1974-05-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 30, 1974-Mr. Fairweather-That the third report o£ the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 30, 1974, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal may gather, the Chair has had an opportunity to consider the terms of the report whose adoption he wishes to move at this time. I have to tell the hon. member and the House that in certain respects, in my view, the report as drafted contains terms which are absolutely without precedent in Canadian procedure and practice. I have no doubt whatsoever that the matter has been the subject of serious consideration by the Chairman and his advisers. I might mention in particular that the report, at least in appearance, seems to set up a new authority to authorize expenditure of public funds, an authority which is currently held by the Commissioners of Internal Economy by virtue of the House of Commons Act.
I want to be fair to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. This is really a caution I am advancing at this time. I would like to have an opportunity to have a discussion with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal before we proceed with the motion. If the hon. member would agree, I would rather do it on this basis.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, wording for the report was suggested by officers of the House of Commons in a form which would allow our committee to have six law students employed should there be a dissolution of parliament. Although I have never been one who is particularly bothered by precedents, I did check with the government House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party and assumed there would be no trouble in employing these six students. However, if the motion is in terms that are not proper, I will take other advice.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. I know how strongly he feels and how important it is to get the committee, of which he is a joint chairman, going. I am anxious to co-operate with him in this regard, but I do feel that in its present terms this report may cause some slight procedural difficulty in the future. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal will, I am sure,
not deny the Chair an opportunity to discuss the matter with him before the motion is put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of present procedures whereby investigatory officers for the Unemployment Insurance Commission occasionally prepare statements for claimants in circumstances which call into question the voluntary nature and the accuracy of the information obtained, and which are often used to the detriment of the citizens concerned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration reaffirm his directive that no statement obtained by investigatory officers would be used against a claimant in terms of disentitlement or disqualification until the claimant had confirmed the accuracy of the statement.
This practice does not appear to be followed in my constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Alexander:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to my part of the city of Toronto. In view of the fact that serious labour disputes at the Firestone and Goodyear plants in Hamilton and Toronto are being aggravated by the large-scale importation of tires from parent companies in the United States, I move,

May 2, 1974
Oral Questions
seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House request the Minister of Finance to investigate whether anti-dumping regulations are being violated, and to consider imposing a temporary tariff to make sure that further tire importation does not prejudice the outcome of these legal strikes.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether Bill C-29, the so-called anti-profiteering bill, represents a part or the whole of the contingency plan the minister has frequently talked about since as long ago as the last budget in connection with the control of inflation? Is this bill part of the contingency plan?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. It is a measure aimed at profiteering and gouging, as the bill itself sets forth.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not blame the minister for disassociating himself from the bill.


Mr. Hees:: As did all other members of the cabinet when it was presented.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since this bill purports to deal with excess profits or profiteering, would the minister tell us whether his budget has been prepared or is being prepared on the assumption that bill will pass or that it will not pass?


John Napier Turner: I never make presumptions as to what parliament may or may not do with a bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from the minister's response that he does not think the bill has anything to do with any contingency plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the interest of all of us, and particularly in the interest of the history of the country, perhaps the hon. gentleman might tell us whether some time this month he would not send the so-called contingency plan to control inflation over to the Public Archives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising from the statement made on more than one occasion by representatives of the food processing industry that prices of canned and frozen vegetables will rise between 20 and 30 per cent in the next few months. Will the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to assess whether these increases will be justified?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that the Food Prices Review Board is available to do that work, one important step is the presentation of Bill C-29 which the hon. member and his party are opposing, thereby showing they are not willing to support efforts to prevent profiteering in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister is under some tension these days but I am surprised that he would stoop to such a low political response. Since he made reference to the Food Prices Review Board, may I ask him whether he has been in touch with the Food Prices Review Board in connection with this matter and, if so, can the minister comment on the statement made by the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to the effect that only a small fraction of the proposed increases in the price of vegetables could be attributed to increased receipts by farmers? In view of the clear contradiction between the assertions of the processors, which I understand the Food Prices Review Board has partly substantiated in a recent statement, and the statement of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is the minister in a position to indicate to the House whether he can comment on that position or has had any discussions with the board on this matter?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the food processors made an informal presentation to the board on this matter. The board has the matter under advisement and we are looking forward to receiving the final conclusions of the board as soon as they are available so as to provide a basis for government action. Certainly the action taken will be in the public interest, not in the way my friend suggested, on a narrow political basis, which is the only way for his party.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and we will have other sup-plementaries on this subject later.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, one final, brief supplementary. Is it the intention of the minister to make a statement on motions within the next few days in regard to the matter I have raised?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it will be my intention on behalf of the government to make appropriate comments once the Food Prices Review Board issues a report containing findings and recommendations.


DAIRYING-INCREASE IN PRICE OF MILK-CONTINUATION OF SUBSIDY TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since yesterday, rumour has it that the price of milk will increase by 5 cents a quart before the end of this month. Is the minister in a position to assert that the 5-cent a quart federal subsidy will continue to be paid as usual even if there is a price increase, so that farmers may receive at least the minimum to continue their production?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the subsidy will continue to be paid because this program has been established on the basis that it was possible to accept a cost increase beyond a certain level and that is what has happened.


EGG PRICES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT BY FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING COUNCIL ON CHARGES MADE BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has referred to the findings and recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board. I ask this question in view of the criticism levelled at the minister and his colleagues by the board yesterday with respect to the slowness of the government in acting on recommendations of the board. Specifically, the chairman of the board referred to the report on egg prices which was given to the minister on January 9 and subsequently referred to the Farm Products Marketing Council for investigation. May I ask the minister when that report will be released in view of the very serious charges made by the Food Prices Review Board in its report, and more particularly in view of the findings of a Canadian Press survey yesterday that eggs, among other things, are going up in price?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has again confirmed his conversion to becoming a supporter of the Food Prices Review Board and its work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member might well come around to agreeing that his program of price and income controls is faulty. The major recommendation of the board that there be a special inquiry into the way the egg marketing system is being carried out by the Farm Products Marketing Council, a body set up by parliament for this very
Oral Questions
purpose. I am advised by the Minister of Agriculture that we can expect their report very shortly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has demonstrated that he has no confidence in the board, by ignoring the main recommendation in its report which was for an immediate reduction in the price of eggs notwithstanding any investigation that might be made, I would ask him when he proposes to act on this recommendation to bring down the price of eggs or else make a statement to vindicate the egg producers of this country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Minister of Agriculture that the price of eggs has gone down since the beginning of the year. In addition, the recommendation involves action by provincial marketing boards as well as the federal board. The basic recommendation for an inquiry is being carried out. I would advise my hon. friend to take another look at the recommendations.


INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING PROCEEDING WITH ANTI-PROFITEERING BILL
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As every other member of the cabinet absented himself from the House when the minister presented Bill C-29 yesterday, is it the intention of the government to pull this bill out quickly because it realizes it is a sham and a farce and will not do the job it is supposed to do?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to speak actively on behalf of this bill and to demonstrate the unwillingness of members of the hon. member's party and the NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair seeks the assistance of hon. members in moving on to the next question. I note there are several members who wish to ask supplementary questions. I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a supplementary question.


EGG PRICES-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY AND ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY AND PRICE TO CONSUMERS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has been recognized and he should be given an opportunity to ask his supplementary question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the chaos that now exists in the egg industry, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether decisions have been made as a result of recent consultations to give some support to the industry

May 2, 1974
Oral Questions
and some assurance to the consumer as to supply and price?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that, contrary to what the hon. member for St. John's East and others have said, egg prices have gone down nearly 15 per cent since the first of this year. The egg industry is in utter chaos and nearly going broke. The producers are marketing eggs below production cost at the present time. We are working on a program with the CEMA group, the Canadian egg marketing group. We are meeting with them and I think we are very close to a solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar for a last supplementary on this matter, and then the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, after the long lapse of time and hardship to producers, will the minister now tell the House when he will be able to announce what the policy of the government is with regard to egg producers in view of the fact they have organized themselves and are now trying to bring some order into the market?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would agree 100 per cent with what the hon. member says, that they have organized and have tried to bring stability to the market. We are going to do everything we can to help them, and it would help us if the House would pass the import-export bill as quickly as it can.


An hon. Member:: Bring it on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. With government cash balances down $1.5 billion in the last quarter including $800 million in March alone, with the result that government cash is now only 4 per cent of government yearly spending, which I think the minister will admit is one of the lowest levels in history, would he indicate to the House if this is the result of government fiscal planning, or has the redemption of Canada Savings Bonds and the Canadian dollar exchange drain taken the government really off guard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that question is highly argumentative, but I will say this in answer to it. The government consciously drew down its cash balance last year as part of its debt management policy. This had the effect for most of the year, in fact most of 1973, of relieving pressure on interest rates and keeping them lower than they otherwise would have been.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I was, of course, speaking about this year and the critical situation in which the government finds itself right now. Has the minister given any consideration, for instance, to indexing the interest rate on Canada savings bonds, or any other such measures to try to alleviate the situation in which it now finds itself?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I may have something to say about the entire position of the government in 1973, 1974 and 1975 and I will deal fully with these matters on Monday night.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact the Unemployment Insurance Commission is part of the government's social policy, can the Prime Minister indicate to the House if the member for Verdun was stating government policy when he said, "Think of the UIC as a fiscal tool"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rule, and I am sure all hon. members do, that a member cannot ask whether a statement made by a member of the House is government policy. Such a question be asked in relation to a statement made by a member of the government outside the House but not in relation to a statement by a private member, albeit the hon. member for Verdun.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rephrase the question. Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission in fact a fiscal tool for redistributing money in the most disadvantaged areas of the country and the economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, obviously redistribution of money through the Unemployment Insurance Act from those who pay insurance to those who are unemployed and drawing payments has very serious and important fiscal effects. This was stated when the bill was presented in the House and it is with this knowledge, I hope, that the opposition parties supported it.


John Raymond Ellis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he feels this is a crucial part of the social policy that gives the government flexibility to deal with such issues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has important macroeconomic effects in those parts of the country where unemployment is high, and I would hope it would be the desire of the country to see this happen.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would want me to answer some of the statistical questions he asked yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought not, Mr. Speaker.
May 2, 1974


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact many applications for beef subsidy payments have been in the hands of the department responsible for payment since at least April 1, well before the postal strike, can the minister advise these individuals, many of whom now have several thousand dollars in accounts receivable, when they can expect to receive payment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they are being processed very rapidly. I am sure the hon. member knows that no government mail was dispatched during the slowdown in the handling of mail at the post office in the capital city. I checked the figures the other day and I think we have paid out nearly $8 million.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will get together with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and trade some of the interest that department will pick up by reason of people sending in cheques before the May 21 deadline and give it to some of these people who have these receivables?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the people receiving this premium money on beef are only too happy to get it because they will be in a position that they may well be submitting cheques to the Department of National Revenue.


EGG PRODUCTION-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF PLAN TO PROTECT PRODUCERS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in a sense supplementary to a previous round addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Inasmuch as the Canadian egg industry has been losing approximately $100,000 a week in sales for the past month because of cheaper United States imports, the price of which, incidentally, has not been reflected in lower retail prices, can the minister tell us when he will be in a position to give us the details of his plan to protect Canadian producers through import controls, limitation or increased support prices?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member has so many ideas-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -and I do appreciate receiving them even at this late date. But I can only say to him that he must be patient. All I can say to him is, soon.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased that somebody around here has some ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Can the minister indicate whether or not his assistance to the egg industry will be in the form of either increasing the support price from 28 Vi cents, which is
Oral Questions
ridiculous at this time, or in the form of an export limitation?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member would not want me to make any announcement now which would make it possible for shylock importers to take advantage of the situation and get an unwarranted rip-off.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister, on the recommendation of the National Council of Welfare, introduce immediate legislation to end discriminatory practices which now cause married women to lose their independent credit rating and acquire that of their husbands?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very meritorious recommendation and I also think it should be brought to the attention of the provinces within whose jurisdiction that particular matter falls.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the House is really interested in the meat problem today. I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
After representations he received from hog producers as well as those I made some weeks ago, can the minister tell the House whether he will be announcing shortly the measures taken to give financial assistance to hog producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was asked the same question yesterday and I answered that we are considering the different programs in Canada. We have to come up with one that will replace all the programs that the different provinces have. That is not easy, but we hope to be doing something in the near future.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that heavy losses have been suffered by hog producers, in particular since January, would the minister say if he had been advised by his officials of some policy that would offer some compensation for these losses, especially those suffered since January?

May 2, 1974
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are considering many suggestions that have been made by different farm organizations along with the suggestions the hon. member has made. However, I am sure he is aware of what the Minister of Agriculture from la belle province has done so far as hog producers in his own province are concerned.



TURKEYS-ACTION TO ELIMINATE DIFFICULTIES OF PRODUCERS CAUSED BY IMPORTS

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to others directed to the Minister of Agriculture and has to do with the importation of United States turkeys. Does the government intend to take any action to correct this situation which is causing great difficulty to Canadian turkey producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being considered together with the programs we are trying to work out with the egg producers of the nation.



ACTION TO REDUCE COST OF BALER TWINE TO ASSIST FARMERS

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. The price of baler twine has increased to a level beyond all reason and will result in unreasonable increases in the cost of baling this year's crops of hay and fodder. Can the minister and his department take any action to reduce these costs to a more realistic level and thus assist the farm economy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the United Co-operative Growers of Ontario have told'me that they have a boatload of baler twine on the way here. We are checking all the world's supply of the sisal product that is used in the manufacture of twine. If we can have it here before the real season is upon us, we may be able to assist farmers a lot more than some of us thought we could a few weeks ago.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: May I ask the minister if the price of this new twine will be more realistic and more economical than present prices?


Eugene Whelan: It will be better than has been suggested. I am told by some people that the price has been as high as $26 a bale. It will be substantially less than that.



HOUSING


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of the fact that money for housing has dried up, particularly in British

Columbia, because of abnormally high interest rates and, if so, what does he plan to do about it?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is not my information, although recent actions have caused a slowdown in the building of rental accommodation. As I indicated in the House in a speech not long ago, within the budget of CMHC we are giving priority attention to markets such as Toronto and Vancouver to ensure a supply of government funds in those areas.


Donald W. Munro: Do I understand the minister to say he is prepared to admit that in the present circumstances NHA loan ceilings are too low to be practical in large urban centres and that he has a policy in the works to do something about it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I indicated two weeks ago that the loan levels under the National Housing Act and other lending statutes were under review. I hope to make an announcement on this very shortly.



APPROVED LENDERS NOW MAKING LOANS UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House which of the approved lenders are presently making loans under the National Housing Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: A great many of them are. If the hon. member is referring to one particular company, obviously I would not have details of that in the question period, but all classes of approved lenders are making loans under the act.



ACTION TO ENSURE STEADY SUPPLY OF MORTGAGE MONEY TO BUILD HOUSES

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact numerous indications have been received that approved lenders are not in fact, making loans at present for mortgages, in particular under the National Housing Act, because of the uncertainty in the financial markets, and in light of the minister's statement last year recorded during the budget debate in Hansard, page 1431, which reads as follows:
If nothing is done, there is a prospect that inflationary expectations will rise. This could disrupt financial markets, drive up interest rates, disturb the exchange market and impose a brake on the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question. ,


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question is: what does the minister propose to do immediately in the short run to ensure a consistent supply of mortgage money for building construction in Canada and at interest rates which are agreeable to both the lender and the borrower?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the private market is pouring about $2 billion more into the conventional mortgage market than it did last year.
May 2, 1974



APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION-POSITION CONCERNING DEPRECIATION NO LONGER ALLOWED INVESTORS

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of his answer that there is some indication of a slowdown in housing, is the government now reconsidering the position that it took concerning the depreciation that is no longer allowed to investors in that sector in terms of apartment construction?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that question relates to the application of the Income Tax Act and is properly answerable by the Minister of Finance.



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some days ago I again raised the question of the announced closure of General Instrument Corporation in Sydney and at that time asked the President of the Privy Council what the government was planning to do to assist those people who were affected in regard to future employment. The President of the Privy Council advised that he had discussed it with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and he said he hoped he would put in place all the available instruments to assist the people so affected. May I ask the minister if these available instruments consist of processing unemployment insurance claims, something which is normal, or does he have other ideas to provide employment for the 600 already laid off and the 400 others who will be laid off?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had an updated report the other day for the hon. member in anticipation of this question. Unfortunately I do not have it with me now. If my memory serves me correctly, our manpower consultative services met with the principals of the firm in question some time ago and have been working with them to implement all the measures that can be taken, including training, the availability of mobility grants, the development of alternative employment where possible and, of course, the provision of unemployment insurance claims processing. If the hon. member has any further information which would indicate that there is any deviation from that in recent days, I will be very pleased to hear it and I will move on it, but that is the state of affairs as I recall it.
Oral Questions INCOME TAX



EFFECT OF CUT IN PERSONAL INCOME TAXES REFERRED TO BY PRIME MINISTER IN LIGHT OF INCREASE IN RATE OF INFLATION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to the Prime Minister the questions I asked him yesterday and which it seems he would like to answer today. My first question was:
When the right hon. gentleman says that the government cut personal income taxes last year by about 12 per cent, does he mean that the average taxpayer will be paying roughly 12 per cent less in actual dollars during 1973 than was the case in 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I mean, Mr. Speaker, and what I said in my text, is that the measures in last year's budget provided for a reduction in personal income tax equivalent to 12 per cent lower than otherwise would have prevailed if we had not brought in those budgetary measures. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is not and cannot be described as an average figure. This is the over-all effect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Here comes the weaseling.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand the uneasiness of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, because for some people, especially those at the lower end of the scale, the reduction was not 12 per cent but 100 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the second question was-


An hon. Member:: Three strikes and you're out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You want more than three strikes or this government would have been out a long time ago. My second question was:
In view of the Minister of Finance having recognized, when he introduced the indexing concept, that inflation actually increases the effective income tax rate under our system of progressive taxation, can the Prime Minister indicate whether the cuts in nominal tax rates of which he speaks,-[DOT]
-and to which he was referring-
-exceed for 1973 the effective increase in the tax on real income which resulted from the increase in the rate of inflation to nearly 10 per cent? Did the cut in the nominal rate exceed the actual increase resulting from inflation and, if so, by how much?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is linked to the first question and the reply to the first question. Since there was a very highly progressive cut in personal income taxes, the effect was to leave in the hands of Canadians more money, more take-home pay, than they would have had otherwise had there not been these budgetary measures. I must add that this is not only highly progressive but in terms of effect it has a considerably better effect on the people at the lower end of the income scale than the straight across the board 7 per cent cut that was proposed by the opposition at the time of the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 2, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Prime Minister refers to the last election because both he and the Minister of Finance said that any cut in income taxes would be irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the cut in nominal rates to which he refers offset the increase in taxes that actually took place as a result of inflation? Can he say yes or no, and never mind all the skating around?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, precisely because there was a very progressive cut I repeat that there is no yes or no for the whole group of taxpayers. We would have to take each one in turn and calculate the effect of the tax cut on them and the effect of inflation on them. I repeat that when some taxpayers, because of this progressive measure, saw their taxes cut 100 per cent, then obviously they are much better off than those at the high end of the income scale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government giving active consideration to the recommendations of the National Council of Welfare, which were published a day or so ago, especially the recommendation that social security benefits should be escalated according to the rise in the national income of the country and not just on the basis of the rise in the cost of living?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the National Council of Welfare has come forward with reports and recommendations that have always been extremely helpful to the social security review we are undertaking with the provinces. Obviously this report will also be considered by the federal-provincial conference reviewing our social security at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question. In view of the time that will be taken by that review, will the minister give immediate consideration to the suggestion made by the council that there be established a special cost of living index for pensioners and others, an index related to the goods that they actually have to buy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I can only give to this supplementary question the same answer that I gave to the first one.



PRAIRIE PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR EARLY PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION-DISTRIBUTION OF COST BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. While everyone is pleased with the fact that flooding conditions within the last few days on the prairies have greatly subsided, there is a widespread demand on the part of those who have suffered damages to learn what are the possibilities of early compensation for their losses. What distribution will be made in respect of the total amount of the losses in each province as between the federal and the provincial governments?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware we have received no official request from the province of Saskatchewan or the province of Alberta. They told us they were going to appraise the situation and then let us know. We have not received this yet. I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows there is a program in which we will participate, a program that has been used by all governments, formulated on a per capita basis, with the provincial government and the federal government paying up to 90 per cent of the losses, and the municipal people paying 10 per cent or the producers paying 10 per cent. This has to be worked out with the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether or not PFRA officials have been asked to make an investigation of the losses and an estimate of the damage done in the provinces, because there is a great deal of uncertainty on the part of those who have suffered damages as to exactly what is going to happen.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a detailed answer for the right hon. gentleman. I know that at the height of the problem PFRA officials were at the various sites, particularly in Saskatchewan. Whether they will be asked to carry out additional work I am not sure. I can assure the right hon. gentleman and the House that if their services are required they will be made available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty of the life of the government, would either minister make a general statement before the orders of the day as to the present position on the prairies and give an estimate of the damage and also a general outline as to the probability of early settlements being made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I might do better than that. I may go to Saskatchewan on Friday and say it right there.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. There are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period. I shall recognize the hon. member for
May 2, 1974

Vancouver Quadra, but I believe the right hon. gentleman has a further supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should not have to remind the minister that announcements such as that should be made in the House of Commons and not outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, if it were a new policy I would agree with the right hon. gentleman, but as I would be restating the government's program I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not object. Furthermore, I invite him to come with me to Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I always like good company, and I think the minister would be good company.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, assured residents of Vancouver that no federal agency will be permitted to bypass the planning process relating to Vancouver harbour and that he was completely opposed to proceeding with any Vancouver waterfront proposals until the joint federal-city waterfront planning study had been completed, and in view of the fact that demolition of buildings and property under the control of the Minister of Transport took place late last month, would the Prime Minister tell the House which of his ministers is indicating government policy in this area of great importance to the people of Vancouver?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the question and inquire of both ministers what the position is.



LACK OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR OFFSHORE OIL EXPLORATION ON ATLANTIC COAST

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On December 6 the Prime Minister said in the House that offshore oil exploration on the Atlantic coast had not proceeded as rapidly as the government would have wished. As lack of regulations creates uncertainty and is a disincentive which is setting back Canada's goal of self-sufficiency in eastern Canada, will the Prime Minister say why the government has not brought in regulations for federal lands as it is now four years since the previous regulations were withdrawn?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House has had a report from me previously about the negotiations the federal government has entertained with the five easternmost provinces. I believe it is now known that one of those provinces has decided to go its own way and not to continue negotiating with the group. As a result I told that premier that we would be prepared to take the matter to the Supreme Court with, hopefully, a form of reference that would be jointly submitted. I have not had any response from him yet. I am referring to the Premier of Newfoundland.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Would it not be possible for the federal authorities to make known their regulations and decide at a later time how the royalties or proceeds would be divided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly consider that, but I hope that we would not be accused then by any Tories opposite that these were tactics of confrontation. However, I thank the hon. member for suggesting that.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he know that at the present time pork, egg, beef and milk producers are losing money and also that we are now seeing many more auctions than ever before in our history, because farmers are auctioneering to discharge their debts? Could the Prime Minister tell us whether it is government policy to let things go on as they are now so that in few years Canada will have to import all its food?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might attempt to reply briefly to the question, but it seemed to me to be more a speech than a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought that the question was put to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: The question was indeed directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether the hon. member's question was addressed to me or to the Prime Minister. All I want to say is that the record shows that the government does care.

May 2, 1974
Oral Questions FISHERIES



CANADIAN POSITION AT FORTHCOMING ICNAF MEETINGS RESPECTING HADDOCK QUOTA

Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the Canadian government yet taken a position with regard to what quota for haddock will be sought for the Atlantic area at the upcoming ICNAF meetings?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position in respect of these negotiations is currently being developed in close consultation with the industry and fishermen; and the negotiations will take place in about a month's time.



POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL ACTION BY CANADA TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house what action he intends to take with respect to the recommendation presented to the Standing Committee on Fisheries yesterday by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and also with respect to the resolution adopted by the standing committee having to do with the taking of unilateral action by Canada to protect our marine resources?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, Canada has never taken unilateral action when there was a possibility of resolving differences with other countries through negotiation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps with the co-operation of the hon. member for St. John's West we might have time for two or three quick questions without supplementaries.



MANPOWER


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If there are only four or five community employment programs planned so far for the next couple of years, how many people will be involved in those four or five programs, how many will be employed, and what is the funding?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, discussion of the community employment program has been taking place between the federal ministers, myself and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and provincial welfare ministers. At the last meeting on February 20 it was agreed that we would begin to develop and explore through negotiation between the provinces and ourselves 10 to 20 pilot projects for this fall and winter spread across the country, which would then give us a basis for expansion, if it were

thought desirable, into a formal program next year. I do not know where the hon. member got his information about four or five programs. We are not in any position to indicate what the funding will be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister now fulfilled his commitment, given in the House on Monday, to take a quick look at the brief submitted by the Canadian Food Processors Association and, if so, what action is the minister going to take on the disturbing submission of that report that the price of processed foods will have to be increased by a minimum of 24 per cent?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I checked and was advised that the association did not submit a formal written brief to the commission but made an informal presentation. The action I propose is Bill C-29, which the hon. member's party opposes and therefore is along with the NDP siding with the gougers and profiteers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Marcel Prud'komme (Saint-Denis):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I knew patience is always rewarded. I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Will he tell the House what circumstances beyond control prevented the broadcast of the national news bulletin on the French network of the CBC last night?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I will check into it.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the Secretary of State did not understand my question.

I could repeat it in English.
May 2, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated a moment ago that we had reached the end of the question period. I allowed two or three hon. members to put supplementaries and-Order! Would the hon. member resume his seat? I understand that it is possible the minister did not understand the question of the hon. member. He may repeat it without adding any supplementary after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.

The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe will have to wait a moment.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, without asking a supplementary, I may want to clarify my question.
Were the incidents which last night prevented the French-speaking population from hearing its news bulletin in French on the CBC TV caused by the fact that the persons responsible for the broadcast took part in the firsi of May march and, if so, does the minister intend to ask these persons to fulfil their work contract?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter.



GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO DEAL WITH ALCOHOLISM

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure it will be of interest to all parliamentarians. In view of the fact that Canadian consumption of alcoholic beverages has reached an all-time high-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: -a most unenviable record, I must say, and it has been admitted that the control of alcohol abuse in Canada is fragmented and weak, has the minister any plans to step up all programs in order to try to counteract some of this abuse for the betterment of the health of Canadians at large?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member look at the working document, "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", which was tabled in the House yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate there are a number of hon. members who wish to ask questions. However, I have stretched the situation as much as I can. With the co-operation of hon. members, the Chair will now call orders of the day.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been communications between representatives of the parties and as copies of the National Petroleum Company bill are now in the hands of the staff
Business of the House
of the House, I wonder whether we could revert to introduction of bills to give it first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, to establish a national petroleum company.


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

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader the regular Thursday question about the order of business, perhaps very sadly for the last time in the twenty-ninth parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-29 to be followed tomorrow by the report stage of the Canada Pension Plan. This will be followed by the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Do not be sad, my hon. friend, we are going to be here for a little while yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader if we will be officially starting the budget debate on Tuesday of next week or has a final decision been made on that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to call the budget debate on Tuesday. However, since that time I have had further representations. I will probably notify the House on Monday, maybe late on Monday but nevertheless on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there is still time for consideration of an important bill, when will we see the War Veterans Allowance Act amending bill?

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the House will have an opportunity to deal with that bill this session. I also remind the House that there are two bills in the standing committees, one dealing with the export-import situation and the other the oil bill, which we really ought to deal with as quickly as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether he will consider defeat on Bill C-29 as being non-confidence in the government? If so, is the minister prepared to test the confidence of the House before bringing down a budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted my colleagues about that question of confidence. It is highly speculative and hypothetical. I think the proper position would be to decide these matters after the vote rather than before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-29, to amend the Combines Investigation Act in relation to profiteering practices, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Ron Athey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in calling this bill today I wonder whether the government House leader is really a masochist or not. Yesterday at the time of adjournment I was discussing the unprecedented delegation of arbitrary power to the executive under this bill. One of the key phrases contained in this bill is, and I quote:
-profit margin ... that is greater than he would customarily obtain on such sale or distribution;
It is to be the cabinet alone that will determine in its own way what this phrase means.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) is having serious difficulty being heard. Perhaps we could have a little co-operation from hon. members.


Ronald George Atkey: There are no standards, no criteria or no guidelines in the legislation. The discretion in the cabinet is completely unfettered. Yesterday the minister tried to provide some sort of explanation. I quote from his explanation which is recorded at page 1938 of Hansard:
Customary profit margin could be defined differently for each level of distribution. For example, the method to be applied could be different for a manufacturer as opposed to the retailer of a product.

For example, the method to be applied could be different for a manufacturer as opposed to a retailer of a product. The term "customary" could be prescribed to the margin realised during a given past period of time.
He then went on to say:
In setting out the manner of determination of customary profit margin, consideration would be given to the prevailing economic climate and the business cycle of the particular sector. In addition, the guidelines would be sufficiently flexible to take into account their application to firms operating at low levels of profit or at a loss, or to new businesses.
Again, this does not tell us what guidelines the cabinet will follow. It is an example of arbitrary discretionary power.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: How would you define them?


Ronald George Atkey: It does not tell us what research work the cabinet will take into account when setting these guidelines or what opportunity will be provided for those affected, such as manufacturers and distributors, to make their views known to the government when a proposed profit margin is to be put in place. Will they be given an opportunity to be heard? None of this is provided for in the legislation and no guarantee was contained in the undertaking given by the minister yesterday. More important still, there is no procedure for reviewing a cabinet decision. It is an arbitrary determination by cabinet, that is all.
I would ask hon. members to consider the powers proposed to be given to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Section 56(1) (b) gives the Commission power to impose what is, in effect, an excess profits tax. This is no ordinary tax. It is a tax imposed in an arbitrary and possibly discriminatory manner, and, as was pointed out yesterday, by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), it is a tax introduced without reference to a ways and means motion. It is a tax of a nature which provides revenue to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, as such, it should have been introduced in the course of a budget.
The bill also gives the Restrictive Trades Practices Commission power to accept a report of any government-appointed body or person relating to price increases. It gives the Commission power to accept the results of research and investigation and inquiries leading to related reports. All this information is admissible in evidence before the Commission. Again, no person affected or likely to be affected by an order of the Commission has the right of cross-examination, the right of access to the persons who prepared any of these reports or conducted any of these investigations. There is no right to challenge the validity of any of the information which is placed before the Commission. This is a further example of arbitrary power conferred, in this instance, on a Commission. It is a power which I, for one, will oppose.
But the most arbitrary power of all is the discretionary power of the cabinet under section 58 to vary or rescind any order of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Moreover, changing an order made by the RTPC involves no right to a hearing, no right of defence, no right of review. All the procedural rights given to the parties before the Commission are over-ridden and usurped when
May 2, 1974

the cabinet steps in to vary or rescind an order. The cabinet has complete discretion in this regard. There are no standards, no criteria, no due process of procedure. It is just gut reaction, and that is exactly what the bill involves.
Our concern in attacking the bill from this side of the House is not founded in any way on a desire to condone profiteering or gouging by big business. The point is that the bill does not do the job. As the leader of the New Democratic Party correctly stated, its proclamation will do absolutely nothing to stop inflation. More important, it may lull Canadians into a false sense of complacency; it may lull them into thinking something is being done about inflation when in fact nothing will be done. To the extent that the government proposes to apply this bill to certain industries or articles, or classes of articles, it would represent an unprecedented exercise of arbitrary executive power, uneven, inequitable, and, in some cases, counter-productive.
I should like to repeat what was said by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) after the conclusion of the last session of parliament, on January 17:
My concern and the concern of the Progressive Conservative Party is not for the big interests and the highly organized groups which have enough muscle and financial reserve to remain comfortable through periods of escalating inflation-those which can stabilize their own situation sufficiently to ride high and relatively unscathed through endless boom-bust cycles.
Our concern is for the unorganized worker who sustains terrible losses in real income in today's circumstances and who always faces the threat of unemployment as the cycle moves on. Our concern is for the small Canadian business and for the diligent Canadian salary-earner who has struggled to put a modest amount into savings for his family's future needs and for his own retirement.
That is the concern of the Progressive Conservative Party and the bill before us will do nothing to meet that concern.
In summary, the bill reflects a government without leadership, a government which lacks a firm hand at the tiller. The performance yesterday of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) prompted an exodus of other ministers from the chamber reminiscent of rats deserting a sinking ship. It is bad enough that the bill was not presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), as it should have been had the government been really serious about it. But for the minister to be left alone in the House at the peak of his presentation yesterday was the ultimate insult; it supposes the virtual collapse of the government. The bill was hastily conceived and thrown together as a sop to the NDP. It was not carefully thought out either as to substance or as to procedure. It gave no evidence of leadership or firm direction on economic questions and the statements of the minister and of the Prime Minister subsequent to its introduction have done nothing to correct that failing. But most important, it will do nothing to tackle the real problems of inflation.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate for two reasons; first, to reply to some of the rather hasty criticisms which have been made by spokesmen for the opposition, and, second, to expand upon the remarks made by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Profiteering Practices
Affairs (Mr. Gray) as to the purpose of the bill and the intentions of the government with respect to its application.
Let me begin by saying this categorically: the Government of Canada is determined to deal with profiteering and gouging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: If parties opposite wish to take a contrary position, which means taking a stand in opposition to this bill, that is their business. To say the bill is inadequate or imperfect is one thing; there is always the possibility for improvements to be made in committee. But when the opposition simply opposes the bill, I suggest their attitude is hypocritical.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I interpret that opposition as being political manoeuvring which indicates there is no serious concern for the problems of profiteering and gouging that is basically the reason that this government has introduced this bill. The government has only one purpose in this bill, and that purpose is to deal with profiteering and gouging, nothing else. It is not meant to be a substitute for over-all price and wage control. It is not meant to be a substitute for selective price and wage control, or selective price control as advocated by the NDP. We have taken a position that is in opposition to the application of over-all wage and price control under present circumstances. We are still of that view, though I am not quite sure whether the party opposite is. During this debate I would certainly welcome a clarification of the position of the Progressive Conservative party on the problem of controlling inflation.
One of the reasons I take this position, Mr. Speaker, is this. Yesterday I listened to the reaction to the announcement made by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) of an increase in salary for public servants to reflect, and to adjust their salaries to, the recent unprecedented inflation. What was the attitude of the spokesman of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), when this position was placed before the House by the President of the Treasury Board? He said it was inadequate. This, Mr. Speaker, is the party that is in favour of wage controls.
Does this mean that the Progressive Conservative party is in favour of wage controls for the private sector but not for the public service? Is that what is meant by his statement? Certainly, that is the implication of the position taken by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I suggest this shows that the party opposite, which has pretensions to power, has no policies and does not intend to enunciate any, and hopes that it will drift into office. I doubt whether that attitude is going to appeal to the people of Canada who want action.
I should like to have the positions taken by the various parties clearly defined. Would the Progressive Conservative party let us know now whether they are still in favour of over-all price controls, whether they would still freeze

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
prices for 90 days, or 120 days, whatever period it is; and since they have had a couple of years to think about this idea, would they let us know what is going to happen after the 90 or 120 day period? It seems to me that a party which is criticizing the government for bringing in a bill to deal with profiteering and gouging, not with price control, should define its own position in relation to these central questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us hear from the Minister of Finance on this subject.


An hon. Member:: You will on Monday.


Mitchell William Sharp: Bill C-29 before us is a complicated bill because it is dealing with a complicated question. But may I say this in reply to some of the criticisms that have been made. The bill was not hastily drafted; it was not hastily considered. It has been under consideration for many weeks and months now. I can assure the House that it has been under consideration, not in response to suggestions that have been put forward in the House particularly, but ever since the government announced through the Speech from the Throne that legislation of this kind would be brought forward. This bill is in direct line with the Speech from the Throne and the policies enunciated at that time.
Although this bill was considered over a long period of time, Mr. Speaker, 1 am not suggesting that it cannot be improved. I have had long enough experience in this House and in the business of government to know that all legislation can be improved. Not only that, but I have great respect for my hon. friends opposite. I am sure they can offer some very interesting and constructive suggestions, whether they are members of the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party or the Credi-tiste party.
I should like to deal generally with the procedure that is contemplated in the bill because it seems to me there has been a good deal of confusion which has been compounded by some of the hasty criticisms made by hon. members opposite. Let me refer to the Food Prices Review Board, which is now in place and established. That board has been monitoring food prices now over a considerable period of time and has operated by persuasion. It has had a considerable number of successes and it has also had a large number of critics. But there is one point upon which all parties are now agreed, and that is that the time has come to put some teeth into the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board. That is what this bill will do. This bill will establish the enforcement machinery.
On paper, the procedure that is outlined in the bill may appear rather cumbersome.


Mr. Baker:: That is the understatement of the year.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, I regret to say that opposition spokesmen, either deliberately or otherwise, have made it appear much more cumbersome than it actually is. The reason for the procedure in the bill is that the government is concerned to be both fair and effective at one and the same time. I make no apology for an attempt to be fair. I do not want this piece of legislation-and I know the government does not either-to be categorized as a witch hunt. That is not its purpose. We have no intention of

penalizing the manufacturer or the merchant who is making an honest living and taking a normal profit. Indeed, we on the government side want to encourage business of this kind and will take all measures that are reasonable to encourage businessmen who are honest, who are not profiteering or gouging. Our target in this bill is the manufacturer or merchant who is profiteering and gouging. That is the purpose of this bill and is why I said at the beginning that those who are opposed to the bill are opposed to the attack on profiteering and gouging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The second point that I should like to make is that, contrary to the assertions that have been made in this House, the government can act quickly on a report of the Food Prices Review Board recommending action. A price stop can be put into effect immediately without any cumbersome machinery. The opposition has misrepresented the bill in this respect, either deliberately or, perhaps, inadvertently. I am not going to attribute motives here but I can assure the members of the House that the bill is quite clear on this point. A price freeze comes into effect at the time of the declaration if we so wish. There is no cumbersome machinery to be dealt with. There is, however, machinery to protect


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he would be good enough to read the clause in the bill that provides what he says is provided-that is to say, that without any further hearing a declaration is made and the price is frozen. Would he please read the clause in the bill that makes that provision?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have read it, Mr. Speaker. It would not be appropriate for me, on second reading of the bill, to read clauses of the bill, but I can assure the hon. gentlemen that there is provision for this procedure. As soon as a declaration is made, a price freeze can come into effect, and no one can raise prices for 30 days without notice. This effectively freezes prices for 30 days.
It is also important-and this is why I emphasize the point of fairness-that Canadian businessmen should be enabled to raise their prices if this is warranted by cost increases, and normal mark-ups and profits should be permitted. To act otherwise would be grossly discriminatory. And not only that; it would, of course, act in opposition to what I am sure every member of this House wants, and that is to encourage honest businessmen to produce as much as possible. That is our purpose, and I am sure it is the purpose of everyone in this House. So, we have to establish procedures to ensure that the action we take is fair and legitimate, and that all the merchants concerned have an opportunity of appealing if they disagree with the judgment of the officials.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that food products are not our only concern. There are other products in respect of which the government believes action may be required and where action will be taken. May I deal briefly with the suggestion made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), not only on this occasion but on other occasions. I

think it is part of the official platform of that party, this idea of a general prices review board.
It was suggested that this is an alternative the government could have employed instead of using the procedures established in this bill, that is the government might have appointed a general prices review board. We looked very carefully at that alternative and we came to the conclusion that this would have produced unnecessary bureaucracy. Moreover, it was suggested that we could have included a number of other things including services. It seems to us that the reaction to such a proposal would justifiably have been that this is political window dressing. That is the charge that has been made against this bill. I can assure the House that if the government had brought in a general prices review board which purported to have all these powers which were directed at only the question of profiteering and gouging it would have appeared as an inflated proposal that should be condemned out of hand as unnecessary bureaucracy, and that is why we proceeded as we did.
The basic assumption underlying this bill, and I believe it is a justifiable assumption, is that profiteering and gouging are the exception and not the rule in Canada. It is also assumed that the particular circumstances which have led to recent rapid increases, and that facilitate profiteering and gouging, are of a temporary nature, and, although they will persist for some time, we believe they are not of an indefinite duration. The government therefore decided to monitor pricing practices in areas other than food products by a selective approach, by instituting inquiries in important areas where profiteering and gouging could have widespread and pervasive effects, but also, and this is an important provision of the bill, retain freedom of action to act even without an inquiry.
So this machinery which has been described as cumbersome could in fact be put into effect quickly, and could be very effective in dealing with the only problem with which this bill is concerned, namely that of profiteering and gouging.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has indicated that it would be possible to move very quickly without an inquiry, and he has also suggested that the bill was given considerable consideration over an extended period before it was drafted and presented to the House. Is he in a position, in view of what he suggests actually took place, to lay on the table at the present time a list of those articles or classes of articles or companies which, in the government's opinion, should be subject to this kind of action in the immediate future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with this question very directly as it is an important one. If the government were to institute a number of inquiries, which it could do under the Inquiries Act, into areas where profiteering and gouging were suspected to arise, then unless we had this bill there would be no effective action that could be taken against those industries or those corporations. I suggest to the hon. member in answer to his question that we should
Profiteering Practices
get this bill through so the government will be able to act effectively against profiteering and gouging, because without this bill it cannot. That is the situation and that is why I say the members of the opposition have a responsibility to the people of this country to support effective action against profiteering and gouging, and the most effective action that can be taken is to support this Bill C-29.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I submit that while the action that we are taking looks less impressive than the establishment of a general prices review board, in fact it is likely to be more effective. It is likely to be more effective because it will be a good deal less wasteful and less bureaucratic for the intended purpose.
Now, I come to the question of services. This is another major question raised by spokesmen for the opposition. I would like to deal briefly with it as I would like the opposition to know that we did very seriously consider whether or not we should include services within the scope of the legislation. They were omitted for three reasons. In saying that, I would like to make it clear that if a case can be made for putting some of these services back in the bill, because there are serious omissions, the government would not be strongly opposed. Indeed, we would look sympathetically at any suggestion that would be made in this field, if it were constructive. Let me explain why at the initial stages we took services out.
If you look first at services like hairdressing, laundries and things of this kind, the government was very doubtful whether one would want to proffer charges of profiteering and gouging in service industries of this kind. Then we come to the major service industries in the financial field, like banking, money lending and other financial institutions. The problem here is that they do not lend themselves to the kind of procedures provided in this bill. Moreover, many of them are under the supervision of government agencies and to add them to this bill might create some confusion, and probably would not add to the effectiveness of what is being done now.
The third class, of course, includes services such as transportation, telephone rates. These kind of services are now under public control and certainly there would be no point in putting them under this bill. As I say, these are the reasons we left services out, and if the House or parliament decides in its wisdom that services should be included, the government is not particularly opposed. What we did not want to do was mislead the people. We want this bill to be effective, and the place where it can be most effective is in the field of goods.
We now come to the question of land. Everyone will agree that probably the greatest inflation we have seen in this country is in respect of the price of land. Again, when we looked at the machinery for controlling the price of land we doubted whether the kind of machinery in this bill which is to deal with profiteering and gouging could be applied in any very simple way, at least in respect of the transactions by individuals in land. Moreover, we know from our own experience, and all of us know this, that the provinces in many ways are in a better position to deal with questions of land prices than is the federal
1970

Profiteering Practices
government. As I say, we are not opposed to taking action against or in respect of land prices, but we are a little doubtful whether this is the place that action could be most effective. The main element of increased prices of housing is the increased cost of land. We can take action where the price of building supplies and materials are concerned as that does lie within the ambit of this bill. Therefore, housing is included. The price of land does involve a difficult problem.
In brief, this bill, although far-reaching, and one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation brought before this House in recent years, is nevertheless limited. It is specifically limited in its approach not because the government is timid, and not because it is lacking in seriousness, but because it wants to concentrate its efforts where practical results have some chance of being achieved. That is the purpose and the philosophy of the bill. That is why I reject the charge of the hon. member for York South that this bill is a piece of political window dressing. It is put forward, I can assure the House, after mature consideration of the alternatives. All the alternatives that have been put forward by the opposition were considered by the government before this particular approach was decided upon. These alternatives were rejected not because the government lacked courage but because, to use the hon. member's own words, we thought it might look like window dressing.
Now, on a subject like profiteering and gouging it is easy to be demagogic. I do not know of any subject on which it is easier to make a rousing speech, but it is not so easy to devise fair and effective measures to cope with unwarranted price increases in a free and open society. This bill may be imperfect but I can assure the House that such imperfections as it may have are not deliberate. It may be perhaps that we have not been able to foresee every issue and circumstance, but I can assure the House that the government intends to use the machinery to do everything reasonable to curb profiteers and gougers starting from the day the bill becomes law.
In this connection I was somewhat taken back looking back at the speech made by the hon. member for York South when he was dealing with this issue. He said he is not opposed to the principle of this bill. He said he is opposed to profiteering and gouging but that he does not think the government is serious about it. He quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as recorded at page 1943 of Hansard:
I turn, therefore, to a report in the Montreal Star of April 25, a report which appeared in a number of other papers. Here is part of this report. I quote:
The Prime Minister indicated that the legislation might not be
proclaimed until needed. He suggested that the threat of it would be
enough to stop companies from profiteering.
I would have thought the hon. gentleman would have checked the accuracy of the report or if he did not want to do that that at least he might have looked at what the Prime Minister really said in this House of Commons when similar questions were put to him and in that way he might have ascertained what was the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government. I read from Hansard

of March 13, 1974 at page 473 where the Prime Minister is recorded as saying:
When gouging or profiteering has been established before the independent board and those who are alleged to have gouged have been given a chance to state their case, if they do not take corrective action that is when we will act and not on some arbitrary suggestion by the hon. member.
That is the attitude of the government. We would not have brought this legislation forward if we did not intend to use it. Why would we have gone to all that trouble?


An hon. Member:: Yes!


Mitchell William Sharp: I will come to that question immediately. The hon. member for York South referred to this bill as a sop to the NDP which he is not accepting. On reflection the hon. member, I am convinced, will wish he had not uttered that unfortunate remark. Until he said that I had assumed that the support of the NDP was not for sale on any terms, and that no sop of any kind regardless of how enticing it might be would ever be accepted by the NDP. I still believe this because I am a friend of the hon. member for York South, and I believe essentially in his integrity.
I still believe that the NDP support is not available at any price. I am sure the NDP, like the members of this party, try to act in the public interest and that is why I believe he will regret that kind of remark. We on this side of the House have never offered any sop to any party or to any member in order to gain support for the measures we have put forward. We offer legislation which we believe to be in the public interest and it is up to hon. members to decide whether they will support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the basis on which we present this bill to the House. In our judgment, it is useful and constructive and indeed essential legislation to curb profiteering and gouging. We do not contend for one moment that it is adequate legislation to deal with inflation. We never said that and I do not say it now. We do not contend that it meets all the problems arising from inflation. No single piece of legislation could possibly do that. We have approached the problem of inflation and are dealing with it through a many-sided program.
We are dealing with it through measures which are in the hands of my colleagues the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). I could name dozens of ministers who are trying to cope with the problems of a society suffering from inflation. Our attack on inflation is many-sided. The opposition know this. When they characterize this piece of legislation as the government's answer to inflation they know this is not true. This bill is directed toward gouging and profiteering and should command the support of every member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: So I say to hon. members opposite; let us stop playing politics with this issue and approve this bill in principle, then get it before the committee where members who have ideas, some of them good ideas, can put

them forward. Then, we can get this bill into action so that we in the government can deal with the profiteers and gougers. If we are not in that position we know who will be to blame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) as a person I have the highest regard and, as a friend, I value him highly, but as for the speech he has just delivered, by jove, Sir, he blew with an uncertain trumpet if anyone ever did. I do not know how the minister's speeches are constructed, but I would not be at all surprised if his chief advisors and writers would be some of those who helped him deliver such pusillanimous missiles as when the French were shooting the Greenpeace all over the ocean or when speaking up magnificently and strongly-


An hon. Member:: You are full of prunes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A brilliant remark. One of the uncertain members of the House opposite said I was full of prunes. How brilliant can they get on that side in times of extremity! I think, too, of the occasion when we had such strong notes about the sale of locomotives to Cuba and the pusillanimous patty-caking that went on over that episode.
What interests me is that this minister of all ministers should be rushing to the aid of the embattled minister of yesterday. Where is the Minister of Finance? Is this not a matter of finance? Why is he not speaking? Where was the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)? Why is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) not dealing with this measure? The Secretary of State for External Affairs comes in as the one supporter of the embattled minister of yesterday. We might even have heard from that super-oil purchaser, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who, if he is on the bit, can get it for 99 V4 cents a gallon when it is going for 30 cents everywhere else. These are the economic giants who should be speaking. I think there is some rule that even if you are interrupting you do not do so from your seat.


An hon. Member:: Where is Gillies?


An hon. Member:: Where is that front bench power?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is nothing to deal with.


James Aloysius McGrath: Where were you when you were needed?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I stay here as a matter of courtesy to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please! Perhaps the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is at the point, now that we have had all these pleasant exchanges, of being given an opportunity to make a speech which, I am sure, will address itself to the bill before us.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Methinks that horrendous coming events are having an effect upon the manners of the hon.
Profiteering Practices
gentlemen opposite. It is not my fault that these things are happening. I am a mere contributor to bringing about a better day and times.
I was impressed by the minister's unkindness to the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis). Is there no place for gratitude in public life?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: What did he mean when he said that the hon. member would regret that kind of remark? I felt quakes and shivers way up in this part of the House.
The minister did say, and I noted this, that the measure before us was not hastily drafted. It might have been better had he admitted it was because, as my colleagues so brilliantly pointed out yesterday,-the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey)-it is in fact an horrendous piece of legislation unworthy of any government, and certainly one which no thoughtful parliament would dare adopt in its present from if they wanted to keep their respectability and responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But if the minister suggested that this was not a hasty response to the economic problems of this country, he was most certainly correct in that. There has been no haste in dealing with inflation by that government, far from it. We have had the Prices and Incomes Commission, we have had the Food Prices Review Board, we have had suggestions that inflation was going to be dealt with, that the whole settlement was just round the corner, and we have gone around in circles. There has been no haste in dealing with the egregious problems facing this country.
I am saddened particularly by the document which came in yesterday, the report of the National Council of Welfare on low income consumers in the Canadian marketplace, Prices and the Poor. Here we have documentation by a government appointed body that inflation is so serious in this country that thousands and thousands of Canadians have the nutritional elements of their diet so seriously affected that their health is being impaired. That is the kind of country in which we live and the kind of country which we see being poorly and inadequately governed. I say certainly there was no haste in trying to deal with these situations. This council asks for aid for thousands and thousands of Canadians who cannot continue under the present situation of prolonged inflation.
The minister was a little more political than he usually is. He endeavoured to take a crack at the parties on this side of the House, using such words as "hypocrisy". He made reference to some of the situations dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I would say to the minister: had he listened more carefully over the past many months to the consistent and straighforward suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition on a comprehensive program to control the rampant inflation, we would not be in the situation where the group opposite has failed so sadly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
27451-61}

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: He even took a swipe at the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who happened to speak with great clarity yesterday on the inadequacy of the aid which was being offered to public servants in these days of crippling inflation.


Mitchell William Sharp: What about the wage freeze?


Mr. Foster:: The aid is not inadequate, it is your speech.


Walter David Baker: At least we don't have to listen to you.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am enjoying the dialogue so much that I hesitate to resume the monologue.
I do take considerable exception to my former professorial colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who enunciated an interesting theory today that you vote on a measure and then you decide what you voted for and what were the parameters of the vote. If it is confidence, you do not know until after the vote has been taken. This really stands Beauchesne and Bourinot on their heads and starts them spinning. The minister knows this as well as I do, because he used to study and to teach from such learned treatises as MacGregor Dawson's Government of Canada. He pointed out very clearly that if the House should decide to reject a government bill or to amend it in a way unacceptable to the cabinet, then "Her Majesty's government will consider that it is relieved of the duty of carrying on any longer the government of the country." That is what the constitutional truth of the whole matter is, and if in the latter days of its existence this government will proclaim that this is its best effort, that this is its major contribution, that this is its onslaught against profiteering, that this is its major attack on inflation, then I say: woe to them if that is the best they can come up with. I do not think they will find any constitutional device to allow them to have second thoughts.


An hon. Member:: What is your alternative?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope that before too long the people of Canada will have an opportunity to see what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Surely, the vote of the people would be acceptable even if a vote in the House might be questionable in the constitutional theory of the President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can quote you Tory prime ministers who made the same statement and lived up to it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I will hear from the minister later because he may need to render his assistance to the embattled minister as well. We may be approaching the time when speeches, even brilliant ones, might not be as useful as the determination by the House. If that is what is desired by the government, I will be glad to surrender some of my time so that we may make a decision upon this matter.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that this legislation is pretty good but that we can improve it. I agree with my colleagues who spoke yesterday, and I

agree with the Leader of the NDP, that the bill is outrageous, that it is a travesty, that it is inadequate and that it will not do that which the press release accompanying it proclaims. I oppose it. I think the people of Canada will oppose it and if the government stakes its claim to perpetuity on this, it will have a weak and fragile claim.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who has just spoken on this bill has made a useful contribution in that while he may not have told us what the bill will do he certainly clarified what it will not do. He has told us that it is not going to resolve the problem of inflation, that it is not going to provide selective price controls, and that it is solely aimed at stopping undue profiteering, despite the fact that he then went on to say that profiteering in Canada was the exception rather than the rule, and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) has already said that there is no evidence of widespread abuse in the country.
So here is a minister seeking to defend a bill, and doing it very poorly, who has only succeeded in telling us that the bill will not do most of the things that the government has been trying to persuade the public it will do, namely, help in the matter of inflation and provide some protection with respect to price controls.
The minister says that the government has introduced this legislation in order to stop some forms of profiteering. He has made a very poor case to prove that. He says that upon a declaration prices will be frozen. I ask him to find where there is any such provision in clauses 51 and 52? Prices cannot be frozen without a reference to the courts. The minister should know that, if he has read this legislation. I suspect he has not studied it very closely.
He has been dragged in to defend this legislation because the two ministers who are the arch apostles of high profits would cut very inconspicuous figures in this debate trying to prove that we should stop profiteering, profiteering which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says does not exist, and which the Secretary of State for External Affairs says is the exception rather than the rule.
I think we ought to take a look at this bill, which is supposed to deal with profiteering practices, in the light of the total picture which faces the country with respect to inflation. I think every member will recognize that the rapidly escalating cost of living is one of the two major problems disturbing the Canadian people. The other, of course, is unemployment.
The problem of rising living costs has aroused the Canadian people as nothing else I have seen in many years. When you have an increase in a living cost of 10.4 per cent, an increase in the price of food of 18.6 per cent, and when you have the cost of living for hundreds of thousands of workers rising faster than their real income then you have a crisis which is stirring this nation as nothing else has done for many years.
Since the beginning of this parliament the members of the New Democratic Party have taken a very realistic approach to this problem. We have recognized that inflation is part of a worldwide trend, and that there are
May 2, 1974

factors which are beyond the control of any national government. We have said repeatedly that just a freeze on prices and wages is unrealistic and could be very unjust, that there is no way in which the government of Canada can fix the price of imported products-citrus fruits, coffee, tea, cocoa, bauxite, natural rubber, and certain sophisticated machinery which we must buy outside this country. The prices of those commodities are set by the countries that produce them, and we must pay those prices or do without those commodities. There is no way that we can freeze those prices.
We also recognize that merely to freeze wages and prices is to lock in a great many injustices on the one hand, and a great deal of excess profiteering on the other. The report of the Senate Committee showed that there are 500,000 families in Canada, called by that committee the working poor, whose incomes are lower than if they were on welfare. To freeze their incomes is to freeze them into unconscionable poverty. And at the same time to freeze the profits of the banks and the oil companies is to put them in paradise. Therefore, we have suggested a two-pronged attack on this whole question of the rising cost of living.
Since the beginning of this parliament we have first of all suggested that parliament and the government must make provision to help those who are most vulnerable to the rising cost of living. The government has responded to some extent. There were increases in old age pensions. The old age pension was put on the basis of the rising cost of living rather than being limited to a 2 per cent increase. There was an increase in veterans' pensions. Last year there was some reduction in personal income tax for those in the lower and middle income groups. Increased family allowances are another example. These things have helped, but I want to point out that the rising cost of living in the meantime has eaten up all the gains that these people have made.
We pressed for other things. We suggested that commodities which are essential for every family, and particularly for those on lower incomes, ought to have assistance by way of subsidies or by way of reduced sales taxes. Some of this has been done. The government did introduce subsidies on milk, beef and bread. Whether they have reached the consumer or not is something we are waiting for the government to discover because it has not yet completed its studies in that regard. And some sales taxes have been reduced on items like children's clothing. We have not reduced such things as the sales tax on building materials. We have not provided any tax credits for people in lower income brackets. But the government did move, and I want to give it credit. It moved, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes on being pushed very hard, and it did take steps to cushion the effect of rising living costs, particularly on those in the lower income brackets.
But when we come to the second prong of the attack which the NDP had been advocating with respect to the rising cost of living, the government has been adamant in its refusal. Broadly speaking, we suggested four things. First of all, we suggested the setting up of a prices review board to monitor prices, with power to freeze prices where increases were unjustified, with power to roll back prices, and to move into certain areas and hold prices at a level that would be fair and just.
Profiteering Practices
We have said that along with this it would be necessary to establish a two-price system for a great many commodities. If this government merely fixes the price of a commodity and that price is less than the one producers can get on the world market, that commodity will go out of the country. Therefore, we require a two-price system, with export controls and, in some cases, an export tax. There is little value in fixing a price if the commodity is not available. Many commodities are made in this country which bring in substantial profits if they are sold on the world market. I do not see why Canadians should be required to pay high prices for steel, lumber, cement or anything else produced in this country merely because corporations can obtain a higher return if they ship such commodities out of the country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when answering the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), has completely rejected a two-price system for selected areas which should be brought under control.
The third thing we have suggested is the reduction of mortgage interest rates to 6 per cent; and the fourth thing, an excess profits tax to siphon off some surplus profits being made at present.
The government should realize that the people who work with hand and brain in this country to produce its wealth, and whose real income in the last quarter of 1973, compared with the last quarter of 1972, was down by $5.50 per week, will not tolerate that situation. When the working people note the distribution of our gross national product and see that the share for corporate profits has gone up and the share for wages and salaries has gone down, they will not accept it. That kind of redistribution of income in reverse will not be condoned or accepted by the Canadian people.
Although the government has moved on the first prong of our attack and cushioned some of the effects of rising costs of living on those who are most drastically affected, it has consistently refused to intervene in the economy, something it must do if the ordinary people of this country are to be protected against profiteering and against the high prices corporations can charge and demand if they threaten to ship their products out of this country.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs who spoke this afternoon said, in response to my leader, that he was sure the NDP is not for sale, that the government did not throw sops to the NDP or anyone else and had acted according to its conscience. His conscience must be guilty.


Peter Colwell Bawden: You must be feeling bad, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the last year, the government has had to be shoved and pushed into accepting changes. Except when it was talking about increasing the old age pension, family allowances or oil policy, the government has always been reluctant-


Mitchell William Sharp: We were always ready to listen to advice and to recommendations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government could respond to the first of the two prongs of the NDP program and raise old age

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
pensions and other allowances without arousing criticism, but it is not prepared to challenge the corporate structure of this country.
The member who preceded me wondered why the Secretary of State for External Affairs had spoken in this debate, since its subject matter is not within his purview. I suggest he entered the debate to assure the Bay Street barons that they need not worry about this bill because, after all, profiteering is the exception in this country, not the rule. The government's attitude with respect to intervening in the economy to provide equity and economic justice has become increasingly apparent in recent months.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), addressing a joint meeting of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Manitoba and the Law Society of Manitoba at Winnipeg, on April 19, 1974, said in part:
One of the red herrings injected into this debate, particularly by the NDP, is that the corporate profits of Canada's manufacturers and processors are now so high that the reduction in their tax burden is completely unjustified.
Certainly there has been a substantial improvement in business earnings, an improvement in which Canada's manufacturers and processors have fully shared. Certainly there is some point of proper balance to be struck. But profits cannot be considered in a vacuum. They must be considered in relation to our urgent requirement for sharply increased capital investment...
It must be obvious to nearly everyone other than Mr. Lewis and followers that the money to finance this huge increase in capital investment by Canadian manufacturers must come from somewhere.
It is apparent that the money is to come from the consumers of this country.


An hon. Member:: From ordinary taxpayers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, from the taxpayers of this country who have had to pick up the burden of the corporate tax concessions which this government provided last year, with the help of the Progressive Conservative party.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) sings a similar song. Speaking to the conference board in Canada in Winnipeg on April 3, he said in part:
Of course, the problem, according to the New Democratic Party, is profits. The NDP believes profits aren't really necessary. This government knows profits are necessary to continued industrial growth- provided that a significant share of these profits is pumped back into expansion and employment.
Later in that speech he said:
Putting it another way, the proportion of earnings retained for corporate purposes was at an all-time high. Our manufacturers are using their profits to finance expansion-and that's what we want.
That is the government's position. I can understand why neither of those ministers wants to defend this bill. How can they talk about wanting to stop profiteering when they tell everybody that profiteering is marvellous, that the more profits you make the more jobs you create. It is dangerous to suggest the thesis that the consumer of this country, when he purchases an article, should provide for its cost of production, for the servicing and retirement of capital debt and for a reasonable return to shareholders, and, in addition, enough money to enable the corporation to retain sufficient earnings for future capital expansion. When a man buys a pair of shoes, he can legitimately be expected to pay for overhead and return to the entre-

preneur on capital investment. Should he also be required to pay, in addition, for the construction of a new plant or the expansion of an existing plant. That is the thesis the government is advancing.
Now, let us look at another aspect of the government's approach to intervention in the economy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made reference to the fact that the Food Prices Review Board was set up. He said this act will now put teeth in the Food Prices Review Board. I ask him what prevented them from putting teeth in that board when it was established.
As a matter of fact, when this matter was before the committee on food prices, representatives of the New Democratic Party moved that the Food Prices Review Board be given the necessary power to freeze and roll back prices where it was found necessary to do so. That amendment was defeated by both Liberal and Conservative members.
When the matter was before the House, the members of this party pleaded with the government to put some teeth in the Food Prices Review Board. The government refused. Why did they refuse? If they now believe the Food Prices Review Board should have teeth, why did they not give it teeth a year ago? The fact is they had no intention of the Food Prices Review Board having teeth. The Food Prices Review Board was set up because there was public clamour for the government to do something. That piece of deception not having worked, they are trying a second piece of deception, that is giving the Food Prices Review Board rubber teeth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government is not going to fool anybody by the kind of statements that were made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The fact is that this piece of legislation is a last act of desperation. This bill is an attempt to perpetrate a cruel hoax on the people of Canada by seeking to convince them that the government intends to do something when it is increasingly apparent they do not intend to do anything about the large scale profiteering that is going on by the corporations of this country. If the government wanted to deal with profiteering, why has it taken so long?
It is very interesting that when we argued about putting teeth in the Food Prices Review Board, it was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) who said the government did not have the constitutional authority. That is what he said a year ago. He now finds it has constitutional authority.
I was tremendously impressed by the answer which the minister gave when questioned by the press on this matter. They asked how come he said they did not have constitutional authority a year ago and now he brings in a bill that he claims gives them constitutional authority to do something about profiteering. The minister's answer should be put on the record because it is one of the great and immortal sayings of all times. This is his answer:
It doesn't appear to me now the way it appeared to appear to me then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 2, 1974


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister outdid himself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on a question of privilege.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I was adopting the wording of a learned judge who was asked a similar question. Therefore, I cannot claim originality for that phrase. I also want to add that there was a part of my answer which indicated the views I expressed then were based on advice I received. I think what we are doing is consistent with advice on constitutional authority, especially since we are not attempting to apply this bill solely in a very limited and localized situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, all I can suggest to the minister is if he acted a year ago on the advice he was getting, he was getting very bad advice. I do not see any indication that his advisers have improved, judging by the legislation he is now trying to put through this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact, the most damning thing about this bill is not just what is contained in it. It is the attitude which the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have taken toward the bill.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs chided the leader of our party about the Prime Minister's statement as quoted in the Montreal Star of April 25 in which the Prime Minister indicated the legislation might not be proclaimed until needed. He suggested that the threat of it would be enough to stop companies from profiteering. The Prime Minister did not deny that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) rises on a question of privilege.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I made that comment in my address, I did it on the advice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who denies he ever made any such statement. I suggested the leader of the New Democratic Party should check his sources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we were to try to check the sources of all the off-the-cuff statements which the Prime Minister makes, we would be very busy people because he makes off-the-cuff statements which contradict themselves from day to day. Let's take the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You take him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are his statements equally unreliable when the press quotes him as saying this legislation is going to be used sparingly.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Herb.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We might as well take it all at once, but let me finish the quotation. He said the legislation is going to be used sparingly and only where the problem is serious
Profiteering Practices
and obvious. Is that what the bill is for? That is the minister's own statement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think if you check the press story, you will find the word "sparingly" is not included in the quotation. That is the interpretation of the journalist who wrote the article. With regard to the other part, I think it flows from questions I was asked at the time as to the approximate number of times it might be used. I was attempting to indicate it would be used officially in a certain number of circumstances without making it a form of general price controls to which my hon. friends party objects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not denied it. He merely wants to get it in context. I suggest the context makes it even worse. May I also point out that the background document, which he himself put out, says that the available evidence does not suggest any widespread abuse or profiteering.
Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House-it cannot be denied because it is on the record-that profiteering in this country is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, we are going to have legislation to deal with profiteering that is not widespread and profiteering which is the exception rather than the rule.


An hon. Member:: And temporary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And temporary. As a matter of fact, I wonder where these people have been. Look at the oil industry profits for the first three months of this year. Imperial Oil had profits of over $1 million a day for the first quarter with $4 a barrel oil. Imagine what their profits will be with $6.50 a barrel oil.
The minister says that profiteering is the exception rather than the rule. This country today is riddled with profiteering. As the hon. member for York South pointed out yesterday, in the first three months of this year, 111 companies in Canada showed profit increases of 70 per cent over last year. Is that not excessive profiteering? Apparently the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not consider that profiteering.
The fact is this government considers profits to be a good thing. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have said that profiteering helps to create jobs and therefore it is a good thing. Then why this bill? We have this bill because the government knows the public are fed up with seeing the workers' share of the gross national product going down and corporate profits going up. This government knows it has to do something. It is doing something by perpetrating a farce. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we in this party will not be accomplices to a farce of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This legislation is brought in after one year during which the government has consistently refused to do anything about these excess profits. It is

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
brought in now because the government faces the prospect of going to the country. I have never had much faith in a deathbed repentance and I do not think the electorate will have any faith in a deathbed repentance, either. We in this party do not believe this bill was ever seriously intended as a measure to stop gouging and profiteering. We think that in the main it was an attempt to convince the public that the government was keeping a commitment made by the Prime Minister on February 28 when he said his administration would not allow gouging and profiteering through windfall profits at the expense of the Canadian people.
Yesterday, the leader of our party dealt with his act very effectively. Let me just reiterate three points which I believe ought to be reinforced in view of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-they relate to three of the basic weaknesses of the bill. First, it can be put on the statute books without becoming effective in any way, shape or form until a declaration is made by the cabinet. It could sit on the statute books as a monument to the government's good intentions, and nothing more. It could, of course, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has suggested, be a deterrent. I notice he said this outside the House, but so that he will not deny it, let me quote what he said inside the House as reported in Hansard at page 1940:
In any event, the existence of this legislation should act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise feel they can engage in profiteering with impugnity.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would the hon. member read what I said just before that, so as to put it in context?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think most of the members on this side of the House are quite capable of reading.


An hon. Member:: There are exceptions, then?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In essence, the minister said the bill might not be very effective, but it could prove to be a deterrent. And that is exactly what the Prime Minister had said outside the House.


An hon. Member:: He did not!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest the deterrent value is negligible.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness, ought not the hon. member to read what I said just prior to the passage he quoted, which was that the government would be ready, where necessary, to make use of the authority it is seeking in this bill as soon as it is approved by parliament and proclaimed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will deal with that part of the minister's speech in a moment. I am dealing, now, with statements made by the Prime Minister outside the House and those the minister made yesterday. I am saying to the minister that the deterrent value is negligible. The corporate structure in this country doesn't scare worth a damn and it will not be scared by a bill which is nothing more than a paper tiger. These people are certainly not going to be scared by the kind of statements which were made yesterday by the Minister of Consumer Affairs and by the Secretary of

State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) today. They have already been promised by the minister that the legislation will be used sparingly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the hon. member


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has been lenient, but I do not think that each time one hon. member takes objection to what another hon. member is saying a question of privilege should be raised.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can understand the minister's concern. He produces a piece of legislation, then he goes outside the House and says he will only use it sparingly and that it will only be called upon to deal with serious and obvious cases of profiteering. When he had damned his own legislation with faint praise I can understand his concern when it is brought to the attention of the House of Commons and the people of Canada. I think the Canadian people will be quick to realise that this legislation is a sham, a snare and a delusion.
The second obvious weakness is that there is no provision for any monitoring agency in this process, though we have talked over the years about a Prices Review Board, about a continuing and on-going process of canvassing prices; about a board with power to impose selective controls, freeze prices and roll back prices. There is no such power here. This legislation covers only a limited field. The Secretary of State was really talking with his tongue in his cheek when he said the reason the legislation did not cover services was that the government did not wish to deal with hairdressers, barbers, people in the service industries. He knows this is not mandatory legislation but permissive legislation and that if the bill covers services, as it should because services represent about 25 per cent of the Canadian economy, the government could be selective. Nobody expects the government to interfere with hairdressing, for example. But it could interfere with interest rates; it could interfere with the profits made by the land developers; it could interfere with what is going on in connection with house-building programs. The reason services are left out is that the government does not want to tackle this important field.
My final point is this. The nub of this legislation lies in the fact that when the minister talks about ability to freeze prices or roll back prices-and I deny he possesses that power, except through the courts-he fails to tell us at what level prices should be frozen, or to what level prices should be rolled back. The words in the act are "to a customary margin of profit". And what is that? The bill does not say. It does not specify a certain return on capital investment. It does not specify a certain return related to the percentage of sales. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. When the minister himself put out the explanatory information for the edification of the public, the information talks of levels of profit for the previous year.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That was a hypothetical example.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Indeed, it was a hypothetical example. But why did the minister choose to do that? Surely, the minister did not pull the figures out of the air. The year 1973
May 2, 1974

was the highest profit year in history. Is that to be the level of profit to which profits will be rolled back? Neither the minister nor the bill has told us that. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that the level of profit will be restricted to a reasonable return on capital investment. All it says is that the cabinet-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him by the standing orders, plus a certain extension because of various points raised during the hon. member's speech, has expired. He might, however, continue if there is unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Agreed in spite of his lack of fairness.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will take only a moment to conclude, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for its indulgence. What I am saying is that unless the government is prepared to stipulate some framework within which customary profits will be defined, some basis upon which the government will act with respect to fair and reasonable return on capital investment, then the bill is meaningless. If we were to follow the hypothetical example that the minister himself put forward, that profits at their 1973 level are to become the norm, then we are thrusting upon the Canadian people for the future a distribution of national income in which the corporate sector will have an increased return and the people who do the work in this country will have a lesser return. I say that is not acceptable to this party and I do not think it will be acceptable to the great mass of the Canadian people.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in light of the queries that have been raised earlier as to why certain member on this side of the House are participating in the debate, someone will be asking what am I doing becoming involved in this particular discussion as well. It is a good question and one I am happy to answer.
In the first instance, my own personal responsibilities in the cabinet have me very much involved in economic matters. Secondly, and more importantly, I take second place to nobody in this House, including the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), in having concern for the people of this country. The "holier than thou" attitude that shines forth, as I have had occasion to say so often, is one that, of course, we can sympathize with, and I am not suggesting that the concern of these hon. members is not genuine. What I do resent is that there is no one else in this House, in their view, who appears to have any concern for the people. I deny that, and our record shows it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The second point is that while I normally have a profound respect for the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, because not only is he a classic debater but he is one who, by and large, respects the decent rules of debate and also decides, generally speaking, to make his arguments on the basis of conviction, if we have 24 hours to analyse the record in Hansard, we will see that this
Profiteering Practices
afternoon there were more distortions, more half-truths, more repetitions of things that have been repeatedly denied by respected members of this House than I have ever heard before.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and his leader yesterday made the case that this bill was such that they could not vote for it, even in principle. I say to them, having just heard from them that our attitude is a hoax, that the greatest hoax of all is that phony approach which refuses to let the bill go to committee, where hon. members would have the opportunity, as they have had the opportunity for a year and a half now, and with frequent success, to improve the legislation.
What is more, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members look at the excerpts of Hansard that I have here, but which I will not take the time to read, they will see at least 50 requests from that corner of the House for roll-back provisions, for some kind of improvement in the functions of the Prices Review Board, for the establishment of another kind of agency, for a whole range of things for which we have now provided the basis.
Hon. members may not like all of the provisions of the bill, and we have said that it may still contain inadequacies, but the biggest hoax, the biggest phony, is that hon. members will not put the bill into committee where they will have a chance to make improvements to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What they are essentially saying-


An hon. Member:: Have you read the bill?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I have read the bill, and this is the other point that I would like to make. Whether it is by accident or design-and I choose, because of my friendship with hon. members, to assume that it is by accident-they have completely distorted the concept of the bill; for example, the reference by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that the courts would have to put it into action. That is simply not true.
If the bill were to go to committee, if there is an honest doubt on the hon. member's part or there is an ambiguity in the legislation, then such questions could be resolved. The government's intention is not that action should be triggered only by the courts, but that in fact, as the bill is now presented, it does not require to be triggered by the courts. Nevertheless, if hon. members have any doubts on that matter, surely the place to clear them up is in committee. But hon. members will not let us put the bill in committee, because then they would have to give us credit for having done something with regard to this whole profiteering question. Talk about deathbed wishes, Mr. Speaker! They do not want this bill passed by this House just in case we did go to the country, because the bill once again would be to the credit of the government. That is the real reason.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
1978

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think you have had your innings.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let the minister go ahead. Be fair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands rising on a question of privilege?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker. I merely asked the minister whether he would permit a question, and I see he has graciously acceded.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that it was not true that the act stipulated that the commission could impose a price freeze without going to the courts. I wonder whether he would give us the section or the clause under which that is found?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to go into the details of the bill and I do not propose to take up my time on matters which, I repeat, should be raised in committee. However, I think that any straightforward reading of the proposed section 51, linked with I think, section 50 ahead of it, will show quite clearly that when there is a declaration a 30 day freeze goes into effect. I do not think there is any argument on that point.
I say again that it would take a very long time to explain the technicalities of the bill, and that this can be done in committee. But personally, I am satisfied, and I think all of my colleagues in government are satisfied, that that provision is in the bill. If there is any ambiguity in the bill, then we are prepared to remove it.
The other point that I want to make has to do with the first 10 or 15 minutes of the hon. gentleman's speech of about 45 minutes. During that time there was a period when I was almost prepared to concede that he thought we were doing some of the right things over here; and indeed he said so. But what was brought out in that period, which again tends to annoy me I must confess, was not a question relating to profiteering alone. Going back to my quotations from Hansard, all that was really talked about was profiteering and a means of getting rid of what is known as gouging. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands opened up the whole question of high profits, big business and uneven distribution. God knows, coming from the province of Newfoundland I am as aware of that as he is, and I say again, nobody in this House is more concerned to see that there is a decent distribution of wealth and that these people at the lower end of the scale get a decent break. I am glad to see finally that they are getting it.
Let me go on to make one point clear, with which I think hon. gentlemen will be in agreement. Newfoundland for the first time, indeed all of Atlantic Canada, specifically the fish plant workers and the fishermen, are getting a decent wage for their work and decent prices. I see that as being just one of the finest breakthroughs we have had in a long time. I am surprised by the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that we ought to have wage controls in a province like Newfoundland or

on the east coast. I thoroughly agree with what another hon. member has said in this regard, that this would be a disaster for the poor people of this country, and I reject that out of hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time may be limited somewhat as a result of the private members' hour, but I do want to say this. I fail totally to understand the attitude of people in that party, particularly that of the hon. member for St. John's East who, as I have said on many occasions, has made significant and important contributions and comments with regard to how this whole problem of prices ought to be dealt with. He himself said yesterday that they had important amendments they believe they could make to the bill if it went into the committee. Other people over there have said that they are looking for clarification in respect of the bill, yet on both sides we hear hon. members saying that they do not want to even look at it in the committee. They want to throw it out before it gets there. That to me is a completely irrational attitude which means only one thing so far as I am concerned. It is pretty hard to believe that this party is genuinely concerned about gouging and profiteering- pretty darn hard to believe it-if they will not take this bill and bring it together in a co-operative way in the committee in order to see what can be done with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I repeat that it is a much stronger bill than the NDP party in particular has talked about. With his particular kind of rhetoric, and I admire it, of course, the leader of the NDP yesterday talked about the so-called elongated process. Well, it may not be an elongated process, but in his mouth it was a distorted process. What he said was that so many steps had to be taken before a price freeze could come in that it would literally take the skin off the Canadian consumer, and I remember that phrase. He is wrong about that; he is completely wrong. The freeze can be put on, and I hope that if I do not have the opportunity other speakers will go into this in more detail. It is misleading of our position and it is misleading of this bill.
Let me now deal rather quickly with the three points made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He talked about the ineffectiveness of this measure. What he really said was that this is some kind of smokescreen we are putting up. I say to you, that is not so. I say to you that if this House passes this bill I am satisfied this government will act and act at once.


An hon. Member:: What about the prices review board?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My hon. friend uses the prices review board to his advantage when he wants to dismiss it, yet we hear 50 questions asking about what we are going to do, and in some respects praising the prices review board. This is such a double standard I have never seen anything like it for years. I can agree again with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands as I have very little confidence in the business community being threatened by a big stick. I perfectly agree with him that the wagging of a finger is not likely to have much effect.
May 2, 1974

I repeat that it is our intention, and it will be our intention when this legislation passes, to move and to move decisively. Once this order is issued this price freeze becomes effective. Furthermore, there is the mechanism here for rolling back those prices. I am talking about gouging and the things which the NDP party in particular has emphasized for so long. I am not talking about the whole range of what my friend might regard as inequities in the economic system. There are other measures and other methods of dealing with those. He touched upon some of them when he talked about our bolstering incomes at the lower levels of our society.
I do not question the suggestion that there should be ways for us to get after some of these corporations. Does my friend think that I and a great many of my colleagues here are immune to some of these kinds of things or are unaware of them? That is nonsense. Just put this bill in operation and I will assure you that you will see things move very quickly.
The hon. member talks about continuity once again. I am not sure what he means by continuity, but I do know that mechanisms in the bill provide for an ongoing organization as he will see if he studies the bill objectively. The hon. member's leader yesterday said something about a part-time board, or something of that sort. That is just not the case. It is part of the organization but it will be full-time in the sense of its own activity.
If the hon. member means by continuity a continuing review of prices, we do have a prices review board and other mechanisms through which to do that. The hon. member talks about the complexity of this bill, as have others, and of putting into the piece of legislation one guide as to what constitutes an appropriate level of profit, or whatever one wishes to call it. That is, of course, the height of impossibility. It just cannot be done. Surely, one has to look at each industry, one after the other, in order to determine what represents an appropriate level of profit. For some industries it may very well be a reflection of the investment on earnings, or whatever the case might be, but to suggest that a bill can in fact spell out just how profiteering or gouging shall be measured in all industries, and perhaps do it in one or two sentences, is unrealistic. That merely reflects the total unreality of the arguments that have been coming from the opposition with regard to this measure.
I repeat that hon. members of the opposition said at the initial stages, and I think one or two of their members have said it recently, that our actions in this regard are a hoax. I reject that, and I say that to prove this is not a hoax, let us give second reading to this bill and get it to the committee where perhaps we can bring about the improvements that hon. members would want to see.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will see the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), and call it five o'clock.
Vancouver National Harbours Board



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Housing-Newfoundland-Possible extension of residential rehabilitation program to rural areas; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Agriculture- Threat of grasshopper infestation in western Canada this spring-Action to control; and the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Haliburton)-Post Office-Proportion of employees working on mechanical sorting devices recruited from within service.
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 private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. There being no private bills, the House will move to notices of motions (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBER MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all contracts between the National Harbours Board in Vancouver and the following firms (a) Empire Stevedoring Co. Ltd. (b) Canadian Stevedoring Co. Ltd. (c) Canadian National Railways respecting the use of Ballantyne Pier, Lapointe Pier and Centennial Pier for the years 1973 and 1974.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out at the beginning of my remarks that I placed Motion No. 10 on the order paper because I am concerned about the future development of the port of Vancouver and also about the manner in which Mr. William Rathie, the local member of the National Harbours Board and Chairman of the Vancouver Port Authority, is acting in administering that port and its facilities. I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that I asked to have this matter posted for debate because I am not in the least satisfied with the answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay).
The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) stated:
Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are private and confidential. They are contracts for operating certain shipping terminals in the port of Vancouver which actively compete for business with the port of Seattle, and making them open for public inspection could prejudice their position. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
27451-62,1

May 2, 1974
Vancouver National Harbours Board
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond my understanding why the parliamentary secretary could come to the conclusion that these contracts are of a confidential nature as they have, to the best of my knowledge, been signed between the National Harbours Board and the stevedoring companies. There can be no question that the release of this information can in any way jeopardize the public interest or Vancouver's competitive position with the port of Seattle. You see, Mr. Speaker, the rates charged for stevedoring are already public knowledge and the contracts signed by the NHB and these companies can have no bearing on these rates.
It is my belief that Mr. Rathie made the unilateral decision to have the NHB operate these facilities simply to allow the companies named in the motion to opt out of their responsibilities to pay the general purpose and business taxes to the city of Vancouver. What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that Mr. Rathie arbitrarily and without consultation with the Vancouver city council changed the operating nature of these facilities by cancelling the contracts in force up to October 31, 1973. This is what Mr. Rathie did on November 19, 1973: He wrote to the Vancouver city assessor stating that the facilities in question, which were under lease from the NHB to these companies, had been cancelled effective November 1, 1973, and further stated that the National Harbours Board was now the owner and occupier of these premises.
In his reply of November 30 to Mr. Rathie, Mayor Art Phillips of the city of Vancouver took the position, with which I fully agree, of supporting the findings of the Vancouver Court of Revision that the companies in question had been properly placed on the city's assessment rolls. The mayor further stated that the current practice could only be regarded as an effort to avoid taxes to the city of Vancouver, as there was no visible change in the use of the properties. I stress that-no visible change in the use of the properties. In his reply of December 10 to the mayor, Mr. Rathie took the position that these changes had taken place on November 1, 1973 and there was nothing further he could do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister the result of this shady deal between Mr. Rathie and these stevedoring companies. The 1973 general purpose tax assessment, a realty tax for all purposes, was deemed to be $518,781, while the business tax in that year was assessed at $98,940, for a grand total of $617,721. From the position the city has taken, the estimated revenue for 1974 is as follows: General purpose taxes would have been $537,536 and the business tax $110,580, for a total revenue of $648,156. Under the existing granting formula for grants in lieu of taxes the city expects to receive in 1974 the paltry sum of $153,536, for a loss of revenue of $494,620, nearly half a million dollars the city is being cheated out of by this bit of chicanery.
As you can realize, this is not an insignificant amount. It is close to one-half million dollars. I would point out that in his address to the Vancouver Merchants' Exchange Limited on February 19 of this year, Mr. Del Taylor, Chairman of the National Harbours Board stated:
... about one-half million dollars goes to the municipalities around the Port of Vancouver for our grants in lieu of taxes to pay for the federal government's share of the services we use...

While Mr. Taylor may be proud of the fact that all the municipalities concerned receive some half a million dollars collectively, I must point out that due to Mr. Rathie's machinations, the city of Vancouver alone stands to lose just about the same amount of money per year. Unless the city fathers can ascertain how much these stevedoring companies, namely Empire Stevedoring, Canadian Stevedoring and the CNR are paying the National Harbours Board per year, they cannot ascertain how big the rip-off is.
Because of the fact that Mr. Rathie is in the position of being a tsar with regard to the port of Vancouver, and because he has consistently acted in that manner ever since his appointment to his present position to the detriment of the port, I am convinced that a totally new structure is needed to administer the affairs of one of the most important ports in Canada. To ensure consultation with the surrounding municipalities and to allow for input from them I would propose the following new administrative structure. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary to the minister would draw this to the attention of the minister in case he does not read this in Hansard. Vancouver should be removed as a designated NHB port and reconstituted under the provision of the 1964 Harbours Commissions Act similar to the Harbour Commission operating in New Westminster, the North Fraser Harbour Commission and the South Fraser Harbour Commission. It should be composed of seven members, four from the federal government to ensure federal government control, with one or more of these from the prairie regions because of their concern for grain movements through the port of Vancouver; one from the south shore municipalities; one from the North shore municipalities and one from the western area transport council.
Under this arrangement the port manager would not report to Mr. Rathie but to the assistant deputy minister of marine administration in Ottawa. I might point out that the two Fraser Harbour Commissions operating in this fashion have shown more than marginal profits in recent years, unlike the deficits continually reported for the port of Vancouver. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in contact with the Vancouver city council and this proposal has the complete support of Mayor Art Phillips and Alderman Setty Pendakur, who is the chairman of the Vancouver City Waterfront Committee.
There is now information circulating in Vancouver that the National Harbours Board, under Mr. Rathie's guidance, is considering an offer to purchase Empire Stevedoring's operation at terminal pier. Because I know that Mr. Rathie is personally involved in a number of stevedoring businesses, I am concerned with a possible conflict of interest in this matter. I am also concerned that Mr. Rathie is using his authority to assist his friends on the waterfront by eliminating their responsibilities to the city of Vancouver and, therefore, I must insist on the production of the contracts, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) is proposing a motion to the effect of which would be to make public contracts between the National Harbours Board in Vancouver, the Empire Steve-
May 2, 1974

doring Company Limited, the Canadian Stevedoring Company Limited and Canadian National Railways. However, I doubt very much whether my hon. colleague has directed much thought to the long-term repercussions of taking such a step. After all, regardless of other considerations, we must ask ourselves whether in this House we want to open to scrutiny all documents which have been drawn up on the understanding that they would be immune to public disclosure. Does this House want to set a precedent which might undermine the whole system under which so many of our vital Canadian Crown corporations have negotiated their business in the past.
Does my friend not appreciate that by disclosing the nature and content of contracts between the National Harbours Board and other companies this House might find itself in an irreversible and embarrasing situation? I do not want to believe that this House would seriously entertain a motion which in the long term might seriously jeopardize Canada's ability to compete actively with our trading neighbours to the south, and that is very important.
I am aware of the fact that there is a very legitimate reason for us to be concerned about whether a Crown corporation is operating in the public good. I am certainly not suggesting that there should be any suppression of disclosure regarding the conduct and viability of our Crown corporations. Contrary to what the hon. member said a few minutes ago, there is no purpose served in divulging the details of a grievance between the NHB and private companies which would quite seriously compromise the relatively competitive standing of the port of Vancouver with respect to competitors in the United States.
Surely, we do not want to publicize the details of arrangements between the NHB and private companies, arrangements that by their very nature are designed to give the port of Vancouver special privileges to make it an economically prosperous alternative to ports in the United States. There is nothing insidious or underhand in maintaining this kind of privacy with respect to these agreements. There is, however, a great danger that by disclosing the kind of information proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) we will be taking, quite unwittingly, action which could permanently damage our ability to compete on a free and open market.
I know that there are a number of other considerations implicit in the motion before us today. For instance, a number of people have expressed concern regarding the question of the NHB paying grants in lieu of taxes. The matter is long and involved, but the NHB has always taken the position that it would pay grants in lieu of taxes as required, but subject to any right of appeal available to any other taxpayer. In the current situation, the NHB has changed its contractual arrangements with operators of terminals in Vancouver so that only grants in lieu of taxes and not full municipal taxes should be assessed. In fact, the city has been collecting full taxes for three years. A judgment was just handed down recently from a provincially appointed hearing and it was in favour of the NHB.
Vancouver National Harbours Board
The NHB has entered into contracts with Empire Stevedoring Company Limited, Canadian Stevedoring Company Limited and Canadian National Railways. In accordance with these contracts, the three companies will provide, perform and carry out services for the NHB incidental to and arising from the operation by the NHB of its premises and facilities as public terminals for the handling, loading and unloading of cargo. In consideration of the said services, the NHB will pay each contractor an amount directly related to the amount of cargo handled by each contractor.
The NHB is the operator and occupier of each facility with supervisory and accounting staff located on the premises. The maximum charges paid by the shipper or steamship line for the use of an NHB facility are controlled by the board. None of the board's facilities is leased and the maintenance of the same is the responsibility of the NHB. As operator and occupier of its own facilities the NHB expects to pay grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Vancouver with respect to each of the three facilities related to the three contracts.
I do not want to get any further involved in the details surrounding these contracts for reasons that I am sure are obvious to all concerned. Various articles have appeared in the press dealing with the subject of taxes paid to the city of Vancouver by the NHB or by tenants of the board. It is quite apparent that these newspaper articles are confusing to the public and some statements have been made which are incorrect.
I do not think that there can be any question that the arrangement which exists between the city of Vancouver and the NHB is an equitable one which allows the NHB to operate a major port facility while extending annual grants to the city. This arrangement has existed for some time and I cannot understand why the status quo has to be upset by speculation alleging that the NHB is somehow deriving benefits from the city of Vancouver at the expense of the taxpayer. Any honest and realistic assessment of this arrangement would prove the contrary, and the port of Vancouver can hardly De considered a liability in terms of its massive and positive impact on the economy of Vancouver and the country as a whole.
Tonnage handled by the port of Vancouver has increased from 35,300,000 tons in 1971 to 36,700,000 tons in 1972 and to more than 40 million tons in 1973. Vancouver is the second largest port in North America. It is rated by the International Association of Port Authorities which met in Amsterdam in 1972, as being the thirteenth largest port in the world based on 1971 figures as compared with Seattle rates as number 25. Vancouver does not want to falter in her position as a major port facility. I believe it should be brought to the attention not only of the hon. member but of all hon. members who may not know that so that they can take it into consideration and understand some of the reasons why the answers were given as they were.
Two new major facilities have been constructed in the inner harbour. Vanterm, a 76 acre container facility, will be one of the most modern in the world and will cost some $30 million. In addition, Lynnterm, on the north shore, a general cargo facility with container capabilities, is being built at an estimated cost of $23 million. As an aside, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 2, 1974
Vancouver National Harbours Board
Speaker, construction of a modern dock facility has started at Prince Rupert, and it will comprise 43 acres and cost about $23 million.
In the last two years the National Harbours Board has initiated, and has underway $76 million in facilities. In addition, studies regarding development of the second stage at Roberts Bank, at an estimated cost of some $20 million, are well in hand.
The Port of Vancouver must compete with the port of Seattle where port facilities pay no taxes and a 2 mill levy is applied to property in King County to support that port. It must also compete with Harbour Commission ports in British Columbia where no taxes are paid-New Westminster, Nanaimo and Port Alberni. Thus the Port of Vancouver must keep its costs down.
The National Harbours Board does pay taxes to municipal governments. In 1971 as a system NHB paid $7,418,321, and in 1972 paid $6,640,359 in tax grants to Canadian municipalities. Comments relative to the equipping of the port of Vancouver are not well founded. As a container port it has lacked certain facilities, but in fact Vancouver is bigger, is growing faster and is more efficient than Seattle. The two are not truly comparable. Vancouver is a very big export port. Seattle is very largely a container port.
Comments regarding relatively cheap facilities at Seattle are not well founded. The American Mail Line leases a modern container facility in Seattle, but with no rail connection and no de-stuffing facility. It covers about 20 acres, speaking from memory, and the cost is $1 million per year. That is hardly cheap. No doubt other facilities in Seattle are comparable. They are financed by a tax levy on property and by tax exempt municipal bonds.
It is not the policy of the National Harbours Board to safeguard private companies from taxation. It would be most improper for the board to have such a policy. This is the role of the government, not of Crown corporations unless so directed by government, and this board has not been so directed. The city of Vancouver is in favour of port expansion, and has obvious gains to make. To insist on taxation that would force prices up to a level not competitive with already established west coast ports would be self-defeating.
The board is charged with the responsibility of operating the ports under its jurisdiction in the best interests of Canada. It is under many restraints. Many demands are made upon it by many varied interests. In fact each one of its major decisions is subject to review, and is either authorized by order in council or by Treasury Board. For example, it is required to justify investment of taxpayers' dollars in the major facilities under construction as being in the best interests of Canada and of the port of Vancouver.
The whole subject matter of the National Harbours Board and municipal governments with respect to taxation has been a long and complicated problem for both sides. If we are to take economic estimates of the value of port activities to a municipal area as being equal to $20 per ton of cargo handled, the port of Vancouver meant an annual economic benefit to greater Vancouver of some

$840 million in 1973 alone. With co-operation from municipal governments, railways, industry and other levels of government it is suggested that the port of Vancouver will have an impact of at least $1,600,000,000 plus a year by 1980.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that Canada has played an extremely active and aggressive role in terms of promotion of her ports. It would be a sad day indeed if we were to allow this posture to be compromised by the disclosure of documents and information passing between the National Harbours Board and private companies. I strongly oppose the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East. It would serve neither the best interests of Vancouver nor those of Canada.


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


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Would the hon. member for St. Boniface accept a question?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Do I take it from the hon. member's remarks that the decision by Mr. Rathie, representing the National Harbours Board, to change the structure of these three companies, was deliberately taken to save them the taxes they were paying to the city of Vancouver, or rather the difference between the grants and what they were paying to Vancouver, so that they could become more competitive with the port of Seattle, despite the fact that they paid those taxes for years and remained competitive with the port of Seattle?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, I would like to say that whatever Mr. Rathie has recommended is at this moment in the hands of the department and has nothing to do with the point of view I expressed, although I am aware of what has taken place. I would also like to point out to the hon. member that I recently entertained a delegation from the city of Vancouver, which included its mayor. I am fully aware of all the details of the problem, and took these matters into consideration in the remarks I made.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House this afternoon moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) reads as follows:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all contracts between the National Harbours Board in Vancouver and the following firms (a) Empire Stevedoring Co. Ltd. (b) Canadian Stevedoring Co. Ltd (c) Canadian National Railways respecting the use of Ballantyne Pier, Lapointe Pier and Centennial Pier for thhe years 1973 and 1974.
As I listened to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), it seemed to me that the crunch argument in this whole matter is whether or not these internal agreements will be made public or kept confidential. As I listened to the hon. member, it seemed he was saying that for the sake of the competitive position of the National Harbours Board in Vancouver vis-a-vis Seattle and other Pacific coast ports, the Board wanted to maintain the confidentiality of these documents so as not to reveal input costs. This is a standard business practice. One does one's best not to reveal input costs to a competitor lest he be placed in a position to better them. I have sympathy for the
May 2, 1974

position put forward by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) concerning the confidentiality of agreements between the National Harbours Board and private companies.
I wish to add briefly to the discussion which was well covered by the hon. member. It would be fitting for me to deal with the ports of Canada with particular reference to our western gateway, Vancouver, one of our largest and most important ports. Canadian ports are an integral part of our national transportation system, linking water and land modes of transportation. Therefore, policy direction, planning and co-ordination are essential to ensure effective and efficient utilization of port facilities to the optimum benefit of all Canadians. In a trading nation such as Canada a port system is essential as an intrinsic part of a national transportation system. I think we in Canada can be very proud of the initiatives we have taken to promote a sophisticated ports system.
In this regard, the National Harbours Board has been singularly effective and any attempt to limit or modify the role it plays would surely be regretted at a later stage. Efforts to capture markets and traffic have been rewarded by increased cargo volume, and this trend should not be interrupted by misguided notions that public airing of private agreements is in the interest of Canada's transportation development.
The National Harbours Board has been extremely flexible in its response to changes in world shipping trends, technological development and international trade patterns. It has ensured that Canadian ports have been established and maintained in terms of both national and international interests and in keeping with Canada's constitutional responsibilities for navigation, shipping and national defence. It has planned carefully but boldly to ensure optimization in recovery of investment as well as allocation of resources, thereby providing maximum benefit to the country.
The National Harbours Board has also provided an organizational framework which is responsive to our national political, economic and social needs and is capable of operating within a highly competitive commercial environment. Vancouver is gradually emerging as a viable container port. The expanded use and level of acceptance of this dynamic breakthrough in the shipment of goods has terminated the revolutionary phase of its promotion. Import-export trade has demonstrated quite clearly that both shippers and receivers want the container: the list of commodities it can carry seems almost limitless and other benefits abound. The principal advantage to the transportation industry of the use of systems based on the intermodal freight container lies in the potential for increased productivity of capital, coupled with reduced labour costs. For equivalent cargo throughputs, the capital costs for container ports are lower than the capital costs for conventional break-bulk facilities.
Of far greater significance, however, is the dramatic increase, through mechanization, of labour productivity. Estimates indicate that labour at a container port is between 7.5 and 15 times more productive in terms of cargo volume than labour at a comparable conventional
Vancouver National Harbours Board port. An equally dramatic decrease is realized in the time required for ship to port transfers of cargo. This is important, as all the time a vessel is tied up in port unloading, the person using the transportation facility incurs costs. So unloading time is an important aspect of containerization. Similar savings can be realized on ocean transport costs through the use of large, high-speed container ships: the sizeable capital costs are more than offset by the economies of scale associated with large vessels and by the increased utilization of container ships resulting from significant reductions in transit and in-port times.
Because of the lowering of costs incurred at interchange points, opportunities for alternative transportation routings are increased with the adoption of container transport systems. Direct ship service between Europe and the Far East by services incorporating a North American land bridge could reduce the total distance by about 2,500 miles. Of course, any system using this land bridge would need to be highly automated and organized. Ships would bring cargoes to our east coast ports, those cargoes would be transferred to unit trains or similar trains, taken across the continent and loaded on other ships. Another example would be the provision of container feeder services to smaller ports from major container facilities, possibly offering a better service than could be achieved through the continued use of conventional shipping.
The shipper of cargo benefits through the security and structural protection provided by the container. Substantial reductions in damage and cargo loss result in greater reliability and a potential for reduced insurance costs. In addition, shipping costs are lowered in many instances because of a reduced requirement for protective packaging of cargo within the container. The advantages of containerization have far outweighed the disadvantages and dramatic increases in the use of containers by the developed nations of the world have been observed over the last few years. At Canadian ports, container handlings have increased in the short space of six years from 8,700 20-foot equivalents handled in 1967 to 316,000 20-foot equivalents handled in 1972. Last year's figures and future projections are equally impressive and encouraging.
The success of containerization in both our international and domestic trades will depend upon a number of factors, including the regulatory environment, container rate structures, competition from existing conventional facilities and possible use by external markets of our facilities. Certainly the publication of private documents relating to agreements between the National Harbours Board and private companies will not help the port of Vancouver exploit the manifest benefits that can accrue to Canada in this regard.
I would now like to move into an area of containerization that concerns all of us, that is, its impact on Canada-United States trade. In this regard there can be no question that Canada is finding herself in an increasingly advantageous position relative to her southern neighbour. The proportion of the diversion accounted for by container traffic diversions is not known but is thought to be significant. Furthermore, it has been suggested that diversion of United States container traffic through Canada could increase in the 1970s. United States imports and exports are attracted to Canadian routes because of fast transit

Vancouver National Harbours Board
times, reliability in transportation services, lower rates due to more flexible rate structures applied on Canadian routes and the aggressive marketing policies followed by Canadian port authorities. Among the rate advantages on Canadian routes is the availability of volume rates for rail transportation which offer significant reductions for shipments of over 200 containers per week. The lower rates reflect the higher utilization of equipment and, hence, lower costs associated with larger volume. In general, however, trade diversion between Canada and the United States is a cyclical phenomenon. In any case, the existence of alternative routes outside the home country places some competitive restraint on rates charged to cargo shippers.
I must emphasize that the development of containerization has been assisted considerably in Canada by the maintenance of a relatively regulation-free environment for transportation activities. Multimodal transportation companies are not prohibited under Canadian legislation. The integration of transportation services through such companies has simplified the provision of complete door to door transportation to Canadian shippers. In this case we have a transportation system which can deliver from door to door in Canada, handled by only one carrier.
The shipper also benefits from the effective use of a single, through bill of lading and the simplicity of a single through rate. The development of integrated transportation services is also assisted through the existence of a single body for the regulation of all modes of transportation whose stated aim is the co-ordination of transportation services.
We are looking at a situation here where we have to decide whether we are going to make public the cost inputs of the National Harbours 3oard, revealing these to other ports with which the board might be competing. There is an old saying that Eaton's doesn't tell Simpsons. I think that is the situation here: one port does not want to reveal its input costs to another. In circumstances where there is no competition, this would not be a factor. In my own constituency I am familiar with the input costs of operating the Tobermory-South Bay Mouth ferry and ports maintained by the Department of Public Works. These documents are necessary to determine the viability and practicality of establishing a new ferry service between the port at the west end of Manitoulin Island, Meldrum Bay and Detour, Michigan. These figures are available because they are not in competition with any other country or company; there is not the competitive factor to be taken into consideration.
With regard to the port of Vancouver on the west coast, we are trying to develop a more effective port which handles more goods and services, including containerization. For this reason I am sympathetic with the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport that these private, internal input costs should not be made public because of the disadvantageous position in which it would put that port vis-a-vis ports in the United States with which it is in competition.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the motion before us. From time to time in this

House we debate requests for the production of papers. I suppose motions like this are as old as parliament itself, and the process is about the same; many motions are placed on the order paper which would prove very detrimental if accepted and the information made public. Nearly everyone in this House has a reasonable knowledge of transportation costs in a country the size of ours and some of the difficulties we face whether on the basis of regionalism or nationalism. Any information made public that would tend to increase costs and prevent competitiveness on the part of Canadian companies, cities or transportation facilities would only make matters worse for Canadian business in general. We must remember that these businesses pay taxes as well as their employees.
When speaking to a motion such as the one before us we are not just dealing with the companies mentioned in the motion or the National Harbours Board as it pertains to Vancouver harbour; we are speaking about jobs for Canadians. Hon. members are quite familiar with the operations of many Crown corporations. There is a large one in my constituency. It pays grants in lieu of taxes to the municipality in which it is located. At times when I have asked about particular information I have been informed that this type of information is not made public. I am given very good reasons for this, and I accept them.
Looking at the history of transportation in Canada, I think we have come a long way. We have developed new companies and techniques in order to stay in this highly competitive market. Any information made public about the port of Vancouver might be detrimental to the operations of the National Harbours Board, the exportation of Canadian goods and the importation of goods. It would be not only detrimental to the Vancouver area but to a large area-indeed, to Canada in general.
What are some of the competitive factors with which we have to live? We are selling over 15 million tons of coal a year to Japan, and I understand that Japan has built special ships to carry this coal to factories where they manufacture products competitive with our own. This has an effect, of course, on the amount of traffic in imported goods which flows from the port of Vancouver. The enterprising Japanese community has also built ocean-going ships specifically to carry logs. They carry timber to Japan, where it is made into plywood and veneers and brought back to Canada and the United States where it is sold more cheaply than we could manufacture it at home.
I do not think the Canadian public would support an attempt to give out information which would, for example, help the city of Seattle to compete more favourably with the city of Vancouver. Hon. members have heard from two of my hon. friends sound and logical objections to the motion before us. I wish to endorse the position taken by those speakers. We are rot dealing here with any partisan issue but with an issue which has a direct economic effect on Canada in general and Vancouver in particular. No one, surely, would wish to see the government establish a precedent which might be dangerous in the future and seriously hamper the efficiency and freedom of not only the National Harbours Board but of Crown corporations in general. Those corporations having been set up to operate in a businesslike manner, it is surely the duty of parlia-

ment to back their efforts and make sure they are protected and placed in a position to conduct their affairs in an honest and profitable manner.
I do not wish to speculate as to the dire consequences which could result from a decision that operating schemes negotiated between the National Harbours Board and private companies could be made public. The only way in which the National Harbours Board at Port of Vancouver, and other ports for that matter, can remain productive is for their operating agreements with private companies to remain confidential in the interest of preserving competitive advantage. If a Crown corporation happens to be located in a particular community, the community will not object to receiving grants in lieu of taxes. These books are audited. Does General Motors in Oshawa pay taxes to all the communities surrounding Oshawa, or does it pay taxes to Oshawa alone?
It seems to me to be futile to make public declarations which would not create a better opportunity to compete with the maximum impact on the international market related to port traffic. To back up this statement I should like to remind hon. members that 25 cents of every dollar Canadians have in their pockets today comes from international trade. For this reason the National Harbours Board plays a very important role in getting goods out of Canada as well as in bringing goods in from other countries.
For all its excellence in the provision of port facilities, Canada does not hold a copyright of expertise and efficiency in harbour operation. We must continue to improve our facilities so as to remain competitive with other countries in the world, in particular on the west coast where competition can become intense. It would be foolish to take action which would fetter our freedom to compete successfully for the cargo traffic which comprises such an important part of our transportation system.
In addition to the principle of confidentiality which is involved here, the motion contains a practical flaw. Information is a delicate commodity and is useful only if it fits the purpose. It is easy to have too much information and not enough knowledge.
In calling it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) who is sponsoring this motion has not been in the House during the course of my speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you want us to call a quorum?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, the hour set aside for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Profiteering Practices


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-29, to amend the Combines Investigation Act in relation to profiteering practices, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew -Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather glad that I am speaking after the dinner break, because a speech immediately following one by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) would be a hard act to follow. It was an excellent act: the style was great, he waxed magnificently in eloquence and delivery but he waned badly in content. In the first half of his oration he attacked his former friends in the party to our left, the members of the NDP. Like a rejected, jilted lover he cajoled and pleaded for a reconciliation. Perhaps the reconciliation has been made; time will tell.
He claimed annoyance that the NDP consider themselves the only people in Canada to be the protectors of the individual rights of Canadians. He says that his party has been against profiteering for a long time. I ask him where, and when? Perhaps he is suffering from selective amnesia, for he seems to have forgotten that his party brought forth a policy to increase the profits of manufacturing through the corporate tax incentives of the last budget. Perhaps he does not understand what it is his colleagues have been saying. They have been saying what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated in Winnipeg in the last week in April when he denied there was any corporate rip-off; the minister said that profits were being properly used to expand capacity, output and jobs. Perhaps he did not understand the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) when he indicated there was no profiteering on a general basis in Canada.
What the minister of Regional Economic Expansion said was mainly an attack on his former friends of the New Democratic Party. But then I think he misconstrued something in his bout of selective amnesia when dealing with what a member of our party said, indeed what our party has stood for for some time. He said that his party had brought about increased wages for the fishermen of Newfoundland and increased wages generally across Canada, and he thought this was great. He said that the Progressive Conservative Party wants to control wages. As I have suggested, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion suffers from selective amnesia, for indeed he forgot to say how his party has also watched and stood by while prices have risen faster than wages, he forgot to say it was a prices and incomes policy that the Progressive Conservative Party advocated so that prices could be held down.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that an election must be called in the not too distant future. Yesterday we first heard that the Liberal government was going to try to buy the votes of its employees by arbitrarily giving them $500 each, while at the same time failing to bargain in good faith in contracts presently being negotiated with civil servants.

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
The government is offering today 2 per cent to 4 per cent increases for openers, finally settling for 7 per cent to 8 per cent, whereas the cost of living nationally is 10.4 per cent and in Ottawa, where most public servants live, it is 11.4 per cent.
Bill C-29, which allegedly deals with profiteering, is in reality a bill dealing with prices and profit margins. These two actions, along with a public-paid junket by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last weekend, indicate, to me at least, blatant pre-election politicking. The new rules of procedure in the House which were introduced, and the supposedly better committee system which has been set up, as a result of which the government would have plenty of time to introduce bills and allow for public scrutiny for a week or two between first and second readings, are once again being short-circuited as this government rushes to put supposedly attractive legislation on the order paper for debate less than 48 hours later.
This government is not interested in governing for the betterment of Canada and Canadians. It is using its authority and power for blatant politicking, trying to put the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of Canadians, merely trying to hang on to power and thus perpetuate itself in office. Unconscionable, undoubtedly; but the Canadian public will not be fooled, for they are intelligent and will think of this bill as the cosmetic farce that it really is. It falls into the same type of political manoeuvre as the announcing of a Lake Ontario park in Tronto by the Secretay of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) during the last election, the increasing of wages for the armed forces which was announced during the last election, and even the announcement of the Minister of Finance of redevelopment of Ottawa's historic marketplace, again made during the last election. Where has the government been for the last 18 months, Mr. Speaker? Under what bush has the Liberal Party been lost? Lost in what forest? For surely they cannot see the forest for the trees. Behind whose skirt has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs been hiding, or should I say jostling for position with the Prime Minister?
Here we have a government which has faltered in its handling of the economy for some six years now, bouncing from pillar to post like a drunken sailor first during this parliament's encouragement of higher profits in the manufacturing industries in order to bring more investment through the corporate tax concessions of the last budget and now with a bill allegedly to control profits, or excess profits. Which is it they really want, as they speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time? For the last 18 months, since the people of Canada gave notice to the government on October 30, 1972, of their dissatisfaction, the inept handling of the economy has led to a virtual raping of the low and middle-class wage earners' ability to maintain a decent standard of living.
Inflation, which was just over 5 per cent 18 months ago, has rocketed to the uncharted waters of 10 per cent, and now the government, with its own report tabled Tuesday by the Minister of Finance saying that the worst is yet to come, has finally awakened from its arrogant cocoon to say that it must do something about inflation. This is something the Progressive Conservative Party has been

saying for well over a year in crystal-clear terms. What a half-hearted, timid approach. The government says this bill is a new instrument in its line of defence against inflation. What other instrument does the government have, and what is its line of defence? What other antiinflationary policy has this government espoused? I suggest there is none. The only thing the government has done is introduce some measures to relieve the painful symptoms of those who need relief from the pain of the inflation the government has allowed to run out of control.
I say that Bill C-29 is on one hand a timid, half-hearted approach, while on the other hand it is unconscionably dangerous, severe and autocratic. Indeed, on the one side it is timid and is, allegedly, to deal with profits only, with possibly some selective rollbacks, and I emphasize the word "possibly". This government now, some 18 months late, is talking about controls, a freeze on prices and rollbacks, when our party long ago advanced a prices and incomes policy not dealing just with profits but with dividends, rents, salaries, wages and prices. Even the NDP, the timid tigers of this parliament, have gone further than this Liberal government now proposes. That party has for some time talked about price rollbacks and selective controls even though it has not put forward a completely progressive program.
I should point out that last year both the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested that Canada should introduce a prices and incomes control policy. The International Monetary Fund, in September, 1973 said:
Besides cooling off their economies through use of their federal budgets and control of money and credit, nations should supplement these anti-inflationary tools with wage-price controls or other policies affecting income.
In addition, it stated:
-wage increases were likely to remain high in Canada in the absence of any official action to directly control them.
In December, 1973, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development stated that Canada's over-all rate of inflation for 1974 would be higher than in 1973, and that inflation in Canada had developed a momentum of its own and could only be offset by a concerted anti-inflation program. Further, it reported that no such program existed in Canada and that inflationary psychology was so solidly entrenched that Canada needed a comprehensive antiinflation program that included wage and price controls if inflation was to be licked.
On the other hand, as I have said, this law is too dangerous, severe and autocratic. This legislation on profiteering would make bad law because it is imprecise; it does not say who the law will effect. An accused would not even know he was accused until the government, acting on information provided by those it had appointed to look into price increases, declared the law to be in effect. As a matter of fact, there is some suggestion that this legislation could be retroactive.
This legislation is penal law, and penal laws are interpreted in the strictest manner by our courts, in line with our democratic philosophy that we as a free people are free to do whatever we wish unless it is explicitly prohibited by law. If this ever became the law of the land, I doubt whether there would be a successful prosecution

and it is doubtful if there would ever be any imprisonment. This bill could well be interpreted as a denial of natural justice under which a person is entitled to know in advance what the law is, to know what charge he is facing, to know, prior to the hearing, the case against him, and to be represented at his trial which should be open to the public and to the press.
This proposed legislation by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not explicit as to what the law will be. It lacks definition as to what the article is. It does not define "customary" profits, and it does not explain what is an "excess" profit. It gives no idea what the base price would be or what might be an appropriate profit margin. How would a person or corporation charged under this legislation know what the law was and what had to be avoided? The fact is that a company probably would not know what the charge was, whether it was profiteering through inflating prices, too high a mark-up, or whether it had lowered irresponsibly its cost of production because it became inefficient.
As this legislation is proposed, it would discourage a company from becoming efficient and perhaps increasing its profits, because the profit margin that was set would be increased and the company might be prosecuted, whereas a company which is inefficient could charge more for its goods in order to receive the same profit margin. It is suggested that this law could be hashed out in what is really a secret, star chamber cabinet meeting. The fact that a case could possibly be put to the cabinet, sitting as sort of judge and jury without the company or person knowing, with no provision for representations to be made on behalf of the company or person before the cabinet or executive body, is also wrong; it is a denial of the principle of natural justice for the cabinet to wear three hats, one as informant, one as prosecutor and one as judge. This proposed legislation is autocratic and it is wrong.
Why does this government, now 18 months late, bring forth a bill that is badly drafted, ill-conceived and largely unworkable in its present form? If it feels it can calm the people of Canada with cosmetic legislation, it is wrong. The Progressive Conservative Party and, I believe, the voters are too wise for that. This bill, as has been explained by others before me, deals only with a portion of those things which are causing inflation today. It deals only with unidentified articles, whatever they may be. It does not deal directly with services, housing, rents, incomes-all major factors in our ever escalating cost of living. This bill could well prove to be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Even the Liberal Party has not tried to tell us how this bill fits into the over-all philosophy or direction they are aiming for. It is floundering around, attempting to reach out and clutch at something, anything; the government knows not what. At best, it could be considered a vague, ill-conceived attempt to do something about inflation, but one knows not what for sure. It should have been introduced as a budgetary measure, if it is really to be what the government claims, that is, an anti-inflation measure, with possible taxing provisions, in view of the fact that it does have an impact on the country's economy and business and investment communities. The government is not even sure what this bill is designed for. The government,
Profiteering Practices
and the minister who introduced this bill and is responsible for it, can only give legalistic, clause by clause statements as to how it might work.
As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others have said, there have been no policy statements of any significance or depth to which we can look to see how, or if, this bill will ever be put into force. I note there is no certainty as to when the bill will be proclaimed and no statement of assurance as given in the election expenses act. In fact, this bill, if it were to pass, could stay on the statute books for years and never be proclaimed as the law of the land. If the bill were to become part of our law, it would be left open as to when, if ever, it might be proclaimed.
At the very last, the bill needs a time limit on it, and expiry date of, say, 18 months or two years after its proclamation so that if the government of the day wanted it to continue it would have to seek parliament's approval. If this bill by some miracle ever gets to committee, it needs drastic changes by way of amendment. This should be done only after this House is given more guidance as to the government's intentions for this country which, hopefully, will be revealed in the forthcoming budget.
If this bill should go to the committee it should be noted that clauses 7, 8 and 9 are directly related to Bill C-7 which is now in committee. These two bills should be consolidated or at least considered jointly in Committee. The clauses which relate to offences under the Combines Investigation Act and changing the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to a more powerful Trade Practices Commission should be dealt with at one time. The bill should be expanded to include services and housing. Services have been included in Bill C-7: why have they not been included here?
In respect of the clause dealing with natural justice, all inquiries under this legislation should be conducted in public. This bill is vague, as I have indicated. I do not think there could be a successful prosecution or any imprisonment whatsoever. Bill C-29 is expected to be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs, whereas Bill C-7 is before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. If this bill should ever go to committee, it should be considered by the committee that is considering Bill C-7 and at the same time.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this evening's debate because, the more progress we make in the debate, the better the climate will be. Before the debate began, the two main opposition parties had already taken very strong positions towards this bill. But after listening to the hon. members who spoke in the House today, I think that the debate has been very useful because several questions have been asked. In my opinion, everyone agrees today on the principle of this bill. Everyone is aware that there are profiteers who make windfall profits. However, when the government decides to act, we can see how the House is divided on this issue.

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
I listened a while ago to my friend the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), who nearly made us cry by saying that the bill was going to be extremely dangerous, that it would affect the rights of Canadian citizens, that action would be taken against people without benefit of trial, that people would be penalized and indicted without any advance notice, and even that this bill is autocratic. I could find the words that the hon. member used to say that we should not support this bill because it is too harsh. I also heard the hon. member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) and his colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) say that this bill has no teeth, as we say in English, that it did not provide the necessary coercive powers to be effective, that this bill-

The Tories, on the one side, say it is too strong and the NDP, on the other side, say it is not strong enough. Again, this is a good sign that we are moving in the right direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising either on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that it appears I have been misunderstood, or misquoted, or that the minister is suffering from selective amnesia. I said this bill was a very timid, half-hearted attempt. I also said it was too strong in the sense of denying natural justice in certain respects. The minister should speak of the whole and not just of half.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Once again, he admits that we are right. He confirmed what I said namely that the bill, from a certain procedural point of view, was too difficult or too hard on the citizens. On the other hand, the NDP member stated that it was not hard enough. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it must be another one of those fine measures, as advocated by the philosophy of the Liberal party, which tries to find natural justice in a middle course.
For months, Mr. Speaker, we were told that the Food Prices Review Board, the Plumptre Board, was not strong enough, had not the necessary coercive powers to be efficient. Amendments were introduced. It would perhaps have been advisable then to carry the amendments and grant coercive powers. However, we did not want to follow that policy. We thought that the people indulging in fraudulent and profiteering practices to make profits understood they could not take advantage of the conditions in the country.
Today, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) upholds a bill to meet requirements made by opposition members, particularly the NDP. Today, they say this is a timid and complicated measure. They suggest there is no authority to freeze prices. To suggest things like that is to distort the facts. Provision is made in the act that the government can at some point declare that prices are immediately frozen. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) is opposed to that because he suggests that it might be too strong a discretionary power in the hands of a government.

On the other hand, the NDP do not see any real power in the hands of anyone. And that freeze for 30 days, Mr. Speaker, will be followed by inquiries and could in instances of non-compliance be followed by injunctions from the courts. If a company or its directors are found guilty of profiteering the act states that they are liable to fines of up to $10,000 and, if required, to imprisonment for up to two years. I for one feel that that is going quite far. And if NDP members are not satisfied all they have to do is to move on second reading that the fine be increased from $10,000 to a maximum of $50,000, or $100,000, if they can manage to convince all hon. members that the $10,000 fine is inadequate. If they feel that the present term is inadequate they can try and move amendments.
Hon. members will have an opportunity to improve the bill. But to say that it does not provide for any penalty and any authority for enforcement, that it is toothless is I think an exaggeration. This bill goes as far as saying that if a company or a director is found guilty of profiteering and found guilty by the commission they will be paying back the excess profits to the consumers. If this were to prove impractical because, for instance, an individual or a company having charged 3 cents too much on each tin of canned tomatoes sold in Canada it would be difficult to reimburse 3 cents to each consumer, the government could then order the manufacturer or the officials of the company to pay the government the excessive profits, in addition to incurring possible personal fines and prison terms.
Mr. Speaker, if that makes a bill timid, such timidity worries me. Had the hon. members of the opposition only taken the trouble of reading the bill, the might have come to the conclusion that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Blenkarn:: I was wondering if the minister would permit a question. Could he tell me where agricultural products are included in this bill? I thought that tomatoes were an agricultural product. Where are they covered in this bill?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sorry; perhaps I used the wrong example when I spoke of a can of tomatoes. I should have used the example of a pair of shoes; the hon. member would have had no problem with that. Your party says you would freeze the price of everything in this country, but you start by excluding agricultural products. You are not very logical in your policy.

Mr. Speaker, had they only read the bill they would perhaps have reached a very simple conclusion, that found in the editorial of the newspaper Le Devoir on April 30, 1974, and I quote;
To those circumstances ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must remind the hon. member that the minister, who has the floor, has the right to be heard by the Chair and the other hon. members.
May 2, 1974


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at all at the attitude of the opposition: they do not want to hear anything about this bill. They want an election as soon as possible in order to, as we say in Canada, "patch up their problems".
he Devoir said, and I quote:
To those circumstances we owe the fact that even today we have a bill capable of stirring a salutary fear in industry, as well as bringing to their knees those who are too stiff-necked. The reform presented yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) offers the advantage of not doing away with what already exists; for example, the Plumptre board will go on with its work.
On the basis of a report of an inquiry commission, the Cabinet will have the power, through an official proclamation, to freeze temporarily the price of some given article and request intervention by the director of research and inquiries. After investigation, the director will submit the evidence to the new Trade Practices Commission, which in turn will have the power to put an end to the objectionable trade practice and to force the supplier to roll back the prices or to refund customers or, if this is not feasible, to pay to the Crown its surplus profits.
Mr. Speaker, this bill must be examined, but both opposition parties refuse to give it second reading to amend it. We do not think this bill is perfect. The hon. member for York South said that its operation seems too complex.
If such is the case, it can be improved at the committee stage. But what we want, and I think we all agree on that, is to catch as soon as possible those who take advantage of the situation and make excessive profits.
I do not understand why the bill cannot be studied in committee and amended. The procedure may be complicated but on the other hand we must be careful. One should not convict everybody in advance and without trial.
The corporations as well as their directors have a right, like every citizen, to present their case before being convicted. That is why they are called to appear before the commission. I do not agree with the NDP theory that they must be convicted more or less without trial, without knowing exactly their position.
I think that the rights of citizens apply to everyone, the poorest as well as the richest, because we are all equal before the law in Canada and that is why we prefer to live here.
On the other hand, there are certain points which could be clarified. Dissatisfaction has been voiced because the bill excludes certain services. However it must be understood that they are services and often we have absolutely no control over services.
Let us take the example of bus tickets. The price of tickets is determined by the transport commissions. The federal commission cannot intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
The same thing applies in the area of trucking, hospital services, telephone rates and other public services. It would not be appropriate for a federal commission to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction. If there are abuses it is up to the provincial governments to take their responsibilities.
Reference has also been made to housing. To my mind, the legislation covers also the field of housing, and profiteering on building materials, for instance, would then be corrected.
Profiteering Practices
On the other hand, the housing problem has many elements that cannot be controlled by such a commission. For instance, wage earners have negotiated collective agreements, approved by provincial governments. It would be improper, by passing federal legislation, to try to intervene in those areas which have a strong impact on housing costs.
The same can be said of utilities related to housing: water and sewers. Such services are often provided by municipalities and these are autonomous. It is not the role of federal government to tell municipalities what to do in their own jurisdiction.
However, as I have said, if this measure can be improved upon, let us give the House at least the opportunity to do so by sending this bill to committee after second reading. Notably in the speeches of our friends at the far right of the House, the New Democrats,-


An hon. Member:: Of the far left-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of the far left. No, they are sometimes confused; one would not know.
Benefits are all they talk about. Such company made 25, 30, 40 or 50 per cent more profits than the year before, but that does not mean anything or almost, because for instance a company whose capital would have yielded 40 per cent in 1972 would have made excess profits. The same company which, the following year, 1973, would have had profits of 36 per cent would effectively have suffered a 10 per cent decrease and would still be making excess profits. So the fact that the company received less profit would not be a good enough reason not to submit it to the control of the board.
On the other hand, if the profits of a company amounted to 2 per cent of its capital in 1972 and to 4 per cent the following year, that means there was an increase of 100 per cent, but it would not be considered sufficient.
We must therefore stop using slogans such as those, to be fair to everyone. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested, we should consider the return on the capital, not only the profit realized compared with the preceding year.
Even then, there could be hidden facts. Excessive profits might have been hidden in the figures of executive salaries or in inflated advertising contracts or subcontracts which could be a temporary camouflage of the profits of the company. Mr. Speaker, the opposition baffles me. Frankly, I am rather disappointed to see that opposition members do not even want to give the House an opportunity to study the bill.
The leader of the NDP, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), has said that this legislation is a last minute sop offered to the NDP. Mr. speaker, we are not afraid of an election. We were returned to office in 1973, and everyone predicted that we would not last one week. Now we have been here for a year and a half, and we have not "sopped" anybody. We have passed good law for the benefit of Canadians, and that is why we are still here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In a time of inflation the people of Canada want the members of this House to do their best. They want us to try to cope with the problem, as we are doing through this bill. But if hon. members opposite cause an election, we will not mind. We will be back on this side. We are not afraid of that. The government is fully dressed, fully prepared with this piece of legislation. It is the NDP that has been caught naked, with its pants down. Its members are unwilling streakers. They are not really prepared to accept effective legislation.
Canadians want the government to crack down on pricegouging practices. This legislation provides the necessary powers, machinery and penalties. Why are the members of the NDP so upset because the government is doing its job? As usual they are all talk. They are afraid of losing one of their handy slogans. They could not continue to barrage the Canadian public with inflated verbal rip-offs. Slogan politics fall apart when faced with effective government action.
The government has every intention of using the new powers proposed under this bill to protect the Canadian consumer from unfair trade practices. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to go on a witch-hunt. I recognize that business depends on profits for growth and investment. This bill does not outlaw profits. It gives the government the power to freeze and roll back prices where suppliers are taking unfair advantage of the consumer. A businessman is entitled to profit but he has no right to use the present situation to abuse the consumer. We will put those guys in their places with this bill. Both the Conservatives and the NDP want to go in another direction. The answer of hon. members opposite is to freeze everything but they opposed the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) when he gave an increase to the civil service. They said what he was proposing was not enough. Others said it was far too much. Hon. members opposite have their own internal problems.
I think that this piece of legislation is good. Of course, it is not perfect and we are willing to discuss amendments, but the public should not be left with the impression that there is nothing in this bill. We do not want to create injustices in this country, but we will not permit profiteers to exploit the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Who are they?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The gougers.


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If we want to get them, we will get them. We must have inquiries. Of course, the NDP would like us to do things right away. But there must be investigations. Then those found guilty will have to pay a fine or be put in jail. As a result, more people will not abuse the situation. We will always allow a fair margin of profit for business people. They are entitled to that. But we want to get at the gougers, and to do that we want this bill to receive second reading. Then hon. members will have plenty of opportunity to make suggestions for amendments. But the public should not be deceived. Hon. members opposite are afraid of the effectiveness of this bill. That is why they do not want it passed. The people of Canada would then see them in their true light.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the minister who preceded me suggested that members on this side had not studied the bill. I suggest to him that we have indeed studied it very carefully. We studied it to see if it had anything worth amending in it in the first place. Unfortunately, the bill is so hoary-minded, so vague, so incomprensible in its details that it is not worth sending to committee.
The problems that this country faced prior to October 30, 1972, were inflation, unemployment insurance, the unemployment problem itself, lack of industrial growth, lack of processing of raw materials in this country and development of a nation. The country still faces those problems. We have the answers to solve them and we will let the minister hear those answers on election platforms. And if he is successful and returns to sit in this House in opposition, we will also let him hear them here.
This bill seeks to amend the Combines Investigation Act. It is the second amendment to that act introduced since the Speech from the Throne was delivered last February. The first amending bill, No. C-7, is still before committee. Clearly, if the present bill had been intended to be part of the government's strategy in solving inflation problems, it would have been introduced with the previous bill as one package and would have been introduced earlier this session. But the truth of the matter is that this bill was flung together over a weekend. It was dumped on this House to appease the NDP, to suck them in so they could say they were doing something about profiteers and price gougers. But the members of the NDP are a little smarter than that. Opposition members as a whole are a little smarter than that. The government must think we are pretty foolish if it pretends that this bill will do anything about inflation and price gouging.
We are all interested in stopping profiteering. We are all concerned about inflation. But this bill is merely fluff; it is merely bluff. It does not do anything with respect to these problems. It does not do anything about house prices, about the price of houses already built, for which the materials have already been paid, yet the prices of those houses are raised by as much as $3,000 to $4,000 over one weekend. That may be gouging, that may be an unrealistic price increase and certainly it cannot be treated as cons-cionable, yet this bill does not touch that problem. Actually, it deals with hardly any problems.
What is the bill supposed to attack? It purports, to deal with the price of articles which seriously affect the living costs of all, or a great majority of Canadians. Therefore, the bill applies only to those articles which seriously affect all Canadians, or the great majority of them. A few weeks ago our newspapers spoke of a certain optical company which manufactures eye glasses: it was accused of gouging. Do eye glasses affect the living costs of all, or a great majority of Canadians? I suggest that the majority of Canadians do not wear eye glasses, not even the majority of the members of this House. So eye glasses are not included. The minister who spoke before me mentioned shoes. Are we talking about men's, or women's, shoes? If we mean women's shoes, they certainly do not affect
May 2, 1974

living costs of a great majority of Canadians. Perhaps of half the population, but not the great majority. The same applies to men's shoes. This bill is to affect the price of articles used by all, or a great majority of Canadians. Remember that.
What about the price of bricks? How many Canadians actually use bricks? I suppose those who are thinking of buying or building a house need bricks. But do all Canadians, or the majority, use bricks? No, sir. And what about lumber? Lumber is not included, if we apply the same definition. How many things are included? Food is not. Yet we all eat, I trust.


Mr. Stanbury:: It is included.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about agriculture? That is not included.


Richard J. Stanbury: Read the bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member not aware that the bill provides that only agricultural products, when they are in the hands of primary producers or at the moment they are sold by them, are not covered and that the bill covers these products at every level of trade beyond that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, with respect I suggest that the bill covers only the processing of agricultural products, at the processing stage, but does not include agricultural products as such. For instance, it does not cover tomatoes sold by the greengrocer who may have overcharged you, unless they happen to be in a can or soup or something like that. It does not cover agricultural products. It does not cover the vast majority of things.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept another question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the minister may tell us what the bill does cover.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the hon. member to section 50(5) which states unequivocably that the natural products of agriculture are not included. The subsection reads in part;
-this part does not apply to an article ... that is owned by a primary producer or fisherman or to any sale or distribution of such an article in an unprocessed state by such a primary producer or fisherman.
Does he not realize that such language makes the bill apply to those products at every further level of trade beyond that?


Richard J. Stanbury: No; he has not read the bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that suggestion. How can the bill attempt to control the price of agricultural products when it obviously does not cover fertilizer and other things used by the farmer. In fact, it covers hardly any product. This bill does not include very much. It covers only articles which are consumed or used by all, or a great majority of Canadians. That puts a serious limit on the scope of the bill.
What does the bill require? With respect to those articles on which excessive profits are being made, the bill says
Profiteering Practices
that two things must happen. First, the commission or board to be set up must recommend action to the cabinet, and the cabinet must decide if something is seriously wrong. When it is so satisfied, it may invoke the act and direct that guidelines shall be established to deal with the industry or product in question. Remember, it must be a product which is used by all, or the majority of our people. Then the director must inquire as to what action must be taken, then the company involved may be taken to court. That is the sort of bill this is-and this sort of legislation is supposed to control the price of certain articles.
Clearly, as the Globe and Mail said today, this bill is a paper tiger. Earlier today a minister of the government, using all his rhetoric said, "Fellows, why hold the bill up in the House? Would it not be better to send the bill to committee, where it can be fixed." This bill is so bad that we despair of fixing it. The bill is a sham, notwithstanding all the rhetoric of ministers who have spoken today. The government should withdraw the bill. I suspect that after tonight it will be filed away under the table. Probably it will never see the light of day again. It has been shown to be a sham and a sop to win the support of the NDP.
In this country we need some method to control inflation. The government could use several such methods. We have suggested an income policy and a commodities policy under which more commodities would be processed in Canada. As well, we support a monetary policy which would separate our money supply from the New York market. We would attack government expenses. This bill represents the beginning of an incomes policy. Sir, we need a comprehensive incomes policy. Our program would begin with a 60 to 90-day freeze on wages, prices and profits and would be imposed for two reasons. First, it would show the country that we really mean business and that those who are anticipating further price rises are likely to be disappointed. We would want to curb inflationary expectations in society.
Second, we would need time to develop, with the provinces and other bodies, a comprehensive program to control basic costs across the board. That is what our incomes program would involve. We would set up an incomes and prices review board which would set up realistic guidelines to cover wages and salaries, including salaries paid to executives. We would not be concerned only about the poor guy who works on the line but would include the executive who draws a large salary. The board would determine the profit that a company would need to attract further capital and to expand. It would determine what the real input costs are and what the real price structure should be on a fair basis. However, this proposal by the government does not do anything of the kind. The program at the outset suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on a comprehensive basis would probably be for 18 months to two years. It perhaps might even have to be longer than that. Indeed, it might have to become part of a permanent competition policy.
In that regard, may I point out the difference between the philosophy of an incomes policy as prescribed by this party and the woolly, button-down, wing collar approach or look of society as visualized by the government party. We do not live entirely in a marketplace economy. We do

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
not live in an economy of open and complete competition. Certainly some parts are open, in complete competition. Small stores compete with other small stores perhaps; small businesses compete with other small businesses in the same trade, perhaps. But the great part of our industrial might is involved in large organizations that have a monopoly or oligarchy position in our society, where the price they charge for their product does not necessarily bear any true relation to cost.
We have a situation where big industry, big labour and big government are not subject to the marketplace forces of competition. In the past, the answer by the government to this condition has been the Combines Investigation Act. I say that is a useless act in the ultimate. It really has not done anything to affect the oligarchies or to create competition. It may well be-and I will speak about this later- that it is not necessarily desirable in some fields that there be competition. Under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, the only people who have been caught have been stupid. People who make mistakes are caught under that act, but by and large it is only when they make a goof that they are caught.
Prices are charged by big business and big labour on the basis of what the traffic will bear. It is almost ridiculous, but the bill refers to profit margins that are "customarily" obtained. The bill even recognizes that it is all right to have these profit margins. If your profit margin is always 100 per cent, that is all right. But if you make 200 per cent, that is bad even though possibly you should not have made 100 per cent in the first place.
We must recognize the realities of 1974. Big business operates on a price leadership basis. Does anyone here seriously believe there is any competition between our big banks? Just a week and a half ago the Bank of Canada raised the re-discount rate. Suddenly the Royal said, "ten and a half it is," and five other banks instantly said it was 10 Vi per cent. The Commerce took another day and a half to get to 10 Vi per cent for the prime rate. Does anyone believe there is real competition between the banks? The only competition is in the advertising-Susie of the Commerce and little Mary of the Royal Bank.
Is there any real competition in automobiles? Is there any real competition between the oil companies? I was in Saskatchewan recently. I noticed oil company prices posted on the five pumps were about the same as I pay in Ontario. In fact, in one town it was a little more. I happen to be at this end of the pipeline, and they are at the other. The price in the Texaco pump in Mississauga is 59.9 cents a gallon. The refinery is right in Port Credit, in Mississauga. When I travel 60 miles to my cottage, the No. 2 Texaco gasoline, which comes from the same refinery, is
54.9	cents a gallon-what the traffic will bear.
This government has to understand the whole question of competition and the kind of society in which we live. This government is completely out of it. Last fall there was a strike in the oil refinery at Port Credit. I went to see the strikers and talked to them and their union leader. The leader of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union said they were not fighting over money. They had agreed on that. The oil companies and the union had already agreed on the wages for refinery workers. That was agreed in the package. What was the strike about? It was about

safety conditions in that particular refinery, and the way the supervisory force acted. The wages had already been settled. They had been determined by big labour and big business operating in concert, quite able to pass it on right through the system. They are able to do this because of their size.
Within the past week or so we have witnessed an example of price leadership. Many of us applauded the activities of the Steel Company of Canada saying to its union that it was necessary to increase wages for its employees. Immediately, Falconbridge, Inco and Westinghouse increased wages. It went right through the big structures in society. Perhaps it was necessary because of inflation. But what do we have? We have bigness. We have the large, uncontrolled organizations in our society able to do just about what they want.
The purpose of an incomes and prices review board is so that we, the public, have some say because there really is no competition in the market that will control prices. It has been suggested we can control prices by bringing in imports and creating foreign competition. However, when Ford and General Motors have plants in every country, do you really control prices by allowing imports? Not on your life!
We need big corporations, oligarchies and monopolies. There is nothing wrong with Canada having these. After all, Canada is a nation of only 22 million people. It needs an economy on the scale that bigness gives. It needs the R and D expertise that can be developed in big corporations. But there has to be some control over their activities. That control has to be a comprehensive incomes policy applied to the oligarchic and monopolistic situation in our economy. We need something to replace competition. Competition to control these things went out with the wing collar. That is the philosophy of the Liberal Party-wing collar, button-down shirt, dickie and big, starched cuffs. They have not had a new idea in years. They keep bringing in amendments to the Combines Investigation Act.
Big business, large unions combining together can pass on their costs and take all the traffic will bear. They can exact an ever increasing share of the economy. They can use their price leadership and power to take over small corporations. This is part of the reason we need an incomes policy, to make things fair, to give the rest of us more protection against the taking of more and more from the total pot.
An incomes policy is not just an attack on profits. Profits are not the total picture. A small corporation may not make any profit at all. The chief executive may own a yacht and receive a salary of $100,000, but the company may not make any profit. Suppose there is no actual figure below the line, but the controlling corporation in some other country takes a royalty which makes sure that the company concerned never actually makes a profit. The whole picture must be kept in mind, including wages and salaries, including whatever is paid in directors' fees, compensation, royalties and expenses for travel, and so on. The bill before us acknowledges the existing accounting system and says, "As long as you comply with that system,
May 2, 1974

you are all right." The bill does not really get at the problem.
We need a comprehensive policy, a policy which covers, or is capable of covering, the entire system. We need a policy which is not confined to those few articles which are consumed by all Canadians, or by the vast majority of Canadians. After all, we live in an interdependent society and if I get ripped off for glasses, somebody else may get ripped off for a wheelchair. These articles may not be covered by the bill, yet all of them add to my cost of living or to my neighbour's cost of living. So a selective approach of the kind contemplated can do nothing. It is merely window-dressing.
As the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) said, the bill sets up a bureaucracy with a star-chamber procedure; the star-chamber, or commission, is policeman, judge and jury, and it is under the control of a political cabinet. Isn't that a fine state of affairs in a free country? On this basis alone, the bill constitutes an attempt to deny natural justice.
The problem we should be attempting to meet is the menace of inflation. This is the problem which occupies the thoughts of my constituents; this is the topic about which I am continually hearing from those who come to my office, from my employees, frorp my wife. They see the cost of ordinary things going up from week to week. It used to be one could buy a Volkswagen for $1,600. Now the price is $3,200.
Inflation is the challenge, but the bill before us does nothing to meet that challenge. We are asked to send it to committee for second reading. But before this is done, the House must approve the principle, the general design of the bill. And when the general design of the bill is so fraudulent and so misleading, how can it possibly be corrected or improved in committee? Surely the supporters of the government know this. Surely they have read the bill.


Mr. Woolliams:: Oh, they know.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My hon. friend says they know. Mr. Speaker, this bill is proof they are bankrupt of ideas, that they are full of puffery. They know their bill is a fraud and they know their government is a fraud. They have introduced this bill as a last straw to grab at as they prepare to go before the people in a general election. They want to say, "We intended to do something about profiteering and gouging, but the opposition would not let us." Mr. Speaker, they have no intention of doing anything. They know they have no such intention; and even if the bill were proclaimed immediately and action were taken immediately, it would not succeed. After all, the legislation covers only a limited range of articles, and of these government spokesmen have not mentioned one; they have not told us what articles they would go after or what companies they would go after. They have shown no reason for advancing this proposition. The bill is a fraud, the government is a fraud, and the government must go.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pre-empted the phrase with which I intended to open my contribution to the debate. It was a good phrase, it
Profiteering Practices
aptly describes the situation, and with slight variations I want to use it now. In my view, the legislation before us is a snare, a delusion and a trap and we do not intend to fall into it. It is clear that the legislation is both too little and too late. The barn door has been locked long after the horse has been stolen. Without attempting to go into details of the bill, it seems to me it is cosmetic in nature and designed to win the support of this party at the last minute, and it will not be used in any effective effort to stop inflation or prevent profiteering.
Our leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in his usual clear and forceful manner exposed the major and overwhelming weaknesses of the bill. I fully agree with his criticism and with his conclusion that we cannot possibly support such a measure. Nor do I think this conclusion requires us to make any apologies for trying to make parliament work as we have over the past 18 months. If I thought for one minute that the bill would work and that it would make any contribution toward solving the problems of inflation or profiteering, I would be glad to support it, but I do not see how I can support a measure which deals so ineffectively with such a crucial subject. We have voted for other government legislation on its merits, and we have voted against government legislation on its merits. I refer to the reduction in the corporation tax as an illustration of this. We will vote against this bill because we do not think it has any merit.
One has to remember, of course, that the wording of the legislation is not all-important. What is important is who is responsible for the enforcement and carrying out of the act. It was pointed out earlier in this debate that the act's enforcement depends entirely on the Liberal cabinet. Its real intent and the real content of the legislation have never been revealed. We have not been told, even in outline, what policy the government intends to adopt in regard to declaring that the bill applies to any article or articles. We are told nothing of this. The procedure is to be based, in part, on reports under the Inquiries Act. At the present time the only authority to make such inquiries is the Food Prices Review Board, whose jurisdiction is confined to food prices. It is true that proposed section 50(2) of the bill gives the governor in council authority to make a declaration, notwithstanding that there is no report and inquiry. But this, as the marginal note to the section says and as the minister himself has said, is only to be employed in cases of emergency for very unusual circumstances.
The key phrase in the act is "exceptionable trade practices". These are partly defined in section 54 as the exacting of "a profit margin on the sale or distribution of the article that is greater than he would customarily obtain on such sale or distribution". The words "customarily obtain" are completely vague. Here again, the government is required to step in and issue guidelines relating to the manner of the determination by the supplier of an article of the profit margin that he would customarily obtain.
However, the government has not seen fit to tell this House what sort of guidelines it has in mind. I have not heard a word about that in this debate. It seems to me to be an insult to parliament to ask parliament to pass legislation conferring wide powers on the government without

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
indicating in any way, shape or form what the government's intentions are with respect to the exercise of those powers. We do not know in what type of cases it proposes to make declarations. Nor do we know its thinking as to the definition of the guidelines which will set the standards to be applied. We are, indeed, being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
I have already mentioned that the important question is, who is responsible for enforcing and carrying out the act? In this case it is in the hands of the government itself as to whether the act will ever be enforced or carried out. The likelihood of its ever being effectively carried out must be considered in light of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister which were recited to the House by the hon. member for York South yesterday.
The minister has told us that in his opinion there has been no profiteering up to the present time, or at any rate no proof of profiteering, and that he only intends to apply the act sparingly and in serious and obvious cases. That alone indicates that there is no intention to enforce this act. This attitude is, of course, on a par with the record of the Liberal Party in this field for generations. A Combines Investigation Act in various forms has been on the statute books for roughly 50 years. Its proposed purpose was to deal effectively with combines and monopolies. Its effectiveness can be judged by the fact that according to "Reynolds on Competition", and to our common knowledge, as well as in the views of other authorities, no modern country has been so ridden with monopolies or oligopolies as Canada.
The legalistic steps provided for in the Combines Investigation Act have turned out to be ineffective. Corporate organizations which are in fact combines have been prosecuted at great expense and with great delay. Even if convictions are registered and fines are paid, a new form of organization has been thought up by some well-informed, astute lawyer, has been established and an effective monopoly has carried on restrictive practices untouched by the legislation.
This bill, like the Combines Investigation Act, shows very little evidence of serious intent behind it. It has glaring gaps and omissions. Services, as has been said before, are not included, and unless the definition in the new competition act is enacted and applied to this act, the act will not apply to housing, interest rates, and many other important services. As the field of services in our economy expands, this means that some of the most important items which enter into the inflation picture are not covered by this measure at all.
The hon. member for York South has said there is no continuing monitoring agency to act in the field of profiteering. This bill, as is obvious to anyone who has read it, is highly complex. It provides for a complex and tangled process which may take months, indeed years, to work out. One starts in the ordinary case with an inquiry. Inquiries are often prolonged. If you hire a good lawyer, he is quite expert at prolonging inquiries. The inquiry is followed by a report, which may in turn be followed by a declaration by the governor in council. Finally, this may lead to a hearing before the Trade Practices Commission and some direction from them.

Involved in the process, of course, is the issue of guidelines. This will be no simple task since the guidelines will presumably be applicable to each class of goods covered. There is ample provision in the act for exemptions by the governor in council. Interim injunctions, which are the only effective method of getting an immediate price freeze, can only be issued as a result of proceedings in the courts. Those with court experience know that you do not get an injunction just like that. The power of the Trade Practices Commission to make a cease and desist order is limited to the stage following the hearing and determination that an exceptionable trade practice has occurred. The Trade Practices Commission has no power to freeze prices while the investigation is going on.
There must be very few of us in this House, Mr. Speaker, who are not conscious that spiralling inflation and the cost of living present to very many Canadians a situation of tragic hardship. I know in my own constituency of rising cost of rentals which has completely eaten away the increases that this parliament voted our old age pensioners and other people dependent on small and fixed incomes. Escalation in accordance with the cost of living, a provision we have legislated, is not sufficient for those who have not the means to buy houses, who cannot pay large rentals and are being forced out of homes that they rent at the present time. Every weekend when I go home I hear of instances of this tragic situation. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that if we supported this bill we would be deceiving our constituents. We would be building up a hope for them, a hope that would inevitably turn out to be a false hope. I, for one, do not wish to have any part in such a deception.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) made a good, fighting speech this afternoon which we all enjoyed. The only real point that he made was that the opposition parties should accept the bill on second reading and let it go to committee where it could be improved by amendment. The trouble is that he missed the point entirely. This bill is so bad, so amorphous that it cannot be effectively amended in committee. You cannot write a bill in committee, Mr. Speaker; you have to have some principle on which you can graft amendments that are proposed. Committee is a place to improve the details of a bill. It is not a place to write a bill, to put principles into a bill which has none. What is needed is a totally new bill. We need a new start on this effort to deal with profiteering and gouging.
We cannot be asked to accept this bill in principle, because there are no principles in it. Or if there are, they are concealed behind these phrases which nobody in the government has taken the trouble to explain to us. I want to make it abundantly clear that to say this is not to approve of gouging or profiteering. It is to demand that if you go out to fight such an all-pervasive institution as profiteering, you choose weapons that can do the job. This bill is like using a peashooter to destroy a tank: it simply will not work.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is customary on this side of the House to hear two members of the Progressive Conservative Party expressing conflicting views. It has happened on a number of occasions.
May 2, 1974

Recently, on the question of transportation and the Canadian National Railways, we heard the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) asking for a reduction in fares, and a member of the same party, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), asking that the Canadian National be run in a businesslike manner.
There have been conflicting positions taken by members of that party also on bilingualism, unemployment insurance and a score of other things. But yesterday the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) outdid his own colleagues by performing the acrobatic feat of condemning the bill while at the same time declaring his readiness to move amendments so as to improve what is good in the bill and delete what is bad. Having done that, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East attacked the selective price control policy because he is in favour of a comprehensive policy, and shortly after expressed his dismay about the size of the bureaucracy and suggested that bureaucracy was large enough as it is-all this within the same half hour.
I would ask the hon. member for St. John's East whether he realizes that he will need a larger bureaucracy, about which he is so upset, in order to implement the comprehensive policy he is advocating. Does he not realize that? This is typical of members of the opposition. But yesterday he really outdid his own colleagues by this phenomenal feat, in the same speech-expressing a policy position and an objective, and then expressing dismay about something he will definitely need in order to implement what he wants to achieve.
Conservative speakers have criticized the lack of more precise definitions in our proposals for customary profit margins and a base price.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: I hear hon. members agreeing. However, they do not put forward any alternatives indicating how these terms could be more precisely defined or what these definitions should be. If there were a general system of prices and income controls, which they have been proposing, definitions of base prices and customary profit margins would be required for the entire economy and not just for particular sectors as proposed in this bill. Yet the Conservative members have said nothing about how they would do this, whether by regulation or by definition in the law itself. Instead, they say they would have a general freeze and then they would figure out what to do.
The hon. member complained, also, that there were no discussions about philosophy in the speech by the minister yesterday on second reading. This is not correct. The philosophy was set out in the opening portion of the minister's speech. We all know that the Canadian public wants action more than just philosophy, and that it will not accept and put up with the nonsense put forward so far by the opposition during this debate.
There have been complaints on the part of spokesmen for the Conservative Party on consumer affairs that there has been no action on reports by the Food Prices Review Board, yet the government's decision to put in place special subsidy programs to restrain increases in the price of bread and milk, and the government's decision to advance the timing of the increase in family allowances, came from
Profiteering Practices
recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board. Contrary to what the hon. member for St. John's East said yesterday, bread and milk subsidy programs did restrain increases which otherwise would have taken place. Contrary to what he said, the government has carried out the basic recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board in respect of the egg marketing agency, that is, that a special inquiry be held into the entire operation of the marketing plan. The government gave this task to the Farm Products Marketing Council and the inquiry is under way. Contrary to what the hon. member for St. John's East said yesterday, the bakeries did agree to abide by the Food Prices Review Board findings. They did, in fact, restrain or roll back prices at the request of the minister, on a voluntary basis, to the levels considered acceptable by the Food Prices Review Board.
We also heard the hon. member for St. John's East yesterday speaking against the proposal that the Trade Practices Commission order a profiteer to pay back excess gains. What does the Conservative Party want to do with excess gains? We have not heard any submission on this aspect of the proposals contained in the bill. Having not heard what they want to do with excess gains, I think we are reasonably and legitimately entitled to think that this indicates support by the Conservative Party for big business and for excessive gains.
The final part of the criticism put forward yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East was in the form of a quotation from Tuesday's Globe and Mail editorial which expressed skepticism about Bill C-29. He evidently forgot to mention that in the same editorial there was complete rejection of the Progressive Conservative proposal for a general system of price and income control.
Yesterday we heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and we were rather surprised, I must say, because he either did not understand or did not want to understand what is contained in this bill. For a long time that hon. member has been calling for a means to enable the government to take action against profiteering, but when he and his party are put to the test they reject the chance to enable a bill for this purpose to become law. That hon. member takes the position that no bill and no action is preferable to the government's proposal because he disagrees with some of its details, mainly because of misunderstanding.
The hon. member went on to say that the government does not indicate any intention to use the law it passes, yet the minister in his speech yesterday specifically said just the opposite. If the hon. member for York South really wanted to enable action to be taken against profiteers now, he would support the bill basically in its present form, giving the government the responsibility for using the powers provided in this bill. He would be putting the government's intentions to the test; and if he were not in agreement with the way the government used the law when it should have done so, he and his party could vote no confidence in the government. This would seem to me the more sensible line of approach for the NDP to follow, rather than to prevent even the likelihood of action that is now intended in this very important field of endeavour.
There were comments made yesterday about the question of monitoring price development. The minister did

May 2, 1974
Profiteering Practices
say in his opening remarks that the government was prepared to set up additional boards immediately upon passage of the bill to monitor certain sectors where such action appeared necessary. Contrary to what the member of York South was suggesting yesterday, this government is not proposing to wait for a report of a board of inquiry. If the government has adequate information from other sources, this bill would enable the government to act without waiting for such a report.
Again, contrary to what the hon. member for York South suggested yesterday, the proposed Trade Practices Commission is not, and will not be a part-time commission. The proposal in the bill would enable a sufficient number of full-time members to be available to carry out the work required by the bill, and anyone with eyes to read can look up section 16(1) in the bill which contains the definition of temporary additions. There is definitely a distinction in the English language between "part-time" and "temporary" which perhaps escaped the hon. member for York South who, by the way, seems also to misunderstand the proposal in the bill for dealing with profiteering.
The inquiry and report of a board prior to a declaration, the inquiries by the director and the hearings by the Trade Practices Commission are not the same thing and are not for the same purposes. The inquiry and report by a board prior to a declaration would be about a sector, industry or class of products generally to help provide the kind of general information which would provide a basis for the government to decide on the making of a declaration. The declaration, once made, and accompanied by or including the three notification procedures and definitions of customary profits, would immediately create a 30-day freeze on the products covered and would create the legal obligation that all suppliers of the products not sell them at prices that would cause the customary profit guidelines to be exceeded.
The procedure set out in the act for inquiry by the director, the hearings and orders by the Trade Practices Commission, would be the procedure required to enable appropriate accumulative, punitive action to be taken against individual suppliers who do not live up to the legal requirements created by the declaration, guidelines and regulations. There must be some procedure for determining who is not meeting the requirements of the guidelines and regulations-a good, sound and fair procedure-in connection with a declaration and for then going on to impose the sanction of the law against that person. Our system of law must ensure that the alleged lawbreaker has a hearing before the sanction of the law is imposed on him. This is the purpose of the inquiry by the director and the hearings by the commission.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) yesterday stressed very well the necessity and importance in principle of this kind of approach in our legal system. The director's inquiry would determine whether there is evidence of an offence sufficient to bring the matter before a body which could make a decision about it. The bill does set out the kind of approach the hon. member for York South said is necessary. I quote from page 1946 of Hansard where he is recorded as having said:
When a thorough but quick inquiry is made and a price increase is

found to be unjustified, there must be immediate authority to tell the company that they cannot increase their price.
Those are the words of the hon. member for York South. This is the effect of a declaration with accompanying prenotification requirements and customary profit margin guidelines. Once they are provided, they would apply to all firms selling the category of goods at the level of distribution mentioned in the declaration, and not just one firm.
The hon. member for York South was completely wrong yesterday when he said that the bill does not give the government, a commission or anyone the power to freeze prices for 30 days. These powers are spelled out in section 51 very clearly. No one could raise the price without first giving the required notice up to 30 days and this means, as the section says, a freeze for the period of the notice.
With regard to the method of determining or defining the customary profit margins, the government never said that one should compare current profits only with the immediately preceding year. The speech made by the minister yesterday suggested the opposite approach. The example used was just a hypothetical one for the sake of explaining the matter, but evidently it was not understood. The hon. member for York South is concerned that it would be up to the government to decide whether a declaration should be made to bring the powers of the act into force for any class of article or sector. Surely such an authority to intervene in the economy with what possibly could be disruptive effects must be in the hands not of an appointed body but one accountable to the public through parliament.
This approach very often has been raised as one of the basic principles in our democracy. Very often we hear members opposite complain about the fact that there are too many bodies not directly responsible for their actions to parliament except once a year when they appear before the committee. Here the government has met that criticism in sections 51, 52 and 53 by saying it should be the decision of the governor in council and that this power should not be made available to a body removed from parliament itself.
If action had to be taken automatically on the request of an appointed board, what would the NDP say if the board was not willing to make the kind of recommendation that parliament and the public generally felt would be required? The NDP would be the first to object to this approach. The NDP criticism, unfortunately, means that the government should not be given the power to take action against profiteering, something directly opposed to what the NDP claims is necessary for the protection of the public. In conclusion-and this is a very sad conclusion because we had thought a matter of this importance, in the interests of the Canadian people, would have received support from all sides of the House-I can only say it is my distinct impression that the Canadian people will not take lightly the fact that both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party backed off with excuses when the crunch came to deal with profiteering in a serious and responsible manner.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to say a few words about

the bill before us because I think it is tremendously important. 1 also think that it might not be necessary to discuss it because even if it were passed, this bill would not remedy the situation or save the victims of the system.
Mr. Speaker, even if this bill is not really important it is considered as such. At least it is very important for the New Democrats. I think myself that it is a minor issue but the government intends to prevent some businesses from making undue profits. We have to define profits and establish who makes such big profits, who will be taxed, who is responsible. Mr. Speaker, if this bill were comprehensive, it would benefit the whole economic sector and the whole business system. This bill will cover only some of the citizens while others who might be making 100, 200, 1000 times more profits will not be affected at all.
Mr. Speaker, any legislation must be as fair as possible. I find this measure unfair because it does not meet our needs.
The bill before us should include some provisions to lower prices and the cost of living at the consumer and producer level. If we want the cost of living to be reduced at the consumer level, it must first be reduced at the producer level.
And the cost of production is increasing, as it has always increased because of various factors, economic factors particularly, which are attributable to the governments, since several governments are involved in this "economic affair".
Mr. Speaker, if we really want to have just and reasonable laws, we shall never achieve our aim by imposing surtaxes on those who make profits to develop their business, and create new institutions. If we prevent them from making certain profits, we shall also be preventing them from developing, and when they need this development, they will be told to go to the Industrial Development Bank and borrow at 12 per cent, or to go to the new Business Development Bank that we are now establishing, where they will again borrow at an interest rate of 12 or 13 per cent. There is undoubtedly no limit to this type of thing. Therefore, the intention is to restrict profits by other means, but not to restrict the action of the government, and more specifically that of the Industrial Development Bank or of the new bank which will be established, or of all the financial institutions which make undue profits and exploit Canadians. Let us compare these profits with those of companies or associations. Who do we want to tax now? Whose profits do we want to cut? It is easy to see that other institutions depend on them and make two or three times as much profits, and even more. These institutions are not bothered, they are sacred, holy.
Yet all that boosts the cost of living because the manufacturing companies that make profits are indirectly financed by the financial institutions. Financial institutions make profits, not companies involved in production. They are the ones that deal with the capital, make the capital, handle the capital and turn in the profits. This is where the money and the profits go. This is what nobody attacks!
Mr. Speaker, we should like to be on the side of those who support this bill; we do not object completely to the bill, but we know that we work for nothing. We know that
Business of the House
what we are doing will not matter at all, that it will not improve economic conditions but will worsen them. Mr. Speaker, the more we cling to the present system, the more we support and enforce it, the more we contribute to the imbalance of the economy. The more also we thus contribute to inflation, rising prices and the increased cost of living.
Inflation is due to the fact that the financial system is not consistent with the realities of production or consumption. The monetary accounting of the system is wrong and only honest accounting would correct inflation without being prejudicial to the legitimate individual interests. We would need an accounting consistent with reality. This would entail the application of financial data stated by the economic expert C. H. Douglas fifty years ago and known under the name of Social Credit. If those financial data had been applied, such a reform would have avoided many troubles to the people.
Mr. Speaker, if the rise in price shows that the system is lacking and should the financial system were in accordance with reality, not only would there be no inflation but on the contrary prices would gradually decrease as technical progress and manufacturing processes would facilitate production.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, due to the indefinite nature of activities tomorrow, may I ask whether we will be debating the pension plan bill first?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tomorrow we will continue with the report stage and go on to third reading of the Canada Pension Plan bill. If we complete that, we will go on to the Prairie Farm Advance Payments Act and, depending on the progress that has been made, if the import-export permits bill is reported back from the committee we will go on to that bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1974
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, as is customary I want to state that my reason for rising at this time is to try to impress on members of the House the need to emphasize the question that I put to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) on April 15. It had to do with the announcement of the minister to extend the residential rehabilitation program for housing beyond the restricted policy under the act to qualify citizens in neighbourhood improvement areas.
When the minister gave us particulars regarding the new rural and native housing program under which some
50,000	homes would be built over the next five years to enable citizens within that category to build a house in rural areas, he stated that under that new policy citizens in rural communities would qualify beyond the provisions of the National Housing Act. Furthermore, the new rural and native housing program would allow citizens in rural communities to take advantage of the residential rehabilitation program. I can only say that this program would benefit my constituents, and that it is certainly what is required.
With regard to the original program, I have been one of the minister's most staunch supporters in the introduction of this program and even more so when he extended the program to those in rural Canada, because it lifted the restriction which required those benefitting under the program to live within a neighbourhood improvement area which had to be designated by the province concerned. Furthermore, only $J0 million was provided for this program across Canada, and for Newfoundland only some $660,000 was provided. I mention this because the housing situation in Newfoundland can only be classified as disastrous.
It is obvious to everyone that with rates of interest advancing it will be almost impossible for those on low incomes to acquire new homes. But as is provided by the amendments to the act, this program would provide an opportunity for those living in substandard homes to improve the condition of their homes, homes which are deteriorating due to the fact that with the cost of building materials rising because of inflation the occupants on the lowest income scale cannot afford to improve them. I maintain that every effort should be extended to make funds available to allow every Canadian falling within this category to take advantage of the $5,000 loans available, with the forgiveness of $2,500 if their income falls below or is equal to $6,000, and beyond that to reduce the forgiveness by $1 for every $2 of income in excess of $6,000.
I realize that the minister is restricted in directing this program until agreements are signed with the provinces and until minimum standards are laid down by municipalities or by the provinces. But when I am overburdened with letters from constituents begging me for assistance to improve their homes it is most frustrating that these restrictions exist. I can show you, Mr. Speaker, from applications made to housing corporations in my district, that literally thousands of citizens are living in

the most precarious circumstances even beyond the control and the ability of those who are designated to help. It becomes a frustrating experience trying to help alleviate a problem which is beyond anyone's power to control.
If I can use only one example, one does not have to go beyond increases in the cost of home heating oil. Citizens on welfare, who live mainly in substandard homes, cannot even cope with the cost of fuel, especially in the winter months. And the provinces are unable to cope with the cost of the increase in home heating oil beyond the increases which are extended to citizens through social assistance. I therefore suggest that the residential rehabilitation program should be extended to provide insulation for such substandard homes. This would not only save money for the citizens affected, but if one adds up the thousands of homes falling within this category it would save the government millions of dollars and many millions of gallons of fuel.
Probably I should not even say this, Mr. Speaker, but I feel very strongly that the residential rehabilitation program is admirable. I give full marks to whoever was responsible for introducing it. But when one experiences the bureaucratic nightmare that exists, one doubts the sincerity that is extended to those to whom the program is directed. Realizing the problems that the minister faces in dealing with provincial and municipal regulations, my main task is to try to impress upon him that every effort should be made and every initiative used to come to an agreement with the provinces concerned, so that this program can be put into effect at the earliest opportunity. I ask the representative of the minister here tonight to reply to me in earnestness on the progress made up until this time to help relieve the burden of low income earners in whatever category they happen to fall.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that he has the minister's full sympathy. I know the minister fully desires to do something as quickly as possible about the extremely serious conditions which a large number of the hon. member's constituents face with respect to housing. As quickly as I can, I will run over what has happened and what is likely to happen.
Since the announcement of the rural and native housing program, several federal initiatives have been taken in order to get this program under way. Provinces have been contacted in order to further explain the program, and meetings are being arranged with the provinces in order to discuss the content of the program. Meetings have already been held with the officials of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. At these meetings several subjects were examined and tentative agreement was reached.
The main points which have been covered in our discussions have been area designation for program implementation, definition of targets, maintenance and occupancy standards applicable to rural and remote areas, participation of local organizations in the program delivery system, the relation of RRAP to other NHA programs, budget allocation, the innovative features of rural rehabilitation association programs such as delivery, trades and local involvement, the meshing of federal-provincial programs
May 2, 1974

whenever possible, the best form of agreement to facilitate program flexibility, and the establishment of a federal-provincial committee to co-ordinate the total activity of the program.
The minister will be meeting shortly with the officials of the province of Ontario, and meetings are now being arranged with the Atlantic provinces through the federal-provincial committee being set up for the co-ordination of this program. Officials at CMHC are in the process of producing guidelines for rural community standards and general instructions for program delivery.
Interdepartmental committees are planned so as to bring together federal and provincial departments who may have relevant programs to support the successful delivery of the rural and native housing program. Efforts are being made to obtain successful agreement on this program. The minister hoped, when we visited the three prairie provinces, to have this matter tied up by the end of April. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We hope that by the middle or the later part of May the program will be under way across Canada. The minister recognizes that the program should be in effect so that we can take advantage of this year's construction season.
Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are presently having discussions with the province of Newfoundland concerning this program. Negotiations are progressing well, and the minister hopes to meet again with Newfoundland officials in the very near future to discuss all matters related to the program. The interventions of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe since the introduction of the legislation have been most helpful and the minister has not forgotten this.


AGRICULTURE-THREAT OF GRASSHOPPER INFESTATION IN WESTERN CANADA THIS SPRING-ACTION TO CONTROL
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I see that one of my fans is still here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: I rise tonight to expand on the question I asked of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) several weeks ago concerning any controls the minister may have in mind for dealing with the potential outbreak of grasshopper infestation which this year could destroy a major portion of the crops in western Canada. When I raised this matter which is of concern to my constituents, the minister said, as recorded at page 1120 of Hansard for April 3:
-we are offering to the provinces to set up control centres, with equipment and insecticides, and people who are willing to staff these centres, to make sure we are in a better position than we have ever been to control grasshoppers
I am awaiting the response of the hon. member who will reply on behalf of the minister and who has some farm background. I shall be interested to learn details as to how the program for controlling grasshoppers is to be administered across Canada. People in Canada may wonder why grasshoppers should be discussed in the House of Commons. May I point out to those who live in urban areas and have expressed concern about food costs and supplies that Mother Nature has played a dirty trick on us. I am talking of what has happened with regard to food production
Adjournment Debate
within the last four or five years. In the Peace River country wheather conditions have been such that millions of bushels of Durum and hard wheat have been lost. A map showing areas of potential grasshopper infestation will show that we stand to lose further hundreds of millions of bushels of western grain used for bread.
This infestation is not new. When I came to the House in 1971 I told the House that there were was the potential for an outbreak cf the grasshopper plague and that measures should be taken to help affected areas and municipalities fight this outbreak. The outbreak was worse in 1972. It was again worse in 1973. In 1974 we will be faced with a severe situation. I have raised this question with the minister on previous occasions. In spite of opposition from the Conservative Party, the agriculture committee passed a motion that the funds remaining in the old PFAA fund be put into a disaster fund to help fight regional disasters in this country, such as severe outbreaks of grasshoppers. I might point out to the hon. member who will be replying this evening that in the southernmost part of my constituency grasshopper eggs have been hatching at a tremendous rate. Later in the spring we will see the serious results of this hatching. There seems to have been very little winter kill.
Recently I sent a questionnaire to my constituents which was responded to in large numbers. I asked the following question:
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has some funds left in its account in spite of it no long being in total operation. Would you agree with these monies being used to establish an emergency fund to assist with regional disasters such as severe grasshopper infestation?
These funds were collected from farmers in the prairie region; therefore, it was not an easy question in the sense of knowing what the response would be. The response was that 83.5 per cent of the producers in my area said yes, 7 per cent said no, and 9.5 per cent did not know one way or another. I suggest to the government that in the time frame of this year a concerted effort will have to be made to bring this pest under control, otherwise we will stand to lose millions of bushels of wheat and millions of dollars.
There is the long-range question involving the grasshopper problem. It may seem preposterous-and there was great hilarity when I raised this before, including members from western Canada on the agriculture committee, but not from the minister because he knows these studies are taking place-but one aspect of interest to people in the Far East is the fact that the grasshopper is edible. It is a delicacy on the Japanese market. Many people have been critical of me for suggesting that with a long-range program we may be able to avoid all the insecticides and debate about the harmful effects of insecticides. We could use a mechanism to harvest grasshoppers, turning them into a marketable commodity for the Far East.
I want to point out, in the few moments I have left, that I have not gone completely "bonkers" as a result of working too hard in the last couple of weeks. I quote as follows from an article in the Western Producer:
Grasshoppers will probably never make the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange-
We should not put anything else on the exchange, either.

May 2, 1974
Adjournment Debate
-as an international crop but there is a good chance that Manitoba-
This bothers me, because they leave out Saskatchewan.
-grasshoppers can be sold directly to Japan.
I want the hon. member to pay particular attention to this passage:
More than 500 metric tons of grasshoppers are eaten annually as a delicacy in Japan. And the market is still growing.
A representative of one of the major trading companies in Japan has been in Canada to speak to the Manitoba government on this matter. What I am seeking is some assistance at the federal level to take seriously the concept of marketing this pest. If we can get over floods such as we had this year, fertilize our crops and market grasshoppers at the same time as wheat, the producers in my area will feel we have gone a long way. There is a trading company which is involved in this industry. I will not try to pronounce the name because I do not want to mispronounce it. It is prepared to seek to market grasshoppers in the Far East because they have high protein and are marketable.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, one has to
witness the damage done by vast numbers of grasshoppers in order to understand in all its seriousness the situation we are discussing. There is not much I can add to what the minister said in reply to this question by the hon. member on April 3. The federal government has offered to co-operate with the provinces in establishing some type of federal-provincial pest control group or groups within each of the three prairie provinces. One function of these groups, as we see it, would be to make sure that pesticides were available, that equipment was in readiness and that the logistics of the operation are studied and worked out so that in the event we are faced with a grasshopper problem the most effective means possible will be in place to combat it. The minister has heard recently from two of his provincial colleagues and they advise him that their departments have made, or are making, all necessary preparations. The minister's offer to co-operate with the provinces still stands.
The hon. member has suggested that we sell grasshoppers to Japan. This may not be such a bad idea, but I suggest "he direct questions on this subject to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie).


William George Knight: You'd never believe it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I might say the minister did discuss this possibility with the Japanese minister of agriculture-


William George Knight: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -when they met some months ago. The research which has gone into this subject is very revealing. I am informed that one steer weighing approximately
1,000	pounds consumes only half as much grain to produce the same amount of protein as thousands and thousands of grasshoppers consume to produce an equal amount; that is, Mr. Speaker, the little hoppers eat twice as much per pound of protein produced.


POST OFFICE-PROPORTION OF EMPLOYEES WORKING ON MECHANICAL SORTING DEVICES RECRUITED FROM WITHIN SERVICE
Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question which I directed to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) on April 1 requesting him to advise us what proportion of code operators had been recruited from within the postal service. At that time it was Your Honour's pleasure to say that it was a question asking for statistics and one which the minister could not be expected to answer during the oral question period. With all due respect to Your Honour, the question was not statistical in one sense, because the answer was "none", and I believe the minister could easily have answered it. Not a single full-time postal employee accepted the offer made to people within the service to operate the machines.
The reason was obvious. They were offered a lower paying job. This has led to one of the most urgent and demoralizing problems within the Post Office. The minister established a new category of employment for code operators. As I understand it, it is the lowest category of all. In spite of repeated evidence of basic union objection to this new and lower classification, in spite of the fact that other countries operating coding machines pay operators more, rather than less, than manual sorters, and in spite of the fact that being a code operator is a much less desirable job because of noise, isolation and boredom, the minister has refused to reconsider his position. He refused to classify code operators as sorters. He refused to have meaningful discussions with the representatives of the employees. He insisted that they be paid 50 cents to 70 cents an hour less. I am not sure of the exact statistics because there are some conflicting figures on this.
I know that the minister was perfectly within his rights. I also know job classification is a matter for management to decide. But it was patently irresponsible for the minister not to read the storm warnings. Morale is low in the Post Office and it is getting lower. The minister did nothing to defuse the power keg; he just put his fingers in his ears and waited for it to blow. And as we all know, it blew.
The minister had one very important way in which he might have eased the tension. He wrote into the collective bargaining agreement of May, 1973, a provision for a manpower committee. I gather it met once or twice some time ago, but the committee spent its time haggling about organizational matters and never did discuss the real problem affecting management and employee relationships. That committee could have provided an excellent opportunity to work out any differences between management and labour, but the minister did not call it.
The people of Canada have now had to pay with a strike, a strike that should never have happened. They have had to pay a heavy price for the arrogance of a minister who looked so promising when he came to his post a couple of years ago. I remember very well, as will many Canadians, his promise at that time that a new day of co-operation and consultation with his employees had dawned. The Canadian public has had to pay the price, Mr. Speaker, and that price, as we all know, is pretty high-millions of
May 2, 1974

dollars of lost mail service and, to add insult to injury, during the strike thousands of dollars spent to advertise the minister's excuses for a strike by his employees.
Canadians are anxious to have an efficient and economic mail service in Canada. Naturally they are angry with the postal workers for their actions of a few weeks ago. Moreover, they are angry with the minister for having failed entirely to deal with the obvious problems with the postal service. The minister represents to the Canadian public that this code sorting system is the answer to all our postal problems. Well, Mr. Speaker, if he could not sell the code, and the jobs it offered, to his own employees, it will be interesting to see how he expects to sell it to the Canadian public.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to reply to the question asked tonight by the distinguished member for South Western Nova (Mr. Halibur-ton). The minister would have wished to be here himself, but has gone to Winnipeg tonight to launch a new stamp tomorrow morning. The question that the hon. member raised is, as we all realize, a very important one, and as we all realize relates to the national postal conflict during the last few weeks. The matter is still under study by representatives of the ministry and those of unions under the direction of Mr. Eric Taylor.
Adjournment Debate
If the hon. member would switch on his simultaneous translation, I will give him the balance of the reply tonight.

The Post Office Department has only two highly mechanized offices at the present time, one in Ottawa and the other in Winnipeg. When the automation process is completed, there will be 26 such offices altogether. In the two offices where the mail is sorted automatically, there are 67 coders, 43 of them in Ottawa and the remaining 24 in Winnipeg.
How many coding machine operators are former Post Office employees? Out of the 43 operators working in Ottawa at the present time, 26 were not employed by the Post Office Department, while the remaining 18 were casual or part time employees.
As for Winnipeg, while five coders are former casual or part time employees of the department, the remaining 19 were recruited outside the department.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me to extend his gratitude to the member for South Western Nova for having last week, when the matter was scheduled to be before the House, abstained from pushing the question. This would have meant possible embarrassment to the minister in his negotiations, and he is most appreciative of the hon. member's patience in this regard.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
-63

Friday, May 3, 1974