1974-10-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Trudel.

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Boulanger.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture in both official languages-Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Stage Direction]
JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in both official languages- Mr. Ethier.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to announce specific changes in the immigration regulations, which are being made in the interests of prospective immigrants as
well as Canadian citizens. They will be applied universally and will be non-discriminatory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: The reunification of families remains a fundamental principle of Canadian immigration policy. The government's objective is not to cut back immigration but to moderate the rate of growth.
Mr. Speaker, we Canadians take pride in the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. Even those of us whose families have been in this country for many generations can trace our roots to other lands, other continents. Our nation was built by immigrants and sustained by immigrants. Throughout Canada's history, our national spirit has been continually enriched by new Canadians from other lands. Immigrants opened up this country and pushed back the frontiers. They helped develop Canada as a modern industrial nation. In no small measure they are responsible for our present economic development, our present quality of life.
Canada has always had a strong attraction for people of other parts of the world, and in the last two years this attraction has been growing at an almost unprecedented rate, now accelerating as other countries begin to close down or reduce immigration. The number of people seeking to immigrate to Canada in the first six months of 1974 increased by almost 48 per cent over the substantial level of 1973. Immigrant landings in the same period are 47 per cent more than in the equivalent period in 1973, and 92 per cent more than the same period in 1972. At the present rate, we will land more than 200,000 immigrants in Canada in 1974, and significantly more in the next few years.
But, Mr. Speaker, immigrants are not statistics; they are people. They are people who need jobs, houses, schools and social services. I am announcing changes in our immigration regulations because immigrants are applying for entry and arriving in increasing numbers at a time when employment levels may well be uncertain, when housing is scarce and expensive and many social services are strained to a critical point. These strains are felt particularly in our three major cities where more than one half of the immigrants who arrive this year will settle.
It is important to emphasize that the government must exercise concern for the well-being of prospective immigrants as well as protect our own citizens. It would be irresponsible for the Canadian government to admit more immigrants than we can adequately provide with fundamentals such as jobs, housing and social services. All hon. members are aware that we are working hard on a green paper on immigration. This is a study of population and immigration which will provide the basis for widespread public debate on these topics. It will discuss some of the

October 22, 1974
Immigration
options in these fields available to the government. The green paper will be tabled in this House in the near year, but it will be late in 1975, at the earliest, before new immigration legislation could be expected; and it might be mid-1977 before it would have substantial effects on the immigration flow.
In the interim period, Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to maintain stability in the immigration flow for the reasons I have stated, and so that public debate on new legislation may take place in an ordered and reasonable atmosphere. To provide this stability and lessen the rate of increase in immigrant landings in the months immediately ahead, we are therefore making certain interim changes in the regulations under the present act.
I want to emphasize that the government is taking these steps only after the most careful consideration, and it is taking only those steps which are consistent with the three basic principles of our present immigration policy: first, universality and non-discrimination in the application of selection criteria; second, family reunification; and third, the meeting of Canada's labour market needs.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the following specific changes in the immigration regulations have been approved, effective today, to apply to applications received from this day forward. First, when assessing all independent and nominated applications, the visa officer will in each case, after totalling all the points to which the applicant is entitled under the existing selection system, then determine whether the applicant has satisfactory evidence of bona fide prearranged employment or is going to a designated occupation. In the event that this is not the case, ten points will be deducted from the total achieved.
Second, prospective independent and nominated applicants for immigration to Canada will receive credit under immigration regulations for prearranged employment only when it has been established, normally through a Canada Manpower centre, that no Canadian citizen or permanent resident is available to fill the vacancy. It is more important to note that since at least 50 points are required to gain admission to Canada, independent and nominated immigrants who score 60 points or more would not be affected by these changes. These adjustments take into account the natural concern of permanent residents in Canada about job opportunities. They are also designed to protect immigrants themselves who might otherwise have great difficulty finding jobs, housing or access to social services.
I want to emphasize that the changes I have just outlined do not-I repeat, do not-apply to sponsored immigrants, that is, to close relatives of Canadians or of landed immigrants. These close relatives will continue to come to Canada under the same conditions that have been in force for several years. The new regulations will apply in exactly the same manner to both the other categories, the independent and nominated immigrants, no matter where they were born or at what post they submit their applications. Again I emphasize that the changes will affect applications received from today forward, but not those already on hand. In other words, they are not going to apply retroactively.
(Mr. Andras.]
The new regulations will have no impact on Canada's traditional concern for, and response to, the persecuted and the displaced. We will continue to deal compassionately with refugees, victims of oppression or cases where other humanitarian considerations apply. Also, the new regulations will not prevent employers with a genuine need for labour which is unavailable in Canada from selecting immigrants to meet their needs. Indeed, when conditions warrant, this action will enhance our ability and we will take steps to help speed the entry of workers destined to employers whose requirements are particularly pressing.
Hon. members are well aware of the government's concern about the level of Francophone immigration to Canada. While immigrants from all countries will be affected by the changes, I want to stress our resolve to continue to encourage the flow of Francophone immigrants to Canada within the constraints established by the new regulations.
The changes that I have announced represent the fairest, the most just and, I think, the most equitable measures that we could find to deal with the anticipated increased flow of immigrants to Canada in the months ahead; and they are far less sweeping and more satisfactory than those changes we would be forced to contemplate a year or two from now if we did not act today.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the minister for making his statement available to me well in advance of the sitting of the House today. Having had statements respecting changing the regulations from both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister-not only in the House but outside- during the last week or ten days, the minister's statement today came as no surprise. In my opinion, the minister's statement is a reflex action to a much larger problem than that to which the minister is giving credence. The problem is: what type of immigration and population policy will Canadians have in the 1970s and onward as we look at future growth in Canada?
From our point of view this statement is one of absolute confusion. The minister said early in his statement, "The government's objective is not to cut back immigration but to moderate the rate of growth." Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister what that statement means. First, he does not want to cut back immigration but he wants to cut back the rate of immigration.


An hon. Member:: No. The rate of growth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All right, the rate of growth. But that and the immigration rate is the same thing. I agree with the minister when he points out the desirability of Canada as a potential area for immigrants, especially in light of the present situation when many countries of the industrialized world are closing their borders to immigrants, specifically New Zealand and Australia. However, the statement again points out that the government still accepts the so-called TAP policy on immigration. That is a policy which ties the volume of immigration supposedly to job openings or to the rising unemployment rate. That means that as unemployment increases, we reduce the rate of
October 22, 1974

immigration; and as unemployment drops, we increase the rate of immigration.
To me, this statement clearly indicates that this government fears the winter of 1974-75 because a rise in the rate of unemployment will mean a cutback on immigration as jobs will not be available. That is what the government is saying in this statement. This is a knee-jerk reaction to something the government desperately fears. It just does not know which way to move.
We must keep in mind that immigrants not only take jobs and are workers; they are also consumers and they stimulate the economy. There must be a fine balance between the number of jobs we want to make available to immigrants and the number of jobs they actually create. Furthermore, the statement cler-rly points out that the government is still plodding along-and will do so up to 1977, for the matter-hopefully legislating by regulation. I would ask again, where is the green paper? We have reason to believe that it can be presented in the very near future. Surely the expression of Canadians regarding future population growth as indicated in the briefs presented when the green paper was compiled should be related to the demand and the need for future Canadian immigration policy.
The government says it is now going to bring in another regulation while the green paper is in the process of being developed. I suggest this is just another reaction to the problem. Clearly, what we need is a balanced immigration policy. This immigration policy for Canada, to my mind, is geared to the centralist view, that is, the general view of the industrialized areas of Ontario and Quebec. As unemployment increases in those areas, you reduce immigration.
Let me point out-I am sure the minister is aware of this-that there are other regions of this country which desperately need workers, particularly western and northern Canada. We have been able to fill some of these job vacancies only with immigrants who were willing to take them and apparently Canadians did not want the jobs. While restricting regulations are necessary and are dictated by areas of unemployment, there are other areas of Canada which need workers to hammer nails, to lay floors and to work in stores. We need workers in Alberta and in northern Canada. Is the minister now saying that we are to have a complete reduction in immigration? Is he suggesting that although there are jobs available in some areas, we are to have a universal restriction and reduction? I say this is a policy which must take regional factors into consideration very definitely. In respect of the regulations the minister has brought in he has tied them to an extent to job openings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member because, in fact, the minister's statement was a long statement on a very important subject. I have already accorded the hon. member as much or frankly a bit more time than the minister had. As I say, I hesitate to interrupt him but I feel the hon. member really ought to try now to get near the conclusion of his remarks. There are two other hon. members who wish to be heard on this subject.
Motion-Mr. Andras


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I should like to suggest to the minister that the regulations he has brought in today have already been in operation in various immigration offices across the world. He says, not directly. I believe there are very direct practical implications to that. Further, I should like to suggest that the minister should give us more clarification in respect of these regulations. For instance, how long have these regulations which he announced today been in the offices.
My last point is a sensitive matter relating specifically to Francophone immigration. I feel the minister has merely touched this sensitive area, and I should like him to explain in much greater detail whether or not the ten points will be deducted if Francophone immigration is encouraged. Will the ten points be deducted if no jobs are available?
The statement points out that changes in the 1952 and subsequent regulations are necessary. I hope the minister will take to heart that what is needed is a comprehensive program and not simply the amendment of regulations from time to time in respect of a problem which already exists.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the statement of the minister with which we wholeheartedly agree and which we welcome. The first is that family reunification, as a basis for immigration policy, remains the same as before. This is as it should be. We also welcome the fact that the new regulations will not have a negative impact with regard to Canada's concern for refugees, the persecuted and the displaced. However, we believe that instead of the problems of refugees being dealt with on an ad hoc basis as each emergency arises, regulations or legislation should be prepared specifically setting out conditions on which refugees may be admitted to Canada.
We, of course, agree with the minister that immigration must depend upon opportunities for employment, housing and social services in Canada. But it is because of the failure of the government to provide adequate and full employment policies and the failure of the government's economic policies that we are now having to consider the restriction of the flow of immigrants into Canada.
No one will deny that the immigrants coming into Canada have been responsible for the growth of this country, for the variety of cultures that have enriched Canada and which have conferred many benefits on Canada. But we must seek an expanding economy in which the great resources of Canada can be used to accommodate an increased flow of immigrants, and in which restrictive measures can be removed.
We find it rather odd to learn that the government is making such a fanfare about these new immigration regulations. The fact of the matter is that on February 21, 1974, by P.C.318 of 1974, regulations were made which restricted immigration of independent applicants and of nominated relatives to those who had arranged definite employment in Canada with reasonable prospects of continuity in meeting local conditions of work and wages or where

October 22, 1974
Motion-Mr. Andras
there was occupational demand. The new regulations do not seem so very different. The mountains have laboured and have produced a mouse.
Of course, we welcome the minister's assurance that universality and nondiscrimination is a basic principle of our present immigration policy. We trust that under no circumstances will any Canadian government be tempted to depart from this policy. Indeed, we would like to see it applied more realistically by making the immigration facilities available on a more even basis throughout the world.
Lastly, we note that the government is working hard on a green paper on immigration but that we need not expect the immigration legislation until 1975. We wonder if even that is a serious deadline. There have been no substantial amendments to the Immigration Act since it was passed some time in the 1940's. In 1966, the government published a white paper which proposed numerous changes in obsolete sections of the Immigration Act. The minister then was the present Minister of Transport. This was supposed to be the prelude to early legislative action. It is now six years later and it looks as though we shall not get any amendments to the Immigration Act until approximately ten years after this official document setting out policy was produced.
However, perhaps it would be less than generous not to admit that if the present minister, unlike most of his predecessors, stays on the job and lives up to the promises made, we may at last have a new and more up to date Immigration Act, if not in 1975, perhaps in 1977.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the statement of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and I noted that it contained some good points. Among other things, the reunion of families remains one of the basic principles of the Canadian immigration policy. We agree completely on this point. We understand that there can be special circumstances, and on the basis mostly of humanitarian principles, we want to help people in difficult situations.
The minister also said that immigrants have opened this country and pushed the frontiers back. We also agree about this, since reports on immigration at various periods show that less than 350 years ago, the first European settler, Louis Hebert, arrived at the Quebec City trading post. He was later followed by immigrants of various nationalities. However, we should control closely the arrival in Canada, under favorable circumstances, of selected immigrants. There are standards to be met if we do not want to get undesirables.
Advertising must also be controlled closely and overly attractive propaganda which often prepares the immigrant to more hardships than success must be curtailed if necessary. Seeing publicity pamphlets showing Canada as an overly promising country, foreigners often decide to immigrate to Canada and find themselves unemployed a few months later. This is unfair both to the unemployed Canadians and to the immigrants who cannot find employment. All appropriate efforts should be made in order to establish the necessary contacts between employ-

ers and employees, to ensure that our available manpower can find desirable jobs, before thinking of expanding various immigration programs.
I know it is not always easy to find the right solution to the many problems in the field of manpower, but it should be much easier to come to an agreement with our own citizens by allowing our young people to get some experience, even in temporary jobs, despite the fact that employers require, and rightly so, experienced people in the jobs they have to offer.
Accordingly, if we counsel our young people and all those who want to work in Canada, we would accommodate the employers; I feel that we should limit immigration at least until such time as the unemployment situation has stabilized in Canada.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. A study conducted by the University of Guelph, the results of which were released by the CBC last Sunday, showed that of 108 samples of ground-beef taken from 28 supermarkets representing the major chains, 46 per cent contained staphylococci bacteria that are dangerous and capable of causing food poisoning. Therefore I should like to move;
That the government give immediate consideration to implementing the recommendations contained in the Food Prices Review Board report on ground-beef released on June 6th, 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed persuant to Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent that it be debated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


MAINTENANCE OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of extremely urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that daylight saving time makes it possible to conserve energy to an appreciable degree, I
October 22, 1974

move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government immediately enter into consultations with the provinces for the purpose of enforcing daylight saving time throughout the year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the statement he made to the House in which he indicated that the purpose of the change in the regulations was not to reduce the amount of immigration but to slow down the rate of growth. I therefore assume that the statement is based upon certain estimates as to what the rate of immigration would be in the future. Can the minister indicate what the estimated number of immigrants to Canada would be in the year 1975 if these regulations had not been changed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, based on the trends which we have been observing and extended, we estimate that the number of landed immigrants, in the absence of these regulations, in 1975 would be as high as between 250,000 and 260,000.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister estimate the extent to which the number of landed immigrants will be reduced as a result of these changes in the regulations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to sound evasive I can only give the Leader of the Opposition some indication based on the simulation applied to the pattern of applications we had in 1973 and 1974. We would think that the figure would not be more than 200,000, as opposed to the potential 250,000 or 260,000 which we otherwise forecast. I must, however, again indicate that changing the nature of applications from any given country in the nominated or independent categories in adjustment to the new regulations would vary the number somewhat.
Oral Questions


FORECAST RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT ON WHICH CHANGES IN REGULATIONS BASED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that the minister can only make an estimate based upon many variables. One factor influencing the minister to make these changes must have been the estimated rate of unemployment in Canada for 1975. I ask the minister to make a forecast himself. On what rate of unemployment as forecast did the minister base his position?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would be very, very surprised if I fell for that suggestion!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I take that back. I would not be surprised at anything the Leader of the Opposition did.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Knight Andras: I can only say in all honesty-


Mr. Fairweather:: The minister is not being honest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the minister should be allowed to answer.


Mr. Hees:: Forget the honesty; answer the question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offend my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings by referring to such a thing as honesty. The fact of the matter is that in this country, with its favourable economic situation compared with that of other countries in the world, we are attracting immigrants and we would be unrealistic not to sense that there are difficulties ahead in the international economic situation, which we all face. The rate of unemployment has increased during the last two or three months. We forecast the possibility of having to attend to this over the winter months, as will every other country in the world, in Europe and elsewhere, is facing these problems.


EFFECT OF SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his statement the minister indicated that the new regulations do not apply to sponsored immigrants. Can the minister clarify whether, if such sponsored immigrants go to areas of high unemployment, what job instructions, training or information will be given to them, so that they may go to areas where there are some job vacancies and yet not violate the re-unification of families principle.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, sponsored immigrants are very close relatives, fathers, mothers, dependant children, and so on. The hon. member can get a list. It is our experience based on a very thorough analysis that that closeness of relationship means that they do go to the

October 22, 1974
Oral Questions
family. They are not like those in other categories whose entry is based more on job availability or attachment to the labour force. That is fundamental if we are to maintain the principle of recognizing that these kinds of immigrants, that is, sponsored relatives, do not, by the same token, cause us difficulty with unemployment.


HONG KONG OFFICE-REQUEST FOR MORE RAPID PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of statements that it takes two or three years for an application to be processed in the Hong Kong office for Chinese immigrants, will steps be taken by the minister and his officials to speed up the processing of applications in that country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we did, in recognition of the growing number of applications and landings, institute two or three months ago administratively, a system of priorities to try and even out the work flow throughout our 58 offices abroad. I just had occasion to ask for a report on the exact number of days that sort of thing is taking with regard to applications from that part of the country. We are doing our best to even out the flow. Hong Kong at the moment has a heavy backload and I think it has taken about three months to deal with the priority sponsored applications. The next priorities are both independent and nominated immigrants who are job-ready, and so on. But we are limited in our resources. We are limited in our ability to move people around the world quickly, because the situation changes over a period of months.


COMPARISON OF SALARIES OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MEMBERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Temiscamingue a supplementary?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a supplementary but a new question that I want to ask the President of the Privy Council.
Is a study being made on the salaries paid to provincial members, particularly in Quebec, in order to establish a comparison with those paid to federal members? If so, what does the government intend to do in that respect?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that members of parliament in their capacity as private members are studying these comparisons. The government in due course will be looking at the results of their studies.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Everybody is asking for the alignment of income and wages on the rise in the cost of living, even

federal public servants earning $45,000 or $50,000 a year. Now, all hon. members agree on this subject, but not all of them have the courage of saying so since the cost of living is increasing as much for hon. members as for others. I would ask the President of the Privy Council if he intends to make a decision or to take action of some kind in order to treat the federal hon. members just like all other Canadian citizens?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to try to persuade the government to bring forward some proposals about members' salaries. I hope we will have non-partisan support on this issue, which I think is very important, and that members of the House will not try to play politics with what I believe is a very important question.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR AID FROM PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I revert to the question raised yesterday concerning serious storm damage in Prince Edward Island. I see the minister from that province is now back. In that province many power lines are still down and crop damage is most severe. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise what is being done in this critical situation; specifically, what request or requests for assistance have come from the government of Prince Edward Island.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the emergency organization within the federal service has given me a report on the damage that has occurred. I am happy to say that it is their impression that at least the emergency is over. The cost is now being counted. As I indicated yesterday in the House and am happy to confirm again today, the federal government stands by its offer to help if the costs will be more than would ordinarily be paid by the province or the municipalities.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-FEDERAL MEASURES TO ASSIST NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister can indicate if he has communicated with the government of Nova Scotia about the situation in that province and received any report of the estimate of damage that has occurred. I have had a report from my constituency that on the Parrsboro shore the electricity is still out and there is every indication it will be out at least for another week. People are suffering a great deal of hardship as a result of the damage in that area.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the federal militia has been co-operating with the government of Nova Scotia. In Sydney, Glace
October 22, 1974

Bay and New Waterford, for example, the militia was sworn in to do civilian duties because of the blackout. We have been co-operating in every way we can and helping in the emergency. We have not had any request from the government of Nova Scotia for financial assistance but we probably will.


VOLLEYBALL-ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CANADIAN VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the executive director of the Canadian Volleyball Association, whose title falls under the minister's department, operates a private importing business called Sports Quip out of his federal office in the Sports Canada building in Vanier, and because his Japanese product will probably be the official volleyball of the 1976 Olympics as well as the Canadian Volleyball Association, thus greatly damaging the over-all Canadian sports goods industry, can the minister assure this House that immediate steps will be taken to overcome this obvious conflict of interest?


Mr. Paproski:: Hanky panky!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the Canadian Volleyball Association is a voluntary organization and its employees are not public servants. I am glad that the hon. member has raised this question, however, and I am sure that particular association will look into this matter. I will draw the hon. member's representation to its attention. I only hope it does not compete too much with the hon. member's own business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, a point of order on the reference by the minister that I am involved in the sporting goods business. I should like to assure him and all hon. members that I took all necessary steps to sell all my shares in the sporting goods industry prior to running for federal office in 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear!


Otto John Jelinek: While I am on my fee, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hastings.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question of the Minister of Public Works with regard to a report that has not been tabled in this House. The annual report for the Department of Public Works for last year has been floating around so long it has his predecessor's name on it. Since the report differs from the regular estimates by over one quarter of a billion dollars, would the minister like to have the committee open the discussion for one more meeting since he did not feel it worth while to attend the last meeting?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would check with the table I think he would find that the report has been tabled.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River, who raised a question of privilege yesterday, apparently misunderstood or was ill-advised that the report would not be ready for a week. This information was incorrect and I regret the inconvenience it caused him.


HOUSING
Mr. R. E. McKinely (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. How soon can we expect the promise of the $500 grant to first home buyers to come about and will it apply to mobile homes in certain categories? We were assured as late as mid-September that the minister wanted to have this election promise initiated as soon as possible, so why is the legislation not on the order paper?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is something the government is examining regularly. I indicated in my address in the Throne Speech debate that a decision will be made as soon as resources permit. In so far as mobile homes are concerned I am looking into this because I am very interested in the use of mobile homes or manufactured homes to supplement housing stock.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said a few days ago that the government had some four years to bring this promise about, is the legislation being delayed by the minister on the instruction of the Prime Minister?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no instructions from the Prime Minister at all. I am just using my own good judgment.

October 22, 1974
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


ALLKGED ILLEGAL HUNTING ACTIVITIES BY GAME
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada, the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories, the Native Council of Canada, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and myself have called for a public investigation into the alleged misuse of public funds and illegal game hunts conducted by the game superintendent and approved by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, will the Minister indicate when such an inquiry may be expected to being and if no such inquiry is contemplated, why not?


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this problem is basically one to be resolved within the territorial council. It is my understanding that as a result of the inquiry which was conducted there have been some changes in personnel. All of the groups to which the hon. member referred have had consultations with the commissioner and I understand it has been agreed to establish an advisory group to advise the commission on matters pertaining to game. I believe this is acceptable to all the groups concerned and each would have a representative on it. In addition, they will be represented on the selection board which is to name a successor to the game superintendent in the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that this small council is being set up but that does not excuse the government from having a public inquiry into this matter and that is the basis of my question. I should like the minister to indicate to the House if there will be a public investigation and if not, why not?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to ask for an inquiry. I think, everything being equal, there is a strong push for a greater degree of autonomy in the Northwest Territories and I think they should resolve these internal problems themselves.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. To give such power to an appointed civil servant, namely the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories who does not have to answer to the people of the Northwest Territories or to the minister responsible does not provide anything closely resembling autonomy.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Since more than 800 federal employees in the North are now receiving up to $360 a month in isolation pay, would the minister tell the House if this bonus will be maintained? If not, why should it be dropped, and how is the phasing out or other termination to be carried out?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question at this time of dropping the isolation pay to employees working in truly remote areas of the North. Although we do review cases from time to time, insofar as certain villages are becoming less remote and others increasingly so, policy remains unchanged.


ALLEGED REDUCED RATE OF EXPLORATION FOR OIL AND GAS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As more than 50 oil and gas drilling rigs have left Canada so far this year for other fields, and as this has resulted in a reduction of 23 per cent in the rate of exploration for oil and gas in this country, would the minister advise the House what plans the government has made to restore the exploration rate for oil and gas to at least last year's rate?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: One of the reasons given by the industry for drilling in the United States is the higher price which can be gained in the United States for new oil. The position taken by this government is that there should be a single price for Canadians maintained well below not only the international price but also well below the price at which oil is obtainable in the United States. This means we do not believe Canadian consumers should foot the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Are we to take it, then, that the government is satisfied about the decrease in the rate of exploration for oil and gas and intends to do nothing whatsoever about it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We know there is a high rate of exploration planned for this winter, particularly in the frontier areas where there are the best prospects for discovering future supplies of Canadian oil and gas.


George Harris Hees: 
FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it was his budget that caused the trouble. Now that he has just returned from a discussion with the provincial premiers, has he reached the conclusion that for the federal government to tax on its royalties and provincial royalties on top of all the other money made out of petroleum and natural gas is wrongful and lacking in equity, and does he intend to correct this situation in his new budget, or even prior to the budget? I asked this question yesterday in the course of a speech I made, but the hon. gentleman's colleagues did not know the answer.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I do not accept the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. For a full answer he must await budget night.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the 29th parliament several items appeared suggesting that the activities and responsibilities of the Minister of State for Science and Technology were to be enhanced. Since these reforms were not implemented and since the latest Speech from the Throne did not renew all of these commitments, are we to understand that the rule of this ministry is being down-graded?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Harvie Andre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question related to status of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The subject appeared to me to be important but apparently the minister did not hear me. I think it is important I should get an answer.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the consequences to consumers of speculation in food commodities, would the minister say whether he is planning a full-scale investigation of the alarming increase in food speculation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question asked by the hon. member represents the feelings not only of the hon. members but also of the Canadian public. That is why the government has introduced in the Speech from the Throne a series of measures designed to fight inflation in all areas, including foodstuffs.


SPECULATION IN FOOD PRODUCTS-SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF POWERS OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Can the minister tell us whether any specific action is being taken such as the extension of the powers of the Food Prices Review Board to enable it to conduct an investigative inquiry directed particularly to food speculation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this task can very well be undertaken by the Food Prices Review Board, under its present terms of reference. I am sure the hon. member's question will be printed in Hansard and that the Board Members will take due note of it. On the other hand, I intend to introduce later today the competition bill which will be one way of fighting abuses, and later again, a bill on profiteering.


INDUSTRY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the hon. gentleman prepared any reply to the message received from the president of the I.W.A. in British Columbia outlining the state of the forest industry in that province, describing the condition of that industry as desperate and asserting that only quick action by the federal government could head off further heavy layoffs in the mills and logging camps?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for outlining to me the contents of the letter. I shall see whether there is a reply on my desk for signature.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In Canadian negotiations with the Soviet Union, particularly with respect to trade, is Canada putting on the table the question of the free emigration from Russia of people who belong to the Jewish faith?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On the question of the movement of people and the re-unification of families, the hon. member may recall that in my speech in the House last week I

October 22, 1974
Oral Questions
referred to the conversation I had with the Soviet foreign minister in which he referred to the improvement which had taken place in the movement of people from the Soviet Union to Canada, especially since the conversations held between the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier Kosygin. He also took a very positive attitude as to what would probably take place in the future. However, there has been no linkage, to my knowledge, between the question of trade and the movement of people.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sure the hon. member would not wish to leave the impression that prices are about half what they were a year ago. That is not the case. Prices for top grades in Toronto yesterday were high at 51 cents, which is comparable to what the price was a year ago. I am sure the hon. member means that some grades of cattle are selling for half what they sold for a year ago. We are still considering what kind of inquiry, if any, should be held.


James McPhail Gillies: The government having announced it intends to take a moral stance in connection with the development of its foreign policy, would the minister not agree that this is one of the most important moral questions in the world today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To my knowledge, no such announcement has been made, since it would have been unnecessary.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the hon. gentleman currently studying the question of tax privileges for Time Magazine under Section 19 of the Income Tax Act and can the House expect an announcement in this regard in the relatively near future?


John Napier Turner: This is one of the subjects which is being discussed.


William Heward Grafftey: Has it been brought to the attention of the minister that if these privileges for Time were ended sufficient advertising dollars would be available to enable a Canadian magazine to go on the market immediately on a weekly basis? Has the hon. gentleman been in touch with the Secretary of State with regard to studying the question of tax privileges for Time magazine?


John Napier Turner: I have been in touch with the Secretary of State.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that cattle prices for the producer have fallen to about half what they were one year ago despite continuing high retailer prices causing confusion in the cattle industry and decisions by many producers to liquidate their herds, will the minister undertake to hold an immediate federal inquiry into all facets of the beef industry? If so, when, and what will be the terms of reference?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the government make a decision as to whether or not there will be an inquiry? Also, keeping in mind the Prime Minister's words of a few days ago, would the minister say whether or not he is now in a position to give some aid and assistance, at least in the short term, to cow-calf operators?


Eugene Whelan: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we are still receiving many suggestions, and perhaps the hon. member has some suggestion as to what form this aid should take. Four provinces have given aid; two of these provinces have given similar aid and the other two dissimilar aid. Some cow-calf operators now tell us that this will not aid them at all, so we are trying to develop a program that will aid the cow-calf operators.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When?


Eugene Whelan: Soon.


FINANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that as an important step to slow down or check inflation in the United States the American government has deemed it necessary to ask American banks to bring down their interest rates for medium and long term loans, can the hon. minister tell us if his department or the Canadian government are thinking of doing the same thing and when will such an announcement be made?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if we look at last year's experience, Canada's monetary policy was not as tight as that of the United States.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us if he or his department feel that the terrible rise of interest rates on long term loans is an important factor in creating inflation today?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is in fact a result of inflation.


October 22, 1974


IMMIGRATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who indicated that measures would be adopted to encourage Francophone immigrants. Would the minister be more precise as to the nature of this program? Is it simply a statement with nothing behind it, is it a statement of intention to promote through public relations the immigration to Canada of Francophones, or are special inducements to be granted?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the regulations I announced today and those that have existed in the past will apply to immigrants universally, including people from Francophone countries. However, we are heavily engaged in consultation in a co-operative spirit with the government of the province of Quebec in full recognition that it is desirable for Canada to maintain a larger number of Francophone immigrants to this country. We are seeking accelerated and increased emphasis on opening offices abroad in Francophone countries, on recruitment and that sort of thing.
Let me hasten to say that in the name of universality and non-discrimination the measures I announced today will apply equally around the world.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence to whom I gave notice yesterday. My question arises out of the unfortunate circumstance that two of my constituents have become lost while hunting in wilderness areas of northern Ontario. May I ask the minister whether a request to his department in the case of lost hunters, fishermen or hikers from an authority, be it provincial, municipal or possibly from members of the family, is necessary before his department will participate in search operations; and is the requesting authority responsible for the financial burden incurred by the department in carrying out the operation? Perhaps the minister might also indicate whether his department in such cases ever initiates search operations without a request from some other authority.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the case of missing persons we do require a request from the provincial police of the RCMP. This is distinct from our search and rescue operations in which we can initiate a search ourselves or at the request of transport. In the case of missing persons we do not charge the authority that makes the request; we carry that expense in national defence.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


ESCAPE OF TANKER FROM COME-BY-CHANCE, NEWFOUNDLAND-POSSIBILITY OF PROTEST TO BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it concerns the escape from custody of a 260,000 ton supertanker several hundred feet long, which escaped out of Come-By-Chance two days ago at three miles an hour, with the RCMP in pursuit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter C. Carter: Would the minister tell the House whether he is making a protest to the British government respecting this incident, since this ship in its action did violate certain Canadian laws?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no such protest or representation has been made, but I will consider the hon. member's question, particularly the latter part of it which alleges a breach of the Canadian law.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Solicitor General rising on a point of order?


Mr. Allmand:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I was asked a question by one hon. member regarding this incident, and on investigation I find that the RCMP were not even advised of this incident until the ship was 30 miles out to sea.


FINANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Noting that the last date for applications under the highly successful capital winter works program has now passed, can the Minister of Finance indicate whether this three-year program is to be extended, or whether another similar program is under consideration?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there will be no extension of the dates under the current program. As for the latter part of the question, this is something that the government will want to consider very seriously.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Now that Microsystems International Limited has collapsed after being in business for less than

October 22, 1974
Oral Questions
five years due, as one director stated, to too much government money, what steps will the government be taking to recover the $48 million made available to this company in the form of grants and interest free loans in the short period that it was in business?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. I shall have to inquire.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-LIAISON WITH EMERGENCY PLANNING PERSONNEL ON MEASURES TO ASSIST IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the disastrous storm which struck the maritimes over the week end, with particular reference to Cape Breton where there has been loss of life, numbers of homeless and millions of dollars worth of damage. My question is to the Minister of Finance in view of his parliamentary secretary's interest; apparently he seemed to be the one who had all the information. Has the national emergency planning establishment which was referred to by his parliamentary secretary been keeping the government informed, as was promised, on an hour to hour basis; what liaison exists at the moment between this planning establishment and the government of Nova Scotia, so that assistance can be rendered as expeditiously as possible; and are any members of the establishment in the area on site to hurry things up a bit, in co-operation, of course, with the province?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for the compliment that he paid to my parliamentary secretary, which is well deserved. As for the emergency establishment that has been made available in response to this serious situation, the Acting Prime Minister has already described it. I might say that with regard to the financial repercussions-that is to say, the compensation to be paid-any eventual federal participation will depend on the formula we have established across the country. However, I was in touch with, and talking to, Peter Nicholson, the minister of finance for Nova Scotia, this morning.


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. It relates to a release of his last night or this morning and to the fact that the response to the limited dividend rental housing program has been incredible. In view of the fact that the housing situation for low income people is also incredible, would he indicate to the House what action he is taking to provide more funds for low rental housing, in view of the

suffering of many low income people who cannot find a roof to put over their heads?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall using the word "incredible", but I think it is remarkable, particularly in view of the indication by some that this plan was not acceptable, that we are more than using up the allocated budget. Surely this gives us a better indication, and I am sure this will carry into the next building season. I am sure this will also be the case in respect of starts into next year. The $50 million allocation was used up in less than a three month period. This will get started again in the next building season. This all gives us a better indication of how this combined AHOP, and the modification of this program, is giving far more effect to the taxpayers' dollars in respect of the low cost housing which my hon. friend and I wish to see.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that this fund is being used up so quickly, is there any hope of getting additional funds this year to assist in this great effort being made to provide this housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think for this current building season there would not be much use for additional funds as starts could not begin on time. There is certainly great hope for the coming season, when I think we will be able to alleviate the shortfall situation, particularly in respect to rental housing starts.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON SECURITY OF PIPELINES-POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING PIPELINE THROUGH NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning negotiations with the United States in respect of pipeline security. Are these negotiations being limited to pipelines traversing Canadian territory, or are the Americans raising the issue of security of supply for pipelines going across U.S. territory of which Canadians have control?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this does not so much involve security of supply as it does the concept set out by the Prime Minister in this House in December 1973, that this should be a mutually reciprocal treaty covering both United States pipelines crossing Canadian territory and Canadian pipelines crossing U.S. territory, as now exist or may exist in the future.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Canadian bargaining position is seriously weakened because we are dependent on pipelines crossing U.S. territory is the government excluding that as part of the terms of reference for bargaining from an American point of view, or is it seriously considering building that all-Canadian pipeline through northern Ontario?
October 22, 1974


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to us at this stage that securing the existing routes is the ultimate objective, and this is what we will be seeking.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the statement on motions today by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that department officials in Hong Kong are sending out letters to nominated relatives to the effect that it will be 12 months before an appointment can be arranged even to see them in our offices, is some consideration being given to expanding our facilities and hiring more immigration officers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Hong Kong office with eight immigration personnel is our second largest next to the London office. In response to a question earlier I indicated that we were trying to establish a special arrangement so that personnel can be transferred from one place to another when necessary. However, there are over-all restraints on the number of people we can have on staff, or on the number of people that we can add to the staff.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of this tragic crash of a newly acquired helicopter in which five of our servicemen were killed, and I know this deeply concerns the minister and all hon. members, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what preflight safety precautions and inspections were carried out regarding this newly acquired aircraft to insure that our men had adequate time to familiarize themselves with this aircraft? Would he also, hopefully, assure us that whatever inquiries he is contemplating will be open so as not to result in the department investigating itself, as was the case in respect of the DOT investigation at Frobisher Bay?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, of course I share hon. members' regret regarding this tragic accident. There is a full investigation taking place, not only of the circumstances surrounding the crash, but also other matters to which the hon. member has referred, including the extent of training and familiarization of our crew. As soon as that report is received I will be in a position to comment more fully upon it.
Oral Questions ENERGY


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION OF ARCTIC RAILWAY
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not in his seat.


An hon. Member:: Here he comes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In view of the statement by the Minister of Transport on October 10 that a feasibility study of an Arctic railway carried out by the CN and CP is still under review, and noting that this study has been in the Minister's departments for six months, will the minister table this report immediately as this information could be of direct importance to current National Energy Board hearings and pipeline right-of-way hearings?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss the matter with my colleague.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the refugee section of the announcement today by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a delegation representing boards of education, labour and the churches came to Parliament Hill about two weeks ago presenting the minister with a brief asking for the admission of 10,000 Chileans in the refugee category over the next year, will the minister now state whether there will be an increase in Chilean refugee admission to this country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I think about a week or two ago, in response to that delegation, I had no opportunity to study their brief in advance of meeting with them, and would like a reasonable time to examine the brief. As the hon. member will know, I just returned from abroad the other day and I have not had time to make a full investigation. When I have I will make whatever announcement is necessary.


EFFECT OF CHANGE IN REGULATIONS ON ADMISSION OF PERSONS FROM COMMUNIST CHINA
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I am just wondering what effect his statement today will have on the 9,000 Chinese from communist China the Prime Minister has announced will be coming to Canada, as well as the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services is bringing 20,000 South Koreans to work in the Athabasca tar sands?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the very highly applauded

October 22, 1974
Oral Questions
action of the Prime Minister in arranging with the Chinese government for the reunification of families pertains strictly to sponsored relatives and, therefore, obviously nothing I have said, or any change to be made in the regulations, will affect that.


EQUALIZATION OF FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN AND MEAT-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, sometime ago the minister in charge of the Wheat Board assured the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta that a freight rate equalization program would be instituted during 1974 which would have the effect of reducing freight rates on dressed meat shipped from western Canada to central Canada. Will the minister now indicate to the House when such a freight rate program will be instituted?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there was no indication of any specific date during the discussions we had in regard to the equalization of freight rates.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You said 1974.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's for the pigs.


Otto Emil Lang: We did, as part of the over-all feed grain policy program, indicate our view that it would be appropriate to bring rates on grain and meat into equitable accordance. Our discussions on feed grains tended to be more hectic in other areas of the program than that particular one. As a result we felt that further discussion should take place on the way in which that equity should be brought about. Those discussions are now going on. It is still the intent of this government to move, in due course, toward bringing these freight rates into line.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that the minister committed the government to the institution of this program during the year 1974, will he advise the House if this equalization program will be put into effect before the end of this year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it, since I have told hon. members straightforwardly the situation, if he would take my word for the fact that no commitment was made in respect of this program for the year 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I call orders of the day.
The hon. member for Manicouagan rises on a point of order.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I was trying to catch your attention a

few minutes ago during the oral question period. I would like to answer a question raised yesterday in the House by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Does the House give its consent?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of getting the consent of the House whenever something like that arises; I would rather give the hon. member who raised the question the opportunity to ask some supplementaries. For the moment, he may be-


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, since I just have been provided with the answer, I would like to answer the hon. member if the House gives its consent.

If the House is content, we could pursue this matter now.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I tried to save time by not rising to ask the question, because the parliamentary secretary was kind enough to say he could answer it.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, the telegram referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal deplored recent measures which might deprive the women's program of the Secretary of State of its present leadership on the event of the international women's year. In fact, the women's program has just been greatly expanded. The man-years increased three times and the funds increased six times.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Man-years?


Gustave Blouin: Yes, although this is the year of the women. This expansion required the creation of a new position at a more senior level for the head of the program. Consequently, a competition had to be held by the Public Service Commission. This competition has just been completed and the regular appeal period is now in effect.
When the appeal procedures are completed, a full-time appointment will be made to take effect immediately. The department intends to retain the competence, knowledge and experience of the officers who have been mainly responsible for the development of the program. It is determined to ensure the successful implementation of its part in the international women's year program and of its ongoing commitments to the women of Canada.
October 22, 1974



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and make recommendations upon parts I, II and III of the paper entitled "Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada", prepared by the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board;
That 14 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members on the part of this House of the special joint committee;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
He said: On April 17 last year my predecessor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), made a statement to the House in which he indicated that the government had asked Jacob Finkel-man, Q.C., chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and make such suggestions for amendments or revisions as might be necessary "to adequately meet the needs of the employer and the employees in the public service and the employee organizations that represent them, and to serve the public interest".
Mr. Finkelman completed his review of the act in March of this year and part I of his report was tabled in the House at that time. Parts II and III were tabled in April and May. It was the intention of the government to constitute a special parliamentary committee before the summer recess, but the election made it impossible to give effect to this intention until now.
The committee will have authority to deal with the recommendations of the Finkelman report as they may affect the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act. It may, of course, consider other recommendations affecting the Public Service Employment Act, whether or not such recommendations were directly related to Mr. Finkelman's recommendations.
With respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act, modifications in this act to deal with various problems are now under study by the government and in due time a bill will be presented to the House. If the joint committee is still sitting when this bill is ready, it may be desirable to extend the committee's mandate to study that bill and report on it before it is finally considered by the House. It is the government's intention to introduce bills to amend the other statutes, in this session, as soon as possible after the committee has presented its report.
Public Service


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to say to the minister that the matter he has just raised in the House concerning this joint committee is most welcome. I was also pleased to hear his statement concerning the Public Service Superannuation Act and the fact that the committee may also have an opportunity to study that legislation. I think such a study, and indeed a study of the whole position of the public service vis-a-vis bargaining, is long overdue. I fully realize that an election intervened, but the minister may recall that from time to time during the twenty-ninth parliament I raised the question of when these matters would be brought forward for consideration.
At the outset I wish to pay tribute to the chairman, Mr. Finkelman, who in his own right is a very distinguished public servant. I would not want any remarks I make with regard to this matter in any way to indicate that I have anything other than the highest regard for his services to Canada and to the public generally. He was given a large mandate by the government of Canada, namely, to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and its administration and to make recommendations on how it could be amended or revised in order adequately to meet the needs of employers and employees in the public service and the employee organizations. Then last, but certainly not least in importance, Mr. Finkelman's recommendations were to deal with how the public service could best serve the interests of the public at large.
Many public servants have felt for some time that the system is not operating as it should and that it can, and should, operate much better. Many public servants have spoken to me and other members of parliament about the greatest difficulty which seems to confront them, that is, the fact that either directly or indirectly many of them suffer from the impersonality of the operation. I suppose that is a disease that results from bigness. There is lack of positive connection between the work that people do and the result of that work, in action or policy, and if anything that is an irritant to the disease.
Public servants say in their own way that the impersonal, bureaucratic operation denies them the ultimate human satisfaction from work-the feeling of participation, of fulfilment, and in some cases of a sense of importance and the completeness of their task. I realize that these are matters which cannot be legislated but they can be affected by conditions of work and particularly by the relationship between employers and employees. If this is the case, I believe it will be the task of the committee to look at the public service, not just from the point of view of the government and of the public-though they are important-also from the point of view of the public servant himself, or herself. If this important aspect is not forgotten, then I believe the public interest will in fact be served by the committee's investigation and the matters which will flow from it.
I respectfully suggest it is also important that we do not approach this study with any preconceived notions based on any outdated concept rooted in antiquity but, rather, with an openness of mind, bearing in mind that the whole question of employer-employee relations is a dynamic thing that is changing more rapidly, day by day, than ever before.
606

October 22, 1974
Public Service
There are needs to be fulfilled on each side of the bargaining table, and there is a public interest that may not necessarily be embodied completely in the interests of either side. The importance of the maintenance of a public service with a sense of dedication and purpose is increasing, particularly in view of the continued and growing incidence of intervention of government into the lives of people. The federal public service is in many ways a model for the public services of other jurisdictions inside and outside this country, as are its individual members, and the contribution of the public service itself in many fields of endeavour is important to this country and all its people. There are many in the public service who have resolved to serve for less remuneration than they could have obtained elsewhere, because they believe that their work is important.
It is not possible, nor is it proper, for me at this point to review each of the 231 recommendations of the Finkelman report. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it relieves you considerably to hear me say that. But I think it is essential that the general approach of the parties to be represented on the committee should be laid out before the House before consideration of the report by the committee. I regret very much that the government did not see fit to do that in the statement made by the House leader today.
In general terms, with some notable and unfortunate exceptions, progress to date under the existing collective bargaining procedures has been good. Subject to those exceptions, there have been improvements in the number of agreements being reached and in the period of time that elapses between the beginning of negotiations and the reaching of the agreement. At first there was hesitancy in government generally to expand bargaining rights and whatever expansions there were some six years ago were somewhat limited because, I suppose, of novelty, apprehension, or perhaps a bit of both. I think it is fair to say- with all the wisdom of hindsight, I must admit-that the government could have gone much further than it did a few years ago.
We believe that the experience gained to date by both Treasury Board and the staff associations more than justifies the claim that the time has come to take a hard look at the exclusions contained in the present act, the area of job security, standards of classification, check-off, grievance procedures, transfers, retirement, leave, and a host of other areas. These should be reviewed and serious consideration given to lifting the exclusions. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Finkelman when I suggest that perhaps his approach to these matters is somewhat conservative, with a small "c". Normally I do not mean a small "c" when I use that word. Perhaps it is the way in which a person in his position should approach the matter, but conservative it is and it is the duty of the committee to listen to both sides, and also to Mr. Finkelman, to plumb their points of view and to make recommendations to this House.
If I may comment on the report itself, it seems to presume that there is some immaturity which we, for our part, do not believe exists. We believe there is an understanding respecting the responsibility of Treasury Board, on one hand, and staff associations on the other, that neither will act by their nature outside the public interest,

that each will try to do what is right, and that the ability to collectively bargain, negotiate and arbitrate should be set over the widest range of subject matter. If that happens, the attitude of confidence and trust of the employees in the system will be fostered and strengthened, and the collective bargaining procedures will be strengthened as well by an open approach. We believe that this strengthening is important to what I might call industrial peace or peace between employers and employees in the public service.
There is another fundamental area to which I should like to turn at this time; that is, the vexing and difficult problem of persons employed in managerial or confidential capacities and the exclusion of many of these people from the bargaining unit. As Mr. Finkelman himself said at page 29 of volume I of the report, the problem is in drawing the line and it is a very difficult problem indeed. We will have to examine the report in detail, as well as the present law, but it seems to me-and I respectfully submit this to the House-that the committee should approach the question from the point of view that the benefits and burdens of participation in the collective bargaining process should be available to as broad a range of public servants as possible.
Moreover, it should be approached from the point of view that the public servant can, in fact, separate his personal interest from his responsibilities to the employer, rather than from the point of view that he cannot do so. As well, there should be trusted machinery to make the determination when this is necessary. It is from that point of view-what I would call a positive point of view-that I said a careful examination of the definitions proposed on pages 39, 40 and 41 of volume I should be undertaken.
The last point with which I wish to deal is the resolution of public interest disputes and the right to strike. I commend to all members the text on pages 121 to 125 where this right is examined and the difficulty of removing it is set forth in simple and direct terms. It is stated in the report that the best way of resolving an impasse is to prevent it from arising. But this sage saying, coupled with the words of Mr. Finkelman, does not allow a government to wash its hands of responsibility to protect the public interest. The public is the third party at the bargaining table.
A review of 1973 and 1974, even by a most impartial observer, will indicate that the government's attitude toward this public responsibility has been unfortunate, to say the least. It is a period in which there has been a general deterioration in the attitude that should exist between employers and employees. A few days ago we heard in this House the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) indicate how belatedly the government had come to the conclusion that machinery must be established to review the question of the public interest and its protection.
In the private sector, we have advocated the establishment of a public interest disputes commission, pursuant to the recommendations of the Woods report, with responsibility for determining and defining the absolutely essential aspects of services coming under federal jurisdiction, the provision of which should not be grossly interfered with due to a breakdown in collective bargaining. The intent is to provide all possible assistance to facilitate the
October 22, 1974

conclusion of agreements but, if necessary, to assist in alleviating damage that may occur and to report to the minister from time to time and make recommendations as to what steps, if any, should be taken with respect to any particular matter.
I have read Mr. Finkelman's observations regarding the right to strike and the right to lock out, as well as his recommendations as to the timing and the steps that should be taken leading to settlement. It is my hope that by reason of the improvements the committee will make, the vast majority of bargaining will lead to successful settlements and the public interest will be protected in that way. At the same time, it should not be beyond the purview of the committee to review what is an essential service in the public sector or to suggest the establishment of machinery to make that review. It should make recommendations to this House based on its findings, bearing in mind the rights of participants in the collective bargaining process.
I wish to make it clear that my party does not believe that rights which have been granted ought lightly to be taken away. We respectfully point out that if government intervention in the community grows, the withdrawal of essential services will have greater and greater impact. That being so, I think the committee ought to consider what is an essential service. As I said at the outset, we welcome the formation of this committee and look forward to participating in its work.
I began my speech by saying we are concerned about the position of the public servant as an individual and not a mere cog in the bureaucratic machine. The committee, in its considerations, should not forget that important element. While the talk is great and important, if we build up a reservoir of trust so that we can make the public service a good place of work for men and women of Canada, the public interest will be served. I hope the work of the committee will develop that relationship of trust which is so necessary if this work is to be successfully carried out.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the decision to establish a special parliamentary committee to consider the Finkelman report. Like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I shall begin by making my first comment one that relates to the last item, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) mentioned in presenting this motion. We welcome warmly the word that consideration is being given to amending the Public Service Superannuation Act. I look forward to the possibility of seeing the subject dealt with by the same special committee. The last time the whole question of collective bargaining in the public service was dealt with by a special committee, that same special committee had before it matters relating to the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is good to be back again at both of these subjects.
There is no gainsaying that public service pension arrangements in Canada are good, and we have won important improvements. But there are serious shortcomings. There are things which definitely need to be improved. If I am not careful, I will be launching out into my full-dress speech on this subject, but that would
Public Service
hardly be appropriate at this time. I simply say that we welcome the fact that this subject as well as the material in the Finkelman report, will in due course be referred to this special committee.
With regard to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I underline the very fine sentiments which have been expressed by my friend from Grenville-Carleton, who emphasized that it is important for workers of any category, and especially workers who are serving the public, to have a sense of participating in what they are doing. That is what collective bargaining is all about. As my late friend Andy Andras used to say, the purpose of collective bargaining is to turn a hand into a man. This is what the labour movement has been seeking across the years, the recognition that those who toil are not just cogs in a machine, but human beings with rights and aspirations which deserve to be respected.
I was happy to be the member of the committee which considered the Public Service Staff Relations Act in the first place, in other words, the committee which first recommended back to parliament the entire set-up with respect to collective bargaining. I am pleased that we shall have this opportunity to review the whole matter.
As has already been said, despite the shortcomings- especially the interminable delays-the over-all experience with collective bargaining in the public service has been good. No one is suggesting that we drop it. But there are certain improvements which need to be made. I am glad that we have the advice of Mr. Finkelman in his report, which we shall consider in committee. As the previous speaker said, Mr. Finkelman made 231 recommendations, so that if every speaker in this debate were to deal with them seriatim we should never get around to the competition bill which is on the agenda for today.
Let me refer to one or two of Mr. Finkelman's recommendations. I like his general suggestion that the Public Service Staff Relations Act should be made as much like the Canada Labour Code as possible. There are differences between employment in the private sector and employment in the public service. But I think those differences should not be treated in a way which is to the disadvantage of those in the public service. I suggest, as Mr. Finkelman has, that there are practices sanctioned by the Canada Labour Code which might well be imported into the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
With respect to one of the other questions to which the previous speaker referred, that of the exclusion of certain subjects from collective bargaining, I regret that Mr. Finkelman has been a bit conservative-and I am not sure that is spelled with a small "c"-in recommending no significant changes. Although he does recommend a strengthening of the consultation process with regard to these various areas, it is still my view and the view of my colleagues that things such as classification, job security and promotion should be the subject of collective bargaining. When we get the Finkelman report to the committee we will have these issues before us and we can deal with them there.
Likewise, I am a bit disappointed that the Finkelman report does not treat in what I call a democratic fashion the matter of excluded employees. I am now distinguishing employees from subjects. There are already too many
28305-39'/!

October 22, 1974
Public Service
excluded subjects. I suggest that, likewise, there are too many excluded employees, even if Mr. Finkelman comes up with suggestions as to ways in which there might be more active consultation regarding their position. He also proposes that there be a better method of defining and designating those who are not to be covered by collective bargaining. So, without spelling it out, I think I have said enough to emphasize that there are these problems to deal with and that they will be before us once this report is in the hands of the special committee.
There are two or three matters that are not the subject of recommendations in the report but which I think are important. I said earlier that the collective bargaining process in the public service has gone well, except for a few shortcomings, one being the time loss that occurs in many negotiations. Whether that is the fault of the legislation or the fault of the government is, of course, a point about which one can argue. I certainly think it would be a tremendous boon to the health of the collective bargaining process if we could take steps to speed it up as far as the public service is concerned.
Another matter which may not lend itself so much to the legislation as to the whole question of public policy is to be found in the fact that the government seems to be able to make very low offers of wage and salary increases to those involved in the collective bargaining process- perhaps only 2 per cent or even 7 per cent per year. When it comes to senior officials such as deputy ministers, however, in the second or third grade, or even the top ones, there is a tremendous boost. Salaries of $45,000, $55,000, or even more, are not the result of collective bargaining but of a process outside it altogether. It raises the whole question of the fairness and morality of percentage wage and salary adjustments when those at the lower level get such low increases, in terms of actual dollars, compared with those at a higher level.
There is another area where high salaries are paid and it has been suggested today that there might be a discussion on increasing them as well. I am not going to raise that matter now, except to say that I take the same view, namely, that our concern in this place should not be for those of us who are not suffering any distress, but it should be for those in the lower brackets. What I am saying with respect to the public service is that even if it is necessary to have some employees outside the collective bargaining process, the government must do a better job of rationalizing what it does for those on higher salaries compared with what it does for those covered by collective bargaining.
I noted the comments made by the previous speaker about the proposals of his party for a public interest disputes commission. I can go along with him and all the other "after dinner" speakers who say that we should try to find a better way than strikes to solve labour disputes. Every labour leader in the country is prepared to endorse that proposition. There should be a better way. What I object to is the suggestion that labour must give up the right to strike before that better way has been found. I commend those who try to find a better way. I have spent some time and thought on it myself. But none of us has yet found it, and I do not think any derogatory remarks

should be made about labour, whether in the private sector or in the public service, using the only weapon available to them to try to improve their position.
I like the comment of my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton who suggested that what has been given to the public service as a right should not be lightly taken away. I would amend the statement and take out the word "lightly". It has been given to them and it should not be taken away. This involves the whole question of an economy that functions properly. In this parliament we are "at" the government on this question every day. But I suggest if the economy is not functioning properly, we should not take it out on particular groups of people and, in particular, we should not take it out on the public service.


Walter David Baker: I never suggested that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not suggest that. I was away from commenting on his remarks about strikes and was back to the general proposition that the best way to avoid strikes is to have a properly functioning economy in which all our people receive their share of the wealth which they help to produce. I am back at a lifelong theme of mine, namely, that the production of goods and services of all kinds is not an individual exercise and should not result in great profit for one individual and poverty for another. It is a social process and we all ought to share in it.
I noted that when this debate started the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) was not in his own seat, but when he realized what was being debated I saw him move back to his seat rather fast, so I would not be surprised if he were to take part in it. I do not want to steal any of his thunder. Indeed, I cannot, because he has already thundered about it. I want to say, however, that I think there is a great deal of merit in the suggestion he has been making, to the effect that there ought to be a minister in the cabinet who is responsible for the public service and speaks for its members. That responsibility is too scattered at the moment and public servants do not feel they have anybody in the cabinet who is their friend or who is speaking for them. The only way they get friends in the House of Commons is through the constituencies in which they live. I think the hon. member for Ottawa West has a point, and if he rises today to develop it he will have my support.
This is all I need to say at this point, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party welcome the decision to have a committee which will try to improve the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The conditions under which employees work is a matter of concern to us at all times. That is true whether they work in the private sector, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, or for the federal government. On the basis of the Finkelman report and the debates that will take place, we hope the committee will be able to make recommendations to improve the whole situation.
If I may conclude where I began, Mr. Speaker, I also look forward to the early reference to this committee of the proposal to review the Public Service Superannuation Act. That, I hope, would in some way produce a parallel reference of the superannuation acts that apply to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian armed
October 22, 1974

forces and other groups. I look forward to the early reference of this subject and hope that in this session of parliament we will make real improvements both for the public servants now serving the nation and for the public servants who served it in the past and are now retired.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a lengthy intervention today. I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). May I express my thanks through you, sir, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for his kind remarks about my speech of October 10 in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Those of us who are concerned about the public service have been looking forward to the creation of this type of committee. There is a real job to be done. When I spoke on the matter in the throne speech debate, I expressed concern because of the difficulties of collective bargaining in the public service. We have a serious problem of price movement and inflation. Without question, awards have not kept up with the movement of prices in the general economy. Many of the contracts arrived at by the staff associations have led to a great deal of discontent.
I expressed concern then about the numbers who had taken the strike option, and I expressed the hope that the government would move promptly to establish the committee which is the subject of the motion before us. I think the speeches of the two hon. members who preceded me in this debate are a good omen-because they sit on the other side of the House-in terms of the measure of agreement which will probably exist in the committee. They did not take a partisan approach; they took a moderate and sympathetic attitude to the general problems of the public service. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the scope of the committee's work. I hope the committee will be able to consider, not only the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the superannuation act but a number of other matters.
I have been concerned not only about the administration of the public service-and I do not intend to repeat the observations I made on that subject-but about lack of mobility in the service, lack of a policy on transfers, lack of opportunity which would allow employees who have been on the job for a long time to meet a new challenge and get a new start. Those of us who follow public service affairs recall that not long ago positions were filled through a process of widely advertised competitions conducted by duly constituted boards which published the results of their decisions. This was the general practice. Then came technological innovation, Datastream-the great big computer.
Those of us who have listened to complaints from public servants affected must be concerned about the operations of this computer system since there are side effects which are less than desirable. Nowadays there is often no competition in the normal sense. A request is made by a departmental head, authority is delegated, a computer search takes place and half an hour later some cards are pulled out, the top names are interviewed and the placement is
Combines Investigation Act
made. In many ways the procedure is perhaps more efficient than former methods, but employees who are seeking a new challenge, who realize they have gone as far as they can in the jobs they hold, often do not have an opportunity to appear before a selection board. One cannot help feeling there is a group of people who specialize in the writing of computer cards. If all the key words appear on the computer card in the right places, that card is most likely to be pulled out in the event of a search and opportunities will flow.
I am reminded of the specialists who have developed in applying for LIP grants. Let us face it, there are people who have learned to write a strong submission. That is their specialty. The content of their submission may not be as good as its form, but nevertheless it attracts something better than the average hearing. I feel there is a somewhat similar procedure undertaken with respect to computer operation data streams. There are some who manage to have good cards written, the key words are all in the correct places, and they enjoy much better opportunities than others who must employ more pedestrian methods of coping with a mechanized operation.
I do not know to what extent the committee will be able to discuss such matters as this. However, I am certainly of the opinion that the question of transfers and promotions-matters which in any large corporation are generally handled by a personnel department-should be examined by the committee.
I join other hon. members in saying that the general recommendations made by Mr. Finkelman are small "c" conservative. I hope there will be general agreement among the members of the committee to come forward with at least a degree of unanimity so that legislation can proceed very quickly. However, I trust we shall also take the opportunity to consider a number of broader questions. I was interested in the suggestions put forward by the speakers who preceded me, and I certainly have an open mind on what they said.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

André Ouellet: that Bill C-2, 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.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to move that Bill C-2 be read the second time. As you know, it is the third time that this bill is brought forward in this House and this is the second debate on second reading. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had made a lot of progress in the study of this bill when Parliament was dissolved last May for the general election. I therefore

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
hope that all hon. members will take these facts into account during this debate and will try to speed up consideration of this bill, at least on second reading.
As I have already mentioned, Bill C-2 is the same as Bill C-227 brought forward on November 5, 1973, and Bill C-7, introduced in the House of Commons on February 28,1974. Since that time, our position on some aspects of the bill has been modified to take into account the reaction of the public to the previous bills.
I plan to suggest amendments to the bill when it is studied in committee. In my opinion, there is nothing mysterious in this, and we do not intend to suggest any mysterious amendment. My predecessor had already told the members of the parliamentary committee about the contents of most of these amendments. They have been circulated amongst the members of this committee and are well known. I will present them again during the study in committee.
Almost all the amendments were the result of extremely useful and constructive briefs or suggestions that were presented to the parliamentary committee by various groups, or came from officials in my department following a more careful study of that bill and of the effects of some aspects of it.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the result of five years of intensive discussions with representatives from various sectors of the populations, not to mention the years of studies devoted to it by the Economic Council of Canada, in order to analyze the competition policy Canada needs to face the problems of today and the challenges of tomorrow.
It was in 1966 that the government asked the Economic Council of Canada to study the three spheres of action now under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to make recommendations. Those three spheres of action are: first, consumer affairs, second, the competition policy and third, the laws concerning intellectual property.
The Council made a report on each of those spheres of action and the three reports have greatly influenced the government's as well as the Canadian public's outlook. The report made by the Economic Council of Canada on the competition policy was presented to the government during the summer of 1969. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of that time, the present member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Basford), immediately created a committee of experts to guide him in the implementation of the Council's recommendations. He also asked people from all sectors to examine the report and give them their views on it.
In June 1971, when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs introduced Bill C-256, he insisted upon the fact that the object of the bill was to invite discussion rather than result in an immediate implementation. I will remind you that we are in 1974. I think that the wishes of the minister at that time have indeed been carried out. It is unquestionable that this bill has been the subject of much discussion and that all of its aspects have been carefully examined. I would not want to encroach upon the wishes of the minister when I say that when he

thought this bill should be discussed rather than immediately voted on, he surely did not have in mind a date later than this time in 1974.
I think one of the important tasks in the elaboration of this bill for Parliament was accomplished by my predecessor, the present hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who recommended to the government the various steps to be followed in setting up a competition policy. In doing so, he received the help of the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Trends in Food Prices. That committee which was set up, as hon. members will recall, in January of 1973 clearly understood the urgent need to reform the competition legislation, but it also realized that some aspects of the competition policy such as corporate mergers could not be amended too quickly and that they should rather be examined in terms of their integration into other government industrial measures. The committee recommended to the government that it legislate instead on certain aspects of the competition policy which did not pose the same difficulties, especially in the area of consumer protection.
So Bill C-227 introduced before this House by my predecessor, the hon. member for Windsor West, in November of 1973 reflected the views of the committee in that it did not touch on certain aspects of the competition policy such as corporate mergers, monopolistic situations and specialization agreements.
In his speech on the second reading of Bill C-7 which was identical to this bill, Mr. Speaker, the then minister made a lengthy description of the contents of that bill. I think this House would be better served if I dispensed with repeating all those technical details. However, I think it would be useful for members interested in this bill to read over that speech which can be found in the Hansard of March 13, 1974. It was an excellent speech that I urge everyone to read because it reflects the quality and the competence of the man who made it and to whom I would want to pay a particular tribute for his never-ending dedication and his remarkable relentlessness in working for Canadian consumers and small businessmen.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like particularly to bring out the highlights and the reasons for our action, stressing particularly some of the main amendments to the Combines Investigation Act contained in this bill.
First, there is a series of prohibitions concerning specific business practices that are detrimental to the consumer. Those provisions create criminal offenses or being about desirable amendments to existing prohibitions.
In the first place, provisions concerning misleading advertising are revised and made more accurate so that they apply to false statements of every kind made to the public about products or services rather than to advertisements only. Not only the literal meaning of the statements will be taken into account, but also the general impression that they give. Then, false or fraudulent warranties and testimonials are prohibited.
Furthermore, any sale at a price other that the lowest of two or more prices is prohibited in the case of double ticketed products.
October 22, 1974

Also, pyramid selling is prohibited under certain reservations as well as referral selling according to their definition.
Bait and switch selling is also prohibited.
Selling above advertised price is also prohibited.
Promotional contests are prohibited except when they comply with regulations.
Finally, the price fixing prohibition is reinforced.
A series of amendments will, on application by the director of investigation and research authorize the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission first, to examine cases of refusal to sell and after the supplier has been given every opportunity to be heard, to order him to supply his customers to recommend price changes; second, to examine cases of consignment selling to control the prices of a supplier or establish price differences between competitors and after the supplier has been given every opportunity to be heard, to order him to cease this practice.
Third, to examine cases of exclusivity where some big suppliers demand of their buyers that they sell some particular products only to reduce competition and, after the suppliers has been given reasonable opportunity to be heard, to make the appropriate remedial order.
Fourth, to study cases when tied selling, that is the practice whereby the selling of a product is tied to the selling of another one, is being practised by major suppliers, in order to substantially lessen competition in the market, and after having given suppliers a fair hearing, to make the appropriate remedial order.
Fifth, to study cases when market restrictions, that is the fact that a supplier of a product, as a condition of supplying the product to a customer, requires him to supply the product in a specific market only, is also being practised by major suppliers in order to substantially lessen competition in the market, and once again, after having given suppliers a fair hearing, to make the appropriate remedial order.
Sixth, and last, to study cases when foreign judgments, foreign laws or instructions from foreign directors are detrimental to the Canadian public interest and, after having given them a fair hearing, to make orders prohibiting their application in Canada.
Another aspect of those amendments relates to the prohibitions of the Act dealing with combinations, mergers and monopolies that are now restricted mainly to the production and trade of items and goods. Those prohibitions have a broader scope, and apply now to all services and service industries.
I would also like to deal with the provisions designed to allow and facilitate civil actions for the purpose of recovering losses or damages resulting from an offence to the law, up to the extent of the total sum, plus enquiry and prosecution costs.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running short and I obviously cannot discuss every aspect of the bill. I shall of course have the occasion to do so in greater detail during the clause by clause examination of the bill in committee.
Combines Investigation Act
Mr. Speaker, earlier in my remarks, I stressed the fact that Bill C-2 stems from a most thorough and detailed analysis led by the government and the general public. I should like to revert to that remark, because I believe it is essential and I hope that all members of this House will understand that we have already examined this bill long enough. We have tried to answer criticism whenever we could without going against the fundamental principles of a competition policy. This compromise process is not over and I have no hesitation in saying so. I am convinced that this process will be continued during the discussion in committee with the advice that the members from this and the other side of the House will be giving. I am open to any constructive suggestion that may be brought forth.
However, I will say this, Mr. Speaker. Despite all our efforts I am the first one to say, and I am sure that the other members of this House will agree with me, that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, especially in this field. No one is in favour of the implementation of policies which will hinder his freedom. To be efficient, this bill must restrict the liberty of action of powerful concerns more than the present Combines Investigation Act. It is obvious that this causes certain problems. It causes some annoyance. But I think it is essential, for if we were to satisfy all our critics, I think in the end we would adopt legislation that would be even weaker than the present law.
Much criticism coming from businessmen where we could not reach a compromise concerns the proposal of making some trade practices subject to review by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It has even been suggested that the present bill gives unlimited discretionary powers to the Commission to control business.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the small number of practices subject to review by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission are carefully defined in this bill. There is no need to make loud protests and to suggest that this legislation will give unlimited power in this case. There is no need to exaggerate the scope and the powers given to the Commission.
The situation is the same for the required conditions for the Commission to be authorized to issue an order dealing with these restrictive practices. Moreover, it is mentioned in the bill that the concerned parties must be given the opportunity to be heard and that is a very good opportunity for them to put forward their views completely. And I repeat that the federal court's Act provides for appeals on interpretation issues. So any party who may feel that the Commission is given too much power could come before it and appeal against the ruling of the Commission.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are prepared to make any other arrangement we deem warranted to meet critics. The purpose of some of the amendments which I referred to in the beginning of my speech is to clarify the discretionary powers granted to the Commission. But there is a basic principle which we can depart from. In part, we must go from a criminal law to a civil law to face some trade practices which are currently widespread. Those are desirable and justified in some cases, I must say. Those are not practices which may be considered as bad at first glance. However, in other circumstances, the same practices could be prejudicial to competition. It is simply impossible to eliminate those sort of practices with a

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
criminal law. We cannot meet the critics in that field. This would jeopardize the integrity of this bill and somewhat sabotage Phase II of our competition policy which has yet to be introduced. Mr. Speaker, although I may sometimes appear eager for compromise, this time I have no intention to come to an arrangement.
On the other hand, I am sure that most Canadian businessmen realize that it is in their best interest in the long run to support responsible legislation such as Bill C-2, for this will provide a strong competition policy. After all, is it not our purpose to foster a sound and progressive free enterprise system? No one would benefit if we were to allow a minority group to use restrictive and anti-social practices which would throw discredit over the private system as we know it now.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will not hide the fact that I consider all Canadian consumers as my own constituents. I feel that consumers and businessmen have an interest in common, that is, a market where prices are set by the interaction of competitive forces and where honesty and fair play prevail. I agree that Bill C-2 contains the fewest possible limitations on private enterprise which are compatible with the need to safeguard consumers interests as well as those of these same businessmen when purchasing goods and services.
I could never bring myself to introduce a bill which could be detrimental to the interests of such important people as our businessmen. If I am firmly convinced that this bill will not prejudice the legitimate interests and expectations of Canadian businessmen, I am not less convinced that this necessary and long awaited bill will prove infinitely important not only to all Canadian consumers, but even more so to the small Canadian businessman.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, probably no one in this House would quarrel with the principle of Bill C-2. Certainly, my caucus endorses the concept of open competition, with proper safeguards for the consumer and the prevention of abusive business practices. Expressed another way, surely no member of this House would advocate conspiracies to fix prices or would endorse pyramid selling, referral selling, misleading advertising or double-ticketing.
That is not the question here. What is of importance here is: will this bill, in its present form, contribute to better competition in this country? Will this bill, with its amendments to existing legislation, improve that legislation so that improper business activities will no longer exist or will at least lessen in this country? In short, will it be an improvement on present legislation now available to the courts and to the Canadian public? Finally, in considering Bill C-2, in all fairness we must also look at the Trudeau government's record in respect of the consumers in this country, and in particular at that government's record in respect of lessening or containing rising prices.
Unfortunately, the government's handling of consumer protection, and therefore the formation of a new competition policy in Canada, has been most inadequate. Bill C-2, if passed in its present form, may be little more than a

hoax on the Canadian public. Rather than lower prices, the effect of its implementation may well be to raise prices in Canada. The government appears to be so unsure of its position that even now we hear the minister state that he intends to amend the bill which is before us when it reaches the committee. Why cannot we have the amendments on the floor of the House at this time? Surely it is an affront to this parliament to suggest that some amendments which were put before a committee a few months ago are those which everybody in this House should assume the minister has in mind when he says the bill will be amended. I would strongly recommend that the minister quit playing games. If he knows exactly what form the new legislation should take, then he should produce the amendments and let the members of this House see the true impact he has in mind for Bill C-2.
Let us quickly trace the record of this government, as the minister has already done, with regard to this type of legislation. In one parliament the government introduced Bill C-256, which received such adverse comment from the business community and many other quarters, consumers included, that it was allowed to die. The government then proposed through a stage one and a stage two approach to attain, presumably, a similar objective. Stage one, which was Bill C-227, appeared in November, 1973, during the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament, and reappeared as Bill C-7 in the last session of the last parliament. Yet today, almost a year after the initially revised bill was introduced, we find Bill C-2 still under amendment by a government which knows not where it is going.
In commenting on the bill, I and my colleagues hope to outline where we feel Bill C-2, if passed, would create economic and legal difficulties. Any law, to be meaningful and to be obeyed, must set out in clear language the nature of the offences it is intended to cover. Bill C-2 fails to do that. The bill would give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission power to set policy with respect to competition in this country without recourse to parliament. The bill's wording is so vague that the commission could virtually write the laws of the land without even the minister knowing what is happening. The proposed legislation overlaps provincial jurisdiction, does not fit into a comprehensive industrial policy for Canada, and may prevent desirable long-term restructuring of the Canadian economy.
Before elaborating on and raising other points with respect to Bill C-2, let us review how we got into this position. In commenting on this legislation I would remind the House that my party, when in power, laid the cornerstone of Canada's present combines legislation when it passed an act prohibiting conspiracies and combinations in restraint of trade. The legislation defined as unlawful any agreement to limit unduly facilities for transporting, producing, storing or selling any article, or to restrain commerce on it, or to unreasonably enhance its price.
Also forbidden was any agreement to unduly prevent or lessen competition in relation to an article or to the price of insurance upon persons or property. Realizing how impatient the minister gets, and indeed how impatient the governments gets, with any comment from opposition members in this parliament-and today he said he would
October 22, 1974

like us to speed up second reading of this bill-I would refer the minister to the earlier words of his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister, in his book "Approaches to Politics," at page 79 wrote:
The point is that in a parliamentary democracy the opposition is the last and most important bulwark against arbitrary tyranny; through it the people reserve the right to criticize from moment to moment the way they are governed-through it they nip legislative and administrative abuses in the bud.
Knowing, as he does, that he has a brutal majority in the House to push this or any legislation through, may I suggest to the minister that he pay particular heed to the comments of opposition members, who may not only save him future embarrassment but, more importantly, may save the people of Canada from the consequences of wrongfully conceived and wrongfully administered legislation. So in this context let us first review the record of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which was created in December, 1967, by the then Registrar General, the present Minister of Finance.
At that time the Registrar General indicated that the net budget for the new department would be $1 Vi million to $2 million. He spoke glowingly of what the new department could do for the consumers of Canada. I would point out that in the estimates currently before us for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we find the budget is over $45 million. The number of employees hired by the department has steadily increased and is now over 2,400.
Between 1967 and today, one might well ask, how has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or the government itself, performed on behalf of Canadian consumers? Have they held down prices, for example? The record is that since 1967 the consumer price index in Canada has gone up 45.2 per cent, almost three times the rate of increase in the previous seven years. Food prices have gone up 61.6 per cent since December, 1967, compared with 19.8 between 1961 and 1968. One, clearly, cannot give much credit to the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to price controls. But what about the other activities of this department?
Based on the estimates, we know that $17.5 million in this calendar year is being spent on consumer affairs. If we look at the last annual report published by the department-I am referring to the 1972-73 report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973-we find the department had only 13,868 written inquiries from consumers across the country. When one thinks of it, one realizes this is an amazingly small number of complaints compared to the billions of commercial transactions in the nation every year. Think of the cost! It would appear that it costs the taxpayers of Canada $1,250 for each complaint made to the department in written form. Based on the number of personnel in the bureau dealing with consumer affairs, one employee seems to be handling 1 Vi complaints per month.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would not want the figures he quoted to be considered correct if they were not. I would point out to the hon. member that the figures he has given
Combines Investigation Act
do not take into account the various functions of this division of my department.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I would remind the minister that he is rising to participate in the debate, and that the point he is making is not really a point of order. If the minister were to continue the debate now, he would in fact end it. We do not really have before us a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The truth hurts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You can't stand the heat in the kitchen.


An hon. Member:: If the shoe fits, wear it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The same annual report points out that in addition to written inquiries, the department receives
25,000	phone calls a year. One wonders who keeps track of all these calls. In any event, if you throw in all the telephone calls with the written inquiries, you find it costs $450 for every complaint communicated to the department in a fiscal year. Surely it is little less than window dressing for the Canadian consuming public, and a costly affront to the business world, if this type of ineffective, and perhaps misdirected, bureaucracy continues.
I have referred to a report of March 31, 1973, and frankly I wish I could have referred to a more current report, say one of March 31, 1974. However, the combines investigation branch does not have a report available as of March 31, 1974. Yet I find it very odd, in fact startling, that when I went to the minister's office today I noticed that he had there a June 30, 1974, report from western Australia setting forth how their consumer protection bureau and consumer affairs council fared in their second year of operation. Australia is able to prepare a report containing 63 pages as of June 30, 1974, a report which is delivered 12,000 miles to the minister; yet we in this parliament are not entitled even to see a report as of March 31, 1974, when we are considering a bill as important as this one.


Some hon. Members:: Disgraceful.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the name of the consumer, I believe that many government controls are created, such as are contemplated in Bill C-2, without proper consideration and without proper co-ordination with all sectors of the economy. In my opinion, people feel more and more oppressed by the government, yet the government continues to introduce legislation which places further controls on people and creates a greater bureaucracy to control consumers. The controls may be noble in intent, but in my opinion many of them deal with trivia, many are confusing and many are impossible.
The waste of time and energy is enormous. If you added the cost of the effects of government regulation on all industries and many levels of commerce, it would prove to be a major factor in today's higher prices. It is a cost that the producer and businessman cannot possibly absorb in its entirety, so the consumer is paying for it, as he also has to pay in taxes for the bureaucracy itself.
While it is ever popular for some in the government to be proposing new legislation, new regulations and investi-
614

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
gations, rarely, if ever, do you hear it proposed that the government's own operations be similarly questioned or even investigated. Clause 18 of the bill before us deals, for example, with misleading advertising, but you will note that misleading advertising on the part of the government is carefully left out. Nowhere is an opportunity given for even six citizens to ask that a piece of advertising put out by the federal government be investigated as to whether it is misleading. Take, for example, some of the Olympic coins advertising. Is it fair for the government of Canada to state that the Olympic coinage is limited by an act of parliament? Is it fair for them to state it in that context, presumably attempting to influence the man who might buy a $10 coin, without making it clear that the act of parliament simply limited the amount to $450 million? Would such advertising be less misleading if it pointed out that the $450 million almost doubles the total currency in the country?
Let us consider the Department of Finance. They regularly solicit the public to buy their bonds. If a private concern is selling its bonds, the securities commission requires them to show trading patterns. In the case of the government, however, do you ever see them disclose the trading pattern of existing bonds? Let us consider, for example, those famous perpetuals of 1936 which now trade for $34 and which some poor souls bought in 1936 for $96. If, today, a person tries to cash in his $34 bonds, in today's dollars he gets back, in 1936 buying power, $9.43. Would it not be fair for the government to indicate that federal government bonds do sell-off on occasion most dramatically? Consider the past Liberal campaign.


An hon. Member:: A successful campaign.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would be very interested if the minister proposed that all the advertising spewed out on television and the other media with respect to that campaign were assessed to see whether or not it was misleading. I would be interested if the television shot of the poor chickens being burned in the United States were reviewed, and in knowing whether the judge considering the question said he thought it was the type of advertising that was proper and not misleading.
I have dealt with general things, so perhaps I should be a little more specific. I shall refer to the annual consumer and corporate affairs report dated March 31, 1973. I think it contains misrepresentations, and I wonder if the minister has taken steps to cut off somebody's head. For example, if you look at page 11 of that report, you find they set out in a table the number of inquiries made to the bureau of consumer affairs. Lo and behold, one sees the total is 113,868. The fact is that they are exactly 100,000 inquiries out, if you add up their own figures as produced in the report.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External affairs-World food conference in Rome-Canadian position on a secure world food system; the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-External affairs-Position of Canada on participation of Palestinian Liberation Organization in United Nations debate on Middle East; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Housing-Suggested increase in funds for Assisted Home Ownership Program-Average effective rate of interest on mortgages-Possible shift in policy.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


David Réal Caouette: that Bill C-201, to amend the Bank of Canada Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, Bill C-201 is probably the most important bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons for a great many years. When financial matters are involved, it is obvious that everyone agrees that the role of finance is of prime importance for the economic, political and social development throughout this country, and in all spheres of economic activity.
I notice in the Chamber this afternoon two ministers who usually criticize the Social Credit, without considering it, of course. The purpose of this bill is to invite the minister to study it and then the government to implement it. Mr. Speaker, this bill states in section 1, and I quote:
"(i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding sixty years to the Government of Canada or the government of any province based on the real ccredit of Canada or the province at a rate of interest which does not exceed the cost of administration;"
-to replace the existing section in the Bank of Canada Act... which states at Paragraph 18 (1) (t) the following:
(t) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of any province on the

pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;"
Paragraph 18 (1) (j) at present reads as follows, and I quote:
"(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of such government for its fiscal year, and shall not in the case of any provincial government exceed one-fourth of such government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year; and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of such government;"
Mr. Speaker, under the present Act, a province or Canada could borrow up to one third of its total budget. If the total Canadian budget is $21 billion, the government could borrow directly from the bank of Canada $7 billion, but for no more than six months. Such is the inconsistency of the Bank of Canada Act. Why can the Bank of Canada grant loans for 50 or 60 years to any country in the world and cannot grant it to the government of Canada which legislate over this same Bank of Canada?
Take the province of Quebec, for example. With a budget of $10 billion, it could borrow $2.5 billion a year from the Bank, under the Act, but for no more than six months whereas loans of 50 to 60 years are granted to countries twice smaller than Quebec and with a population two times smaller.
Mr. Speaker, Creditists are often laughed at because they speak about the Bank of Canada. But this is an institution established by the Canadian government, a bank regulated by laws of this Parliament. Every decision of this Parliament concerning the Bank of Canada has to be adhered to. But this government says: As to the Bank of Canada and its monetary policy, we do not have our say because we do not want to. We are free to tell the Bank what it should do to maintain an economically sound Canada, a profitable Canada, and to serve the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we are presently witnessing the quarrels between provincial and federal governments. What are they quarrelling about? The use of the French language? No. The development of mining resources in Northwestern Canada? No. Western oil? There is some, of course, but they always come to an understanding in the end.
But all Canadian provinces without exception, even the richest ones, are blaming the federal government for not assuming its responsibilities.
Last Thursday evening I was a participant on a Pierre Berton Show originating from Toronto, program scheduled for viewing this week. I was with Mr. Harrandence, a lawyer and former Saskatchewan conservative leader turned separatist in Calgary. He used the same expressions as our own Quebec separatists. His comments did not surprise me. We can hear the same in Quebec.
The Quebec pequistes keep on saying that Ottawa is taking everything away from us to give it to Western Canada. On the other hand, this Canadian from the West was saying exactly the same thing: Ottawa is taking everything away from us to give it to Eastern Canada, to support the province of Quebec. These people do not real-
Bank of Canada Act
ize that there are in Quebec for instance huge quantities of natural resources, as compared with Alberta. There is oil in Alberta. But there is electricity in Quebec, and we send some to Ontario from which we do not buy anything. We have some more to sell and we sell some to the United States, and in view of the James Bay development, Quebec will be selling some to the United States because I feel that, clearly, by the time the James Bay project is completed and at the rate things are going, it will definitely belong to the United States.
Again recently, Mr. Bourassa made a trip to New York City to negociate a $150 million loan at a 10 per cent interest rate for a period of 25 years. Why did he go there? Because the Bank of Canada cannot lend money for more than a 6-month period. That is why we have to go to the United States. Mr. Bourassa might not be there 25 years from now, but the man who will replace him will have paid $265 million in interests only, on a loan of $150 million.
Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense. On what do the Americans base their credit to finance the James Bay Project? On the James Bay project. These are the resources which guarantee the loan. They are not American resources. Mr. Bourassa is not coming back from the United States with wheelbarrows filled with banknotes. He is coming back with a promissory note made to the order of the Americans and endorsed by the Quebec people. We shall have to reimburse $415 million to repay the $150 borrowed. If the federal government would allow Mr. Bourassa to borrow money from the Bank of Canada for 50 or 60 years, in the same manner as that bank is allowed to make loans to India or South American countries, based on the same resources as those considered by American lenders, that is the James Bay's resources, those conflicts would settle down and jealousy between the provinces would no longer exist because they would have the right to become self-determined, to decide for themselves. If only the Bank of Canada was put into the provinces' service. But no, the Bank of Canada follows the Americans even in respect of interest rates.
This afternoon, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was answering my colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) who had asked whether interest rates were not one of the causes of inflation. The Minister of Finance answered: "No, they are rather a consequence". Such an answer from a minister is startling. The first cause of inflation is the interest. When will the James Bay project become worth the $50 or $60 billion spent to complete the installations? When will the $150 million recently borrowed by Mr. Bourassa be worth $415 million? That is the cause of inflation. But the government says it is a consequence.
Municipalities also have troubles with their borrowings. They must even pay 13 or 14 per cent interest rates nowadays. Money does not multiply. I don't know if someone can understand that. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas stated that too. That is true. If I loan an amount of money to someone and if I am paid a small interest, that is normal because I use something I own.
But banks have an ink-well as well as a pen and they do some figuring. This is exactly what has been done in the United States when Mr. Bourassa was granted a loan of
28305-40'/:

October 22, 1974
Bank of Canada Act
$150 million last week, namely 16 for 1, at a 10 per cent rate of interest.
Mr. Speaker, no democratic country in the world can survive such a system and it is not taken seriously. If my Creditist friends talk about social credit, about monetary reform, they say: Oh, they are going to talk about the Bank of Canada. But is the Bank of Canada our Canadian institution? And when the Bank of Canada decides to raise the interest rates, who is giving it such an order? Parliament? The Bank of Canada must take its orders from the government, and if the interest rate is so high it is because of the government who allows the Bank of Canada to "flounder". This is its responsibility and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) knows it.
While I am talking about that, he is at his seat. He winks at me in order to tell me that I am right. He does not rise to say: I shall put that advice into practice. If the government fears to do such a thing-though we are only 11-let us be given the chance and we will do it quickly. We shall not take orders from the Americans to decide which interest rate will be charged to the Canadians. Are we not able to have a domestic financial system so that our natural wealth be put at the service of Canadians? Who is preventing this?
The international market is operating well. So let us go on in that way. But in Canada who prevents the Bank of Canada from acting in the best interests of the Canadian people? Who is benefitting from the present credit given to the government? The people? No. It benefits the private banks, at the people's expense. Here is how it is done: It is often claimed that the public debt does not mean a thing; that is what I have been hearing for at least 35 years and there is nothing bad in that, since we owe them to us. We are indebted to ourselves!
It is known that many citizens own Canada savings bonds. Mr. Speaker, is it known that nearly all Canada savings bonds are used mostly as collateral for bank loans? So, who holds the levers, who has the power to create money in Canada? The private banks where the government goes regularly begging on bended knee every 89 or 91 days to borrow money for the same period of time. A psychosis then builds up amongst the people. Then, at some point, things come to a stop for lack of liquidity. What is liquidity? Is that ever explained? Never! People are told: The banks have no more money. They can no longer loan money. There is no money! Then, all of a sudden, there is all kinds of it.
But who decides that? The Americans? The Americans must be called up to find out what their rates of interest are. We are a bunch of sheep, and we have a Parliament of sheep, who follows the Americans. If they take one small step forward, so do we. Then we are told about our Canadian sovereignty! Masters at home! Masters at home when the United States own us about 100 times over!
Mr. Speaker, awhile ago I said that Canadians bought Canada savings bonds. I bought some too. We own ourselves. The pay is poor, but still we own ourselves. The Canadian citizens bought them with their savings, with their hard-earned money, and those same savings are used to create debts, are used mostly as collateral for the banks. The banks can cash the bonds as they see fit, as often as they wish.

A large part of the public debt is payable to the chartered banks. We know that a $1,000 Canada savings bond, for instance, constitutes a reserve for the private banking system, which enables them to multiply by 16 the $1,000 of savings bonds I have. The bank has the right to loan $16,000 on the strength of these savings bonds. I think it is fairly clear. Nobody can dispute this, since it can act this way because of the law.
The major part of the debt is directly payable to chartered banks in the following way: The government floats an issue worth $1 billion or $1 million. The Bank of Canada buys it immediately and deposits this in the account of the government. This immediately creates a reserve for the private banking system which has the right to multiply this by 16, or give $16 million in credit for $1 million in bonds. Then, the government borrows $5 or $6 million in new credits made by the private bank and created by the private banking system. Afterwards, the Bank of Canada will have the responsibility for only $1 million as a guarantee for the new credits of chartered banks.
We admit this. It is stated that the Bank of Canada is the servant of the Canadian banking system. What ever the Bankers Association says, the Bank of Canada jumps to it in short order. I do not recall exactly the name of the Governor of the Bank of Canada who is on all fours before the banking system. Never tell me that the Bank of Canada decides which way the financial or monetary policy of Canada will go because that is wrong. Chartered banks control Canadian finance because they are directly or indirectly, the original source of nearly all the money in our country.
While the ordinary citizen gets his money through his work, the banks create their money by methods that cost almost nothing-the pen and the inkwell and the clerk who uses them. The Bank of Canada says, you must draw numbers, so the government draws numbers. It is only the clerk's salary that has to be paid. Banks produce money with methods that cost almost nothing. They can take advantage of that extraordinary privilege to acquire public funds and become master financiers, and governments at all levels thus offend against justice and reason. Actually, it is highway robbery. We do not want to indenture ourselves and our descendants to the chartered banks. Our governments have their own credit and this credit is much more real than the one offered by chartered banks.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen).


Some hon. Members:: Let him go on!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Unanimous consent from the House would be needed for the hon. member to go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall not abuse my colleagues' generosity. I
October 22, 1974

would like, however, to take the time to explain the contents of Bill 201. We shall then hear the opponents of this bill, aimed at making money available for the benefit of man, woman and child, and see what treatment it gets from the government and opposition members. As I mentioned before, we do not wish to be enslaved any more by banks. The question now is who should have control. This Parliament has not been elected to serve banks. We have been elected, each one of us, to serve our constituents, the people of Canada and the country as a whole. To serve this country of ours, to serve it well, we have to relieve it from the paws of rapacious finance people. Such being the aim, let us take the necessary steps. There is no room here for partisanship. Everything centers upon creating a sound economic system, based on something real, that will open the door not to internal strife among Canadians, not to endless strikes, not to killings, but to training Canadians capable of working together for the benefit and well-being of themselves and Canada itself.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, the government of Canada already has in the Bank of Canada an institution that can adequately finance our economic development, without usury or other undesirable conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about changes advocated by close to 600,000 Social Crediters in the province of Quebec and others, of which 450,000 live in Quebec alone. Those people have been making those proposals for a long time. We are told: You keep repeating the same things over and over again. On the other hand, our critics never change their tune either. They say: "No money!" We reply: Make money! If there is none, create it and use the Bank of Canada!
If the bank is not put to use, the Social Crediters are not responsible; the government is.
The changes put forward in this bill will eliminate the continuous disputes among the various levels of government in Canada as to who should pay the bill of government programs. The fact that money is the perennial concern of governments indicates indeed through their frequent statements, that they are unable to answer all the needs of the people because of lack of money.
Let us have a look at those famous federal-provincial conferences that are held under different excuses and where the delegates always end up quarrelling about money the way hungry dogs fight for an old bone. By eliminating the artificial scarcity of funds available to governments, we would put an end to those shameful scenes.
Moreover, the activities of local governments will depend less on favors granted by more centralizing governments. In other words, the governments will respond more effectively to the aspirations of the citizens in their own territory, our ridings, our provinces and our country.
Mr. Speaker, to implement Bill C-201 means that Canada whose budget will eventually reach $30 billion, could borrow one third each year from the Bank of Canada that is $10 billion at an interest rate not exceeding the administration costs. The pencil pusher's pay would be the federal government's share. The province of Quebec, with a $10 billion budget, could borrow 2.5 billion each year from the Bank of Canada. This amount would cer-
Bank of Canada Act
tainly help the province of Quebec or British Columbia; 25 per cent of the provincial budget would certainly help all the provinces and the Bank of Canada would play its role, serving the interests of Canada and not those of the financiers.
The Bank of Canada could be used to fight inflation efficiently because inflation is built in the monetary system itself. We are suffering its consequences. It is not the interests that are suffering its consequences, it is not the Bank of Canada, it is us! So, if we are suffering its consequences and if we have a responsible government-if it is an irresponsible government that is another matter- but if the government is responsible, it must do something, it must introduce measures aimed at making the Bank of Canada serve Canada, the provinces, the municipalities and the Canadian people.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the speeches made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), and the speech he made today was no exception. Bill C-201 is without doubt an interesting bill. All its implications certainly could not be dealt with effectively in the space of one hour. The issue he raises, including the control of the banks, the relation between the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada, the extent of United States influence in our economy, and so on, are of great importance and must be the subject of public concern.
The bill itself is very short. Nevertheless, some portions of it immediately attract attention. I note that the Bank of Canada would be permitted to make loans for a period not exceeding 60 years. This is in contrast to section 18 which provides for a period of not longer than six months. Of course, section 18(1)(j) deals with the range within which loans can be made over periods not to exceed three months beyond the fiscal year. The hon. member's idea is an interesting one, but I am not sure it is realistic, at least at this stage.
When we talk about the Bank of Canada we must consider the relative size of the operations of that Bank as opposed to those of the chartered banks and other financial institutions. One set of figures setting out the relative size of the financial intermediaries shows that the Bank of Canada is about 4.6 per cent of all the financial institutions in Canada, whereas the chartered banks make up about 28.9 per cent. Trust and mortgage loan companies and credit unions account for 12.2 per cent, finance companies 4.9 per cent, investment companies 4.3 per cent, life insurance companies 13.6 per cent-an item to be concerned about-private trusteed pension funds 8.9 per cent, for a total of 77 per cent, with other groups at 22 per cent.
These are similar to United States figures. The Federal Reserve Bank occupies the position of holding 5.1 per cent of the intermediary assets. Their chartered banks have about 31 per cent, as opposed to 28.9 per cent in the Canadian system. The Bank of Canada and also the Federal Reserve Bank do not loom substantially in the whole banking scene in this country or in the United States; they rank fifth or sixth among the groups involved in the banking business.

October 22, 1974
Bank of Canada Act
I think we have to look at our banking system to see how efficient it is and how it responds to the needs of governments and private citizens in this country. I, for one, am not a great apologist for the banking system because I think it has many inadequacies, but I am an apologist for the fact that we have to live for today and deal with things as they are.


An hon. Member:: Don't change that.


Paul Edmund McRae: I am the first person to believe in change. There are many things that I would like to see changed and I could suggest one or two, although I may not have too many solutions.
On the credit side-and I use the word credit not in terms of financial credit-I think we can say that there are certain aspects of the banking system that are good. I think operationally banks are efficient. The cost of operating banks is relatively small in terms of the total business done, and this is one of the plusses of the banking system.
There is a fairly good allocation of efficiency. In other words, our banks provide a fairly decent national capital market. The branch system is well spread throughout the country. It is possible to deposit money and to have almost instant payment of those dollars in any other part of the country. Perhaps this is an advantage we have over the American system, where you have a lot of smaller banks and it is not that easy to exchange money. I think those are two positive aspects.
There is something to be said for concern about regional efficiency in our banking system. In other words, does money invested by investors or deposited in the banks in Canada tend to stay in a region or move to other regions of the country? As someone who lives at the doorstep to the west and who is affected a great deal by western Canada, I can share very much the concern of western Canadians about what happens to their deposits. Do they stay in the west, being circulated in the west, or do they tend to gravitate to that great centre of the world known as Toronto? This is the kind of question we must ask ourselves.
Having done a little research on this subject I was rather surprised at the fact that in western Canada-I have not done the same kind of research into the situation in eastern Canada-there seems to be a reasonable circulation of deposits made in that part of the country. For instance, in the province of Manitoba, which has about 4.5 per cent of the population of this country, according to statistics as at December 31, 1972, 4.8 per cent of the loans made by chartered banks were made in that province. In British Columbia we have 14.1 per cent of the population, and 13.4 per cent of loans were made in that province. About 26.5 per cent of the total population of Canada lives in the west, and 30.2 per cent of money loaned in Canada is loaned in that area. At the same time 29 per cent of the branches of Canadian banks are located in western Canada, even though the population is, as I said, about 26 per cent of all Canada.


Mr. Rondeau:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
May I address a question to the hon. member?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: As he is quoting many statistics, can the hon. member tell us what is the total money supply in his city of Fort William?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I do not have that at hand. The next time I am in the House I will do my best to have the information for the hon. member, and I will give it to him privately. I can assure him that at this stage of the game the city of Thunder Bay is progressing very favourably and our banking needs are being reasonably well met.
To get back to regional banking, regardless of the fact that there may be more branches proportionately in western Canada than in other parts of the country and that more loans may be made, I still think it is important that there be far more decentralization of our banks and that we have a banking system that responds to the needs of individual provinces.
One of the major achievements of the economic conference I was pleased to attend a year ago last summer was that the provinces were to be permitted to set up provincial banks and to hold at least 25 per cent of the equity of those banks. This was a commitment made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) at that time because we believed it was advisable to establish these banks. I understand we have had good experience with the Bank of British Columbia. I hope we will establish banks in other areas in the name of this government so that we can move away from the process of centralization. I fully understand how very difficult it is in Thunder Bay, and how cut off we all feel from the city of Toronto and banking interests-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Madam Speaker. I rise on a point of order.
In view of the seriousness of the bill introduced by my colleague from Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the head of the Social Credit party of Canada, with a view to making one or two amendments to the Bank of Canada Act, I realize how serious was the previous speaker, but I am asking the Chair if the latter could not confine his remarks to the bill rather than make a general review of chartered banks.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Chair invites the hon. member to limit the debate if possible to the bill in question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, on a similar point of order, I maintain that you cannot deal with this bill, which would have a revolutionary effect on our banking system in this country, unless you deal with the whole banking system. I tried to point out to the hon. member that the Bank of Canada, as an intermediary financing organi-

October 22, 1974

zation, has 4.6 per cent of the total business, whereas the chartered banks have 29 per cent.
I do not think you can isolate the chartered banks from the Bank of Canada, nor does the hon. member for Temis-camingue. He constantly associated the two. I am trying to deal with the whole banking system, and this is a necessary part of any such discussion.
We have some very great concerns about the banking system in our country, and in the four or five minutes left to me I should like to deal with some of them. I am very much concerned with the fact that chartered banks in Canada, under the aegis of the Bank of Canada, seem to be involved in financing foreign takeovers of Canadian companies. At times it would seem easier to get a loan if you happen to represent a foreign company in this country than if you represent a Canadian company, given the same credit rating. This is one of our great concerns.
We have all seen examples of financing not being available to a Canadian company which was forced to sell out to a foreign company or corporation that in turn could immediately go to the same bank and successfully negotiate the financing of a similar project. This is the kind of thing that should be of concern to all Canadians.
We must also be concerned about the activity of foreign banks in Canada, to the extent that we are, in theory, trying to have a Canadian banking system that is all Canadian. What we have in fact is a whole system of near-banks moving into Canada, in one form or another, and in an obtuse sort of way taking over a great deal of the financing operations of the country. As Canadians we should be very concerned about this.
Let me conclude by referring to my last concern, and this is a concern I think which bothers most of us, including the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I have in mind the tremendous amount of capital, something like $100 billion, required to finance energy operations in Canada in the next 10 years. The Bank of Canada and chartered banks in Canada will have to play a much bigger role in this operation than they are playing at the present time. If we are to see projects undertaken similar to the James Bay development project in the future-and in that case we are talking about $12 billion, if we are to see projects undertaken such as an oil pipeline-here we are talking about $10 billion or $12 billion, and if we are to have the development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and in that case we would be talking about $6 billion or $8 billion, these things will have a tremendously distorting effect on our whole economy.
For instance, can you imagine the effect of $10 billion or $12 billion in American money invested in the province of Quebec, particularly the distorting effect in terms of what it would do to the Canadian dollar or the pulp and paper industry in this country? That industry is very sensitive to changes in the foreign exchange rate. When the value of the U.S. dollar increases, pulp and paper just do not sell.
These are some of the things about which we must be very disturbed, and it is time the Bank of Canada, the Canadian chartered banks, the financial institutions and insurance companies became very conscious of the role they play, in terms of making sure that when these energy
Bank of Canada Act
expenditures are absolutely necessary they are made with Canadian dollars, and that when we get into energy services, this is an area-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The Chair has some doubt as to whether the hon. gentleman is going far afield in this debate as the bill in question deals only with a very small portion of the Bank of Canada Act. However, the time allotted to the hon. member has now expired.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: I have not had the opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, and I should like to do so now. It is nice to see someone of your wisdom and charm presiding over our meetings. Let me say that you grace the chair.
I am sure that the Leader of the Social Credit Party in putting forward Bill C-201 is making a serious attempt to do something for Canada by doing something about inflation. I have no doubt that the honourable member is a man of experience who knows something about money, knows what is good money and what is bad, and is not at all stupid. I understand he knows a good deal about investment.
In regard to this bill I do not think anyone can really estimate the true extent of the real credit of Canada. Let me suggest it is even more difficult to calculate our real credit worth than it is to say how much oil there may be in the ground either in Alberta, the Arctic or the Mackenzie Delta. We know the real estate value of Canada. We know what is in the banks and we can estimate fairly accurately the value of our current crops including our fisheries, agriculture, forestry and mining, but it is by no means an easy thing to calculate the real credit of Canada.
I feel that a philosophy of this political shade was not really tried, whether it be in Alberta or British Columbia, because those areas enjoyed a climate of prosperity, and the socreds ran things in an orthodox manner fiscally. I believe it is the intention of the sponsor of this bill to put forward a completely experimental idea. I am in favour of animal experimentation. I believe in the use of biological animals, to the extent that rabbits, dogs and white mice should be used for experimentation in an attempt to find some physiological way to assist medical science. On the other hand I do not believe that the people of Canada should be the guinea pigs for any experiment such as that embodied in this bill. I suggest it is purely experimental, and I see no reason why this should be foisted upon us by any group.
While I believe that the entire experience and wisdom of mankind are necessary to solve our present world troubles, particularly those associated with the world's inflationary cycle we are now experiencing anyone who would try to separate Canada from other countries in the world would not be doing Canada a kindness, even though he might have a very serious and patriotic concern or motivation.
I believe this bill is designed to fight inflation. If we regard it as such an attempt then we must return to the question: can we separate our Canadian inflation from world inflation? This bill is only for Canada. I think this bill would put us right down the drain if we were to adopt it. Let us see first of all whether we have any connection

October 22, 1974
Bank of Canada Act
with the rest of the world so far as our inflation is concerned. It is very important for us to decide whether we agree or disagree upon this.
We know very well that inflation is beyond the complete reversal we would all like to see. I think it has been well demonstrated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and by everything that has gone on in the last few years, that our fight against inflation really must be carried on in a very measured and methodical manner and not by the adoption of some experimental method of changing our banking system or our way of borrowing money.
In other words, we are completely interdependent, as has been mentioned by the Minister of Finance, with other countries of the world. We cannot separate our economies. We cannot afford to adopt some very different method of taxation, wage and price controls, or of banking which would place us apart from the rest of the world.
We need the other countries and they need us. I think this is the first thing we must admit. We cannot employ ways to fight inflation in Canada that would erode our prosperity. We are still prosperous. I do not think anyone would deny that.
I have had conversations with a member of the delegation which recently returned from Japan, and I had an opportunity to spend three days in Tokyo last January. I realize that Japan is going through a fairly difficult economic situation. However, it has more or less accepted this situation with open arms. The attitude of the people there is that certainly prices are up, but so are wages and profits. They realize this is a world-wide condition. They are not using any new-fangled ideas to fight the situation.
The Japanese are being careful in respect of their governmental expenses, just as we are here. They are attempting to live as closely as possible to their budget but they are not attempting to slow down inflation by increasing unemployment, and are not attempting to slow down the prosperity cycle.
I think it would be rather ridiculous for us in Canada to change our ideas when we have successfully, over the past three years, fought off inflation to the extent that we are doing better than almost any other country in the world. Here and there in respect of certain commodities some countries are doing better, but this relates to two or three commodities at the most. I am talking mainly about the United States of America.
We are in an extremely fortunate position with relation to inflation. This is because of the common sense attitude of the government. I think we would have been in a very sorry state had we brought in wage and price controls. I believe almost everyone on the opposite side of the House would admit that now. They are probably glad that this was not done. There has been a great deal of talk about it as a means of fighting inflation, but I think the common sense attitude of the Minister of Finance is the better approach; that is, to get people to realize that slowing down the economy would simply cause people to suffer and bring on more unemployment.

We must increase our productivity not only in respect of farm, forest and mineral products but also in other fields. If we do these things and tighten our belts a little we can weather the storm. I think there are signs of that storm abating now. Although we have now, and will have for some months, increases in prices of certain commodities, I think we can all admit there will be a sort of flattening out onto a plateau instead of a steep rise over the next few months. It would seem to me that the common sense attitude of the world is bearing fruit.
I am glad to see the Minister of Finance selected as chairman of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund. I think that his common sense will be valuable and will enhance Canada's reputation, especially when it is remembered that here is a country with resources of all kinds which we cannot even compute, a country of small population, a country which does not push anyone around, and a country which wants to contribute as well as it can to the underdeveloped countries.
I believe it is very important that we make use of some of the financial opportunities we have. One opportunity I really wish to turn thumbs down on is the experiment in our monetary system that was talked about by the hon. member opposite. It would seem to me to be important to realize that Canada needs investment more than ever.
Canada does not have a great amount of money. Much of our private capital is invested in the United States of America. We should realize there are people clamouring for an opportunity to invest in our country. We might start with the U.K., France, Germany and Japan. Then there are the Arab oil countries which have had such great success in bringing money into their coffers. This money must be re-invested and recycled. I believe Canada is one of the best places for the Arabs to invest their money. Madam Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. I am sorry I have taken so long.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-2, 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.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before our break at five o'clock I was saying that the
October 22, 1974

government had introduced legislation with the concept of which few in this House would disagree. However, I feel that we in the opposition must assess the legislation to see whether it will in fact perform a useful function in increasing competition in the country. I gave certain background material, and I commented on the fact that while the government is proposing increased regulations with respect to such things as misleading advertising and misrepresentation, it does not seem to include its own activities for review in the same context.
I gave certain examples of federal government forms of advertising that I felt could be challenged and, in fact, may be challenged. Another would be the Canada Savings Bonds advertisements which refer to security, income and flexibility. In the current ads they say that for tax purposes the government of Canada proposes to permit taxpayers to treat cash bonus payments either as interest income or capital gains. They then go on to say that there will be certain exemptions from taxation.
I would point out to the House that they are referring to a possible budgetary measure that may be included in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) some time between now and the middle of November. But is it fair to include that comment in an advertisement at present, knowing that the government could even be brought down before November 15? Surely members of the government learned a lesson when they were defeated on the last budget on May 9. Yet we find they have no compunction about including, in an ad for general readership in Canada, a suggestion that something is a fact when it is clearly only a possibility.
I should like to make a quick review of some of the steps that have led up to the bill before us today. In his opening remarks the minister referred to the interim report on competition policy put out by the Economic Council of Canada in July, 1969. I would point out to hon. members that it is very clear in chapter 1 of that report that it is in fact an interim report. It states:
It is designated an interim document to indicate: (a) that further reports are to be issued, and (b) that these reports are likely to include further discussions of combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade. The Council's next report will discuss patents, copyrights, trademarks and registered industrial designs. A fourth and final report will then be issued containing further observations and recommendations, notably on the subject of consumer affairs, and a general summing-up of the interrelations between the three main elements of Reference and their place in the broader spectrum of the government economic policies.
I feel that we might ask: have in fact further reports been issued by the Economic Council of Canada and, if not, why not? That question was put to Dr. Raynauld, present chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, earlier this month. I asked the following question in the Finance Committee:
Have you prepared a further report on competition policy, which was prepared back in July, 1969? ... what is your attitude to Bill C-2, which is the current version of the government's competition legislation, which, as you know, came out of the original study?
Dr. Raynauld: This is a good question. The problem is that I will have to decline because I think I am correct in saying that there has been no further report.
Combines Investigation Act
He then went on to say:
On competition itself there have been no further reports ... Since my appointment as Chairman of the Economic Council there has never been any mention that we would do further work in this particular field and, therefore, I have no view about the present bill which is before the House.
I mention that because surely it is odd that a minister and a government would refer to this report as often as they do, using it as a basis for the legislation that we have before us today, and yet the report on its face was an interim report, and when we ask the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada whether he has continued with further reports, he is almost startled by the question and admits that nobody even asked for further reports after the interim one was in hand.
As I mentioned earlier, the original bill that was introduced with respect to competition contained a stage I and a stage II. Stage II dealt with monopolies and combines. We are told that that legislation will be forthcoming. But it becomes a little confusing because the government tends to change ministers rather rapidly.
The hon. member who until recently was minister of consumer and corporate affairs, told us that stage II of the competition legislation would be in place by the end of this year. According to an interview carried in the Globe and Mail today, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has said that in no way will this be done. He is still talking and intends to talk to more businessmen. That shows the government's quandary in seeking the proper approach to competition in this country. The government itself does not know what to do. That is why this bill is premature; the government has no over-all perspective of what should be done with regard to competition policy.
As I said earlier, stage II of the legislation is in the wings. Presumably this bill, also, is subject to amendment by the minister at the committee stage. The minister ought to table those amendments forthwith. This afternoon he said he was willing to compromise. I have no idea what he means by that. If he wishes, let him make those compromises. Let us see how Bill C-2 will look, as he hopes, in its final form. Then the House can deal with it as it sees fit.
Last time a bill similar to this was given second reading and sent to committee, we found that some of its provisions which were to amend the Combines Investigation Act were subsequently to be amended by the antiprofiteering bill introduced in the last parliament, read the second time and sent to committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When is that coming back?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, when is the anti-profiteering bill coming back? The outspoken Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, according to an exclusive interview in the Financial Post, said that, after all, the anti-profiteering bill was a bit of window dressing. I suggest that more than the anti-profiteering bill is window dressing. The government's entire competition policy is window dressing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Include its whole economic policy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Its economic policy is non-existent.

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
Let me refer again to the interim report of the Economic Council of Canada. On page 108 the council recommended: -that before preparing new legislation embodying major changes in competition policy, the federal government should take the initiative in proposing that discussions of competition policy and related policies be arranged between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and appropriate provincial ministers.
We are entitled to an explanation. Why does the government feel justified in acting on the basis of the interim report but, at the same time, ignoring the strong recommendations in that report calling on the government to consult with the provinces before legislating? Not only has the government failed to consult with the provinces; it has failed to consult effectively with business, industry, unions, farmers, and consumers. It ought to have consulted these groups before bringing forward this legislation.
I now wish to touch on the federal-provincial relations aspect of this bill and the constitutionality of some of its provisions. Proposed Part IV. 1 raises difficult constitutional questions. In its report the Economic Council felt sufficiently uncertain about the creation of an administrative type of tribunal that it recommended a constitutional reference to resolve the doubt. If the legislation should be passed, it would be necessary to decide if proposed Part IV. 1 is proper under the federal government's existing criminal law powers, under its trade and commerce powers, or under the peace, order and good government provisions of the British North America Act.


Otto Emil Lang: It is proper under all three.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Proposed Part IV. 1 does not appear to be concerned with criminal offences, in the sense that term has been traditionally described in our jurisprudence. There are many cases at the privy council level and at the supreme court level dealing with court interpretations of the federal government's trade and commerce power. These decisions do not provide much of a precedent for what is covered by proposed Part IV. 1. Generally, they confirm the federal government's power to regulate the importation and interprovincial movement of commodities and, in turn, the provinces' lack of power to do so.
Proposed Part IV. 1 is not confined to interprovincial agreements or marketing practices, and a long line of marketing cases sets the precedent that federal regulation under the trade and commerce power cannot be rationalized on the grounds that the subject matter has an interprovincial character.
That leaves us with the peace, order and good government power. This would be the court's last resort in trying to justify proposed Part IV. 1 as being within federal competence. Therefore, as the powers to be given to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission form such an important part of this proposed legislation, it appears that much of the bill rests on a shaky constitutional basis.
Is that the way for the government to lay a foundation for competition policy in Canada? Would it not have been better to have had prior provincial consultation with a view to constitutional change, if necessary, in order to ensure a sound approach to those matters proposed under Part IV.l?
The extension of the Combines Investigation Act, as proposed in Bill C-2, into the service field would aggravate

the problem which now exists with respect to the overlapping of federal and provincial regulatory laws. If the federal government wants to avoid embarrassments brought on by passage of this bill, it should make it clear that the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act which cover services will not apply if they conflict with provincial law.
British Columbia recently enacted a Trade Practices Act, and in Ontario there is Bill 55, the Ontario Business Practices Act. These acts cover fields similar to those covered by the provisions of proposed sections 36 and 37 in Bill C-2. It is unfortunate that the federal authorities did not co-ordinate their legislative program in this area with that coming under provincial jurisdiction. We do not need two sets of criminal sanctions to govern essentially the same type of behaviour.
Proposed sections 29.1 and 31.1 contain new enforcement and remedial provisions which have attracted considerable hostility, as the minister is no doubt aware. The first section mentioned would give an interim injuctive power, while the second would entitle an aggrieved party to recover damages arising out of the commission of a Part V offence with regard to a breach of a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission order. In both cases we have evidence of the unsatisfactory result obtained by trying to force a civil remedy into the tight confines of the criminal law.
A further constitutional problem arises with respect to the conferring of original trial criminal jurisdiction on the federal court which, until now, has been presumed to be a prerogative which belongs exclusively to the provinces. The main issue arises because of the conflicting provisions of the BNA Act, which may only be resolved through constitutional change.
This all shows that in bringing forward this bill the minister is taking us into uncharted waters. He mentioned earlier that the previous minister of consumer and corporate affairs had outlined certain features of this legislation at second reading but he did not elaborate on the details.
I do not intend to go into detail on what we said on second reading, but I think it is important that we reiterate some of the points made so effectively by the member who represented the riding of St. Paul's at that time. On March 13, 1974, he said as reported at page 484 of Hansard, that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would be creating:
-to all intents and purposes, a new, highly centralized agency which has the potentiality of interposing itself into a major segment of Canadian political and economic life... the bill will permit the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to alter or restructure market distribution systems in Canada in an unprecedented fashion.
We reiterate that point, Mr. Speaker. As reported at the same page he pointed out that decisions are delegated to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under the bill. He stated that in his view the government would wrongfully be abdicating its own responsibilities to make policy decisions of this magnitude, and he asked that it reconsider vesting decision making of this sort in the commission and consider vesting it in the Governor in Council. We reiterate that request, Mr. Speaker.
October 22, 1974

At page 485 he pointed out that:
-the commission is left to make its own rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its duties and functions under the act.
Again we reiterate that. He also stated.
There are various classes of service industries which are exempted for one reason or another.
The largest and most important classes, the ones I have just referred to, that are controlled by provincial legislation at the present time, are unfortunately not exempted. This will cause confusion.
At page 486 he stated:
We think it is high time in Canada that the government applied anti-combines laws to the labour unions.
We would be most interested to hear from the minister precisely why he has persisted in exempting the labour unions from this type of competition legislation. Later he said, as reported on the same page:
-we believe the minister should at least provide an acceptable rationalization as to why the banks should continue to be treated differently, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. This is a different and softer type of combines regime than exists for other financial institutions such as the trust companies and insurance companies.
I felt we should get this on the record once again, Mr. Speaker. Let me emphasize that the points raised in more detail by the hon. member at that time are reiterated today when considering this bill, as far as we are concerned. I would go further and say that we are concerned that the ambiguities contained in Bill C-2 may discourage aggressive business behaviour and create a climate of uncertainty which makes business planning difficult. It will place an unnecessary and undesirable economic burden on the community. Businessmen are naturally reluctant to make commitments when the laws which regulate their behaviour are not clear. The result is that desirable economic activities will likely be curtailed unless the rather ambiguous sections of the bill are clarified.
During the course of debate a number of specific suggestions will be offered by my colleagues. Let me state very briefly that we believe there should be clarification of such terms as "product", "business" of lending money, "unreasonably low", "widespread", "major supplier", "inadequate", "chances" of winning a prize in a promotional contest, and the distinction drawn between local and national advertisers. I am quoting directly from the bill, Mr. Speaker, and suggesting that these terms should be clearly defined.
There is the word "article" for instance. In its present context the word would cover shopping centres, making it a criminal offence to operate a shopping centre in this country. Is that the understanding and wish of the government? According to clauses 32(1) (c) and (d) and 38(6) it would appear to be an offence even to ask people to rent space in a shopping centre so long as the word "article" is not defined to make it clear that that type of operation is not included.
In another of his interviews with the press the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated he believes this legislation will not receive as much opposition as previous legislation because "businessmen are tired out". What a strange statement for a minister of the Crown to make!
Combines Investigation Act
Someone suggests it is a bit like the Chinese water treatment where the philosophy apparently is that if you constantly wear away at them, somehow the public and the business community will throw up their hands and say, "What will be, will be".


Mr. Beatty:: We are getting one drip after another from the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister forgot about the loyal opposition in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking about appointments-and with my colleagues I have to congratulate the minister on his appointment-I think we must sometimes question the thinking of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he chooses a new minister.


John Douglas Reynolds: He had to get him out of the Post Office.


An hon. Member:: He has gone from triumph to triumph.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When someone takes on a new post, Mr. Speaker, I think it is natural to take a fleeting glance at how he did in his old post. I would not mention this if it had not already been brought out in the brochure published by the Canadian Tax Foundation, entitled the National Finances 1973-74, where at page 211 we catch a glimpse of the business capabilities of the minister we have now as the Lord High Potentate of Commerce. In his one short year in the Post Office it went from a surplus of $6 million to a deficit of $75 million.


James McPhail Gillies: That takes work.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is an indication of how it is determined who gets what portfolio in this government.


John Douglas Reynolds: Wait until he is the minister of finance in the new year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having pointed out some of the consequences if this legislation is passed, I should point out that it is particularly the small businessmen who will be hurt by the competition policy proposed by the government. They have been particularly hard hit already by the government's policies.
Although 60 per cent of the work force is employed in small business, we find that between 1962 and 1973 their employers' share of the national income fell from 10.7 per cent to 7.5 per cent. The fact is that this legislation would have extremely harmful effects on the business community, especially the small businessmen.
I mentioned earlier that the bill does not fit in with any overall industrial strategy. In fact, as we know, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) is unique; he takes great credit for having said that the government has no industrial strategy. I mention this because I believe the trade deficit with respect to manufactured articles sold for export is becoming alarming. In 1972 that deficit amount-

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
ed to 1.5 billion. In 1973 it was $2.2 billion, and in the first half of this year alone it had risen to $2 billion. The only way this country is able to maintain a trade surplus is by selling off a like amount of natural resources.
If the minister is serious in saying this is a bill by which he hopes to catch big business in this country, he should be as good as his word and place a provision in the bill assuring it will not affect small businessmen with assets below a certain amount. Such a provision was included in the Foreign Investment Review Act passed by the last parliament, and I would recommend that a similar course be taken by the minister in any competition legislation he might bring forward.
I mentioned there was an absence of consultation with various sectors of our economy. I would suggest the government consider establishing a national industry and productivity council on a fully functional basis, with a working staff drawn from its own constituent components from government, both federal and provincial, business, industry and labour, and that its purpose be the co-ordination of an effective national industrial policy; that it formulate guidelines for the establishment, location and financing of new industry or the expansion of existing industry; that it provide for the elimination of uncoordinated and counterproductive development in the various regions of Canada; that it work toward the elimination of the atmosphere of confrontation which now exists between government, federal or provincial, management and labour; that it provide for the better equipping of Canadian industry to meet changing economic conditions and for the improvement of the rate of growth in productivity in both the private and the public areas.
This would be a worthwhile step for the government to take, and certainly would be more constructive than bringing in a piece of legislation which might be more harmful than helpful. Judging from the record of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I suggest it might be preferable if the corporate affairs part were switched to the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. This would ensure the services of a full-time minister of consumer affairs who would be able to devote all his energy to protecting the interests of the consumer.
There are others in my party who wish to speak. I have attempted to outline our thinking on this legislation. I am sure members who support the government are more than willing to give us ample opportunity to express further views concerning the legislation. After all, five bills have been passed in the last few days; surely they will not mind a few speeches concerning the bill now before us.
In conclusion, let me say that I think competition is a good thing. We in this House, and certainly the members of the party to which I belong, endorse competition.


Mr. Benjamin:: What is that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, we should not, in the name of increasing competition, put legislation on the statute books which is inequitable, which will have the effect of impairing competition and which will be poorly administered by such a body as the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes me about the bill we are considering this evening is its title which reads: "An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code." It is also known, euphemistically, as the competition bill.
I should like to examine several questions, one of which asks what competition this bill purports to regulate? Is it competition between competitor and competitor? I suggest that the bill before us serves, in fact, to institutionalize the present situation of competition between buyer and seller, competitor and consumer. Here, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hansard, reporters, each and every time I use the word "competitor" it should be placed in quotation marks.
Lest hon. members think I displayed a partisan bias in my initial remarks I would ask them to heed the comments made in a speech delivered by an advertising executive to a meeting of the Canadian Grocery Distributors Institute in Toronto in February, 1973. He said, and I quote:
So what's so bad about industry co-operation? After all, your competitors aren't your enemies but your consumers are.
I suggest this was no accidental remark but rather an accurate indication of the mentality of most "competitors" in this "free enterprise" system. Another note to the Hansard reporters: each and every time I utter the words "free enterprise" in this speech, they too should be enclosed in quotation marks.
I am sure the government is well aware of the fact of which the advertising executive spoke. Having read this bill and all the related material, and having heard so much about the great "free enterprise" system, I am led to observe that it is indeed strange that corporations have to be legislated into making some token display of competition with each other. One would expect that by the very definition of "free enterprise" they would be just dying to compete. But that is not so. These so-called "competitors" have to be forced to compete with each other.
When this bill is not attempting to force "competitors" to compete, it is attempting to regulate the aggressive competition which actually exists; that is, the competition of the companies against the consumer. Unfortunately, the only people left in the dark as to the true situation are the Canadian consumers, who daily frequent the marketplace. This, to me, is one of the most reprehensible aspects of this bill-it only pretends to regulate, it does not actually regulate-and the consequent effect is to lull the Canadian consumer into a false sense of security.
In case this House thinks I am dabbling in rhetoric-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad hon. members are applauding because I should like to deal with some of the specific measures which the government holds up to the public with the claim that they are beneficial. We have, for example, the practice of double ticketing. The bill will make it unlawful for a company to sell at other than the lower price of the double ticket. Yet the bill will not
October 22, 1974

prohibit what the Food Prices Review Board, in its report of November 1973, described as the "accepted business practice of revaluing inventories as prices change".
Clearly, the thrust of this legislation should not merely be one of warning the companies that they have to clean up their up front operations, not, of course, unless the government agrees that it is the consumer who is competing with the companies, in which case maintaining the companies' freedom to overprice inventories under the counter rather than over the counter is most consistent.
Let us look at another provision of the bill which, for the life of me, I cannot believe is actually seriously proposed by the government. That is the amendment which would provide the right of action to individuals who suffer as a result of conspiracy on the part of companies. Well, I would suggest to the government that all individuals suffer as a result of conspiracy on the part of companies, and that what is needed is a provision for class actions, not individual actions.
Let us take the example of our three major sugar importers, Atlantic, Redpath and St. Lawrence, who were convicted of price fixing back in 1963. All three companies were fined and placed under a restraining order to prevent future collusion. Yet these three companies are back in court again.
It is my understanding that the prosecutor has estimated the cost to the Canadian consumer of the price fixing activities of the companies at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125 million between 1960 and 1973. I would suggest-and I am not commenting on the present trial one way or the other-that if this is so and the companies are again convicted, and some rough determination of the bilking yield is made, then it ought to be possible for consumers as a class to demand that their moneys be returned to them, and the fines levied should equal the amount bilked from the public by the price fixers.
I wonder about the sincerity of the government's intentions when it pretends to expect an individual to go about the business of attempting to figure out the dollars he may have lost to the sugar companies over 13 years and then attempt to sue on an individual basis.
Let us take this issue to its logical conclusion. If the government seriously believed that in cases of conspiracy the individual consumer would pursue his right to take the companies to court, what would they propose to do with the resulting glut of court cases? Can we picture, for instance, every individual household head first figuring out what he is owed, and then all proceeding to court at the same time? It boggles the mind somewhat. Obviously it does not boggle the corporate mind; they do not have to worry.
If I view the lack of competition between companies as alarming, there is something I find even more alarming, and that is the government's failure to deal with vertical integration of huge companies. Let me give yet another illustration of the manner in which "competitors" engage in competition, not with other "competitors" but with the consumer. The outstanding example is the George Weston Limited company which, in its annual report, calls 1973 "a gratifying year". And well it might be gratified with after
Combines Investigation Act
tax profits standing at $34.6 million, an increase of 86 per cent over 1972.
The consumer might be deceived into thinking that the Weston company is in a deathlock competition with other manufacturers of food goods. But in fact George Weston Limited is in competition mainly with George Weston Limited.
A quick survey of some of its "competitors" reveals nothing more than a long list of its own subsidiaries, which include some of the biggest, best known and most powerful food manufacturing companies in Canada. There are, for example, Weston Bakeries Limited, the largest bakery in Canada; Weston Foods; McCormicks; William Nielson Limited; British Columbia Packers, Canada's largest fish processor; Connor Brothers Fisheries; Somerville Industries Limited; Westfair Foods; Kelly, Douglas and Company; and of course the Loblaw group. Then there is National Grocers, Atlantic Wholesalers, B.C. Packers with subsidiaries of its own, including Nelson Brothers and Rupert's Certi-Fresh Foods. We then have Connor Brothers, with its subsidiaries W. H. Welch Limited and Lewis, Conners and Sons Limited, plus a host of other associated companies.
What does this mean when the consumer walks into a grocery store, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: That the price is right.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, the price is right for George Weston. Let me use salmon as an example. The consumer is confronted by an overwhelming array of brand names, a few of which are the following: Carnation, Universal, Surf, Ferndale, Overwaitea, Rose Marie, Red Rose, Pine Tree, High Seas, Sea Lord, Silverline, Fraser Gold, Swallow, Clipper, Tip Top, Streamline, Sea Trader, Queen Charlotte, A & P, Clover Leaf, Maple Leaf, Paramount, Laguna, Sea-Gift, Robin Red, Loblaws and Thunderbird.
But, Mr. Speaker, the confusion does not end there. There is cohoe and keta, sockeye and whitespring. Then there is red salmon or pink salmon, minced or creamed salmon. Then you have a choice of trying to figure out the per ounce price of, would you believe, cans that contain either 15 ounces or 15'/2 ounces, three and three quarter ounces or seven and three quarter ounces. Why three quarters of an ounce, Mr. Speaker? But let me not digress into another area that is badly in need of this kind of government legislation.
Little does the consumer know, as he or she struggles to determine the per ounce price of the different brands and can sizes, that it does not really matter what brand is purchased-the money is going into the same pocket, in this instance the George Weston superpocket. What does this piece of legislation do to encourage competition? Can this government show me one element of the competition bill which encourages competition in the salmon industry?
Further, the Economic Council of Canada, in its report on competition policy of July, 1969, concluded that in many areas of activity "monopolistic tendencies have all but eliminated competitive market responses." For a long time the food industry was not as intensely monopolized as it is today. Today we find farmers being driven off the land as agribusiness takes over. Farmers' markets used to

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
flourish, as well as door to door food selling, but they have been rapidly replaced by supermarket selling. At one time there were numbers of local cheese factories across this country; now there is only Kraft.
I realize that the minister has promised a review of this legislation with particular reference to an examination of the more fundamental questions which arise in a study of the structural characteristics of our economy. However, I suspect that Bill C-2 is an indicator of what will come in the second stage of the legislation.
I note from this morning's Globe and Mail that the minister intends to initiate extensive discussion with business, of course, before the introduction of the second stage of the legislation can be expected. The minister said, and I quote:
I don't want to bulldoze the second phase because it comes to the crunch of business philosophy. It is an entirely new approach.
It is not so new, I think, Mr. Speaker, especially when I note the minister's comments in this morning's edition of the Gazette in respect of his views on the anti-profiteering bill. The minister is reported as having said:
I have to make it quite clear that I hope this bill will never be used.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: The best is yet to come. He is reported as having said:
I consider it as an instrument that the government ought to have, and no more. We need it, for example, for the Food Prices Review Board. If Mrs. Plumptre were to make recommendations pointing out clearly instances of abuse, the government does not have any instrument or any leverage to act. I think we need it as a sort of show-case. Can I use the word window-dressing? We should have this bill for that reason. I really do not want to use it, or look forward to using it, because I have no objection to profits.
It is fairly obvious that when the government removed one minister, putting him in the backbenches, and brought forward this minister it was very much like digging a hole to fill a hole. I think this minister communicates more with the people; his kind of people-the corporate people.
I realize that we are talking here about the competition bill and not the anti-profiteering bill but I suggest that the minister's comments bespeak the mentality of the government in any legislation it undertakes which might protect the consumer from the "competitors."
Let me again refer to the minister's comments in the Globe and Mail. I note he feels that the trend of low fines for combines offences in the past is not a problem of law but, according to him, "a problem of our attitude". He goes on to elaborate that Canadians are not yet accustomed to seeing large fines or jail sentences for these kinds of offences. What a masterful piece of double talk that is!
If Canadians are not accustomed to seeing large fines or jail terms handed out for offences causing suffering to the consumer I suggest it is the fault of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
This leads me to another area of doubt about this bill. The basic legislation has been around for a long time, but I note that the Restrictive Trades Practices Commission has not been noted for its in-department vigour. For instance,

by law that commission is to have three members, but the number has gradually dwindled to one. I note as well that in 1970-1971 the commission spent only 41 per cent of its budget; in 1971-72 it spent only 61 per cent, and again in 1972-73 only 61 per cent of its budget was spent.
It is amazing that one of the few commissions holding a clear responsibility to protect the consumer and save the consumer dollars, engages in saving taxpayer dollars put aside for that purpose. Well might the minister lament the lack of exemplary fines and jail sentences for offenders. His department and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission are obviously at fault in showing a lack of example in initiative to the rest of the country.
To sum up, this bill with all its complexities does not propose any measure that a self-respecting corporation could not circumvent. Any corporation in this country worth its salt could circumvent any one of the provisions of this bill.
As far as my party is concerned, there ought to be two principles involved when a sincere government sets about to bring forward competition legislation. Firstly, monopolistic control over production, distribution and marketing of goods and services should never be permitted and, secondly, the government must intervene in the marketplace to provide consumers with goods of quality at reasonable prices. This bill does not even remotely approach these principles.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment and for his fine speech this afternoon. The minister once again has demonstrated his competence and his knowledge, and in the very early opportunity he has had he once again has demonstrated his approach and intellect in meeting the complexities of this legislation.
Tonight we heard a lengthy address by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) regarding this bill. He spent very little time dealing with the bill itself, but carried us forward to a variety of topics, including a general discussion about the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The hon. member referred by some striking financial sleight of hand to the number of complaints received by the department, and then went on to divide the number of complaints into the amount of money spent on the entire consumer services of the department, some $17.5 million, telling the House that this was the total cost of all complaints received in any one year since the department was formed. The hon. member obviously drew this figure from the 1974-75 estimates covering a variety of activities, of which approximately $1 million represents expenditures by the branch which looks after consumer education, information and complaints.
I noticed that the hon. member was not content with referring the House to these striking observations, but also told the citizens of Toronto at a meeting of a chapter of the Institute of Chartered Accountants the same story. I assume that when one reflects on that point raised in that part of the hon. member's speech one can judge the merit of the rest of it.
Again the hon. member referred to a number of problems he foresaw during this parliament, including that in
October 22, 1974

respect of "a brutal majority," to use his colourful words. I suggest this is a strong phrase to use to describe what is only a moderate majority, but one which I think the Canadian people are gratified to see on this side of the House.
The hon. member referred to the fact that in this competition bill, again to use his colourful words, "we are sailing through uncharted waters". We have heard the minister's comments and we are aware of the endless references in this House to this whole area of competition policy since 1966 when it was introduced by the economic council in its report, reiterated in various pieces of legislation, and again only in the last session in the legislation which received second reading and went to the committee.
Once again this bill has been introduced. Once again the public is to be given the opportunity, both consumers and business organizations, to bring their points of view before the committee. Surely that could hardly be described as uncharted waters.
There were some points of substance raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, but they were in what might be termed a derivative fashion since he drew a melancholy note in respect of the words of the former hon. member for St. Paul's who is no longer with us. Unfortunately the people of St. Paul's did not choose to return that particular member, but his words will be immortalized in the Hansard of the thirtieth parliament thanks to the contribution of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
The minister, in his comments on this bill, did not choose to reiterate in complete detail each and every policy that is contained in the bill because this is all familiar to members of the House. It is hoped when the committee deals with it, and deals with it hopefully expeditiously, this long planned competition policy for Canada will be made into law.
I think there are a great many Canadians who have seen defects in the previous legislation, in the draft bill which was introduced. I happen to be one of those who found a considerable number of defects in the original draft legislation which was brought into this House, but the bill we have before us this evening is one which, on almost every count, is bringing Canadians a first-class competition policy.
Instead of bulldozing a policy through the House the previous minister and the minister before that introduced a draft bill, and allowed the most elaborate possible type of consultation. Out of that elaborate consultation was derived a bill which can now come before parliament without fear that it will be a disservice to the Canadian people.
During the previous committee stage certain proposed amendments were introduced. Some were of a minor or technical nature. Some dealt with specific wording such as the hon. member for York Simcoe asked be considered. I hope these amendments will reappear. I hope that perhaps some others might reappear as well. Most of them are of a minor or technical nature dealing with anomalies in particular spheres of industry which were not contemplated at the time the bill was drafted.
Combines Investigation Act
I find it curious that the hon. member for York Simcoe does not want amendments introduced, wants all the amendments introduced today, does not want the bill to receive any positive treatment at the committee stage, and does not want any reaction to contributions made by industrial, business or consumer groups.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) made a speech containing some extremely fishy references and long lists of products. However, I did find one clause of the bill on which he reflected where I too share his dissatisfaction, although I do not think for quite the same extreme reason. I do not find the clause in respect of double ticketing a particularly effective one to be introduced into such an important blueprint for the competition policy of this country.
I hasten to say that I do not support the practice that is known as double ticketing by retail food stores. I think those stores have given their undertaking in this regard, and are not practicing this unfair form of behaviour. In any event I do not think this is a particularly appropriate clause to introduce in a bill of this scale. As the hon. member pointed out, it really does not deal with the question of the revaluing of inventories. I think very few members of this House would suggest that at no time should there be no ability on the part of businesses or industry to revalue their inventories.
Apart from that, I do not think this particular clause deals with the revaluing of inventories but rather deals with a particular practice of a grocery company finding additional stickers on a package and then not choosing to award the customer the lowest of the particular prices. My objection first is that I do not think it is broad enough or important enough to place in a bill of this dimension. Second, I think this often is brought about inadvertently by companies handling hundreds of thousands of items. It might be that every day by accident they are committing this particular offence. To that, extent, and that extent only, would I support some of the comments made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I wish to say, however, I believe the Canadian people are aware now that parliament intends to introduce a piece of competition policy that will suit this country and be more akin to the type of advanced concepts in other nations. I suggest that time has arrived. I also suggest I do not believe it will require "a brutal majority", the description used by my hon. friend. I think this bill, its concept, and the amendments which may be made in committee and reintroduced in this House will commend themselves, and I trust will soon be made into law for the benefit of Canada.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say a few words on Bill C-2 dealing with combines and especially the little gimmicks used by small companies to inflate or fix prices in order to sell their products at higher prices.
In my opinion, this bill does not go far enough. I commend the minister for introducing a bill which will enable Canadians to control this sector of the economy. This bill amends the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and repeals the act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill C-2 does not go far

October 22, 1974

Combines Investigation Act
enough and leads nowhere. When one thinks that financiers may decide at any time to go into a combine without the knowledge of the government, in order to control prices and make profits! Let us take for example the price of fabrics. Imported fabrics are paid 45, 60 or 65 per cent more than the purchase price. Five, six, seven or ten national or international companies have'agreements with import companies, and what is paid $2.10, Mr. Speaker, sells for $9, $10, $12 or $15 to the consumer. Section 3 of the bill, on page 31A, reads as follows:
(3)	No dealer shall refuse to sell or supply an article or commodity to any other person for the reason that such other person
(a)	has refused to resell or to offer for resale the article or
commodity
(i)	at a price specified by the dealer or established by agreement,
Mr. Speaker, because of provisions before sub-paragraph
(ii), chances are we will be all wrapt up in details while trusts will profiteer at the expense of the consumers.
(ii)	at a price not less than a minimum price specified by the dealer or established by agreement,
(iii)	at a markup or discount specified by the dealer or established by agreement,
(iv)	at a markup not less than a minimum markup specified by the dealer or established by agreement, or
(v)	at a discount not greater than a maximum discount specified by the dealer or established by agreement;...
Mr. Speaker, they all finish with the expression "agreement" or "establish by agreement", by a group of importers who are often ignored by the government because they are too dissimilar. And yet, many firms import and offer on their shelves consumer products whose prices have been increased by 500, 600 or even 700 per cent. I feel that this bill is not going far enough and I congratulate the minister for introducing this bill at this time. In my opinion, however, it would have been necessary, before introducing such a bill, to seek the advice of departmental officials in order to go even further.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote sub-paragraph (b):
(b)	has resold or offered to resell the article or commodity
(i)	at a price less than a price or minimum price specified by the dealer or established by agreement,
(ii)	at a markup less than a markup or minimum markup specified by the dealer or established by agreement, or
(iii)	at a discount greater than a discount or maximum discount specified by the dealer or established by agreement.
(4)	Every person who violates subsection (2) or (3) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable on conviction ...
Mr. Speaker, we ought to know who will determine which, the consumer or the buyer, is liable of a criminal offense. For the moment, we are speaking of an act qualified as criminal under the Criminal Code, that is increasing the price of a given item by means of a coalition. Mr. Speaker, the importer or the vendor can, under the terms of this bill, form a coalition or come to an agreement on the sly, to make big profits the department cannot because a bi-, tri- or other partite agreement is made.
To my mind, this bill is not far-reaching enough. That is why we feel the minister in charge of the matter should, as early as tomorrow, make changes in the bill or at least ask his officials to change the question of tri-partite agreements in relation to imports or exports, to fix prices as mentioned in the bill.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker what the bill before us attempts to achieve is basically reform in two areas. The first is that area generally referred to as consumer protection. The various provisions in this area have been discussed in the House today and when the previous bill was debated on second reading in March of this year. Briefly speaking, these provisions cover the subjects of misleading advertising, bait and switch selling, pyramid selling, referral selling, the professional sports provisions, and resale price maintenance to an extent. At the moment, most of these are still within the criminal law framework; they are in the form of prohibitions to violations to which penalties will attach.
These various subjects were discussed at great length at the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices. It was one of the recommendations of that special committee that these aspects of the earlier competition bill be brought forward at the earliest opportunity, and I assume that the re-introduction of this bill is in response to a general feeling in the country that these undesirable trade practices require regulation.
It is generally the position of our party that those provisions, with a few technical exceptions, are desirable and should be expeditiously enacted into law in this way to assist the consumer who, at this time, is confronted by the ravages of a runaway inflation and spiralling cost of living, and therefore is in need of any protective mechanisms which we as a parliament are in a position to supply.
On the other hand, this bill contains another whole area which creates a new civil jurisdiction in the form of a restrictive trade practices commission which will become, for all intents and purposes, a powerful new judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. While replacing the criminal jurisdiction with civil jurisdiction in this area of the law is probably desirable, I think it will be acknowledged on both sides of the House that there are thereby created potential problems which pertain to the sweeping nature and extent of the powers to be given to the restrictive trade practices commission by the legislation before us. To a certain extent the power given to the commission is discretionary and, to a certain extent, it is power given to a tribunal in this country which may fairly be said to be unprecedented.
Despite disclaimers to the contrary there are problems about the scope and the extent of a so-called right of appeal from this tribunal which may continue to cause considerable concern to a great many people.
There are also problems relating to the procedures to be followed by that tribunal. The bill before us refers to certain practices which will be subject to review by the restrictive trade practices commission, practices which the government has itself acknowledged may in some circumstances be desirable, which may be permitted by the commission and, in other situations and other circumstances, may be considered undesirable and subject to a prohibitive order of that tribunal. The powers of the commission in this respect are civil and discretionary in their application.
October 22, 1974

The bill before us involves fundamental philosophical considerations of a political, legal, economic and federal-provincial nature. To all intents and purposes it creates a new, highly centralized agency which has the potential of interposing itself into a major segment of Canadian political and economic life. Affecting matters within both federal and provincial jurisdiction, the legislation will permit the restrictive trade practices commission to alter or restructure market distribution systems in Canada in an unprecedented fashion.
This is major legislation and deserves careful scrutiny and a full and informed debate, not only by members of this House but by the many consumer groups, business interests and provincial governments who will be directly affected by its provisions.
By this legislation a restrictive trade practices commission has had effectively delegated to it the power to make decisions which can have a fundamental policy impact on relations between sovereign countries, and which could adversely affect Canada's foreign trade or external relations. By so doing the government will be abdicating its own responsibilities to make policy decisions of this magnitude.
I strongly urge that the government reconsider delegating in this way decision-making power of this magnitude to the commission, and consider vesting it in the governor-in-council, in the same fashion that it does in making decisions to reduce tariffs or in making decisions respecting the so-called "significant benefit" provision under the Foreign Investment Review Act.
The powers of the restrictive trade practices commission in this area should be limited to making recommendations to cabinet, but let us not have any abdication of responsibility on fundamental questions of economic policy. The Canadian public are entitled to know what the government of Canada will do about the implementation of a foreign law that may affect our external trade or foreign relations. This responsibility is appropriately the government's and it ought not to shift this responsibility to a commission such as the restrictive trade practices commission.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is not who is right or wrong in a particular case. The issue is who should be the responsible body for conducting our affairs with other countries with whom our trade and investment connections provide an infinite series of effects and counter-effects vis-a-vis each other. It is truly an astounding proposal that a responsible government would see fit to turn over in this way, even on a limited basis, such power to an appointed, independent body having no general responsibility for the conduct of relations between Canada and other countries.
Let us now turn to a review of some of the powers which it is proposed will be granted to the restrictive trade practices commission. Take first the far-reaching power to review instances of refusals to sell a product and to order a supplier to supply or to recommend tariff changes.
The implementation of this power may have a radical impact on the nature of distribution systems for products in Canada totally inconsistent with the real economic and structural facts of life in this country. The provision puts
Combines Investigation Act
the onus on the seller to justify his distribution system when he is called before the commission. Why not follow the ordinary principles inherent in our judicial system in this country, and place the onus on the director of investigation and research who brings the initial application to establish at least a prima facie case of inadequate competition?
It is simply not true to say that in all cases or even in most cases a refusal to sell is equivalent to inadequate competition; however, the temptation to draw this conclusion for the commission could lead to serious abuses. This provision raises serious questions and has serious implications for various franchise systems, the practice of private branding, off-shore suppliers and technical servicing requirements.
This criticism applies equally to the exclusive agency and tied sales provisions. Today a manufacturer can sign an agreement with a distributor requiring the distributor to promote and sell only his products. To both parties the common business sense of this is obvious. The seller gets a distributor with a strong interest in promoting his products. The distributor is ensured his efforts will not be expropriated by someone else.
If the commission gets under way, however, by defining a product restrictively it could, in the case of a car dealership, for example, result in a Volkswagen dealer getting an order allowing him to break his contracts of exclusivity and, at the same time, an order against Toyota and General Motors requiring them to supply him with cars. The result would be bad for the three manufacturers because of decreased sales efforts, bad for the consumer because of the dealer's probable inability to service three makes of cars, and no doubt eventually bad for the other dealers, one, or more, or all of whom could very well end up going out of business.
The net result would be less competition, not more, even though there might appear to be a short-term benefit. I would have hoped that the minister would provide a fuller explanation of what he is trying to achieve and how he justifies the means that he has adopted.
I also suggest to the minister that there are procedural problems and questions which must be raised in connection with the powers that are to be granted to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. To leave a commission of this sort free to make its own rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its duties and functions may well lead to uncertainty and arbitrariness in proceedings before the commission, problems which could easily be overcome through specifying certain minimum procedural protections in the legislation itself.
The act should spell out in relation to persons who might be called before the commission the right to reasonable notice of the hearing, the right to call and examine witnesses and to cross-examine other witnesses, the right to reasonable adjournments of the hearing and, finally and perhaps most important, the right to a written decision with reasons. I suggest further that the minister should consider carefully whether there is a need for a substantive right of appeal to the courts from an order of the restrictive trade practices commission.

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
I am instinctively suspicious and skeptical when it is explained to me that a right of appeal on the merits is denied Canadians on the grounds that the decision-making tribunal possesses special expertise or sophistication which has been denied to or is lacking in the judiciary of this country. That explanation is sheer nonsense. The members of our judiciary are trained and competent to hear and determine on appeal questions of law and fact determined by any quasi judicial or judicial tribunal in this country, however complex may be the facts and issues involved.
It must simply be made incumbent upon the restrictive trade practices commission to articulate clearly and precisely in written form the factual situation and the law applied to the factual situation by it in arriving at its conclusions affecting the rights of Canadians.
Returning to the consumer protection provisions dealing with such matters as misleading advertising, bait and switch-selling, untrue or misleading warranties and pyramid selling, there are a few matters of principle which I would urge the minister to consider. Why, for example, has the government eliminated the defence of honest mistake under those sections? In moving from the credulous man test to the general impression test, why did the government consider it necessary to propose in new section 36(5) to insert a literal meaning test as well? Why does the government exempt printers and publishers from misleading advertising prosecutions but not broadcasters?
To what extent, if at all, has there been consultation with provincial governments which possess jurisdiction to introduce their own legislation on warranties and testimonials and the other objectionable practices mentioned? What potential for conflict with provincial legislation exists in the absence of consultation, thus causing uncertainty and confusion for those engaged in commercial activity? Or is this simply another example of the propensity of the government to substitute confrontation for consultation in its dealings and relations with the governments of the provinces of Canada.
In considering the far-reaching powers to be granted by this legislation to the restrictive trade practices commission, I reiterate the hope expressed by my former colleague, Ron Atkey, that all members of this House will ask themselves the question whether all the provisions of the legislation before us, affecting as they do in such a sweeping and arbitrary fashion the rights and freedoms of Canadians, are really necessary.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this piece of proposed legislation has a long history, as detailed by previous speakers. Originally it was introduced as Bill C-256. The minister of the day, who is now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), ran into heavy opposition from the business community and the bill never got off the ground. Then, after the election in 1972 and a change of ministers, we saw another approach to combines legislation under a new minister. We examined the legislation, then Bill C-227. That became, eventually, Bill C-7, and now we call it Bill C-2. Really, the only thing that has changed is the number on the face of the bill.
First we had the Economic Council of Canada study in 1966, then the clean sweep approach with Bill C-256, and its appropriate reintroduction in 1972. Next we had an election, and a new minister with the slightly different approach of breaking the proposed legislation into two or three pieces as in Bill C-227 and Bill C-7. That meant debate, hearings, committee meetings, and finally we had another election, another new minister, more press releases, more debates, more hearings and so and so forth.
I do not like to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I was not impressed with the minister in his previous portfolio. In view of his dismal performance as postmaster general I thought he would have taken a different approach to this bill, and either have tabled all the amendments he proposed, or have brought in an amended bill with the changes that arose from the previous meetings and briefs on this proposed legislation.
We have before us now for second reading Bill C-2 that is identical to Bills C-227 and C-7. And we have the minister's press statement that he has numerous amendments to present in committee. Why do we not have these before us now, Mr. Speaker? Why do we not have at least a list of the proposed amendments? The minister cannot say why he has not presented them. He certainly has had enough time and, with his vastly increased budget and staff, he should have the people and the resources to prepare an amended bill. His former cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), left behind a mountain of testimony and comment.
I wonder why the minister has chosen to bring in the same bill. Knowing the difficulties of combines legislation I would have thought he would have previewed for the business community the broad outline of the total objectives of the proposed competition legislation.
We have phase I before us, and the minister discussed a little of phase II with the press but he says it is a long way off-some time in 1975. Then, of course, we have the anti-profiteering bill which, according to what I read in the press, will have a few changes but the same general thrust as before.
All these bills or phases will be amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. I think the business community has a right to know where they are heading and what ground rules they will have to work with in the future. It is time we all knew where we are heading. We found, for instance, that some provisions of Bill C-7 were in conflict with the anti-profiteering provisions presented in Bill C-29. Both bills were amendments to the anti-combines legislation. In fact, Bill C-29 amended Bill C-7 before it had passed second reading.
I notice the minister is quoted as saying he does not intend amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to become the instrument of the government to fight inflation, and he regrets it was ever identified as that. We could go through the record of the twenty-ninth parliament and see that dozens of times hon. members and ministers referred to the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act as part of the government's anti-inflation measures.

October 22, 1974

In fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made several references to this during the twenty-ninth parliament, stating that the proposed changes were part of his antiinflation program. It is refreshing then for the minister to admit that he does not intend the anti-combines legislation to become the instrument of the government to fight inflation. I commend the minister for being frank.
The bill before us is a bit of a non entity in that it is a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act. The minister has amendments to amend the amendments to the act. Will the amendments change the fundamental nature of the bill? I think we have a right to know, and that is why members on this side of the House have been asking the question. It is not good enough that we sit here and just wait for amendments in committee. We are concerned that the amendments may change the fundamental nature of the bill, and I think the business community should be informed of the full impact of the legislation.
We are concerned too about the imbalances in the bill, and there are several. We note the lack of appeal against the decisions of the restrictive trade practices commission through the provincial courts. We have concern that we will be giving to the commission the authority to regulate Canadian business under civil law, but with powers of criminal law to enforce those regulations with no right to appeal. We will want some pretty clear discussions and definitions when we get to committee stage.
Many concerns have been expressed over the "refusal to sell" provisions in the bill. The impact on existing distribution systems in Canada will be dramatic, to say the least, if the bill is passed without amendment. It is not an offence under the proposed bill to refuse to sell, but it is subject to review by the restrictive trade practices commission. This places a cloud over the heads of those people in the distribution chain. We will want to have very clear guidelines so that the business community may operate openly, without the question or threat of a government board or commission interfering in their commercial affairs, and the frustration of not having the right to appeal a decision of the commission to the courts.
Through this legislation the minister wants to blanket business with additional restrictions, but at the same time wants to exempt certain groups. Banks are generally exempted from the provisions in the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. We ask why, Mr. Speaker? Why should they not be covered in the competition legislation? We do not accept the premise that they can be covered adequately by the Inspector General for Banks, who has neither the staff nor the time for that. We do not feel that through this device we should build another bureaucracy to control the banks when there is already that framework within the combines bill.
We notice that the labour unions are exempt from this provision. I realize it is probably not a political thing to say now, but in Hamilton we have a situation where a union has blackballed an entertainment establishment to the point that the proprietor cannot hire live entertainers. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the matter I know, but should both parties not be covered under the law so that they can resolve or settle the matter? On one side the union has caused economic loss by blackballing or delisting the proprietor, and on the other side the proprie-
Combines Investigation Act
tor has obviously grieved the union local and the losers are the entertainers.
The new advertising provisions exempt the federal government itself and its agencies, many of which are in that business. Take, for example, the CNR. For several years the CNR has been transporting Canadians as passengers in baggage cars, yet they advertise on the Toronto to Windsor run "Go CNR and Arrive Happier". I submit that a person cannot sit on the floor of a baggage car and arrive happier, regardless of how short the trip might be. When I pursued this matter with the TH & B, which also transports passengers from Hamilton to Buffalo in baggage cars, I was told the railway companies only guarantee passage; they do not guarantee a seat. I say this is false advertising but as I read the bill before us the CNR, at least, would be exempt from action either under its provisions or under other existing legislation.
There are those in Canada who would question whether the advertising of Canada's savings bonds as "safe and secure" is entirely ethical when one considers the net loss in purchasing power of these bonds.
The same applies to the perpetual bonds which sell for 25 per cent of their face value and pay about 3 per cent interest on which bond holders pay tax. I question very seriously whether the government should advertise such bonds as "safe and secure". In my view, if we are to apply the advertising rule to the commercial world, we should apply it to government agencies as well.
I see, incidentally, the Olympic coins being marketed as belonging to a limited edition. The minister was on the committee which discussed this matter. He probably remembers the meeting-at which we sat until two o'clock in the morning before having a long, informal discussion outside the West Block with the then president of the treasury board, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury).
When the coinage bill was before parliament, hon. members on the government side did not want a limit placed on the number of coins that could be minted. They wanted the issue to be wide open. But now-and this is somewhat ironic-they market the coins as being from "a limited edition by act of parliament". Yet it was only because of an amendment put forward by the official opposition, and accepted by the minister, that a limit was fixed. Even so, I suggest that $450 million worth of coins is hardly what comes to mind as being a limited edition. I might add, though, that I bought some of these coins and helped to sell them to my friends. So I do my bit for the Olympics.
I do not take issue with the basic principle of the bill. We want companies to operate in a market that is as free and competitive as possible. We want the consumer to enjoy a good selection of products at competitive prices and in price ranges to suit his need. We do not want to see the consumer misled or duped, or see him the victim of pyramid sales, or tied sales, or referral sales, or of any of the questionable practices adopted by persons who operate on the borderline of business ethics and morality. This portion of the bill I support, and I am sure everyone in our party supports the consumer side of the legislation.

October 22, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
But we point out that the bill embodies certain questionable limitations. By seeking to exempt the government's departments, banks, labour unions and marketing boards from its provisions, the bill would eliminate a great many people engaged in commercial activities who are in a position to abuse the consumer and create an imbalance in the commercial endeavours of the business community.
If we pass laws like this, they should apply to everyone. I cannot suggest too strongly that the minister should produce a paper, be it any colour he wishes, white, green or yellow, setting forth in clear language the aims of his department as they pertain to business.
The businessman is already confused, to say the least, by the ever-increasing intrusion of government into business. He must comply with a tax act which he cannot interpret. He is affected by tariff regulations which are constantly changing. He is inundated by demands for reports from various government departments. He is being asked to produce more, to increase supplies, to work harder to improve productivity, to pay more taxes, to try to beat inflation, and to contribute more toward unemployment insurance premiums while he finds it difficult to hire adequate staff. And now he sees a restrictive trade practices commission looming on the horizon, a body which will be independent of the government, a body which will have the power to make its own regulations and from whose rulings there will be no appeal.
If the minister really wants to help the small businessman in Canada, and consumers as well, he might ponder means by which we can prevent United States commercial interests from making agreements with offshore manufacturers to supply not only the American market but the Canadian market as well.
Over the years I have talked to hundreds of young business people who found that the distribution of an important product which is sold in Canada was tied up by a United States business concern. In the final analysis, the consumer usually pays more because there is another profit step to be taken into account.
There is the famous-or should I call it the infamous- case of Mr. Harry Dunnett of Burlington, a small businessman who distributed musical instruments. This man started his business from scratch and did quite well. Unfortunately for him, after a few months one of his major offshore suppliers would not sell him any more of his products. He was at a loss to know why. He had sold all the supplies he could get from that particular producer and had paid for all his orders in advance.
Eventually, he found that a United States company, a large public corporation, had approached his supplier and told him they wanted Mr. Dunnett's supply cut off and their wholly owned Canadian subsidiary appointed as the exclusive Canadian distributor. The American company threatened to reduce its purchases from the offshore firm if it did not stop selling to Mr. Dunnett's Canadian company and conform to their wishes.
Thus we see a small Canadian company forced to the wall by an American company and its Canadian subsidiary, and there is no action which can be taken under any of our laws to protect this Canadian businessman. There is

no protection offered either in the Combines Investigation Act or in Bill C-2 which we have before us.
Strange though it may appear, Mr. Dunnett finds he can take some action under the Sherman anti-trust laws in the United States and he is pursuing this course at the present time. I find it ironic, to say the least, that a Canadian businessman should have to resort to a United States law to protect his interests. I realize we cannot pass legislation in Canada which would take effect beyond our borders, but we have other very considerable powers which we could use to protect our businessman from acts such as have been experienced by Mr. Dunnett.
Government members often talk of giving this bill or that bill fast passage, yet at the same time the minister says that he wants to hear all the arguments, positions and ideas that may improve a bill. The fact that this bill has had several runs in this House is beside the point; it is a serious piece of legislation and deserves careful rather than hurried consideration.
We cannot experiment at this stage with the distribution system in this country as if it were an academic exercise. The cost of establishing a distribution system is considerable. The function of distribution, with its backup administration, is extremely sensitive. The establishment of a backup service organization, and the tools and merchandising required to make it part of the distribution system constitute another cost to the whole function of the marketplace.
Before we look into and beyond this matter of refusal to sell and the control and distribution of markets, we have to be sure that we completely understand the function of the after market distribution system in this country. I am sure hon. members know there are many places in Canada that will just not support too competitive a market. Take Newfoundland as an example. In many cases the market will only support one or two business concerns in this field of endeavour. Therefore, before we set in motion something that will offset that, we have to assess whether in the long run we are really servicing that market and doing the consumers there any service or justice at all.
That about concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to seeing the bill go to committee. I know that in committee we will give it long and serious discussion. I hope the minister and the members of the steering committee will not endeavour to restrict debate in any way, or hinder us from bringing before the committee witnesses who wish to appear. There were many who would have liked to appear before the standing committee of the twenty-ninth parliament but were not able to do so. Therefore I hope the minister will be broad enough in his outlook toward the legislation to see that we are able to receive these various people and hear their stories. We must ensure that the legislation we finally frame and pass through the House will not work hardship or inequity, but will in fact serve the business community and consumer, to the benefit of both.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?
October 22, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, with consent, the House would agree to call the ways and means motion appearing on the order paper in the name of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) with respect to export of oil from Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the minister to go to order No. 2 on the order paper, and then return to Bill C-2 afterwards. This can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WAYS AND MEANS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That a Ways and Means motion laid upon the Table, Wednesday, October 2, 1974, with respect to export of oil from Canada be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity at this time to speak on this bill. There is no doubt that it is a slippery piece of legislation, being attempted by a slippery minister in a slippery portfolio. In fact, it might be termed "the last stop and out of the cabinet portfolio".
I was interested to hear some of the remarks of our friends to the left, who were waffling as they usually do on a contentious issue. Their spokesman said, as I recall it, that there should not be a combined marketing of goods, that this should not be allowed. There is no doubt in my mind that this would include marketing boards. They cannot have it both ways; they have to make a decision as to which way they want it, and then act accordingly.
Before embarking further upon my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Are hon. members agreeable to calling it ten o'clock, as suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, a headline in the New York Times reads: "32 Nations Close to Starvation". Here are some of them: Bangladesh, India, Niger, Pakistan, Sudan, Upper Volta. All told, 700 million people live in these 32 countries. The countries are so poor and so short of food that crop failures and the high prices of grain, fertilizer and petroleum threaten them with bankruptcy, and their people with starvation.
The modern world has never faced a disaster of this magnitude. That is why the United Nations is sponsoring a world food conference in Rome. The conference opens two weeks from today. What role will Canada, a breadbasket of the world, play? No one knows.
I asked for a day's debate in parliament to focus attention on this global problem and on Canada's contribution to its solution. The government said no. Yesterday, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) proposed a motion calling on Canada to take the lead in establishing a world commission with the power to transfer food and resources where needed. This is the kind of structural solution the crisis demands. Responding for the government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) thought up all the reasons why this would not work, and then said that "a lot more aspects must be taken into consideration before we could be prepared to set up a concrete world food program."
In the name of God, Mr. Speaker, when will the government get off its fat, Canadian ass and recognize our responsibility to a starving world? How many more television pictures of emaciated children do we have to look at before the government will provide some leadership? How much longer will we enjoy the luxury of worrying about meat prices when millions cannot even get bread?
Two weeks ago representatives from non-governmental organizations from across Canada assembled in Ottawa for the Canadian conference on the world food crisis. I urged the delegates to formulate strong recommendations to the Canadian government that would force Canada to go beyond a mere philanthropic approach at the world food conference, because more dollars for food aid will not be enough. The conference passed a series of visionary and constructive recommendations that deal both with the immediate food emergency and the longer term structural causes of hunger and malnutrition.
I want to hear the government's response to the recommendations of the Canadian conference in a number of critical areas: first, guaranteeing that the developing countries themselves become as self-reliant as possible in food

October 22, 1974
Adjournment Debate
production-this is the only long-term solution to the food crisis; and second, immediate action to increase food production in Canada to meet the present emergency.
I was encouraged by the recent statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to the effect that Canada could increase food production by 50 per cent in five years as long as farmers have guarantees that they will not be penalized for producing surpluses. I agree with him that Canadian farmers must not be forced to bear the whole burden of making more concessional sales of wheat and other foods to developing countries. But let us not deceive ourselves. A program of increased production aimed at making more food available at less cost to developing countries while subsidizing Canadian farmers will be much more costly than traditional food aid programs that dealt with unplanned agricultural surpluses.
One means of financing such a program would be the special tax on industrial raw material exports suggested by the conference. Another means would be to have the international community take on more responsibility for financing world food aid. This goal could be achieved either through an expanded role for the world food program, or through a new World Food Authority that would be established by the Rome conference. It is only just that developed nations which are net food importers, and particularly the petroleum exporting countries, should pay their fair share to whatever international authority is designated as having chief responsibility for world food aid.
One particularly visionary resolution of the Canadian Conference on the World Food Crisis proposes that a form of international taxation, based on ability to pay as measured by per capita income, be instituted to finance a world food plan. Under such a plan, Canadian taxpayers would pay their fair share, but would not be expected to bear the whole burden of producing agricultural surpluses for concessional sale to developing nations.
Canada has already indicated support for the proposal put forward by the Dr. Boerma of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization for international coordination of national grain stockpiles. This is a welcome first step, but it hardly fulfills the need for a truly international food bank.
Since it appears that it will not be politically feasible to establish a large grain reserve under international control at the Rome conference, cannot Canada at least take leadership in calling for a smaller international stockpile of food for emergency purposes?
The World Food Conference secretariat's plan of action recommends that such an emergency stockpile contain
500,000	tons of food which, in my opinion, is surely a minimum. Such a food bank for emergency relief could be stored in the developing world where it is most needed; it could be administered under international control with the participation of the developing countries themselves; and, most important, it could function to remove the temptation for food exporting nations to use their food surpluses for political purposes.
Third, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Conference on the World Food Crisis called for Canada to support the establishment of the new international economic order called

for by the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly last April and May. At the World Population Conference in Bucharest, which I attended, the Canadian delegation avoided making any commitment to the establishment of the new international economic order, despite the insistence of the developing nations and of many expert observers that the implementation of a new economic order is an essential precondition for effective action toward reducing the rate of population growth. Will Canada take the same position at the World Food Conference where the issue of the world economic order is even more crucial?
The growing imbalance in the distribution of wealth that is generated by the present world economic order is at the heart of the food crisis. In fact, last week Dr. Neal Stoskopf of the University of Guelph pointed out that instead of helping the have-not nations, the affluent nations actually import protein from protein-deficient countries.
The statement on "Sharing Daily Bread" issued by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops points out that this scandalous and absurd situation is made possible because the distribution of food is governed by effective demand in the market place and not by human need.
Therefore any real solution of the food crisis must include a redistribution of wealth which determines effective demand, and any long term solution must enable developing countries to achieve greater patterns of selfsufficiency in food. Both of these goals are only possible under a new economic order.
Yet I have seen no evidence that the present government is willing to allow a fundamental restructuring of the world's economic system, a re-ordering of the allocation of food and raw materials, and the reforms of the international trade, monetary and financial institutions called for by the United Nations. Let us listen to Paul Gerin-Lajoie, Director of CIDA, who calls for a new enlightened Canadian attitude towards "a new international order which will help to reduce the present imbalance among nations." If ever there was a moment for Canada to give leadership in providing justice to a suffering humanity, that moment is now.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member one is moved to paraphrase Cecil Rhodes: So much to say in so little time. I was impressed with the sincerity of the hon. member's remarks. Let me repeat, however, the assurance that Canada's position will not be restricted to emergency action, but will encompass and, indeed, put more emphasis on proposed structural changes in the world food system.
I should like to repeat the assurance that Canada's position will not be restricted to emergency action but will encompass, and indeed put great emphasis on proposed structural changes in the world food system. Several possibilities are now being studied. These include: diverting more Canadian aid into agricultural development in developing countries, provided developing countries are willing, where necessary, to reorder their priorities in favour of agricultural development; encouraging developed countries and other new holders of wealth to channel
October 22, 1974

increased amounts of aid into agricultural development in developing countries; and studying other long term options in the appropriate form, for example, liberalization of trade in agricultural goods.
Let me say that the government is studying several ways of enhancing world food security. One device may be an improved world food information system, which some have called an "early warning system" to alert the world to impending crises.
Another may be a voluntary stockholding or reserves system, provided means are found to insulate world trading arrangements from such reserves. Yet another may involve greater consultation among all countries, both food exporting and food importing on food matters.
I compliment the hon. member for raising this issue, particularly in view of the fact that this world conference will be held within the next few weeks, and I think it is time we all had a serious look at the problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-POSITION OF CANADA ON PARTICIPATION OF PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION IN UNITED NATIONS DEBATE ON MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, following the admission of the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the United Nations by an overwhelming vote of 105 for admission, four against admission, and twenty abstentions, I find I need a new reason to believe in the United Nations.
I know the United Nations well. At the beginning of my political career I spent three months there as a delegate. I understand how it works. In view of this and some other decisions on the Middle East problems, I wonder what justification and grounds there are now for reasonable men and men of peace to support that organization.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization has credentials to speak at the United Nations. It is not a government; it is not recognized by all Arab states; it is not even recognized by all the Palestinians. But it has credentials and I wish to read some of them. I have 20 events to recite. I do not know whether or not they were committed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization but it claims credit for them all.
This organization claims credit for these 20 events: hijacking of a civilian airline in 1970, bomb outrages in Jerusalem, bombing incidents in Tel-Aviv, an attack on an Israeli airplane in Athens, an attack on an Israeli airliner in Zurich, and diversion of a United States plane enroute to Israel. I do not wish to take the time of the House to go through the whole list. It is available. These things are documented. They are all things for which this organization claims credit, this organization which now heads for the United Nations with recognized status to speak. Let me refer to one item, number 18 on my list:
Arab terrorists' massacre of Israeli children at Maalot.
I have a newspaper clipping here from the Associated Press and Reuters about that incident. It states:
A Palestinian guerrilla leader said yesterday that the guerrilla attack on the town was "heroic" and warned that similar operations would be launched in the future.
Adjournment Debate
Later the article continues:
We promise the Palestinian people to undertake more such operations as they express a real sacrifice and represent the start of a new stage in the development of commando operations both in size and level.
Look who is coming to dinner; look who is coming to the United Nations. It is a terrorist gang whose objective is not only to establish a homeland for their own people but the total obliteration of the state of Israel. This is their stated objective.
There is nothing inevitable about the survival of state of Israel. That state can go at any time. We should remember that in this House. Canada is one of its friends, one of its best friends. We are committed to its survival. What I should like to say, now that this decision has been taken, not with Canada's approval but by an overwhelming majority of the members of the United Nations without Canada, is that Canada must make every effort to get the Palestinian Liberation Organization to clean up its acts, to denounce acts of terrorism, and to find a new way to put its case forward.
Above all, the PLO must grow to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist, and everything that goes with that right. If it cannot do that, if the PLO maintains its terrorist outlook, Israel may survive anyway. One thing that is obvious is that the survival of Israel does not depend on the United Nations.
But what about the United Nations? Its survival is not inevitable either, and I submit that the kind of decision that the UN took in admitting the PLO raises questions about whether that organization will survive.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, the position of the government on this issue remains as outlined by the minister in reply to the hon. member on October 18. I note in his question the hon. member recognized that the decision taken by the UN was not with Canada's approval because at that time Canada abstained from the voting. I think his challenge is probably to the position that has been taken by the majority of UN members in that vote. Since the time of that vote, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has had the opportunity to discuss this issue fully with the ambassador of Israel and the ambassadors of Arab countries resident in Ottawa, and they have expressed their full understanding of Canada's position.
The hon. member has indicated that surely the PLO should be able to find, rather than the violence which we have seen, a new way to put their case forward. It seems to me that perhaps this is a better way.


HOUSING-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS FOR ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM-AVERAGE EFFECTIVE RATE OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES-POSSIBLE SHIFT IN POLICY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, the question which I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) on October 15 had to do with whether the government proposed to increase the amount of funds made available through programs such as the

October 22, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Assisted Home Ownership Program and other programs, which would go some way at least to meeting the needs of the people in low and middle income brackets for housing which they are at present virtually unable to find at a price which they can afford to pay.
The number of housing starts this year is down substantially from what it was last year when there were 268,000 housing starts. This year there has been a drop of 25 per cent, and it has now been calculated that, unless there is a further deterioration in housing starts, we will build just over 200,000 units a year.
When I asked the question the other day, the minister replied by saying that the government had more than met the proposals made by the Economic Council of Canada some years ago that we build about 200,000 units a year. What the Economic Council said at that time was that we needed a minimum of 200,000 a year. It also argued that housing should not be used as a tool for manipulation, and yet that is precisely what has happened.
This year we are building fewer houses than we did last year, not because the people of Canada need fewer houses but because interest rates have gone well over 11 per cent and most people, including those in the middle income bracket, cannot afford to buy homes.
The minister said the fact that AHOP money has been used up is proof of the success of the program and that the need has been met. Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. From the beginning the money made available under AHOP was far less than the amount needed. The government, through Central Mortgage and Housing, cannot in this minuscule way meet the housing needs of the people of Canada.
Home ownership is not the answer for a substantial proportion of our people. The greatest need is in the area of housing accommodation for rent. This would be true even if sufficient money were made available under AHOP. As I say, we need a substantial increase in the stock of houses for rent, of which we build too few. We need subsidies for families who cannot afford to pay the market price of housing they must rent or own. In the 1940s all the Scandinavian countries realized this fact and adopted housing programs under which they provided houses for people who did not earn enough to buy their own.
In Canada we have done just the reverse. We have built houses, not because the Canadian people needed them, but because building them was necessary to overcome unemployment. Of course, with our present high interest rates, people cannot afford houses. Nevertheless, when unemployment is high, the government pumps money into the, housing field. When unemployment is low, we turn the tap off and stop money for housing.
If there is to be a stable vacancy rate and a stable housing program, we shall need a stable housing policy. I suggest that we need a government policy which will meet the housing needs of the people of Canada, and I include both those who buy and rent accommodation. We need houses that will meet the needs of the people of Canada; they should not be built merely to meet the goals of the government, that is, to reduce unemployment which may arise in the winter of 1974-75, the summer of 1975 or the

winter of 1975-76. Unemployment is one thing; the housing requirements of the Canadian people are another.
In every city of Canada-Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg-we see the core deteriorating from year to year. We see more and more people forced into poor, dilapidated housing which is a disgrace to a country which has the manpower, lumber, copper and all those things one needs to build decent housing.
We have made a start. We have begun to meet the needs of senior citizens for adequate housing. I call on the minister to develop a program which will meet the housing needs of all people in Canada, regardless of income, and provide us with the sort of housing to which this affluent country is entitled.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians can be proud of the fact that year in year out we have managed to build housing at a rythm that has surpassed that of the establishment of new families and immigration. During this period, we have markedly reduced overcrowding and improved housing for a good number of Canadians across the country.
This is greatly due to the Canadian building industry which magnificently met the programs elaborated by the federal government such as, for example, the Assisted Home-Ownership Program.
During the last six years, one of the main concerns of the federal government was to divide housing in a way that would allow low income families to share improved housing conditions with better off Canadians. The government therefore tried to reserve amounts at its disposal to provide first of all for housing for low or middle income families.
We have supported the provinces by granting loans and contributions for social housing. We have supported nonprofit groups who were building housing as well as nonprofit co-operative groups through starting-off funds, 100 per cent financing and 10 per cent contribution of investments to help produce housing for low income people. I have already mentioned the remarkable success of the Assisted Home-Ownership Program in which the government invested some $450 million since the beginning of this year.
It is this unique Canadian approach of partnership between the private sector and the public sector that has enabled us in recent years to attain such a high level of housing production. A target of one million houses over a five-year period was set by the Economic Council of Canada. The government made a commitment to reaching this goal back in 1969. We have surpassed this target, and I think it is to the credit of the housebuilding industry, and all governments concerned, that a total of 1,152,600 units have been produced in the five years.
We hope to continue to improve our programs in 1975. While there has been a drop in starts in recent months due to a variety of reasons including, for example, high mortgage interest rates and increases in the cost of labour and

materials, not to mention the cost of land, I am confident that the declining trend can be halted in 1975.
My minister does not propose at this time to set any precise figure for starts in 1975, but I can assure the House that the government has given careful consideration to the
Adjournment Debate
housing situation in Canada. We have carefully studied the prospects for next year, and we will take appropriate action to ensure a continuation in the general improvement of housing conditions for all Canadians.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, October 23, 1974