleman who is now the Minister of Supply and Services. He was involved in these meetings in the fall of 1967. The group used to meet every Friday night in the boardroom of the Power Corporation of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that a group of ordinary citizens, even though one of them might be a member of parliament and the other a senior executive in the Power Corporation, would not have the authority or the sanction to use the boardroom of the Power Corporation as a place in which to meet every Friday night without the directors knowing about it and authorizing it. They had the consent of the Corporation.


Jean Robert Roy: Slimy insinuations!


Frank Howard: These are no slimy insinuations. These are direct facts. I am not here, in any case, to engage in any exchanges with the hon. member about that sort of thing. I am here to lay on the line, as I see it, what is happening to the energy resources of this nation under this cabinet, which his party supports, and which is selling these resources down the river for the quickest buck it can get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Then, there is one Jean-Luc Pepin who is presently on the board of directors of the Power Corporation, having been elevated to that position since he was defeated on the hustings last October. There is a direct connection between the Liberal heirarchy and the Power Corporation of Canada. That is no insinuation. It is a statement I make here and I will make it outside, too, just
March 27, 1974

in case it may be thought I am using my present position to say things I am afraid to say elsewhere.
Let me recapitulate. First, energy, particularly oil, has been the source of fantastic profits in this country. It has been the source of the growth of monopolies, of oligopolies. It has been the source of the intrusion of foreign money which has bought out this land. It has been the source of price fixing, of limiting production, of selling out for the quickest possible dollar to anybody regardless of the consequences for Canadians. This has been the story for some time, now. There are quite a few billion dollars of potential profit involved, so those who are interested, and those who have been on the gravy train and who have been the recipients of gifts from government over the years, are going to try to take advantage again of this situation.
I will recapitulate what I have said, and put it in some sequence. There is Claude Frenette, the gentleman who used to be executive assistant to Mr. Sauve when he was in the cabinet, who then became a senior executive of the Power Corporation and who subsequently moved to the Hudson Institute. We have the group behind Trudeau prior to the 1968 election comprising the present Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the same Claude Frenette and the Power Corporation of Canada with its multimillion dollar investments all over the nation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), one of the three wise men, is missing from all this in 1967 and 1968. He and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), had entered this House seeking a leader from Quebec, a man who was to save this country from itself but who has done more to damage it than any prime minister since confederation. They were excluded. It was the wise, young sharpies-though I cannot include the Minister of Supply and Services in that category. None-the-less, he was in that group.
The group met every Friday night in the boardroom of the Power Corporation in Montreal in the fall of 1967 and probably into 1968 seeking who they could get to become leader of the Liberal party. And who did they come up with, Mr. Speaker? The current Prime Minister. Jean-Luc Pepin, the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as soon as the public found him out and defeated him, ended up on the board of directors of the Power Corporation of Canada. The Hudson Institute seeks a mechanism for grabbing the tar sands for whatever private interests with which they may be associated. Frenette has had connections in the Liberal cabinet, the Power Corporation of Canada and the Hudson Institute, so I am told.
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Supply and Services conceived that speech all by himself? That is an impossibility. Someone wrote it for him, probably the same Claude Frenette. The Prime Minister stands up in this House and gives his sanction to the Minister of Supply and Services to say whatever he likes, wherever he likes, about energy policy, and cuts the feet out from under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We had a meeting today between the premiers of the provinces, the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet about energy and oil. But where was the Minister of
Competition Bill
Energy, Mines and Resources at two o'clock? He was in his seat in this House when he should have been at the conference. Where was the Minister of Supply and Services? We do not know, but he was not here. Perhaps he was at that meeting.
When Claude Frenette won the presidency of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec prior to 1968, defeating whoever it was who ran against him, the Prime Minister is alleged to have rushed into the room, thrown his arms around Claude Frenette and said: "We beat the bastards; now we can get something done". That is a quotation; I do not know whether or not it is accurate. Peter Newman in his book "Distemper of our Times" says it is true; and if hon. members want the page reference, it is page 449.
My friend over here, whoever he is, keeps chatting away. I should like to present my remarks in some sort of sequence, but if he would like, at the conclusion of what I have to say, to ask me some questions and give me the opportunity to clear up some doubts in his mind, I will do my best to do that. Interjections from some distance are very hard to pick up, but I am sure my hon. friend will accept my apology when I tell him directly that I am not able to respond to everything that he has been muttering about up to now because I have not heard all that he has said.
That type of activity which I have just outlined, in which there is an undercurrent of activity to give domination and control over the tar sands to the person who can make the quickest buck out of it, is a conspiracy against the people of this land which this bill does not seek to deal with or handle. It is a conspiracy to sell out our resources and to deny completely any environmental protection. It is a pay-off for political support and is designed to seduce Canadians to do all those terrible and deleterious things that can be done when the gleam of gold overrides the sense of democracy.
In the moment or two I have left, Mr. Speaker, I should like to talk about how ineffective is the bill in regard to another aspect of the way in which the Canadian public have been gouged and stolen from every time they go into a grocery store, a chain store or food market. I want to refer to the profit position of food processors in this land. If there is thievery that has taken place, it has certainly taken place here. I am not talking now about the supermarket chains like Loblaws, IGA, Safeways out west or any of the others; I am talking about the food processor, the company that runs the raw material through a manufacturing or processing plant and delivers a packaged, canned, or encased product of some kind.
Let me very quickly recount the percentage profit increase of these companies in the year 1973 compared with 1972. J. M. Schneider increased its profits in that one year by 35 per cent. H. J. Heinz was a poor outfit, with only a 14 per cent increase; Dominion Dairies, probably one of the groups we have been subsidizing through the milk subsidy program, 32 per cent; Canada Packers, 36 per cent; Canadian Canners, 33 per cent; George Weston-you cannot buy a biscuit in Canada that George has not had a finger in-86 per cent; Burns Foods, 28 per cent; B.C. Sugar Refinery, 50 per cent; Maple Leaf Mills, another food processor to whom we have been paying a subsidy for

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
flour, 150 per cent increase in profit; Silverwood Industries, 83 per cent.
Taking the 12 companies sampled in this Financial Post survey, the average increase in profits has been 59.6 per cent. No provision whatsoever is made, either in the Combines Investigation Act or by the Food Prices Review Board structure, or through any section of the minister's department, to protect the consuming public against that situation. Then, on top of all that-and this comes home to roost for both Liberals and Conservatives-these companies were the beneficiaries of the reduction in the corporation tax from 47 per cent to 40 per cent. Then, as an added bonus, consider this. Did these companies increase the number of their employees? Not from any look at the statistics. Did they build new plants? Not that anybody can find out. They stuck these profits in their pockets, a gift from the Canadian taxpayer. Not only did we give George Weston an 86 per cent increase in profits, but we said things were so bad that we would cut the percentage of income tax they would pay on top of that.
What this means also is that to the extent that these food processors are foreign-owned and pay dividends on their profits to their parent company outside the land, they are taking the money of Canadian taxpayers, as a result of the reduction to 40 per cent in the corporation tax rate, and stacking it into dividends that they pay. We the taxpayers of Canada are giving our hard earned tax money in the form of dividends to multinational corporations headquartered elsewhere. I say that is a shame and a disgrace.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) has now come into this House with a bill that has had a long period of pregnancy and is insipid, ineffective, and will become meaningless within a matter of just a few months. If there are good features in it in terms of preserving the position of the general public without further encroachment upon their pocket books, its provisions have been so well publicized that corporations have now found ways of getting around them. As for those who have not, they will continue the policy started by Mr. Henry when he was director of research and investigation of holding meetings with the director to ascertain how far they can go in instituting their policies and still stay within the law. I hope when the committee gets this bill it will be able to straighten it out because it is really not of much value the way it stands now.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I welcome in principle the amendments introduced to the Combines Investigation Act presently before this House, and in particular the fact that there appears to be some priority given to consumer protection aspects of a competition policy, an area which has in the past been the subject of our party's attack upon this government.
No doubt members will welcome the opportunity to discuss the many areas encompassed by these proposed amendments, inasmuch as there are many questions which still remain unanswered and many areas of this bill which must be enlarged upon, particularly proposed Section 32.3 which would bring amateur and professional sports under the jurisdiction of the Combines Investigation Act for the

first time. I welcome the principle of protection in some semblance to athletes and teams as well, something that has for too long been lacking in this country. However, the proposed legislation, particularly in this part, represents only a start on what can and should be a comprehensive undertaking, not just a superficial scratching of the surface.
What is of prime concern to me is the overpowering slanting of this bill, not toward the amateur who is really most in need of these kinds of guidelines, but toward the already established professional who has attained stability and financial security in the marketplace of athletes, and the teams themselves who have at their disposal vast legal and monetary resources. What is of prime concern to me, and should be of prime concern, to every member of this House is that the youth of this country be afforded every conceivable opportunity not only to participate in sports and become physically as well as mentally proficient, but be afforded as well the opportunity to participate in Canadian professional sports without taking a back seat to United States superiority in Canada. At the same time, they should be protected in their choice of team and league.
At the present time in our own Canadian Football League almost 50 per cent of every team is composed of United States players, not to mention the over 75 per cent United States content as far as staff and coaching is concerned. Allow me to quote from today's Toronto Daily Star, from a column by the sports editor of that paper, Jim Proudfoot:
Next time there's a coaching or managerial vacancy, hire a Canuck. Edmonton Eskimos haven't done badly with a Canadian general manager, you know. And lots of Canadian coaches could do the job in the CFL if they just cultivate southern accents.
The myth about Canadian inferiority has been kept alive by coaches mostly, who'd sooner bring in a ready-made halfback from Georgia Abnormal than tutor a talented kid from Wilfred Laurier.
Canadians who got the opportunity have always been capable of stardom at the highest level; Tony Gabriel, Jim Corrigall, Tom Forzani, Bill Baker and Lome Richardson were all-stars last fall in positions usually occupied by immigrants.
If Mr. Lalonde hasn't extracted a pledge along the above lines, he's simply wasting his time with this whole exercise-simply deciding which American players Canadians can watch.
I agree 100 per cent with that sentiment. It is a strange paradox that, on the one hand, we have the government submitting a bill which it alleges will stimulate competition and, on the other hand, we have the same government threatening to introduce a bill to prevent competition. Of course, I am referring to the contradictions between the bill before us, submitted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), and the widely publicized recent statements by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in which he emphatically and repeatedly says that his government will do everything in its power to keep the Toronto Northmen of the newly formed World Football League out of Canada in order to protect the Canadian Football League. What could be more contradictory? How can a government possibly introduce two such conflicting philosophies? Has this government forgotten that this country was built on free enterprise, and has this government forgotten that this country was built on competition? Why did the Minister of National Health and Welfare then pick this particular
March 27, 1974

time to frustrate the efforts of the Northern to establish their franchise in the city of Toronto, a city that is more than willing and capable of supporting two major league football teams? This is obvious in view of the fact that the Argonauts have sold all their tickets for all post season and pre-season games, as well as league games, and that the Toronto Northmen have already to this date, without any advertising whatsoever, sold over 3,000 season tickets to their games.
Since when does any government or any agency in this country have the right to dictate to the people of Canada what they can or what they cannot see in professional sports? This is purely censorship of the highest order. What would be the reaction of the people if the government arbitrarily decided that, in the best interests of Canadians, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would no longer be permitted to carry National Football League games from the United States which are in direct competition with the CFL schedule? What would be the reaction of Canadians if the United States did not allow our athletes, or for that matter writers, entertainers and other professionals into the United States?


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the smart-aleck Liberals over there jeering at this statement, but I know from experience in my younger days, before I became overweight and started showing bald spots, and before I got into business and politics, when my sister and I were world champions representing Canada. We were allowed to go into the United States, although the United States had many world champions of its own.


An hon. Member:: You were much better on the ice.


Otto John Jelinek: I suggest that the real reason for this move by the minister is to establish a precedent in order to prevent the much talked about possibility of the National Football League expanding into the new Olympic stadium in Montreal, which would in all likelihood seriously affect the financial stability of the Montreal Alouettes, and thus endanger the entire makeup of the Canadian Football League. The reasoning behind this statement, of course, is that unfortunately the Alouettes have not been getting the response from the public they deserve. I certainly share the minister's concern if this in fact is the case, or in fact if the World Football League itself posed such a threat.
The same holds true for the cities of the western conference. However, this is not the case in respect of the Toronto franchise. I would be the last person wishing to see the demise of the Canadian Football League in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be my wish to see greater opportunity afforded to the youth of this country by encouraging greater Canadian participation in the CFL. In fact, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare were truly concerned about Canadianization of sport in this country, he would take the suggestion I have made in this House and substantially increase Canadian content, not only in the Canadian Football League but in professional sport in this country in general.
In any event, the terms of the offer submitted by the Toronto Northmen organization to both the Canadian Football League and the federal government make it obvi-
Competition Bill
ous that the CFL will not be endangered by the establishment of this one World Football League team, and I submit that the minister has obviously not even seriously considered the offer to safeguard the Canadian Football League.
Let us examine briefly the submission offered in writing to the minister by the Toronto Northmen Football Team Incorporated, which states in part:
The Minister of Health has stated that the Government of Canada is prepared to legislate so as to prevent the affiliation of any Canadian football team with any U.S. league and thereby frustrate the lawful action of Toronto Northmen Football Team Inc. in bringing a World Football League Franchise to Toronto for the following reasons:
1. The Toronto Argonauts would have competition in the Toronto market and the amount of revenue they receive might therefore be reduced. If this revenue is reduced then the amount the Argonauts pay to the Canadian Football League by way of "equalisation payments" would be reduced and the balance of the Canadian Football League would suffer.
The minister has even gone so far as to suggest that the result would be the destruction of the Canadian football League.
This is the Northmen's reply in writing to both the Canadian Football League and the federal government:
We agree that the introduction of a new team in Toronto will provide competition for the Argonauts. We believe that competition is healthy, and that there is ample room in Toronto for two football teams operating in different professional football leagues. The brand of football each team has to offer would be different, and the style of football played would also not be the same. We would fully expect that the fans in Toronto would continue to support the Argonauts in the same excellent fashion as they have done in the past. The minister himself subsequently stated to us that the introduction of this one team would not destroy the CFL and Mr. Gaudaur has made a similar statement.
However, in the event that we are wrong in our assessment we are prepared to guarantee to the Canadian Football League that the Argonaut 'equalization payments' for the next ten years, will be no less than the payment made in the year 1973, a year when the Argonauts sold out their stadium for every pre-season and regular season game. We are prepared that this guarantee take whatever reasonable form the government and the Canadian Football League require. This guarantee, which we believe is unnecessary, should nonetheless quiet the government's fears that the 'equalization payments' be reduced.
Now, Mr. Speaker, does this jeopardize in any way the financial stability of the CFL? Certainly not. Every member of this House would agree with that because once these guarantees are implemented the Canadian Football League will not be hurt by the franchise proposed for Toronto.
Then, we have the minister's second objection:
The World Football League could come into Montreal and Vancouver and worsen the financial positions of the Montreal and Vancouver teams thus threatening the structure of the entire Canadian Football League.
This is the written reply of the Northmen to this objection:
The Northmen have all of the Dominion of Canada as part of their territory. The Northmen are prepared to assign these rights to the Canadian Football League, its individual teams or indeed to the Government of Canada. In this fashion the Canadian Football League and the Government of Canada can ensure that no other World Football League team would be established in Canada without the approval of the Canadian Football League.
Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the Northmen are giving assurance to the Canadian Football League and to the federal government that it will be at the option of the

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
Canadian Football League whether there is to be further expansion of the World Football League in Canada. Given the fact that the people of Toronto will support two football teams and want two different professional teams, I suggest that the federal government stay out of the matter because it is not even involved. This will not hurt either the Canadian Football league or the athletes of this country. I cannot understand why, all of a sudden, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should come up with this kind of ridiculous statement in respect of professional football in Canada in this one matter.
This is the minister's third concern:
The National Football League and perhaps even other leagues might introduce franchises into Canadian markets and thus weaken the position of the Canadian football league.
This is the reply of the Northmen:
It is true that other leagues might introduce franchises into Canadian markets. We believe that the Canadian fans should determine what football they wish to watch. However, in the event that the government is determined to limit the choice of Canadian fans, the government if it has legislative authority, could introduce legislation to prohibit these other leagues from entering Canada. In light of the guarantees we are prepared to give as stated, there would clearly be no need to make that legislation retroactive to include the Northmen.
We wish to make it clear that we do not recommend the introduction of this legislation. We feel that the Canadian football fan is the one who should make the choice as to what brand and type of football he wishes to watch. However, if the government is determined in its course, there would now appear to be no need to make the legislation retroactive by including the Northmen within the scope of that legislation, particularly since the Northmen started in business and expended large sums of money long before there was any announced government policy on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister's arguments simply do not stand up in light of these guarantees. Even the Commissioner of the CFL has been quoted publicly as admitting that the Canadian Football League can readily survive the introduction of the WFL in Toronto. Under the proposed section 32.3(b) of the Combines Investigation Act, the first charge under this section should be laid against the federal government itself. Let me quote section 32.3(b):
Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person
(b) to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to
negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or
club of his choice in a professional or amateur league is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for two years.
Not even I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare to be imprisoned for two years. Where for example, does this leave the federal government with regard to a player who has signed with the WFL, at this time a legal entity, and where does it leave a player who is subsequently unreasonably denied playing for the team or his choice. I wish the minister were in the House now. Perhaps he could answer that question but I doubt it because he answers very few.
Once again, what could be more ludicrous than the government itself being charged under the very bill it introduced? If the government is to be involved in professional sports, as seems to be the direction it is taking under this proposed legislation, this should be all-encompassing legislation and not merely a band-aid, patchwork approach such as this section of the bill is taking. I will do

everything in my power to ensure, if the minister brings in legislation to try to stop the World Football League moving into Toronto, that the bill is defeated. I will try to get my colleagues and any other sensible members of this House to vote against such a ridiculous proposition. Somewhere along the line, what should have been the main objective of this type of legislation has been sidetracked. As I have repeatedly emphasized, it is the youth of this country who must be our primary concern.
Apparently this section of the bill is aimed primarily at hockey, Canada's number one participation sport. But the record will show that the NHL has been a responsible organization contributing to the growth of amateur hockey in Canada. For example, financially the league has contributed to the development of hockey in Canada, from both United States and Canadian teams, over $1 million per year. This is based on payments to the CAHA of $10,000 per player if he plays in the NHL after he is drafted, $7,000 per player if he plays in one of the NHL farm clubs after he is drafted, and $3,000 if the player does not make the NHL or the minor league although he has been drafted by the league. Above and beyond this, the NHL pays a lump sum of several hundred thousand dollars to the CAHA, all of which is divised between the CAHA and the Canadian club responsible for the development of the individual players.
I mention this because the new hockey league, the WHA, which has entered Canada from the United States without any federal intervention whatsoever, provides no such benefits to Canadian youth. I wonder where the minister and other members of the government were when the World Hockey Association moved into Canada? Where was the minister when this new league started taking over the players who played for the NHL, a league which subsidizes amateur athletes. Not only that, but the WHA has bypassed the long established draft rules in the NHL by signing players under 20 years of age and thus jeopardizing not only amateur junior hockey in Canada, but also adversely affecting the one organization that has made a significant contribution to amateur hockey in this country. This statement, of course, removes any doubt that my interest centres around. John Bassett Jr. rather than sports in general.
Where was the federal government when the world hockey association entered the Canadian sports scene? Where was the concern for the advancement of opportunities for the youth of this country? Why did the government fail to provide safeguards and encouragement to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and why are there no proposed changes by this government relating to hockey? Why has football been singled out as a target of intervention? Would it not be reasonable to expect the government to take a firm stand on the protection of this sport long before the world football league was even contemplated? Certainly, safeguards are needed there to keep our amateur junior teams viable.
While we are on this subject of the protection of other sports, may I ask whether the government should not consider obtaining revenue for amateur development from foreign organizations such as professional ice shows-and I am speaking specifically about American ice shows-
March 27, 1974

which continue to drain off all our top talents without contributing to the Canadian amateur organizations which have invested their time and money in developing these athletes. I would now suggest that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare get together to decide which of their two diametrically opposing views are in fact party policy.
In closing, may I state that I will support this bill in principle for passage to the committee stage, but I can assure members of the House that I will insist in committee on having the presently ambiguous sections enlarged in such a way as to ensure that the competition act truly means fair competition and provides an opportunity for Canadian youth to continue the development of amateur sport in this country.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this bill for second reading with a certain lack of enthusiasm. In fact, what this bill really does is to allow my friends on the right and my friends across the chamber to continue to indulge in the myth-making process that in fact we live in a free enterprise system. They will put on a little lipstick, comb their hair and say: the system is just a little out of joint now, so what we can do is to bring in a competition act and then we will have prices set by competition. I challenge any member of either the Tory or the Liberal party to find me a reputable economist who will say that prices in North America, and particularly Canada, are set by competition. In fact, prices have long been set in this country by administration. This is the term used by Galbraith. They are administered prices.
I welcome this cosmetic piece of legislation because in some areas there may be some abuses we can catch. But in fact most of the prices of the major products in this country are set by administration, either through government regulation or on the 18th hole of the golf course. Those are the facts of life and there is no way in which we can avoid them. So it is a wonderful theory that both the government and the Official Opposition operate under, but it does not bear any economic examination or evaluation.
I must say that in terms of what the minister is trying to accomplish with the bill, some of these provisions are good. I certainly welcome the effort in regard to controlling referred selling, bait and switch procedures, double ticketing, and selling above the advertised price. These are all provisions that can help the market cosmetically, but they will not help in a major way because, as I said, most of the major prices in this country are set either by government regulation or by administration. What we really need is a minister with will, energy, courage and determination to make the bill effective because, after all, we have had the Combines Investigation Act for some time.
Perhaps we should examine the record under the old legislation. The old act has long provided, for example, for jail terms of a maximum of two years for certain offences. How many people in this chamber can recall anyone who has ever gone to jail as a result of a conviction under the Combines Investigation Act? I cannot recall a single incident, and yet the board of directors of the General Electric Company in the United States some years ago faced a jail
Competition Bill
term. Why have we not had jail terms imposed in this country? Is the offence of conspiring to raise the price of a major product to any consumer in the market place any less serious than a first offence of breaking and entering, which sometimes carries with it a jail term, or a second offence for possession of marijuana? At one time we were jailing people for six months for a first offence for possession of marijuana.
We have a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission on which the minister has seen fit to have only one member, a person we can only call an acting chairman, not a full time chairman. On the basis of the old legislation, in 1970 and 1971 that branch only used 41 per cent of its budget. In 1971-72, it used 61 per cent of its budget, and in 1972-73 again it only used 61 per cent of the budget. That does not indicate to me that the government is really interested in controlling monopoly pricing or in truly attacking this problem. What we need is not just more legislation along this line. We need a minister and a government with the will, energy and dedication to make this competition legislation work, at least to the limited extent that it can.
Now, I should like to come back to the major theme of my remarks. The legislation can only work to a limited extent in the kind of economy in which we exist. Certainly, I welcome the clause dealing with the imposition of a foreign law on Canadian firms. I think this is something that has been long overdue, and it is particularly apropos in terms of the recent MLW Worthington case. But I have to point out that the only time such cases really come to our attention is when somebody on a board of directors decides: "To hell with this; I will blow the whistle". That is usually when we find out about it.
What I ask is: how many companies in this country which are dominated or are subsidiaries of foreign corporations have, in fact, refused to bid in foreign markets such as Cuba, or any other countries that are on the U.S. enemies list? There could be many indeed. This legislation will not solve that problem. The only way we will solve that kind of problem is to repatriate the economy, but that will be a long and tough struggle. We must promulgate the foreign takeover review legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have a list in front of me of 13 foreign takeovers that have taken place in the major industrial sectors since that legislation was passed by the House and received Royal Assent. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) wishes to solve one of the problems that this bill seeks to solve, namely, the imposition of foreign law upon the Canadian economy which prevents us from dealing with certain nations, then let him promulgate the foreign takeover legislation and publish the guidelines. Ultimately, that is the only way in which we can tackle the problem.
As I say, the provision in this bill which attempts to deal with the imposition of foreign law on the Canadian economy is merely cosmetic. With the major part of our economy foreign owned, it is obvious that many foreign-con-trolled corporations are not seeking markets in certain other countries. I am convinced that many opportunities could be found in the Chinese market if our corporations made the effort. I am interested in the amendment which purports to provide a right of action to individuals who suffer as the result of conspiracy. This is in proposed new
926

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
section 31.1. I welcome this, but again it is a minor relief. Again, it is a very cosmetic thing.
If consumers suffer from a conspiracy to fix bread prices, no one individual will start an action for the one cent a loaf that the conspiracy may have cost him over the previous five years. The sum involved would not amount to enough to get the case into the small debts court. What has long been needed in Canada has been provision for class actions so that an entire class of people who suffer as the result of conspiracy can take action, and an award made, based on the loss suffered by the entire class. Under the proposal in this bill the public injury cannot be fairly compensated.
Let me give an example of the type of class action that can work. A major cab company in Los Angeles had illegally raised its meter rates over a long period of time. As a result a class action was developed by a firm of lawyers and some other consumers of the taxi service. The defence raised by the taxi company was that the loss was impossible to determine, and thus there was no way for the court to make an award. The presiding judge ruled that the company must turn back its meters, not only to the legal rate but to a rate below that for a period equal to the time during which the conspiracy had taken place.


An hon. Member:: What happened to the drivers?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The drivers did fine. The company was the one which was making the money. It is this kind of provision that I hope the minister will consider but, as I say, I do not see it in the bill. How many people are going to take action under proposed section 31.1 on an individual basis, where the actual individual loss is a matter of pennies but where the public loss is in millions of dollars? The only way to deal with such a situation is to make provision for a class action, so that a company which pulls these shennanigans will know it will be faced not only with a major fine but with paying compensation for the loss suffered by the public.
From time to time we tend to be quite critical of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), but I believe the investigation into the cement company scandal in British Columbia started when he was minister of consumer and corporate affairs. It was discovered that a conspiracy on the part of the major suppliers of cement in British Columbia had existed over an 11 year period. These companies controlled about 90 per cent of the market. The companies were fined about $430,000, which will probably mean a slight change in the dividend paid out of profits. But the interesting thing was that no hard evidence was produced in court to determine the economic loss suffered as a result of that 11 year conspiracy. We do not know whether this loss was nil, whether it was major, or whether it was minor. I contend that in this kind of legislation we must be sophisticated enough to come up with answers to that.
The public want to know how much this cement conspiracy cost it over those 11 years. Until then it will not know how just was the fine. I point out that the law also provides for two year jail terms, and it is time some sentences were imposed, particularly when evidence is produced that the public interest was severely affected. I repeat that no economic evidence was introduced in court

with respect to that conspiracy. The public really does not know by how much house building costs were increased as a result of that conspiracy.
There is only one reason for these conspiracies, to increase the price, or to keep it artificially high. I think we can sum up this legislation as a wonderful approach to tinkering around with the market, but in the long run we must be pessimistic about the subject. The ease with which prices can be set is quite remarkable, and beyond the minister's capacity to investigate in most cases. This is not a criticism of the minister. It is just that price fixing is so easily done while walking aroung a golf course, particularly when those involved control 90 per cent of the market. If those involved in the conspiracy refuse to supply one of their competitors with a major component for the product he manufactures, this pretty well means that he has to engage in the conspiracy himself, or else go out of business. I welcome the provision inserted in the bill to deal with this situation as an improvement on the law as it presently exists.
In conclusion, I say this is a wonderful job of cosmetology, which will allow my hon. friends to my right and across the chamber to continue to indulge in their myth about free enterprise. I am, in a way, glad they have taken this opportunity at myth-making to support again what is really an untenable economic position.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks today will be rather short. I would like to support this bill, not as a complete answer but as one of two steps which will help solve many of the problems affecting business in Canada. There is a great myth in the business community, a myth which runs through groups like chambers of commerce and others. The myth is that all members of the business community are as one; that the only difference between the small clothing retailer and General Motors is one of volume and that they are "all in it together". This myth must be examined very carefully for its implications in regard to this particular bill.
I was rather interested in a concept advanced by Galbraith in his last book called "Economics." He divides the business part of the economy into two segments, the planning economy and the market economy, and tries to explode the myth that all businesses are exactly the same except for volume. He talks about the planning economy as that portion of the economy which has real power-the multinational corporations, the larger corporations. These have the power to set prices within a certain range and to pass on the costs they incur. They have the power to accept substantial wage and salary increases and to pass these on. He describes this planning sector of the economy as being basically growth oriented.
I agree that the motive for the operation of a large portion of our economy and of government, is growth, not maximizing profits. In many large corporations, the shareholder or owner is quite separate from the people who operate the business. In such organizations growth is a far greater factor than is maximizing profits; profits are plowed back into growth and the only concern is a reasonable return to the shareholder who has very little control of the operation of the business.
March 27, 1974

Galbraith also indicates that because of the ability to control the market, and that is almost to create the market because,of mass advertising and other things, companies in the planning sector are able to create continuing demand. Their ability to pass on increases in price through increasing costs and wages et cetera, means that this particular segment of the business community tends to be inflationary. Again it is that ability to increase the demand and pass on costs that creates inflation.
Another point that I should make about the planning sector of the economy is that a great deal of its growth is created by plowing back into the company the profit or revenue it has achieved. This means that corporations in the planning sector are not subject to the kind of monetary policies that governments use to limit inflation. In other words, 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 14 per cent interest rates are not particularly important to this section because they are able to generate their own capital. So this group is relatively immune to the vicissitudes that affect the smaller businesses in what Galbraith calls the market economy.
It is my feeling that we should be looking at the kind of competition bill that would tend to keep this segment of the economy, as Galbraith calls it, the planning economy, under control. On the other hand, the market economy- that is, the smaller people who are unable to control any large segment of the economy and who are fairly elastic in their operations-is not the section of the economy that is inflationary. Here is where market force comes into play. If smaller industries or businesses are not able to stay away from undue price increases, competition will put them out of business and so we have market forces operating in this segment of the economy. I think this distinction between the market economy and the planning economy is an important one and the bill begins to attack this distinction. Whether this is a conscious attack or whether it is done for other reasons, the fact is, it is there.
I should like to deal with one or two aspects of the bill that affect those companies that I have defined as being in the planning sector-the large corporations, the multinational corporations. These are the corporations where mergers, restrictions in trade and this kind of thing are more likely. I think there are definite areas where this bill has some notable effects and where the future bill will have even more effects. The future bill should be designed to have a great deal of effect in this particular sector. In the bill, there are items like refusing to deal, providing adequate supplies to certain individuals to force them out, consignment selling, market restriction-these kinds of things which are very pertinent to this more powerful section of the economy. The item in the bill which deals with foreign laws which are contrary to Canadian interests is one that has a great deal of effect on the larger corporations, particularly the multinational corporations.
There has been some criticism of the limitations of this act, some question of how we are to find out, for instance, if the government of Cuba or China is not able to purchase a particular piece of material, as in the case of Cuba and the MLW-Worthington company and the 20 locomotives. The criticism of the bill was that there was no way the government could find out what was happening. It seems to me that if the government of Cuba were particularly
Competition Bill
interested in making the purchase, all it would have to do would be quietly say to our Department of External Affairs that they needed help with the problem. I do not think this is a very great handicap under this act.
These are some of the things that are beginning to be examined in this act, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the second section will deal far more with this planning segment of the economy and its power. As to the market segment, I think the bill is positive when it attempts to remove from that section of our economy the involving smaller businessmen, the kind of leech or individual who is constantly involved in sharp practices. By reducing sharp practice we shall, in the long run, enable the small business community to acquire a better name.
Practices like bid rigging are also considered. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, some senior executives of General Electric in the United States were jailed a few years ago because it was alleged they engaged in such activities. Such practices will be dealt with under this bill. They affect the market economy as well as the planning economy.
Professional sport, in the sense that it is a business, also comes under the scope of the act. As well, double ticketing is brought under the act. The enforcement procedures under the act will make it possible for us to deal with such things. That, I think is desirable.
I said that I would only say a few words on the bill. I think the second legislative phase would be most important. The minister indicated certain important areas which would be dealt with in the second phase. He suggested that the government would develop legislation bringing forward additional criteria and methods against which we can judge mergers and amalgamations which, while restricting competition, may or may not be in the interest of the public. In other words, the government will examine the question of mergers.
While considering second phase legislation I think the minister should consider the matter of administrated pricing, and the idea of a company being able to pass prices on because there are no market forces which will counter the increased price. I think these are some of the things which we must be aware of and look at as we develop legislation in this field, with the idea of strengthening the market economy while controlling the planning economy.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my contribution to this debate by examining the theory of competition and monopoly. The orthodox theory has been the standard fare in the universities for over 40 years. It permeates the thinking of the government and of many members variously situated in this House. It is the basis of much badly conceived legislation aimed at monopolies.
I wish to argue that the great virtue of Canadian antimonopoly legislation over the years has been that, compared with the American system, it has done relatively little harm, direct harm, even though it has done the Canadian people no real good. Indirectly, however, Canadian anti-monopoly laws have done considerable harm by misdirecting public attention away from the very
27398-59i

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
serious problem of monopoly in this country, that is to say, monopolies created by government. By spreading the false impression that businessmen can create monopolies for themselves without the assistance of the state, our antimonopoly laws have tended to shield the state-created monopolies from public attention. These are the very monopolies which have done serious harm to the Canadian people and continue to do so. I want to explain how this bill would worsen, not improve our situation; finally, I want to say a little about the ways in which the federal government could be helpful to the Canadian people in this area of policy.
The orthodox theory of competition and monopoly has been the conventional wisdom of several decades. Adam Smith has been blamed for inventing it, although I am not sure that a careful reading of his work would support that accusation. The orthodox theory is basically a rather simple nose counting theory of competition. Under the orthodox theory we arbitrarily define first what constitutes an industry; then we count the number of businesses which fall within our arbitrarily defined boundaries. If there is only one, the industry is a monopoly; if there are several, it is an oligopoly, if there are many, it is a nearly purely competitive industry. The orthodox theory includes academically interesting models of the results, in equilibrium, of each of these three forms. Of course, equilibrium, a state of no further cnange, of no further competition, never occurs in the real world; so, the value in the real world of theories based on premises which are contrary to fact is indeed questionable. In spite of the inapplicability of that theory to the everyday world, the government supports legislation the effect of which is an attempt to force the real world to fit the theory.
This brings two undesirable effects. First, the operation of genuinely competitive markets in the real world is impaired; secondly, nothing is done about real monopolies.
At this point let me say something about an alternative theory of competition and monopoly, a theory which accurately describes the real world. After all, the purpose of theory is to help us to understand reality, not to indulge in idle dreaming about how we would like the world to be. When we see a theory which does not accurately describe the real world, we should not say something like, "That's nice in theory but it does not work in practice." My point is that if it does not work in practice, it is not nice in theory. It is a bad theory and we need a new one.
Some progressive economists of today, among them Rothbard, Kirzner and Armentano, are hard at work replacing the orthodox theory with a useful theory, which accurately describes reality. In contrast to the orthodox theory's preoccupation with the unrealistic state of equilibrium, in which all change, all competition, has ceased, Kirzner, in his 1973 book "Competition and Entrepreneurship" sees price theory
... in a way that is not related in any essential manner to the state of affairs at equilibrium. The efficiency of the price system, in this approach, does not depend upon the optimality (or absence of it) of the resource allocation pattern at equilibrium; rather, it depends on the degree of success with which market forces can be relied upon to generate spontaneous corrections in the allocation patterns prevailing at times of disequilibrium.
Times of disequilibrium are, of course, all the time. Later Kirzner continues:
[Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).!
The fact that at any given moment only one producer is making a particular product is not by itself an impairment of the competitive process. It may simply mean that at this moment only one entrepreneur had taken the step of presenting this particular opportunity to the market. If the step was a wise one, it will tend to attract others to do even better in this regard. If it proves to have been a mistake this entrepreneur himself will be under market pressure to abandon this line of production.
If, in contrast to the orthodox theory, a single producer of a product is not necessarily a monopolist, what makes a monopolist? Kirzner answers that "the crucial question concerns freedom of entry". We are reminded of what Lord Coke wrote over 300 years ago: "Monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the state, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group."
In a speech in this House last April 17, I explained in detail that the concept of monopoly has nothing to do with the number of firms operating within an industry. It has to do with whether or not the government is restricting competition. For example, there are 363 licensed taxi cabs in the city of Vancouver. The supporters of the nose counting theory of competition and monopoly would no doubt say that the taxi cab business in Vancouver is nearly purely competitive. But they would be wrong. The Vancouver government restricts the supply of taxi cab licenses, so that consumers must pay monopoly prices for taxi cab services, monopoly prices so high that the market value of a taxi cab license is now over $30,000. A great deal of what I said in that speech during the food prices debate is relevant to the present debate.
About the nose counting theory, that I have been criticizing, Armentano wrote in his 1972 book "The Myths of Anti-Trust":
" ... the market structure described as being purely competitive and optimal must certainly appear strange to anyone acquainted with flesh and blood consumers or business organizations. In the real-world marketplace, business competition appears to be almost opposite to [that theory's] economic pure competition.
In his 1966 book, "Insider Trading and the Stock Market" Henry Manne quotes the Austrian economist Schumpeter as follows:
In capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not (price) competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization (the largest-scale unit of control for instance)-competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives. This kind of competition is as much more effective than the other as a bombardment is in camparison with forcing a door, and so much more important that it becomes a matter of comparative indifference whether competition in the ordinary sense functions more or less promptly; the powerful lever that in the long run expands output and brings down prices is in any case made of other stuff.
He continues:
It is hardly necessary to point out that competition of the kind we now have in mind acts not only when in being but also when it is merely an ever-present threat. It disciplines before it attacks. The businessman feels himself to be in a competitive situation even if he is alone in his field or if, though not alone, he holds a position such that investigating, government experts fail to see any effective competition between him and any other firms in the same or a neighbouring field and in consequence conclude that his talk, under examination, about his competitive sorrows is all make-believe. In many cases, though not

in all, this will in the long run enforce behaviour very similar to the perfectly competitive pattern.
Part of the nose counting theory of competition is the notion of oligopoly. Oligopoly occurs if, within the boundaries of one arbitrarily defined industry only a few noses, fewer than about a dozen, I understand are counted. Of course, it is always possible to define an industry sufficiently narrowly as to ensure that nose counting yields oligopoly. For example, let us consider the market for all beverages, then for all wines, all white wines, all Sau-ternes, and, finally, all wine from the grapes grown from one particular hill. If we define the industry sufficiently narrowly we can find, from the standpoint of the orthodox nose counting theory, not only oligopoly but even monopoly wherever we want to look for it. The concept of oligopoly is nonsensical, and unfortunately it is confusing to many people. It completely misses the point that whether or not competition exists depends not on the number of noses counted but on whether or not the government is preventing entrepreneurs from competing. Businessmen themselves have no legal power to exclude competitors. Only government has that power.
One day I heard a story about a city in which four manufacturers were turning out a certain product. A fifth competitor entered and began production. According to the story, the four established firms, being wicked oligopolists, cut prices by 25 per cent and bankrupted the new firm. Then, they raised their prices to the previous level. This was supposed to prove that oligopolists can restrict entry to an industry. In fact, it proved nothing of the sort. It simply showed that the new competitor was pretty stupid to think he could add his production to what the others were already supplying to the market and not see a fall in price. He was ignorant of the laws of supply and demand, and he failed to weather the storm, having failed to supply his firm with adequate capital. Perhaps he deserved to go bankrupt, for his incompetence. In a free economy we say we are happy to see the efficient prosper. But then, we must also be happy to see the inefficient fail, and the sooner the better, so that the natural resources, labour, and capital controlled by the inefficient may be released for more productive use, by the efficient, to the general betterment of the people.
Advocates of the notion of oligopoly also tell stories about businessmen sitting around in their clubs, fixing prices and dividing markets. Perhaps some businessmen try to do just that, but is there any evidence that they are successful? I do not think so. Such agreements are not contractual. It is in the interest of each participant to secretly undercut his partners as soon as he is out of the door. And the evidence is that he does just that.
Again, I refer hon. members to Armentano's book, especially the parts dealing with the famous electrical equipment price-fixing conspiracy case, in which the conspiracies never worked, never succeeded in raising prices, because the conspirators undercut each other as soon as they had finished promising each other to fix prices.
On this subject, Hutt wrote in his 1973 book, "The Strike-Threat System":
The truth seems to be that effective tacit collusion cannot be imagined as having more than a negligible effect. Collusive exploitation requires quotas, with sanctions for their enforcement; or else suf-
Competition Bill
ficiently attractive prospects of a certain share of the market will have to be assured for every voluntary participant. But can we conceive of any substitute for the quota or the prospective market share inducement under simple tacit abstention from competition? Just think of what we must postulate. The low-cost firms (probably the most efficient) must judge it to be profitable to sacrifice prospects of a growing share of the market and spontaneously protect the high-cost firms (probably the less efficient). While this is conceivable when the risk of misconceived anti-trust proceedings is the alternative, or under ironclad cartel contracts, it is hardly conceivable in their absence. In general, the advantage to the low-cost entrepreneurs of passing on to consumers the economies of their relative efficiency will outweigh all other considerations.
Experience seems to teach that the effectiveness of collusive restrictionism has required not only reliance on quotas but the ability to discipline participants; and a system of policing has often been felt to be essential for successful exploitation.
That is why the government had to equip the farm marketing board monopolies with strong policing power in order to maintain the monopolies; they could not have survived otherwise.
Some advocates of the theory of oligopoly produce great quantities of statistical evidence, including published price lists, to support their case. Everybody knows it is foolish to accept statistics as proof of anything, because statistics can be found to support practically any theory. A theory is risht or wrong not on the basis of how many pounds of statistics can be accumulated for or against it but on the basis of its inherent logic or lack thereof. Anyway, it should be pointed out that statistics based on published price lists are no indication at all of the actual prices at which deals are made. Anyone who has ever bargained for a discount when buying a car knows that.
Perhaps what I have been saying appears to be quite new and radical to many hon. members. In the limited time available to me I have not been able to explain these new and radical ideas as fully as they are explained in the books I have mentioned, books I commend to all hon. members.
It seems that the government thinks highly of the American anti-trust system, especially the considerable arbitrary power in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. It seems that this fondness for arbitrary power is the trademark of the present government. We have seen in the United States one result of the concentration of arbitrary power in a few hands-the Watergate affair. I do not want to see anything like that in Canada, but already we see arbitrary power in the hands of bureaucracies, such as the income tax department and now, thanks to this government and its Foreign Investment Review Act, in the hands of politicians.
It has been argued that anti-monopoly policy should be conducted not through the rule of law, the application of clearly written laws through the ordinary courts, but through the arbitrary power of a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, a body very similar to the United States Federal Trade Commission. It is argued that the judges in the ordinary courts are not sufficiently expert in economics to be able to act as wisely as a commission of experts. This argument strikes at the very heart of what we have left of our liberty, the rule of law.

March 27, 1974
Competition Bill
In his little book "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek writes:
Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.
More recently, a British statesman, our contemporary, the Right Honourable Enoch Powell, wrote:
It is not only in this country that government shows an increasing tendency to try to regulate the nation's economic affairs not by law... [It] has an engaging appearance, but it conceals the germs of tyranny ... On both sides of the Atlantic, for instance, we have recently seen government... behaviour ... open to the gravest objections.
First, if the citizen has a duty, he ought to be able to ascertain in precise terms what it is, so that he knows if he is fulfilling it or not...
He continues:
Again, it is manifestly unfair not to place all concerned under the same degree of constraint... The main point, however, is that in a free society the citizen ought not to be constrained ... except in accordance with the law and by due process of law. Certainty, generality, impartiality-these are the essential characteristics of the obligations which government can impose on its citizens wherever the rule of law prevails.
I fear that what I say about the rule of law falls on some deaf ears, ears that do not care to hear about the nationalization of our liberty, because those ears are connected to minds that were nationalized long ago.
I must vigorously oppose the plan to concentrate in the hands of a tribunal of experts legislative, executive and judicial power, all rolled into one arbitrary power. It is argued that a judge of an ordinary court is not able adequately to understand the anti-monopoly law. If he cannot, how can anyone expect a businessman or anyone else to understand a law that a judge supposedly cannot understand? What sort of law would that be? The answer is: no law at all, but arbitrary power.
Through this bill the government wants to give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission the power to issue arbitrary, incomprehensible edicts to run every part of the economy that has not already fallen under some other type of government control. Even the Globe and Mail was moved this week to editorialize about the RTPC and its powers. It mentioned that the RTPC, for example, was to be enabled to make orders, that it was to be able to modify or prohibit certain trade practices, yet be independent of the government. The Globe and Mail mentioned the MLW-Worthington case and observed:
It is possible that the government would have been very happy to have this case taken off its hands by a commission.
The editorial concludes:
Governments should ... not hide behind appointed bodies.
We have had examples of that. Just last year we found the government hiding behind the skirts of the Food Prices Review Board.


Ronald George Atkey: What about the CTC?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Yes. Questions have been raised about the rights that a person appearing before the RTPC would have, for example, whether the privilege of solicitor and client would be respected, and

whether a person would have the right to cross-examine the RTPC's statisticians. But an even more important question arises: Would there be a right to cross-examine the RTPC's commissioners themselves about their theories of economics and other relevant matters? I am sure there would not be. Thus the whole concept of an impartial court is abandoned.
One of the great virtues of our ordinary courts is that the judges are not experts on engineering, or medicine, or economics. They are experts on one subject: the law. Because a judge is not an expert in economics, he can listen impartially to economists testifying as expert witnesses on both sides of a case. His attention to their testimony and his eventual decisions are not prejudiced by his own views on economics, because he has none. If a judge happens to be an economist as well, then he is qualified to appear as an expert witness, as an economist, and be cross-examined on his expert testimony. But then he should disqualify himself from presiding as a judge over a case in which his ideas as an economist, which would not be scrutinized under cross-examination, would affect the outcome. Let the experts appear as witnesses, but let the judges be impartial.
At present the RTPC is an advisory and investigatory body, a group of specialized policemen. Let them investigate, let them advise, let them bring charges in court in accordance with law; but do not let them usurp the powers that properly belong only to a court.
American anti-trust policy is a failure. It does not protect the market place from government interference. It often protects privileged competitors from the competition of more efficient competitors, and the consumers suffer. It makes a mockery of people's rights under the rule of law. Under the American anti-trust regime, if a man charges prices above his competitors', then there is evidence of monopoly power. If his prices are the same as his competitors', then there is evidence of price fixing. And if his prices are below his competitors', then there is evidence of predatory price cutting and intent to monopolize. Often this government reacts to imitate developments in the United States. I see no good reason to transplant American anti-trust policy into Canada.
Not every part of the bill before us is bad, but some of the parts would more properly appear in acts other than the Combines Investigation Act. Here I am thinking about the misleading advertising provisions, which probably should belong with the sections of the Criminal Code relating to fraud. Some clauses of the bill deal with refusal to supply, consignment selling, tied selling and resale price maintenance. None of these practices, if employed by businessmen, can create a monopoly because none of these practices has anything to do with having the power to stop a new competitor from manufacturing anything he chooses and from dealing with whomever chooses to deal with him. These clauses may well do a great deal of harm, by restricting people's ability to compete effectively.
Other problems may arise, too. If the federal government too effectively prohibits people from voluntarily agreeing to resale price maintenance by private contract, then we may see some groups of businessmen bringing political pressure to bear on provincial governments to compel resale price maintenance. I understand that some
March 27, 1974

states in the United States have done this under the name of fair trade laws. I do not want to see resale price maintenance made compulsory or prohibited. People should be free to make their own arrangements. At times resale price maintenance may be the only effective means by which a manufacturer can induce a dealer to provide a certain amount of sales service to customers interested in his product. Surely, to prohibit resale price maintenance is as unwise as to compel it.
This bill makes some minor changes in the laws applicable to banks. I agree with those hon. members who have argued that the banks should not receive special treatment. Bankers are subject to the Criminal Code just like everyone else. Why should they receive special exemption from the anti-monopoly laws?
However, even if the banks were subject to the Combines Investigation Act, their real monopoly power would remain unaffected. The banks' real monopoly power does not lie in any agreements that the bankers make among themselves, it lies in the government's restricting entry into the banking industry. This monopoly of credit should be repealed, and I will have more to say on that subject when the government introduces its Bill C-13.
I am pleased to see some agreement on this subject. On March 14 during this debate the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said:
I would say that any chartered bank in Canada can restrict or open up competition more than any other force that we might consider.
During the same debate, on March 13, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) 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.
Perhaps the hon. member for Shefford is more conservative than he realizes; maybe he is sitting on the wrong side of the House.
Let us see what the government could do to help the consumer. The government could do many things to facilitate competition, namely remove all the restraints it has placed on competition.
In his speech during this debate on March 14 the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) talked about the inefficient organization of the tariff-protected refrigerator industry in Canada, and he said:
This is a clear example of where competition has worked to the tremendous detriment of our society and has contributed to a lower standard of living than we might have had.
In his reasoning, competition was blamed for the bad effects of tariffs. Very few students of even elementary economics would have made such a mistake. I would add parenthetically, though, that he partially redeemed himself a few minutes later when he said:
-it is demand, and not the cost of production, which determines the price-
That is an insight that I tried very hard, though I fear unsuccessfully, to communicate to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) during the debate on March 15 on his motion calling for selective price controls. If the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is deaf to me.
Competition Bill
perhaps he will listen to his colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.
On previous occasions I have called on the government to repeal the Farm Marketing Board monopolies, but the government will not listen. With one hand the government creates monopolies and with the other it brings us so-called anti-combines legislation, in order to divert our attention from the monoplies it has created. What hypocrisy!
In an earlier speech I pointed out that whenever the government interferes, through marketing boards, so-called anti-combines laws, or whatever, with people's freedom to compete in a free market, it favours one group, inefficient producers, at the expense of two groups, consumers and efficient producers. As a consequence, productivity is restrained and consumers are compelled to pay unnecessarily high prices.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from Armentano's conclusion to his book, which I mentioned earlier. He said:
Capitalism is a viable economic system or it is not. An active policy of government intervention in a free market business sytem is a contradiction in terms. Trades of private property are either voluntary or they are not; one cannot legislate the free market or create competition. To have a free market the government must leave the markets alone; to have the state make markets "free" is again a contradiction in terms. Critics of antitrust policy who pretend to be concerned with the free enterprise system have either not realized, or have refused to realize, this fundamental issue.
Is there business monopoly in the present economic system? Of course there is. Government favours, privileges . . . tariffs . .. [etc.] . .. can and do allow certain corporations to hold and employ "monopoly power," i.e. governmental power for economic advantage. Such "plutocratic" devices (as William Graham Sumner termed them) are the essence of monopoly and they are absolutely improper in a free market system and should be ended. The "monopolies" that the FCC, CAB, and ICC maintain could not last a day without governmental support.
But this kind of "monopoly" has nothing directly to do with the mission of antitrust. Antitrust, supposedly, was aimed at free market monopoly problems and the marginal competitive problems that would arise when business was left free to pursue its own self-interest. Yet, ironically, the essence of the monopoly in the market place is governmental. In this light, antitrust may be seen as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real monopolistic problems-the developing plutocratic relationship between business and government. Certain elements of the business community have never desired "free competition" and the uncertainties and "irrationalities" often associated with it. They have sought and gained economic subsidy and protection through the political system. They have been anxious to use the government to "regulate competition" because it was, supposedly, tending toward monopoly. Antitrust, therefore, may be an even bigger hoax than anyone has imagined.
Perhaps this bill will pass in substantially its present form. If that happens, then the anti-combines mess in Canada will simply become that much messier; efficiency Of production will be reduced, and consumers and efficient producers will suffer. And nothing will have been done about the real monopolies.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, may I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 28, 1974