1974-03-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the table the first report of the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills relating to a bill submitted by the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, further to the urban goals set forth in the Speech from the Throne, I wish to inform the House today that the government is creating a $100 million urban demonstration program and fund to be administered through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: This demonstration program is designed to foster projects that will find solutions to urban problems and demonstrate those solutions for adoption and implementation in all regions of Canada.
The fund applies to the five-year period from 1975-76 to 1980-81. It is a further indication of the clear determination of this government to meet the urban goals announced in the Speech from the Throne, and it will also provide a strong and imaginative foundation for Canada's full participation in the 1976 United Nations Conference-Exposition on Human Settlements to be held in Vancouver. I hope this conference will be known as Habitat 2000.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this $100 million fund will be used to support urban projects in many critical areas. We need to develop innovative projects to show the effective working of new methods of house design and house construction, to demonstrate the feasibility of new, low energy urban systems, to illustrate new ways of getting the utmost value from scarce and expensive natural resources by recycling for multiple use, and to apply new technology to many other critical areas such as improved
public transportation and arrangements for the financing, building and administration of new communities, or renewed communities.
The new fund is intended to launch a program of innovation in the urban field. It will apply to federal programs, provincial programs, and to programs developed by municipalities. It will also apply to projects put forward by the private sector and individual Canadians.
Innovation is a difficult thing to foster and support. This fund will be used to enable projects to embody desirable innovations that would not be possible without such additional support. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, it is not tied to any existing federal program but, rather, it can be used in a discretionary manner as opportunities and circumstances require.
Moreover, we intend to manage the program and fund so that the impact on innovation will be as pervasive as possible. I would hope that over the five years we can translate this initial $100 million into innovative projects valued at many times that figure.
It is difficult to say how many projects will be selected but I would hope that perhaps as many as 20 or more would be launched over the next two years. From those 20 or so projects, Mr. Speaker, a smaller number will be nominated as Canadian demonstration projects for inclusion in the United Nations conference. The program and fund will also be managed, of course, to ensure that all regions of the country share equitably in its benefits.
Proposals for demonstration projects can be put forward by federal departments and agencies, by provinces, by municipalities, by the private sector and by individual Canadians, including, I hope, as a result of the very keen interest of the members of this House. Proposals for projects should be sent to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, where a secretariat has been established to plan and implement Canada's participation in the United Nations conference.
In addition to interdepartmental and intergovernmental review the proposals will be subjected to a thorough evaluation of their potential effectiveness in solving urban problems and demonstrating solutions by a special committee which I have appointed to advise me on project selection. This group of experts is headed by Dr. Kenneth Hare of the University of Toronto and former president of the University of British Columbia.
This evaluation process, I should add, Mr. Speaker, will involve full consultation with other levels of governments, where necessary. Governments must press forward with immediate solutions employing existing methods and programs relating, for example, to housing and transportation. But we must also adopt measures to generate new approaches, to generate improved technology and innova-
454

March 13, 1974
Urban Demonstration Program
tive solutions. That is the purpose of this program and of this announcement.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, today the minister has announced a $100 million urban demonstration program-I emphasize the word "demonstration"-and fund to be administered by himself. He will be the czar of this demonstration. The program will extend over a five-year period, from 1975-76 to 1980-81. The object is not to build houses; the object is to provide a strong foundation for Canada's participation in a conference to be held in Vancouver sponsored by the United Nations, dealing with the question of human settlements.
No one has any complaint about or criticism of that conference. The minister wants the conference to be known as Habitat 2000. That is one of the problems with this program; it will be the year 2000 before the minister will be able to build any houses for the Canadian people.
On the second page of his announcement is the thrust of his novel suggestion, a suggestion made at a time when there is a national housing crisis in Canada. In addition, the latest figures for the cost of living have just come out and the cost of living has never been higher. From 1972 to 1973 the average increase in the cost of housing in Vancouver was 32 per cent, in Calgary 23.2 per cent and in Toronto 29 per cent.
In face of this crisis, Mr. Speaker, let us analyse this demonstration program, which I say is a lot of fluff. We would have other names for it out west, but it is just straight bluff. The minister called it a program of innovation. I wondered just what the word "innovation" meant so I checked. It means "a program of change from the established custom; a program to create a new thing or a new method". I think it is a program of inhalation, because the minister must have been sniffing glue to bring in a program of this kind.
Let us see what this great program of the Liberal party is going to do. It is going to develop innovative projects. It is going to create new methods of house design and construction and low energy urban systems. It is going to apply, whatever that means, new technology in many areas. But it is not going to build one new house in Canada. There is a low housing vacancy rate right across this country, .6 per cent. Here we are at a time when there is a real housing shortage in Toronto and Vancouver as well as in other cities; at the present time the vacancy rate in Toronto and Vancouver is less than one per cent. People must have housing, but we are presented instead with a program to spend $100 million over five years to demonstrate the good will of the minister at a time when we have a national housing crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The situation is chronic right across the land. Interest rates on first mortgages are 10 per cent to 12 per cent and on second mortgages 21 per cent, at a time when only 5 per cent of Canada's wage earners can afford to buy new houses in many cities. Yet the minister has decided now to present this bunch of bluff as a means of solving the national housing crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The only thing we lack is innovation in leadership. The only change that will bring about a new and effective housing program is a change of minister and, above all, a change of government.
I need not say more, Mr. Speaker, except-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see those hon. members go back to their home cities which are experiencing these high costs in housing and clap there as they are clapping now in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The United Nations is, of course, the world organization for peace and security. I am always pleased to see Canada participate in any conference, but at a time when there is no peace of mind, at a time when we should be declaring war on the national housing crisis, the government is setting up a bluff of $100 million. It is a joke.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the program announced by the government involves wrong spending at the wrong time and in a completely wrong area. The minister said in his statement that this is a "demonstration program designed to foster projects that will find solutions to urban problems", and that it will also provide the foundation for Canada's participation in the 1976 United Nations Conference to be held, incidentally, in the city of Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: In his own riding.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister said he wants this conference to be known as Habitat 2000. I suggest in all seriousness that all this program is going to mean is $100 million down the drain, of no help to people in meeting housing requirements in Canada.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? First of all, the minister knows full well that under Part V of the National Housing Act his own department in the past few years has spent almost $100 million on grants for research and development. But what results have we seen from the expenditure of all that money on research and development? The first point to be made is that most of the information has not even been published. We have not had access to the studies that have been carried out by people in his department. Second, most of the studies that have been done have led to total inaction. We do not know what was in those studies, but we do know that they have not led to programs of any real significance produced by this minister. The most glaring example of the results of that research program is the Dennis report, a serious study of low income housing in Canada, but the minister did not have the decency to publish it and its conclusions did not come to light until the NDP got a copy and released it, following which the government produced a truncated version many weeks later.
March 13, 1974

We do not need more research at this time in respect of the problems of housing in urban Canada. If we do need more research and development it is in respect of the problems of housing in rural and northern Canada. That would be meaningful spending in terms of research and development. We have already been researched to death in terms of where 85 per cent of the population of Canada lives and do not need another dollar spent in that area.
I strongly suspect that the only reason-I will not say what I was about to say-that the government is spending $100 million in this area at this time is that the minister resides in the city of Vancouver. There is to be a conference there in 1976 and it will do him no political harm to pour lots of money into that area of the country. Otherwise, it is being spent to disguise the fact, in terms of urban Canada where 85 per cent of the people live, that no one will get a house in the next few years because the minister will say they are looking into that area and are going to come up with an imaginative new program.
I remind the minister of what happened in respect of Habitat. He says he hopes the conference will be known as Habitat 2000. What happened to Habitat in Montreal? I do not know how many millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money were spent on it. Who is living there now? Upper income Canadians. Those with very high salaries are living in that highly subsidized housing paid for by the majority of the taxpayers of Canada. That is what happened to Habitat in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We can do without that kind of example. We need action and not more studies on housing. I remind the minister that his home province of British Columbia has set aside $100 million for housing, $50 million to be used for land assembly and $40 million to subsidize mortgage rates. In contrast the federal government with all its resources is spending just a little more than $300 million. An amount of $100 million is being spent by one province with an NDP government and $300 million is being spent by this inactive Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The gentleman and lady on my right are doing some yelling. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) concluded his statement with a criticism of the government but presented not one iota of a solution from the Conservative Party. All they do is criticize.
I conclude with this observation. What is needed is action in two areas of housing policy that affect Canadians. One is interest rates. The situation is the same in England and the Labour Party is now acting in that regard. We need to tell the banks to make money available at 6 per cent and frankly say: You are not going to make a profit in that area, but so what? People need housing and you can make a profit in other sections of your investments; we are going to get investment money for housing. That is one thing. Second, the government needs to move in a serious way in respect of land assembly. If they would take this $100 million and add a little to it, there are in 15 cities across Canada 50,000 acres of quick-start land that
Urban Demonstration Program could be bought up and put into land assembly, and that would drive down the price of housing.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: March 13, 1974
Agriculture



COMBINES


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that two of British Columbia's major cement companies have increased prices twice since January 1 on the same day and in the same amounts, I move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the House set up an inquiry into these two cement companies in British Columbia to see if price fixing is still taking place in British Columbia in the cement industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



PRICE FIXING BY B.C. CEMENT COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar motion. I also rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the recent conviction and sentence imposed on the seven major cement companies in British Columbia under the Combines Investigation Act. In view of the fact that many of the projects were public projects and that the fine imposed does not necessarily relate to the public loss caused through this conspiracy I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House advises the Minister of Justice to obtain forthwith legal advice and thereafter commence civil proceedings to recover the loss suffered by the federal government on the many federal projects undertaken during the period of the conspiracy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I beg leave for unanimous consent to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. It has to do with the producers and consumers
IMr. Laprise.]
of food. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider immediately the reason for a sharp decline in prices paid to hog producers without taking into account the rising increase in the price of feed, which dangerously jeopardizes the balance of their enterprise and, on the other hand, the delays in making consumers benefit from the lower prices of that commodity, and that the Food Prices Review Board be also requested to look immediately into this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which arises out of certain events which have occurred since October 30, 1972, and which occurred as recently as yesterday and last night in the House. I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse):
That it is the opinion of the House that a new form of coalition government exists in Canada and the House requests the Prime Minister to make a statement as to whether or not appointments will be made to the cabinet and to the Senate of members of the New Democratic Party in return for services rendered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I assume there is not unanimity. The hon. member for Skeena.


An hon. Member:: Senator Howard!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had had the opportunity to second that last motion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: -in order that in the ensuing debate I could have pointed out the true economic conspiracy that exists between the old-line parties.
March 13, 1974


An hon. Member:: Why did you vote the way you did last night?


Frank Howard: My friend wants to know why I voted the way I did last night. I would be glad to explain to him except that with his limited intelligence he would not understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member does not want to do that under Standing Order 43.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the continuing shortage of boxcars for the shipment of lumber products, which was brought into focus yesterday by the decision of the government to make a gift of $3.4 million to Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways to repair old boxcars and by the decision of Canadian National to spend $36 million to buy hopper cars to transport potash. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House urges the government and the CNR immediately to take action relating to railway cars for lumber shipping purposes similar to that taken with respect to railway cars for the shipment of grain and potash.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



INDUSTRY


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion which the NDP has agreed to second.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. O'Connor:: I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to seek consent of the House to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the obvious and lamentable lack of knowledge displayed yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) about investment and pricing trends in the Canadian automotive industry I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the minister to familiarize himself with the latest relevant data in this industry so that Canadian interests may be protected when negotiating with Washington.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair takes issue with the form of this motion. Hon. members know very well that motions proposed under Standing Order 43 should not be prefaced by allegations or accusations when hon. members who may be the subject of these allegations and charges have no opportunity to rebut. I invite hon. members to be careful when drafting a proposal under the terms of Standing Order 43. We have had five or six such
British North America Act
motions already today and there are other hon. members who want to propose motions. I suggest to hon. members that there can easily be an abuse of the Standing Order if they proceed in this way. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the revelation by Statistics Canada on March 12, 1974, of a seasonally adjusted figure showing that full-time jobs for women have declined by 41,000 over the one-month period of February, 1974, in view of the fact that Statistics Canada also reports a seasonally adjusted figure of a 40,000 job increase in part-time jobs for women over the same period, and in view of the serious implications these drastic fluctuations hold for women in the labour force, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kings way (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to investigate immediately and to report to the House the causes of these fluctuations.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is tempted again to take exception to the form of the motion proposed by the hon. member. I suggest that these motions should not be preceded by that which, to the Chair in any event, sounds like a speech. That is the impression I have from the introductory remarks of the hon. member. Having said that, I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard that there is not unanimity in this respect.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACTS, 1867 TO 1965 PROVISION OF REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND THE YUKON

['1. The Promotional Projects Program (PPP) does not provide grants to industries.\n2.\tAnswered by 1 above.\n3.\tThe program is under continuous evaluation and review.']
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-ll, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Hellyer: Has the government tested the CONAT Blue Flame Burner and, if so, what were the results of the test?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: A prototype burner, of the small industrial size, produced by CONAT Industries, was
fired in the experimental tunnel furnace at the Canadian Combustion Research Laboratory (CCRL), Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, during May 1972. The burner was installed and operated for four hours by representatives of CONAT Industries, and CCRL staff assisted by making a series of measurements of waste gas composition and temperature. This prototype burner did not have an automatic ignition system, nor a flame failure protection device, which would be required to become a marketable product. No other small industrial burners were compared, under identical conditions, to the CONAT system.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	On what date in 1972 did Karl Kristian Ring enter Canada?
2.	Has he been in Canada continuously since that date and, if not, what was the date of his latest entry?
3.	Did he have a valid passport at the time of entry and, if so, from what country?
4.	Did he have a valid visa at the time of entry and, if so, in what place was it issued?
5.	On what date did the Department of Manpower and Immigration order his deportation?
6.	On what date was the deportation order appealed?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the six parts of this question are: 1. May 28, 1972.
2.	No, September 28, 1972.
3.	Yes, the Federal Republic of Germany.
4.	No.
5.	July 30, 1973.
6.	July 30, 1973.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,310 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament that tenders have been called for construction of a division maintenance building by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at Elgin, Ontario (a) on what date were such tenders called (b) on what date did tenders close (c) from whom were tenders received (d) what was the amount of each tender (e) who was the successful bidder?
2.	Was the call for tenders publicly advertised and, if so (a) in what publications (b) on what dates?
3.	If the call for tenders was not publicly advertised, were invited tenders extended and, if so (a) to whom (b) on what dates?
4.	Who drew the plans for the building to be built at Elgin, Ontario?
[Mr. MacEachen.j


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) November 30, 1973; (b) official tender closing time: December 20, 1973 at 3.30 p.m. (E.S.T.). A sudden 12" snowfall on that date created almost impassable road conditions in the Ottawa area with the result that no bids arrived at the designated receiving office by the official tender closing time. Within minutes after the closing time, a telephone call was received from a representative of Smith Building System & Supply Ltd., Kingston, advising that, in attempting to deliver his firm's bid, he had become stranded in Ottawa some distance from the tender receiving office and was unable to proceed further. This firm's tender eventually was delivered by hand on the morning of December 21, 1973. Under these abnormal conditions and in view of the pressing need for the maintenance building, it was agreed, in consultation with the Legal Counsel of the Canadian Construction Association and departmental officials, to canvass all other plan takers to determine if they too had attempted to deliver bids on or before the official tender closing time and, if so, to formally establish a later closing date in order that their bids might be considered; otherwise, to open and consider the sole bid received, (c) After verifica tion that no other plan takers had bid on the project, the tender of Smith Building Systems & Supply Ltd., Kingston, was duly opened by the Tender Opening Committee at 2 p.m. December 21, 1973; (d) the sole tender received was for a fixed price of $160,298; (e) Smith Building Systems & Supply Ltd., Kingston, Ontario.
2.	Tender were publicly advertised as follows: (a) Citizen, Ottawa; Journal, Ottawa; Whig-Standard, Kingston; Daily Commercial News, Toronto, (b) Daily issues of November 30 and December 1, 1973. Plans and specifications were also sent to Ottawa and Kingston Builders' Exchange.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	C. A. Richards & Assoc., Ottawa, Ontario.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,073 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, what are all the principal reasons why the cost of operating the Prime Minister's Office has risen from $900,839 in 1970-71 to an estimated $1,486,814 by the year 1973-74 when there has been an increase of only three persons in the total staff during this time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The principal items contributing to the increase in the estimated 1973-74 expenditure over the 1970-71 expenditure include funding of the Special Study on the National Capital, Great Plains Project (reply to Question No. 3,327 in the First Session of the 29th Parliament refers), Western Economic Opportunities Conference (the portion payable from PMO funds), plus the general increase which has occurred in salary budgets since 1970-71 and the three new man-years.
March 13, 1974


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sura of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Prince Edward Island listed in the answer to Question No. 2,271 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Prince Edward Island
Name	Place	AmountBell, Morley	Summerside	$ 15.77Ghiz, J. A	2,132,80Large, Frederick A	5,503.44Macdonald, G. Bruce	Summerside	2,739.20Macdonald, Kenneth R	283.00MacLeod, Neil R	1,982.50McMahon, George R	Summerside	1,710.00Mullally, George J	Charlottetown	314.75O'Donnell, Lester	Charlottetown	166.00Sigsworth, D. F	4,395.00Tweedy, G. G	1,474,78


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Manitoba listed in the answer to Question No. 2,275 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: Manitoba
N ame	Place	Amount
t
Browley, Paul H	Winnipeg	273.25Dewar, A. S	Winnipeg	3,548.49Dilts, Gordon C	Winnipeg	838.66Ferg, Patrick	Flin Flon	2,187.35Margolis, David	Winnipeg	580.00Order Paper Questions	Carter, Alan William	439.43Clarke, George W	830.00Curtis, Dawe & Fagan	St. John's	150.00Fowler, F. P	126.55Hawco, L. C	Corner Brook	75.00Lewis, Aylward & Crosbie	330.50Lewis, P. D	6,333.28Martin, Easton & Woolridge	9,456.88Matthews, Claude	Grand Falls	5,625.76Sparkes, David B	3,566.94Wells, Clyde	Corner Brook	1,131.10


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many printing orders were placed on behalf of the government by the Department of Supply and Services during the past fiscal year?
2.	In how many cases were tenders called prior to the placing of such orders and were such tenders invited from a selected list or obtained by public advertisement?
3.	Were there any cases where printing orders were placed without competitive bids being obtained and, if so, how many?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Seven thousand nine hundred one.
2.	Invitations to tender were issued in approximately 95 per cent of the cases. Tenders were invited from source lists of known qualified suppliers.
3.	Yes. There were a few cases where printing orders were placed without competitive bids being obtained, generally for low dollar value or urgent requirements. Occasionally a sole source existed for the product required. Data maintained by DSS is limited to indicating whether the contract was the result of competitive tender or negotiated. Negotiated contracts included those which resulted from a single reply to a competitive tender call, a sole source of supply, or for urgent requirements which precluded the issue of invitations to tender.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Newfoundland listed in the answer to Question No. 2,277 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: Newfoundland


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Mr. J. S. Hackett appointed Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario and what is his present salary?
2.	Was Mr. Hackett appointed as a result of a competition being held and, if so, what was the date of the competition and how many persons were entered in such a competition?
3.	What previous positions has Mr. Hackett held in the Public Service, if any, and what were the dates and locations in each case?
Name	Place
Adams, W. G	St. John's
Aylward, Fintan J	St. John's
Barry, Leo D	St.John's
Bartlett & Co	St. John's
Bartlett, Rupert W	St. John's
Amount

745.39
30,569.31
1,748.03
656.00
296.00


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. January 30, 1964; $13,070-14,852.
2. Yes, Mr. Hackett was appointed as a result of a closed promotion competition. It is not possible to provide further details as the competition file has been destroyed. It is policy to destroy these files after two years.

March 13, 1974
3. Date
29-9-41
28-	7-42 1-1-45
29-	1-45 1-1-54 3-11-58 1-7-60 26-2-62 28-1-63 31-12-63 1-1-64
30-	1-64 1-10-67
Order Paper Questions
Position held
Location
Temporary Postal Clerk Temporary Letter Carrier Temporary Postal Clerk Temporary Letter Carrier Temporary Postal Clerk Permanent Postal Clerk Postal Officer 1 Postal Officer 2 Postal Officer 4
Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario
Acting Postmaster Grade 12 Reverted to Postal Officer 4 Postmaster Grade 12 Program Admin. Level 3 (change in class title)
Program Admin. Level 4 (Reclassification to Area Postmaster)
Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario Kingston, Ontario
Kingston, Ontario
Kingston, Ontario


Mr. Cossitt: Was veteran's preference a factor considered in the appointment of Mr. J. S. Hackett as Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario and, if so, during what period of time did Mr. Hackett serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and in what capacity?


André Ouellet: No. The
Public Service Employment Act stipulates that veteran's preference is only extended to applicants in open competition.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the full names and job designations of all persons responsible for keeping any payroll records whatsoever at the Post Office in Kingston, Ontario, since 1962?


André Ouellet: Mr. P. Rouleau, Personnel Clerk; Mrs. K. Harrison, Secretary (assists as required); Miss J. A. Fowler, Clerical Support; Mrs. H. Raymond, (Temporarily replacing Mr. P. Rouleau who is absent on extended sick leave). In addition, Mr. S. Begg, former Assistant Postmaster, Mr. H. Cottrell, present Assistant Postmaster, and Mr. R. Burns, Post Office Level 6, who has replaced as both Postmaster and Assistant, have also been involved in payroll administration.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is or was a Mr. Paul Rouleau an employee of the Post Office at Kingston, Ontario and, if so, during what period of time has he been so employed?
2.	What is a full description of his duties and specifically did such duties include keeping records of any kind at any time in connection with persons employed by the Post Office Department during the Christmas rush season?
3.	What is the full name and job designation of all persons in the Kingston Post Office under whom Mr. Rouleau carried out his work?


André Ouellet: 1. Mr. Paul Rouleau has been employed in the Kingston Post Office since February 12, 1966.

2.	Since December 5, 1966, he has performed the duties of Personnel Records Clerk, which entails keeping employee records, pay administration, benefits, etc., including persons employed during the Christmas rush.
3.	Specifically, Mr. Rouleau reported directly to Mr. Hackett, Postmaster, but in his absence reported to Mr. S. Begg, former Assistant Postmaster, and the present Assistant, Mr. H. Cottrell. He has also reported to Mr. R. Burns when he temporarily acted as Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster.


Mr. Cossitt: Is or was Mr. David Soper an employee of the Post Office Department at Kingston, Ontario and, if so, what is the job designation involved, on what date was he appointed, on whose recommendation and on what date?


André Ouellet: Yes. He was appointed as a Letter Carrier effective September 24, 1959. He applied in an open competition, passed the qualifying examination and subsequent oral board, and when his name was reached on the eligible list, was appointed in the same manner as any other candidate.


Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Prince Edward Island and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows; For loans approved in 1972 in the province of Prince Edward Island, the following lawyers were retained by CMHC for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: Charlottetown: J.A. Ghiz, Frederick A. Large, Kenneth MacDonald, Robert G. MacLeod, G. Gordon Tweedy; Souris; George J. Mullally; Summerside: J. Melville Campbell, G. Bruce MacDonald, Neil MacLeod. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND/OR INFORMATION OFFICERS


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,896 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament on July 4, 1973 (a) what was the average annual pay for the 309 public relations and/or information officers employed by government departments and agencies in Ottawa and Hull in 1968 (b) what was the average annual pay for the 546 public relations and/or information officers employed by government departments and agencies in Ottawa and Hull in 1972?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: (a) $10,607.13; (b) $14,997.48
March 13, 1974


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many requests for redress of grievance were submitted to Commanding Officers by officers and men of the Sea Element during April, May and June of 1973, over the application of Canadian Forces Administration Order 17-3?
2.	As of October 15, 1973 (a) how many of the above requests were forwarded for the Minister's attention (b) what was the status of the balance of these requests?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Thirty-one.
2.	As of October 15, 1973 (a) two; (b) all grievances have been resolved.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,966 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, of the $527,899 expended on the breakwaters built or extended between Turkey Point and Mary Tod Island near Victoria, British Columbia (a) how much of the money was expended by the government (b) if money other than government money was expended, what was the amount spent by each participant?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	$527,899; (b) nil.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,188 of the First Session of the 28th Parliament concerning the commercial facilities provided sheltered waters by the government-constructed breakwaters (a) what control over the expansion of the commercial facilities does the government have (b) has the government exercised any control of this nature to date and, if so, how much (c) does the government anticipate exercising any such control in the next two years?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: (a) The federal government has control over the expansion of the commercial facilities only in so far as navigation is concerned under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (b) The original marina was approved under the NWPA on January 8, 1959 and the expansion of the marina was approved under this Act on January 11, 1972. (c) Not known at this time.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were tenders called this fall for firewood requirements at Kejim-kujik National Park and, if so (a) how many companies or individuals tendered on this project (b) what were their names (c) what was the amount of their bid?
2.	What is the name of the successful contractor and the amount of his bid?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes (a) Four, (b) 1. Willis G. Forrest Ltd., Caledonia, Nova Scotia; 2. Raleigh Rowter, Maitland Bridge, Nova Scotia; 3. R. D. Anthony, Kempt, Nova Scotia;
Order Paper Questions
4.	Leon Rawding, Caledonia, Nova Scotia, (c) 1. No bid; 2. $48 per cord; 3. $48.90 per cord; 4. No bid.
2. Raleigh Rowter at $48 per cord.
Note: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requested that the standing offer arranged with Raleigh Rowter be withdrawn and tenders were invited for slabwood (softwood) from:
Name	Price
R. D. Anthony, Kempt, N.S.	No bid
Leon Rawding, Caledonia, N.S.	$7 per cord
Raleigh Rowter, Maitland Bridge, N.S.	$15 per cord
Willis, G. Forrest, Caledonia, N.S.	No bid
Randall Silver, North Brookfield, N.S.	No bid
N.F. Douglas & Co., Caledonia, N.S.	No bid
Milton Rhodemizer, I'arkdale. BarssCorner. N.S. $5 per cord
A new Standing Offer was arranged with the lowest tenderer, Milton Rhodemizer at $5 per cord.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were tenders called this fall for the rental of motor vehicles at Kejimkujik National Park and, if so (a) how many companies tendered on this project (b) what were the names of such companies (c) what was the amount of their bid?
2.	What is the name of the successful contractor and the amount of his bid?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. (a) Six. (b) and (c) Rafuse Leasing Ltd., Bridgewater, $61,056; Everitt & Smith Ltd., Bridgetown, 63,666; Budget Rent A Car, Halifax, 66,060; McDonald Chev-Olds. Ltd., Halifax, 66,420; Scotia Leasing Ltd., Halifax, 71,028; C. J. Slauenwhite Ltd., Lawrencetown, 72,612.
2. Rafuse Leasing Ltd., 61,056.
Note: The above information relates to 13 vehicles (two sedans, two station wagons and nine pickup trucks) forming part of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development requirement. The remaining vehicle required (one 26,000 pound stake truck) was the subject of a separate tender call and the following information applies:
1.	Yes. (a) Two. (b) and (c) Rafuse Leasing Ltd., Bridgewater, 12,060; McDonald Chev-Olds. Ltd., Halifax, 13,500.
2.	Rafuse Leasing Ltd., 12,060.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	Due to the rumours and the uncertainty in the public at large about the future site of the National Gallery of Canada, has a decision been taken as to the site of this new and important building?
2.	What sites are actually under consideration for the construction of the National Gallery?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	No decision has yet been taken as to the site of a new National Gallery building. The Board of Trustees of the

March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions
National Museums of Canada is examining the accommodation requirements of all its museums and will be bringing forward for consideration their proposals and priorities including, of course, the future of any new building for the National Gallery. These recommendations will then be discussed with my colleagues the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
2.	In view of the confidentiality of the current discussions, it would not be advisable to identify the several sites under consideration in the National Capital Region.


Mr. Marshall: What revenue has been derived by the government each year from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials since the tax was levied?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: The tax on building materials was introduced on June 14, 1963. However, revenue statistics were not available until 1967 when the general sales tax rate was changed to 12 per cent while the tax on the specific building materials listed in Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act remained at 11 per cent. The department was thus enabled to identify the revenue derived from the sale of those building materials taxable at the lesser rate. This was done until March 1972. At that time, in order to ease the tax accounting burden of taxpayers, the practice of having them report those taxes being paid at the 11 per cent rate separately from those being paid at the 12 per cent rate was discontinued. Accordingly, statistics with respect to revenue derived from the 11 per cent tax on building materials are not available for the period prior to 1967 and subsequent to March 1972. The amounts set out below represent the revenue derived from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials during those fiscal years for which statistics are available. 19671968, $226,650,497; 1968-1969, $212,905,892; 1969-1970, $223,719,276; 1970-1971, $207,654,246; 1971-1972, $249,973,653.


Mr. Forrestall: What specific guarantees are built into the recently announced Program of Modernization and Renewal for the Department of National Defence to ensure that this program will result in a spending of "almost 20 per cent of the total budget" on new equipment "by the end of the 70's" as indicated in the Minister's statement to the Press October 10, 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: The new financing arrangements announced last autumn provide for specific amounts to be allocated annually for the next five years for the defence program as a whole, rather than for individual components of it such as the purchase of new equipment. Preliminary targets for capital expenditure have however been established, based on these totals and on projections of personnel, operations and maintenance costs reflecting the experience of recent years. These targets envisage an increase in capital expenditure from $245 million this year to $530 million by 1978-79. While there is no specific guarantee, it is reasonable to expect that actual expendi-

ture for new equipment will approximate these targets and hence, as indicated in the announcement, will amount to almost 20 per cent of the total defence budget by the end of the decade.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the 7 per cent limit placed upon increases during the next five years in the budget of the Department of National Defence, as announced to the Press by the Minister October 10, 1973, to be calculated (a) as a percentage of the 1973-1974 budget (b) as a percentage of the total budget for the fiscal year coming immediately prior to the fiscal year in which the increase is to be applied?


James Armstrong Richardson: The increase will be calculated as 7 per cent of the total budget for the base year of 1973/74 and for each of the subsequent five years using as the base the immediate past fiscal year.


Mr. Forrestall: In real and constant dollars based on the 1973-1974 fiscal year level and adjusted annually to remove increases caused by inflation, what will the level of the Department of National Defence budget be for the next five years of the recently proposed planning cycle announced by the Minister October 10, 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: Since the inflation rates during the next five years are unknown, the respective DND budget levels cannot be calculated in constant 1973/74 dollars.


Mr. Forrestall: What specific dollar levels, if any, are proposed in the next five fiscal years of Department of National Defence budgeting for (a) total budget to be sought from Parliament (b) pay and allowances for personnel (c) new capital equipment (d) operation and maintenance costs (e) NATO contributions (f) other expenditures expressed as well in percentage figures?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) Starting with the 1973/74 base of $2,241 million the following budgetary levels are proposed:
Year	Budget ($ Million)	
1974/75	2,361	
1975/76	2,518	
1976/77	2,690	
1977/78	2,874	
1978/79	3,006	
Within the financial budget the following components are proposed for 1974/75.		
Category	(S Million)	Percentage(b) Pay and Allowances for personnel	
1,600	67.78(c) New Capital Equipment	
288	12.20(d) Operations and Maintenance costs	
442	18.69
March 13, 1974

Category	($ Million) Percentage
(e)	NATO contributions excluding personnel, capital (equipment) and Operations
and Maintenance	
18	0-77(f) Other expenditures	
13	0.56Total	
2,361	100.00
Detailed projections beyond 1974/75 are not available in this form.


Mr. Forrestall: By what percentage will the 1974-1975 budget for the Department of National Defence be increased over the 1973-1974 budget, as announced recently by the Minister in his Modernization and Renewal Program?


James Armstrong Richardson: Excluding the quinquennial adjustment and items additional to the formula base of $20 million in the 1973/74 fiscal year, the National Defence budget will increase by 7 per cent in the fiscal year 1974/75.


Mr. Forrestall: By what percentage will the 1975-1976 budget for the Department of National Defence be increased over the 1974-1975 budget, as announced recently by the Minister in his Modernization and Renewal Program?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): The increase will be 7 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: By what percentage will the 1976-1977 budget for the Department of National Defence be increased over the 1975-1976 budget, as announced recently by the Minister in his Modernization and Renewal Program?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): The increase will be 7 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: By what percentage will the 1977-1978 budget for the Department of National Defence be increased over the 1976-1977 budget, as announced recently by the Minister in his Modernization and Renewal Program?


James Armstrong Richardson: The increase will be 7 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: By what percentage will the 1978-1979 budget for the Department of National Defence be increased over the 1977-1978 budget, as announced recently by the Minister in his Modernization and Renewal Program?
Order Paper Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: The increase will be 7 per cent.
NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACTUAL/PROJECTED STRENGTH LEVELS


Mr. Forrestall: As part of the recently announced Modernization and Renewal Program for the Canadian Armed Forces, has the Department of National Defence projected levels of actual strength for the Forces over the next five years and, if so, what are the actual levels of manpower broken down into regular and civilian components anticipated as opposed to the authorized strengths in this five year planning cycle?


James Armstrong Richardson: The objective of the modernization and renewal program is to improve over-all military capability which can only be done through an appropriately balanced relationship of capital equipment and construction, operation and maintenance costs, and personnel. The Department of National Defence currently expects the strength of the Armed Forces and the number of DND civilian employees to remain at or near their present levels over the next five years.


Mr. Forrestall: What specific funding levels are anticipated by the Department of National Defence in terms of modernizing existing married quarters over and above anticipated levels of continuing operational cost for each of the next five fiscal years, as indicated in the statement by the Minister on Modernization and Renewal October 10, 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Department of National Defence anticipates the allocation of $3 million per year for each of the next five fiscal years, 1974/75-1978/79, towards the modernization of existing married quarters throughout the Canadian Forces Bases and Stations located in Canada. This allocation will be over and above any other expenditures for routine maintenance and operation of the married quarters.


Mr. Forrestall: What specific dollar levels have been allocated to upgrade airfield facilities in Canada by the Department of National Defence for the next five years as referred to in the Minister's announcement to the Press of October 10,1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: The funds allocated by the Department of National Defence for the planned upgrading of airfield facilities for the next five years is estimated at $12,701,000. This is subject to Treasury Board approval. Of the funds now allocated for fiscal year 1974-75 $2.4 million will be a carryover from contracts already in progress in this fiscal year. However, $2.5 million will spill into fiscal year 197980, the year following the five-year program period to complete the required projects.

March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: What specific written communications and consultations with provincial and territorial authorities preceded the decision by the Minister of National Defence to reduce by half the annual budget for the Civil Emergency Financial Assistance Program?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Department of National Defence is in continuous communication and consultation with provincial and territorial authorities concerning civil emergency matters. Although there was no written communication with other levels of government prior to the decision to reduce the national defence civil emergency financial program, in making the announcement, the Minister of National Defence stated that detailed consultations would be held with provincial and territorial authorities prior to the reduction of Emergency Measures grants coming into effect commencing April 1, 1974.


Mr. Forrestall: For what reason did the Minister of National Defence choose to announce his proposed program for funding that Department over the next five years by way of press conference rather than by way of a statement in the House of Commons?


James Armstrong Richardson: Prior consultations with U.S. and NATO authorities, as well as preparation for advance notification of municipal and provincial authorities concerning the modernization and renewal program for the Canadian Forces had to be made. However, once these arrangements were made it was essential there be no delay. These arrangements could not be completed before October 10, 1973, a day on which the House was not in session.


Mr. Forrestall: What has been the percentage increase in the total cost of all goods and services supplied to the Department of National Defence in each of the past three fiscal years?


James Armstrong Richardson: The percentage increase in the total cost of goods and services supplied to the Department of National Defence over the years in question are as follows: 1970-71, 2.1 per cent; 1971-72, 6.2 per cent; 1972-73, 4.3 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973, and Article 41 therein, for what reason are the accounts flowing from the Canadian government's involvement in (a) Cambodia (b) Laos (c) Viet Nam headed by the Department of External Affairs not charged to the Department rather than to the Department of National Defence?


James Armstrong Richardson: Participation of the Canadian Forces in peacekeeping or truce supervisory operations is a long established role assigned to the Armed Forces by successive Canadian governments. Financial provisions to carry out authorized tasks within this role is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. The financial arrangements with the appropriate international bodies for Canadian participation in international peacekeeping or truce supervisory operations are negotiated by the Department of External Affairs with the assistance of the Department of National Defence. Financial provisions for the DND portion of the costs to the Canadian government are made by the Department of National Defence, under the authority of the government decision or order which authorized Canadian participation in the operation. When the negotiated agreement for Canadian participation includes reimbursement from international bodies, for example from a United Nations common fund, the Department of National Defence submits invoices for reimbursement from that fund through the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many man-years of employment are anticipated in each of the following projects for which tenders have been issued (a) interior painting of 123 PMQs, file WA 366 10 (b) supply and install power humidifiers and rewiring of furnaces in 156 PMQs, file WA 303 10 (c) exterior painting various buildings CFB Ottawa, file WA 370 10 (d) supply and erection of chain fence, CFB Ottawa, file WA 310 10 (e) construction of gatehouse, CFB Ottawa, file WA 309 10 (f) supply and install vanity units in 736 PMQs, file WA 304 10 and WA 305 10?
2.	How many other projects are to be tendered in the next six months of a similar nature for CFB Ottawa, North and South?
3.	Will there be any lay-off of civilian staff at CFB Ottawa capable of performing this work and, if so, is it the intention of the government to phase out civilian employment within the Department of National Defence?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The number of man-years of employment anticipated in each of the projects listed hereunder is as follows: (a) Interior painting of 123 PMQs, file WA 366 10, 2.56 man years; (b) Supply and install power humidifiers and rewiring furnaces in 156 PMQs, file WA 303 10, 1.41 man years; (c) Exterior painting various buildings, CFB Ottawa, file WA 370 10, 1.92 man years; (d) Supply and erection of chain link fence, CFB Ottawa, file WA 310 10, 3.27 man years; (e) Construction of gate house, CFB Ottawa file WA 309 10, 4.61 man years; (f) Supply and install vanity units in 736 PMQs files WA 304 10 and WA 305 10, 5.61 man years.
2.	For Canadian Forces Base Ottawa North and South three other projects of a similar nature are planned to be tendered in the next six months.
3.	There is no intention to phase out civilian employment within the Department of National Defence, but as a result of the consolidation of Canadian Forces Base Ottawa, lay-off notices effective March 29, 1974, were issued to a number of civilians, most of whom are term employees. Every effort is being made to place those affected in other employment by that date and recent developments have indicated that the majority of those
March 13, 1974

under lay-off notice will be retained for developing maintenance projects expected to commence in April 1974.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What level of funding has been provided by the Department of National Defence to provide logistic and supply capability for Armed Forces operating in the Canadian Arctic in each of the past four years?
2.	What level of funding is anticipated in the next five years to ensure such capability is year round and to ensure that equipment, clothing, etc., is suitable for large scale operations in any given month of the year?


James Armstrong Richardson: 
Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the staff studies being conducted by the Department of National Defence into "spending and building program for vessels intended for operational use north of 60 degrees parallel" now progressing (a) when will such studies be completed (b) what is the length of time now taken by such studies (c) what are the terms of reference for such studies (d) what funding level has been allocated to these studies (e) what progress has been made to date in terms of decisions respecting such construction and building programs (f) is the Department fully cognizant of and has it made clear to those involved in such studies a clear need for unqualified sovereignty of the Arctic Archipelago Canadian claims?


James Armstrong Richardson: 
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have undergone Arctic training to date, in the (a) High Arctic (b) Medium Arctic (c) Low Arctic?
2.	What funding levels have been provided in the past three years for operation New Viking and other related exercices to accomplish this training?
3.	What is the breakdown by command involved of personnel who have undergone such training?
4.	What proportion of those personnel have undergone such training by month of the year?
5.	Is any acceleration of this program anticipated in the next five years?


James Armstrong Richardson: 
Mr. Forrestall: As of November 30, 1973, how many retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not eligible for receipt of benefit under the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act who have retired after (a) 20 years service (b) 25 years service (c) 30 years service (d) all

March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions
other lengths of service for which pensions are normally paid, expressed as a percentage of those receiving pensions and in absolute terms?


James Armstrong Richardson: As of November 30, 1973, the numbers of retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces, expressed as a percentage of those receiving pensions and in absolute terms, not eligible for receipt of benefit under the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act were as follows:
	Total	Percentage
	Number	of Total
(a) After 20 years service	. . 12,699	28.02(b) After 25 years service	10,060	22.19(c) After 30 years service	. . 1,416	3.12(d) All other lengths of service	. 6,288	13.8730,463	67.2
Noth: The above figures are based on 45,328 retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces in receipt of pension as of November 30, 1973.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	On what date was the Central Travel Service established, and what have been its staff levels by quarter since then?
2.	What are the terms of reference for the service?
3.	To what Minister is the service responsible?
4.	(a) What was the date of the implementation of the present charging policy (b) what is the policy (c) by what specific memorandum or authority was this effected (d) are any changes contemplated in this policy?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Central Travel Service was established under authority of Treasury Board Minute 676442 of January 25, 1968. The Service commenced operation in February 1968 with an establishment of a manager and two clerks. It continued with the same staff until April, 1972 when one additional clerk was added. The present establishment remains a manager with a staff of three.
2.	The terms of reference are: (i) provide a fast, efficient and economical centralized service for the procurement of domestic and overseas travel and accommodation arranged for civil departments, (ii) provide a base for gathering travel statistics necessary to obtain the benefits of group fares and to minimize travel costs, (iii) minimize departmental staff involvement in making travel arrangements.
3.	The Minister of Supply and Services.
4.	(a) April 1, 1973. (b) The costs of operating Central Travel Service are to be recovered from customer departments and agencies. The costs arise from: (i) The cost of auditing carriers' charges on behalf of customer departments and agencies, and adjustment and payment of carriers' accounts, (ii) Supervision of travel arrangements made by carriers' agents, the investigation of complaints and enquiries and the implementation of appropriate service improvement action, (iii) The negotiation of favour-

able rates with hotels in Canada, USA and throughout the world; the publishing of a hotel index, which is updated quarterly and provides a current listing of hotels and the related negotiated rates, (iv) Interest charges arising from the financing of travel costs prior to receipt of payment from customer departments and agencies. The charge for these services is 1 per cent of the value of the travel expenditures audited and processed by Central Travel Service, (c) Treasury Board Minute 719002, 10 May 1973. (d) Not at the present time.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the rationale behind the charging policy of the Central Travel Service to government departments?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco), subsequently accepted by the cabinet and implemented under Treasury Board direction, that services provided to other government departments and agencies by the Supply Administration of the Department of Supply and Services be provided on a full cost recoverable basis.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government anticipate an increase in the rate for domestic first class mail from the present eight cents for the first ounce in the next 12 months and, if so, is it the policy of the government to ensure that the portrait of the reigning monarch will always be employed on the low-value definitive used with most frequency namely, the stamp representing the value of a first class domestic letter of one ounce or less?


André Ouellet: Rates of postage for domestic letter mail are set out in section 10 of the Post Office Act. Changes in these rates, therefore, are possible only by act of parliament. Any proposals for amending the Post Office Act would be announced in the government's legislative program, at the appropriate time.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Defence Research Board on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-1974 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The amount of money spent by the Defence Research Board on publicity and/or information for 1972/ 73 and 1973/74 to date is as follows: 1972-73, $8,766; 1973-74 up to December 31, 1973, $1,289.
2. (a) 1972-73
March 13, 1974

Firms	Expenditures Purpose	
Industrial Copy Centers		
Toronto, Ont.	1,680	All four contracts were in connection with the
Canadian Sign Consultants		preparation of publicity
Toronto, Ont.	1,259	material for the 25th anniversary of the
Globe Printing & Lithograph		Defence Research Board
Toronto. Ont.	343	
Jones & Morris Photography		
Toronto. Ont.	959	
(b)	1973-74 (up to December 31, 1973) no contracts were awarded.
3.	(a) 1972-73: Expenditures for publicity and/or information within the Defence Research Board the major part in connection with the 25th anniversary of the Defence Research Board were as follows: Miscellaneous supplies, $2,875; Travel, $1,650; (b) 1973-74 (up to December 31, 1973): Miscellaneous supplies (e.g. processing of films), $860; Travel, $429; Total, $1,289.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government contribute to the construction of the Foyer Lac Etchemin in the province of Quebec through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for how long
(c)	at what interest rate (d) on what terms?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: (a), (b), (c), (d), a loan was approved in October 1968, under section 16 (a) of the National Housing Act in the amount of $651,330, to assist in financing the construction of Foyer Lac Etchemin, with accommodation being provided in nine dwelling units and 70 hostel beds. The loan is repayable over a term of 50 years at an interest rate of 6-7/8 per cent.


Mr. Reynolds: At any point following the preparation of the 1968 Report of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act for publication, was material destroyed or revised and, if so, what was the purpose and what was the nature of the differences between the original version and the version subsequently printed and issued?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act report, part II, for 1968 was completed and printed while the Dominion Statistician was out of the country. It was held for review and approval of the Dominion Statistician on his return. Some parts of the textual material of the report were not considered to be appropriate and therefore it became necessary to amend the text and correct some typographical errors before presentation to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for tabling in parliament. No charts or other summary tables were altered or deleted from the original draft on which the analyses were based.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What law firms in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and Coquitlam in British Columbia drew CMHC mortgages in uninsured loans in 1971, 1972 and the first six months of 1973?
2.	How much did each of these firms receive in legal fees from the government for handling these mortgages in 1971, 1972 and in the first six months of 1973?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. The law firms listed below were retained by CMHC to handle mortgage documentation for loans approved in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and Coquitlam in 1971 to June 1973. Burnaby, Hean, Wylie and Company; New Westminster, Hogarth, Oliver and Hughes; Richmond, William H. Mulholland; Surrey, James L. Davidson, A.K.N. Virani.
2. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Has the government firmly rejected a Claims Commission as a means of determining the valid claims of Canadian Native People?
2.	If the government proposes to settle claims by negotiation, what procedure is proposed to guarantee that one group of natives will (a) know the terms (b) receive the same terms of settlement applied to another group?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. It is assumed that reference is being made to an adjudicatory claims commission. The government believes that negotiation is the preferred course, having regard to the nature of these claims. Negotiation fosters more direct involvement of those concerned and permits more comprehensive treatment of the issues. In his recommendations to date the Commissioner on Indian Claims, who is responsible for studying claims and facilitating the development of settlement processes, has proposed negotiation as the preferred course to be followed. Adjudicatory machinery may be necessary at some point for certain types of claims, but the government feels that it would be premature to deal with this possibility at this time. Neither Mr. Barber nor the government has so far encountered a situation in which the judgmental processes inherent in an adjudicatory claims commission seem necessary or desirable.
2. (a) Appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that terms of any settlement become public knowledge, (b) It is expected that settlements will vary to take into account the divergent circumstances on which claims are based. No doubt participants will want to feel that any settlement is comparable to others and this will be a factor in the government's approach to any proposals put before it.

March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	(a) On what dates (b) for what reasons were steel doors or other barriers established in the central office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at Centennial Towers, 400 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa?
2.	(a) On what date (b) for what reason were such doors or barriers removed?
3.	What was the (a) total cost (b) total man-hours involved in establishing and removing these walls or barriers?


John Mercer Reid: 1 am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. (a) October 21, 1973. (b) A framework to contain new doors was erected to reduce hazards to staff and the general public caused by the present double set of all glass entrance doors.
2.	(a) December 7 and 8, 1973. (b) The framework was seen by some to constitute a barrier between the Indian people and the department.
3.	(a) $4,783.20. (b) It is not known how many manhours were spent in installation, as a total order to "supply and install" was given; the man-hours spent on removal of the steel screen amounted to 54.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	What was the per unit price charged for the 20 CF 5 aircraft sold to Venezuela?
2.	What was the per unit price originally paid for these aircraft by the government?
3.	At the time of their sale, how much of their projected airframe life had been expended?
4.	Were replacement parts also sold to Venezuela and, if so (a) were they taken from stock (b) did they involve the placement of new orders with Canadian companies and what was their value?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows: 1. The unit price charged was $1,296,000.
2.	The production price per unit was $1,303,000.
3.	At the time of the sale the dual aircraft had expended approximately 11 per cent of their projected airframe time. The single seat aircraft were new and had their full airframe time remaining.
4.	Yes, some replacement parts from stock and some from Canadian companies valued at $4,700,000.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): In connection with the government's issue of 3 per cent perpetual bonds in 1936 (a) what was the total face value of the original issue (b) what amount of the original issue was (i) in registered form (ii) in bearer form (c) how many years did the interest coupons attached to the original bonds cover (d) what amount of the original issue was exchanged for new bonds after the coupons ran out (e) what amount of the bonds issued in exchange were issued (i) registered (ii) in bearer form (f) what amount has been paid as interest on this issue in each of the years 1966 to 1972 (g) how has the government paid interest to

holders of the original bonds (which have not been exchanged) in the years sines the coupons ran out?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: (a) $55
million; (b) (i) $13,636,400 fully registered (ii) $41,363,600 coupon bonds-records do not indicate the proportion of coupon bonds registered as to principal or in bearer form,
(c)	30 years (d) At the end of May 1967, of the $25,720,500 coupon bonds then outstanding, all but $3,929,200 had been exchanged for the new certificates. The exchange of old certificates continues and the amount of these old coupon bonds still not exchanged is estimated at $429,700. (e) (i) No exchange of fully registered bonds was necessary (ii) This information is not available and would be very difficult and expensive to obtain, (f) In each year, $1,650,000, representing 3 per cent interest on the $55 million outstanding perpetual bonds, was credited to a special account to meet interest payments, (g) For fully registered bonds, interest is paid by mail automatically. Interest on coupon bonds is paid when the coupons are tendered to a paying agent. When coupons are not tendered, the interest is maintained in a special account. Holders of original bonds may still exchange them for new bonds with all coupons attached.


Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of the corporations receiving grants under the Promotional Projects Program (PPP) in each fiscal year 1965-66 to 1973-74 to date?
2.	In each case, what was the total cost of the promotion, the amount paid by the department and the amount paid by the company?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. The Promotional Projects Program (PPP) does not provide grants to industries.
2.	Answered by 1 above.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what exact date did the government and the Public Service Commission become aware that Mr. Andre Roy was facing charges of FLQ terrorist activities at the time he was hired by the Department of Secretary of State?
2.	What person or persons in the government or the Public Service Commission became aware of such information, what did they do with this information and specifically did they take any action whatsoever on receipt of this information?
3.	What is the exact amount of money in dollars and cents paid to Mr. Roy since he was hired on April 4, 1972 by the Department of the Secretary of State and what will be the exact amount of money in dollars and cents paid to Mr. Roy during the calendar year 1973 if he continues in the employ of the government during this time?
March 13, 1974

4.	What are the names and addresses of all persons who recommended employment for Mr. Roy either verbally or in writing and to whom were such recommendations made?
5.	Was the government or the Public Service Commission aware of the charges against Mr. Roy of FLQ activities at the time that Mrs. Andre Roy was hired by the government on November 20,1972?
6.	What is the complete job description of Mrs. Andre Roy, what is the name and position of the person to whom she is directly responsible and what is the summary of her specific daily duties?
Return tabled.



LEGAL FEES PAID BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LAWYERS IN ALBERTA, APRIL 1, 1972 TO MARCH 31, 1973

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Alberta listed in the answer to Question No. 2,273 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



LEGAL FEES PAID BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LAWYERS IN SASKATCHEWAN, APRIL 1, 1972 TO MARCH 31, 1973

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Saskatchewan listed in the answer to Question No. 2,274 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



LEGAL FEES PAID BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LAWYERS IN NEW BRUNSWICK, APRIL 1, 1972 TO MARCH 31,1973

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of New Brunswick listed in the answer to Question No. 2,278 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN NEWFOUNDLAND DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Newfoundland and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN NOVA SCOTIA DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Nova Scotia and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN QUEBEC DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Quebec and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN ONTARIO DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Ontario and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN SASKATCHEWAN DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Saskatchewan and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN ALBERTA DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Alberta and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY CMHC IN BRITISH COLUMBIA DURING PAST FISCAL YEAR

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of British Columbia and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.
COST OF FOUR DDH 280s

Question No. 117-Mr. McKinnon:
With respect to the four DDH 280 helicopter destroyers (a) what was the cost of the ships as delivered from the shipyards (b) what additional expenses were incurred during and as a result of sea trials (c) if any other capital costs were incurred how much were they and what were

March 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions
they for (d) what was the total cost of bringing the four DDH 280s to operational status?
Return tabled.



SCRAPPING OF HMCS''BONAVENTURE&quot;

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What officials or representatives of the government were witness to the scrapping of the HMCS Bonaventure?
2.	Is the government aware of the present location of Mr. N. W. Kennedy, described by government officials as one of the leading shipbrokers in the world and, if so, where is his operation based at present?
3.	What specific steps were taken by the government to ensure that the obligation to scrap the Bonaventure was carried out by the individual or individuals who contracted to purchase the Bonaventure?
4.	What safeguards existed in the contract to purchase the Bonaventure to ensure that the original purchaser could not re-sell to a foreign power or foreign-based operation except in the instance that such foreign power or foreign operation would specifically undertake to use the Bonaventure for the purposes of scrap metal and salvage materials?
5.	How were such safeguards enforceable and in what specific manner were they enforced?
6.	What steps have been taken since the sale by the government of the Bonaventure to ensure that future sales of military hardware no longer used by the Canadian Armed Forces is kept under the absolute control and supervision of the government until the full intent of the original contract has been met?
Return tabled.



PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES-CANADA COUNCIL

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Canada Council on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 1972-74

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of the Environment on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



RESEARCH EXPENDITURES BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 1972-74

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



RESEARCH EXPENDITURES-DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 what amount of the total expenditures for the Department of Public Works were spent (a) outside of Canada (b) within Canada (c) in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	(a) What was the total number of employees in the Department of Public Works as of March 31, 1973 (b) how many of those employees would be considered employees of the headquarters and are employed on the (i) Quebec side of the national capital (ii) Ontario side of the national capital (c) how many employees does the Department have in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
Return tabled.



TRANSFER OF GRANVILLE ISLAND, VANCOUVER TO CMHC

Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	On what date was title to the property known as Granville Island in the City of Vancouver transferred to Central Mortgage and housing Corporation?
2.	What was the name of the transferor?
3.	At what price was the property transferred?
4.	Was the whole of Granville Island transferred and how much area of the land was transferred?
5.	On what date had the property been acquired by the transferor and at what price was it acquired?
6.	Had some of the land area been man-made by dumping fill into the waters of False Creek and, if so (a) on what date did this occur (b) what land area was created?
7.	Since several alternatives were suggested in the study of October, 1972, what are the government's present plans for the future of this property?
8.	Are there any housing or mortgages involved and, if not, for what reason was this property transferred?
March 13, 1974

9.	Did the Minister of State for Urban Affairs say that Granville Island will be designated for public use and for revitalization in conjunction with the city-owned and privately held properties in the area of False Creek and, if so, has the government considered turning Granville Island over to the City of Vancouver by lease or gift, so that the development can proceed with a minimum of bureaucracy and confusion?
10.	Do some leases have 20 years or more to run until expiry and, if so, for what reason has the government already hired a project manager?
11.	What experience or skill does the project manager, Mr. Russell Brink, possess in order to qualify him as project manager?
12.	Was a competition held in the normal way to ensure that the best candidate for this job was obtained and, if not, how was Mr. Russell Brink selected?
13.	How was the salary of the project manager established at $25,000 per annum?
14.	What other costs, particularly in the way of support staff and other expenses, have been budgeted for the management of this project?
15.	How will the newly-planted trees be cared for in order to protect the taxpayers investment of $19,000 therein?
Return tabled.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that a number of members who had questions on the order paper when the House was prorogued have not yet put them down on the order paper again. We have done the research into these matters, have the information and would appreciate it if members would do so if they want that information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: It had been my hope to present enough answers before the conclusion of last session to give me a 100 per cent average instead of only 89 per cent.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   CONSUMER AFFAIRS INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a sense of urgency and shock with regard to the figures on the cost of living released today. In so doing, I would seek to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a special and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announcement today by Statistics Canada that the January to February increase in the food index is the largest such increase in a quarter of a century.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has provided the written notice required by section 2 of Standing Order 26. As hon. members know, the Chair has always been reluctant to concur in the putting of a motion for the adjournment of the House on the basis of monthly statistics produced and provided by Statistics Canada. In
Motions for Papers
spite of the importance of the matter, I have the same reluctance today. The statistic on which the hon. member bases his proposed motion has reference to the matter of inflation which has been under discussion during much of the throne speech debate. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was concerned with the problem of inflation.
In addition to these considerations, the Chair is required to consider whether other opportunities will be available within a reasonable time to debate the issue. For one thing, I would be very surprised if the subject of inflation remained unmentioned while the House considers Bill C-7, the first order of government business this afternoon. Also, the Chair cannot overlook that there are six remaining allotted days before the end of the current supply period on March 26, that is, six non-legislative days out of ten.
My conclusion is that a motion under Standing Order 26 to debate the subject of the hon. member's motion should not be allowed today.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 11 and 17 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motion Nos. 11 and 17 be deemed agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NAMES OF ALL THOSE INVITED TO ATTEND NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of (a) a list of all those people, and their backgrounds, invited to attend the National Economic Conference sponsored by the Economic Council of Canada (b) a list of the Committees which reported to the Conference and the subject on which each reported (c) the name of the Chairman and the members of each Committee (d) the studies tabled by each Committee at the Conference.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the repot to the Governor in Council by the Canadian Transport Commission April 30, 1971, on the operation of Section 278 (then S.336) of the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1974
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker:: Will the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the cost of living figures published today and in view of the statement by the government House leader at the opening of the session that in the next couple of weeks or thereabouts he would bring in some bills related to the whole question of food supply, inflation and so on, may I ask the Prime Minister when we are going to see these bills, now that the two weeks have expired?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is one bill before the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that hon. members have not taken advantage of first reading to notice its contents, but if they do they will see that we are beginning to put into practice the program announced in the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. Member:: We have read it, all right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since it must be apparent to the Prime Minister that inflation is running throughout the entire economy-


Mr. Sharp:: Throughout the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the economy in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: And throughout the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to invoke his so-called contingency plan and, in particular, can he tell us if we are going to have an immediate budget and on what date the budget will be brought down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to answer the questions in reverse order, the date of the budget will not be announced by me today. As to the second part of the question, yes, there will be a budget, which will deal with this and many other matters. As to the first part of the question, the answer is that the government is indeed very concerned about these rising prices, particularly the fact

that 60 per cent of the increase in the cost of living is attributable to food and almost half of that is an increase in beef prices. We do know that the quarterly report of the Food Prices Review Board, which will include a review of beef prices, will be out at the end of next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We hope that by then the situation will have clarified.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is very gallant of the Prime Minister to try to hide behind Mrs. Plumptre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Get out from behind that woman's skirt.


An hon. Member:: It is getting kind of crowded there.


An hon. Member:: Herb Gray is there already.


An hon. Member:: She is quite a slender girl; remember that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the Prime Minister has emphasized the extent of the increases in the cost of food and food prices, has he any over-all plans with regard to levelling off or holding down rising costs or, as he might say, the inputs into agriculture so that there might be some prospect of prices levelling off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do, and we gave an outline of that in the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. Member:: That is what worries us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that just last week, when the newspapers were indicating that beef prices were falling at the consumer level, members of his own party were complaining that those prices were going down.


Some hon. Members:: Not true.


An hon. Member:: That is a distortion.


An hon. Member:: Pierre the twister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the Prime Minister. What we object to, as does his friend, Mrs. Plumptre, is that the-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -retail price of beef has not been falling-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


An hon. Member:: Shut up!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -despite the falling of the price to the producer. I should like the Prime Minister to stick to the facts.

March 13, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the very day these questions were posed I cut out of the newspaper, and I can show it to the Leader of the Opposition-


An hon. Member:: Oh, you read the newspapers?


An hon. Member:: Have your press agent write a letter.


An hon. Member:: Are you keeping a scrapbook?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As hon. members who attended the press gallery dinner know, I spend three days a week now looking at newspapers.


An hon. Member:: That is all you are doing, obviously.
# (1460)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a very large article indicating that the prices of beef and meat had fallen substantially. I repeat to the opposition that they should make up their minds. Do they want to have prices go down or do they want to complain when prices go down?


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO EMPOWER GOVERNMENT OR REVIEW BOARD TO ROLL BACK UNJUSTIFIED PRICE INCREASES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his repeated statements in the House and elsewhere and in view of the further disastrous rise in the February consumer price * index, is the government now ready to introduce legislation to give itself or the Food Prices Review Board power to roll back unjustified price increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question before. The answer is that we are prepared to take measures to do that.


David Lewis: In view of the fact the government has already had evidence with regard to bread, beef, sugar, cement and housing, how long is the Prime Minister going to wait before he puts legislation on the books to give the government or a reconstituted Food Prices Review Board power to stop the gouging of the consumers of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat what we have said before, that we do not favour at this time over-all prices and wage control. I do not think the hon. member does either. Therefore we are acting in each particular case. The leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out a series of cases on which we had acted, for example, on milk and bread. Only last week the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs obtained assurance from the bakeries that they would not bring in the increase they had announced they would, as a result of the representations of the minister and the work of the Food Prices Review Board. Therefore my answer is the same. If we find villains, to use that word, or if culprits are identified by the board as being guilty of gouging, to use the hon. member's word, and if they do not respond to the
Oral Questions
entreaties of the board after they have had a chance to explain their case, the government will then step in. This is the position we have always taken. It is the position I repeat today. The hon. member cannot quote cases of increases in prices which have been rolled back after pressure from the minister as cases where the government did not act.


David Lewis: It is precisely because I do not accept the over-all price and wage control method that I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is now or when he will be prepared to introduce legislation that will give power to somebody to stop unjustifiable price increases, particularly in view of statements by the Prime Minister during the throne speech debate and outside the House that the government is prepared to stop profiteering at the expense of the consumer. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible for the government to act effectively without the necessary legislation. Since it obviously is not, when will the government produce the necessary legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the fact that a member alleges there has been gouging or profiteering is not sufficient reason for the government to step in arbitrarily and impose its will on any private sector of the economy. That is not the philosophy of this government. However, 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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and others on the same matter.


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO HELP CONSUMERS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the problem caused by the increase in the cost of living, especially that of the basic needs, which affects especially the fixed-income citizen, would he be willing to study the possibility of helping the consumer directly or paying him a compensated discount? Would he also be willing to study, positively, such measures in favour of those citizens who are powerless because of the game of the mighty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not ignore the fact that the story of the last session and the last few months proves specifically that the Liberal government intervened in favour of those citizens. Surely, he knows that we increased the old age pensions, that we will escalate them according to the increase in the cost of living, and that we have tripled family allowances. If he does not know that, then he should find out.

March 13, 1974
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO HELP WORKERS
André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere will be recognized for a supplementary, after which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings will have the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister who talks about his endeavors on behalf of these people explain why he lost complete interest in the builders of our country, in workers whose income is insufficient, who have many children and who, furthermore, are strictly limiting themselves as regards salary demands, at the government's request. I would like him to tell us if he really intends to encourage not only those who cannot work anymore but also those who are building our country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read again my reply to the previous question. It is aimed mainly at those workers who are building our country, who have children, as the hon. member said. We have-and I repeat it-more than tripled family allowances. In the federal field we have also increased the minimum wage. Perhaps the hon. member should make inquiries before asking questions.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-MEASURES TO ENABLE WORKERS TO REGAIN PURCHASING POWER
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the figures released by Statistics Canada show that average weekly earnings increased by 5.9 per cent during the past 12 months while during the same period the consumer price index increased by 9.6 per cent, is the government now prepared to introduce specific measures which will enable workers to regain the purchasing power of their dollars?


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there is a contradiction in the question asked by the hon. member. He ended up talking about purchasing power of the dollar. Therefore he should be talking about disposable incomes and not average wages. If one looks at the figures for disposable income, the average money received by the average Canadian over the past year, it has risen considerably higher, something in the order of 6 per cent higher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I am simply quoting figures produced by the government's own agency. It is obvious from the Prime Minister's reply that if the figures are distasteful to him he claims they are wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. member. I did not say the figures are wrong. I say it is the intelligence of the hon. minister which is lacking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is entitled to one more round, after which I will see the hon. member for St. John's East.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, I think I should advise the Prime Minister that he is premature by just a few weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that is hardly a question of privilege. The right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings are exchanging remarks. Perhaps we might try to continue with supplementaries on this important matter.


David Lewis: I rise on a short point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Prime Minister said, reflecting the true coalition, may I ask him to inform us what portfolio the hon. member has been given?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL PRICE OF BASIC COMMODITIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to a more serious subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what he proposes to do by way of legislation, faced with the hard evidence produced today by Statistics Canada of a 2.3 per cent increase in food prices, representing the highest February over January increase since 1949, and whether he will now bring in legislation to control the price of essential basic food items in order to protect people in the lower and middle income brackets.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am glad the hon. member recognizes the importance of this subject compared with his hon. friend on the front bench.


George Harris Hees: Stick to the straight stuff, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Prime Minister has stated on behalf of the government, and I can confirm this, that we have taken action in the past through specific measures to deal with this type of problem and we are committed to be prepared to do this type of thing in future.


George Harris Hees: You are not even good at the straight stuff.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the price of beef went up by 7 per cent, may I ask the minister what steps he has taken to ensure that the Canadian people are not being gouged, especially since this increase in the price of beef did not go to the cattle producers of this country?
March 13, 1974


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Prime Minister has already noted that the next quarterly report of the Food Prices Review Board is expected to deal in part with this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am also informed that the board has under way a special four-week study of beef price margins. This was begun a week ago. When it is completed, the report will be published. The Prime Minister has pointed out that the board's action in this way is a vital supplement to our basic action in working to increase supplies of major commodities and also to help Canadians, through improvements in their disposable income, to cope with rising prices. I think we have taken effective action in the past, and we shall continue to take effective action in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East on a further supplementary, and then the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time you came to the rescue of the members of this House and stopped this dangerous tendency of the Prime Minister and other ministers to cower behind Mrs. Plumptre's apron-strings.


DECLINING FARM GATE PRICES-ACTION TO ENSURE CONSUMERS BENEFIT THEREFROM-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON BEEF PRICES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to get down to a very particular case again inasmuch as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did not give an answer to the previous question. In view of the fact that the 7 per cent increase in beef prices last month confirms that declining farm gate prices are not being passed on to consumers, what immediate steps is the hon. gentleman taking to ensure that such beef price reductions will be passed on to the consumer?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have mentioned the urgent studies being conducted by the Food Prices Review Board. I repeat that the government is committed to take appropriate action in light of these reports.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Prime Minister in light of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture that the consumer must be prepared to pay 30 or 40 cents a pound more for beef. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether this is the policy of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to look at the statement made by the minister and consider in what context he made it. However, I do not think hon. members opposite would object to the Minister of Agriculture suggesting that the cattlemen should get a better return for their beef.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Prime Minister did not
Oral Questions
hear my question. I was not talking about the cattlemen getting more for their beef; I was talking about the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said the consumer has to face an increase of between 30 and 40 cents per pound for beef. Is this the policy of the government and, if not, what is the policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. lady did not hear my answer, I imagine. I told her I would have to look at what the minister said. Certainly it is not the policy of the government that the consumer must pay more. It is the policy of the government that supply must be increased, and in order to increase the supply of food products in Canada it is necessary for the producers to have an assured and sufficient income. I would hope we could count on the support of members opposite on this point.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is fully informed regarding this problem, one which has received so much attention today and in the last several months. I want to ask him, to begin with, whether he is satisfied with the operations of this price control board. Does he not feel that its powers should be greatly increased so that, instead of simply being a peripatetic group which asks for information here, there and elsewhere, it would have power to act?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: First of all, it is not a price control board. But I am interested to see this great expression of confidence by a former prime minister of this country in the work of the Food Prices Review Board. I think it helps confirm that the board is doing a good job and has the power to carry out the kind of job which the food prices committee of this House said it should undertake as a supplement to the constructive action of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have over the years heard humorous things said in this House, but the hon. gentleman goes to the head of the class by that answer.


An hon. Member:: What a great comedian!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find, in looking at Hansard, that there are interruptions from time to time by nonentities who do not get identified on the record. I think there was another one just then. I now ask the minister this: Is he satisfied, and is the government satisfied, with the way in which prices are galloping ahead in the absence of action by the government except for frivolous remarks such as those just made by the minister, which do him no honour?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker-

March 13, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will, of course, be allowed to reply to the right hon. gentleman's question, but it seems to me this is an argumentative exchange between the right hon. gentleman and the minister, who is now recognized.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If you will check the record I think you will find that the right hon. gentleman described the members of this House as nonentities. I think he should reserve that sort of comment until he has departed Parliament Hill by at least 50 yards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of the devil rebuking sin. Have I forgotten that the right hon. gentleman called members of parliament nobodies? What is the difference between a nobody and a nonentity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I am not sure that much is to be gained by this exchange. I do not know what hon. members ate today but it certainly has inspired them.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the rising cost of living, and particularly with respect to the rising cost of food and other essentials, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister discuss with Statistics Canada the possibility of producing a cost of living index that relates to the actual goods and services that senior citizens-


Mr. Nowlan:: And veterans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and Veterans have to purchase, so that the escalation of the pensions of our senior citizens-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And veterans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and veterans-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will bear a meaningful relationship to their situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure, but I believe that Statistics Canada is reviewing its cost of living index. I will certainly take note of the hon. member's suggestion. However, I should like to point out that this can be

dangerous in two ways. If the food index were to come down or not rise as fast as some other elements of the cost of living index, the old age pensioners might be the ones to be hurt. This is what would have happened during the last ten years when food was not rising as much as the other components of the cost of living. It can work also against old age pensioners, but I will certainly look at this suggestion.
[DOT] * *


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the operators of sugarbushes are experiencing difficulties in hiring workers to gather the maple sap, even in this period of the year when there are great numbers of unemployed drawing benefits, can the minister tell us whether in view of that emergency situation he is prepared to suggest amendments to the unemployment insurance regulations in order to enable beneficiaries to work at sap gathering without being penalized?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving notice of the question. My understanding is that the requirement is that they work for a period of two to three weeks. This can be done by unemployment insurance claimants, though their benefits would stop during the period they were earning other money. They would not have to requalify when their work ceased, provided their payments are not stopped for a period in excess of four weeks.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the leader of the government.
In the light of a suggestion I made last week, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is considering the possibility of intervening in the asbestos sector by taxing Canadian exports thus favouring Quebec industrialization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
remember, Mr. Speaker, that the member made that suggestion, but I will certainly consider it.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister intends to consider this proposal, could he reach a
March 13, 1974

decision before the beginning of the GATT trade negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am of course willing to look into that matter as soon as possible. It might help me achieve this if I could know the Progressive Conservative party's policy relating to export tax. Would this tax be applied on every Quebec product or only on certain products mentioned by the hon. member?


GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Noting that the Prime Minister himself has suggested to Canadians that they must learn in these days of shortages to make do with less, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider following his own advice by cutting down expenditures such as ash trays at $30 each, book matches at $76 and wooden matches at $161?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to consider putting these up for auction if this is the desire of the House. I think perhaps all hon. members should consider cutting back on their salaries, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will observe that we are running short of time. I have serious reservations about a question asked in those terms. It is really in the form of a representation and is the kind of question which normally would be placed on the order paper. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Malpeque.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In a more serious vein, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister take under consideration the cancellation of the continuing renovations at 24 Sussex Drive that are already approaching estimates of $90,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Malpeque.


FINANCE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that input costs for farmers are rising even more rapidly than the cost of food, can the minister assure farmers that the current 7 per cent interest rate on farm credit programs-for example, the Farm Improvement Loans Act-will not rise beyond that point at the next adjustment; and in any case would he give some assurance to the agricultural sector of Canada so that they
Oral Questions
can plan for the difficult financing of their greatly increased input costs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the significance of the hon. gentleman's question and I thank him for giving me notice earlier in the afternoon that he would put it to me. I am unable to predict what the interest rate will be, for obvious reasons, but I will have in mind both a realistic access to funds by the farming community, fishermen and small businessmen under the various guaranteed loan programs and, at the same time, a reasonable incentive to the private sector to enter this guaranteed loan field.


AGRICULTURE
John Angus MacLean: I have a brief supplementary to the President of the Privy Council, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Since his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, stated in Manitoba a couple of days ago with regard to government policy that the second major thrust for the coming year is a complete revision of farm credit policies and programs, could the President of the Privy Council say, since this apparently will involve legislation, when such legislation will be brought down and the bills made available so members can at least study them and the agricultural sector can be given some indication of their prospects for the next crop year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there will at an early date be some items of legislation introduced. At least one that I have in mind at the moment will be put on the order paper very soon. There is a series of items that will be coming forward. However, I doubt whether we would be able to deal with them in any event before the end of March and probably they will not come forward until April or later.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada cites the increase in mortgage rates as one of the reasons for the increase in the cost of housing during the last month, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to bring forward a proposal that will effectively reduce mortgage rates in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no because, in the tight housing market we now have, any subsidization of interest rates would probably be reflected in adverse capitalization of the value of a house.
478

March 13, 1974
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try another area of policy and direct this question to the same minister. Considering that the cost of land for serviced lots in urban Canada has gone up by about 60 per cent in the last three years and, not unrelated to that, the profits of housing development corporations have gone up by a somewhat higher rate, can the minister inform the House whether he is considering bringing in a 100 per cent capital gains tax on speculative land dealings?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has of course been leading us toward land assembly stabilization in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments to stabilize land prices across the country. On the particular aspects of the question, that is a budgetary matter upon which I would be precluded, by the practice of the House, from expressing a view at this time.


STUDY OF HIGH COST OF HOUSING-REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. Has his department concluded a study relating to the high cost that Canadians must pay for housing to determine whether it is internationally induced, and will he now confer with his cabinet colleagues in order to reduce the burden of the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, naturally there have been a number of analyses made within my department and others as to factors relating to the cost of housing. The budget program of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for land assembly and, the program of assistance to home owners are designed to answer some of these problems. I think the question in respect of the sales tax should be directed to the Minister of Finance as it is a budgetary matter. The cost of housing and the cost of land obviously represent serious problems in the country, but I regret the incredibly ignorant statements from the opposition parties about the way in which we are endeavouring to seek new solutions to these problems in an effort-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting the number of supplementary questions as we are coming to the end of the question period, particularly if we are to have two or three additional questioners.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have one short supplementary question for the minister following his answer. Noting that the increase in the average selling price of houses in the year 1973 in Canadian provinces ranged from 4 per cent to 26.2 per cent, what specific proposals will the minister offer to alleviate this burden upon Canadians?


Stanley Ronald Basford: First, Mr. Speaker, to build as many houses as we can, and we have been building houses in this country at record levels over the last three years; second, to develop a very active land assembly program to stabilize the cost of land. We are engaged in allocating to the public assembly of land more money than governments of

this country have ever done. Third, to have a well financed social housing program involving more money than has ever been involved at the federal level to assist people on low and moderate incomes to acquire houses; and fourth-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With the increase of 5.5 per cent in the wholesale price index of textile products in the past year, and particularly in view of the fact that this increase has its most adverse effect on those in lower income brackets, will the minister take immediate steps to remove the sales tax on textile products?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again, I am not the Minister of Finance.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could redirect the question to the Minister of Finance in the hope that he will not pass the buck quite so quickly.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of which he has received notice.
Does he intend to modify the tariff applied on the exportation of crude asbestos with a view to encouraging mining companies to process the raw minerals in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government is examining the desirability of further processing in Canada of Canadian raw materials, and we are also hopeful that at forthcoming negotiations of GATT there will be an opportunity to negotiate more opportunity for upgrading Canadian raw materials.
March 13, 1974


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As excessive government spending is one of the main factors leading to inflation, and in view of the fact the government has spent in the neighbourhood of $6 million to $9 million in the use of private placement offices to hire temporary help for government services, I should like to ask the minister why the Department of Manpower, the function of which is to find placements and jobs for people in government departments, is not hiring these people.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the particular placement agencies to which the hon. member refers are generally involved in taking on temporary employees whom they then provide to people needing overload help. The Department of Manpower is in the business of referrals and has not yet been authorized to have a temporary pool of employees on its own staff to be then made available to others. We are looking at such alternatives and I will be discussing this matter with my colleagues, but the general policy thrust would come from the minister of another department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize hon. members, without allowing supplementary questions, as we have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps for that reason the hon. member for Wellington, who has a supplementary question, might wait until tomorrow. I recognize the hon. member for South Shore.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the heavy haddock landings at Boston on March 4 and March 6 by United States trawlers operating in ICNAF areas 5 and 4X, would the minister indicate whether any cut-off date for haddock fishing in these areas has been agreed upon with the United States, and when will these areas be opened to Canadian fishermen in order to increase the supply of food and thereby help keep food prices in check?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that no other country has breached the haddock regulations, we hope that United States trawlers will cease taking haddock by March 17.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Irenes Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
When does he intend to make a statement in the House concerning the Ottawa-Quebec agreement and will that be soon?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first I must draw attention to the fact that the minister has just left the House to meet senior officials from the Manitoba government concerning the general agreement which will eventually be signed with that province.
As regards the question of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, the minister does not intend to make any statement concerning agreements signed with each of the ten provinces. There are five remaining and I can assure him that, concerning the province of Quebec, the signing will take place next Friday in Quebec City.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that the normal work force of approximately 1,000 employees at the General Instrument Corporation plant at Sydney has been reduced by 300 employees in the past few weeks, and the fact that much of the production of that plant is exported to the United States and Europe, will the minister investigate the problem as quickly as possible and also give consideration to having officials of his department meet with senior officials of the General Instrument Corporation to see whether we can get these people back to work?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. gentleman's advance notice of this question we have already been in touch with the company. I have instructed my officials to explore with the company whether there are ways in which we can assist the company to regain its export business. As the hon. member knows, some 90 per cent of its business is export.
480

March 13, 1974
Oral Questions COMBINES


SUGGESTED REVOKING OF BUSINESS LICENCES OF COMPANIES CONVICTED OF PRICE-FIXING
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of repeated prosecutions of three large sugar importers on charges of price-fixing and of concrete evidence of similar practices by other companies and indications that the imposition of fines appears to have little deterrent effect, is the government considering implementing legislation to provide for the lifting or suspension of the business licence of any company convicted more than once of deliberate price-fixing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the issue of such licences is under provincial jurisdiction. I would hope he would make representations to the appropriate provincial government. Insofar as the criminal aspect is concerned, of course we do act under the restrictive trade practices legislation and the House will have an opportunity to express its opinion on that subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize one question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and another hon. member.


ALLEGED PRICE-FIXING BY B.C. CEMENT COMPANIES- INVESTIGATION THEREOF
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Lafarge and Ocean Cement companies in Vancouver have had two price increases since January 1 and those price increases were of equal amount and were released on the same day, and in view of their past record, can the minister advise the House whether these two companies are under investigation again for price-fixing in the province of British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that specific question would be more properly directed to the minister responsible for the Combines Investigation Branch than to myself. In that regard, it is not ordinarily appropriate to comment upon investigations under way until there is a result in terms of action.


POSSIBLE CONTINUATION OF CANADIAN CRUDE OIL PRICE FREEZE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In order to protect the interests of the consumer, will the Prime Minister continue the oil price freeze in light of the fact that an end to the freeze would add more points to the consumer price index; or is the Prime Minister satisfied that Canadian consumers can cope with the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surely knows that at the federal-provincial conference in January the federal government undertook to ensure that further increases in price in the five provinces east of the Ottawa Valley line would be absorbed by the federal government, and that a very heavy subsidy will be paid in that regard for the benefit of consumers. The estimate is before the House now, and I hope we will have the support of all hon. members in passing that estimate. As for the future, after the end of March, beginning on April 1, negotiations are going on between the producing provinces and the federal government. We hope very much that before the end of the month we will be able to announce a continuation of the freeze, but not at the same level. We have committed ourselves to let the producing provinces increase their price at the wellhead, but not to the international level. The exact figure for that price is under negotiation now.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-7, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to propose the second reading of Bill C-7. The purpose of the bill is to implement the first stage of the government's new competition policy. It is my intention today to outline the major provisions of the bill mainly in general terms. While I would be happy to answer questions and points raised by hon. members to the extent I have the opportunity to do so during the course of this debate, I look forward to the committee study of the bill where there would be an even greater opportunity for me to deal with hon. members' questions, ideas and suggestions and to discuss these with them, as well as all the various proposals of the bill, in full detail.
This bill reflects the view that all Canadians can benefit from having a marketplace subject to the stimulus and the pressures of the forces of competition. However, it places particular emphasis on measures to assist them as consumers and also as small businessmen. A fundamental necessity for consumers, if they are to operate successfully in a market system, is the availability of full and accurate information about the goods and service that are offered to them for sale. Therefore, the bill proposes to make considerably stronger and clearer the sections of our present competition law, the Combines Investigation Act, dealing with misleading advertising. The new bill forbids
March 13, 1974

the making of a representation to the public that is false or misleading in any material respect.
As the House may know, this is a broader coverage than in the present law which applies largely to published advertisements. The bill would define a representation to the public as including anything imprinted on or attached to the article offered for sale, expressed on a point of purchase display or on display advertising. In fact, it would also include statements made by the salesmen. In addition, the bill would make clear that a representation may be misleading, and therefore forbidden by it, equally because of the general impression it conveys as much as from its literal meaning. But one can well argue that even full and accurate information about goods and services offered is not sufficient for consumers when those products, and often those services, more and more frequently involve advanced and complex technology beyond the knowledge and understanding of most people today. Therefore, I believe the consumer today must have greater assurance than is the case at present concerning the basic standard of performance to be reasonably expected from the product or service in question.
This, I think, means improving and strengthening our laws on warranties and guarantees. Much of this area falls within the provincial jurisdiction, pertaining as it does to the law of contract. However, the federal government also has jurisdiction in this area and has proposed in Bill C-7 new protection in this field using this jurisdiction to deal with the deceptive and misleading aspects of warranties and guarantees. I think these proposals should complement any provincial reforms which eventually would come in this area. They would at the very least provide some basic form of protection for consumers across the country irrespective of the extent the province in which they live may or may not come to update its law in this regard.
The bill therefore proposes that it would be an offence to make a representation to the public in a form that purports to be a warranty or guarantee of a product that is materially misleading. It proposes that it would be an offence to offer a warranty or guarantee if there is no reasonable prospect that it would be carried out. Any warranty or guarantee that limits the supplier's liability to a standard lower than that which would apply under the civil law would be deemed to be materially misleading unless the fact that it is limited in this way is clearly stated in it. Also, warranties that confer no material advantage on the purchaser would be considered misleading in a material respect, and therefore contrary to the proposed bill.
The bill would also prohibit under criminal sanction a number of selling practices if they are carried out as defined in the bill. I think it could be said there has developed a commonalty of view about them that they should not be allowed in these forms in the marketplace. These practices are: referred selling, pyramid selling, bait and switch selling, double-ticketing and sale above advertised price, and I propose to discuss them in full and complete detail when the bill is before the appropriate standing committee.
Competition Bill
Another necessity for the effective operation of the marketplace is that arrangements and agreements between sellers do not deprive consumers and businessmen as well of the benefits of competition with respect to such things as price, quality and range of products available. Bill C-7 would strengthen the government's ability to deal with collusive agreements in restraint of trade by redefining the test that must be met in order to prove that such agreements are contrary to the law. The present law states that for an agreement to be contrary to it, it must be proven that the agreement prevents or lessens competition unduly. But in some cases in recent years the courts have interpreted the word "unduly" to mean the complete or virtual elimination of competition in the relevant market. In other cases, the courts have disagreed with such a demanding interpretation.
In any event, cases can and do arise in which competition is lessened to an extent that is obviously detrimental to the public but which might not meet the severity of the test of complete or virtual elimination of competition. The bill proposes, therefore, that in order to prove that an agreement prevents or lessens competition unduly, it would not be necessary to establish complete or virtual elimination of competition in the relevant market. In other words, the amendment would make clear to the courts that parliament does not intend the more rigorous interpretation, which has been a matter of argument in the courts for some years, to be the one to be applied.
Let me turn to another matter important to the development of law whose purpose is helping to ensure the effective operation of the marketplace in the interest of the consumer and of all Canadians. This is the extent to which that law in fact applies to activities carried out in the marketplace. At the present time, our competition law, the Combines Investigation Act, does not apply to services, aside from a few limited exceptions. Yet the service sector comprises some 20 per cent of our gross domestic product. The bill, therefore, would extend our competition law to cover services generally. I think this is a major step forward in the development and putting in place of competition policy in Canada. The bill itself mentions some limited exceptions, but one basic exception to this coverage would be with respect to those activities authorized or regulated by other valid federal or provincial laws.
This exception is not stated in the bill itself but arises out of existing jurisprudence. The effect of this jurisprudence, taken together with the proposals in the bill, would mean that all economic activity in Canada would be subject to some form of social control on behalf of the public, either through federal competition law or through other specific provincial or federal legislation. If a sector is taken out of the purview of competition law through being placed under another law of a regulatory nature, I think it can be said that this means in effect that the Canadian people, through their elected representatives at the provincial or federal level, have decided that this form of social control is more desirable and more in their over-all interest than the form made possible through competition policy.
Turning to another matter, the bill would make bid rigging, that is, the practice of entering into agreements to

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
refrain from bidding on tenders or submitting tender prices arrived at by collusion, to be an offence without further proof of the intention or effect of this practice.
Also, the present law regarding resale price maintenance would be strengthened by the bill. Resale price maintenance keeps selling prices higher than they would otherwise be by eliminating competition at wholesale and retail levels. One of the ways the bill strengthens the present law is to make it an offence not simply to require a customer to resell a product at a specific price but to make any attempt to influence upward or discourage the reduction of a price.
The bill also strengthens the rules for competition in the banking industry but proposes that their application be the responsibility of the Inspector General of Banks.
The bill deals with a number of trade practices which under certain circumstances could be acceptable but not in others and which could have detrimental effects, again depending on the circumstances. The practices dealt with in the bill are: refusal to deal, consignment selling, exclusive dealing, tied sales, and market restriction. Such practices could, under certain circumstances, be used to prevent the free operation of market forces and limit the consumers' choice. They have been the cause of many complaints to the combines branch, particularly from smaller businessmen who feel they have been restricted in their business activities on the part of suppliers or would-be suppliers. But, the present law does not cover these particular practices.
Under the bill, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would be given the power to issue orders forbidding or modifying these practices. These orders would have the same effect as orders of a civil court and they could be made by the commission following hearings on particular situations brought before it by the director of the combines branch. The bill also proposes that failure to comply with such an order would be grounds for a criminal prosecution.
The sections setting out matters reviewable by the commission make provision to protect the rights of the parties against whom an order is sought. Each practice is defined, as are the conditions under which an order may be made in each situation. Moreover, before any order can be issued, anyone against whom an order is sought in the words of the bill, "must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard." These words in the act, when read together with the Federal Court Act to which I will refer in a moment, are intended to cover such matters as the right of the person against whom an order is sought to know the case against him, the right to call evidence to answer it, the right to cross-examine and the right to appear in person and be represented by counsel or otherwise.
Appeals from decisions of the commission will be provided by the Federal Court Act to the appeal division of the Federal Court where the commission failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction, where it erred in law in making its decision or order, or where it based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

One very important proposal in the bill, in my view, is that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission be given the jurisdiction to make orders to forbid the implementation in Canada of foreign judgments, laws or directives where it found them to be contrary to the Canadian public interest. This would include such matters as their effects on Canadian trade and industry. The bill proposes that the director of the combines branch would have authority to bring such situations before the commission, and where the orders are not obeyed this would be grounds for criminal prosecution.
I think that recent events have demonstrated the importance of this proposal and have provided a strong argument for the House to make a favourable decision on this bill at the earliest possible date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Let me go on to say that the benefits of the proposals in a bill like the one now before the House, in my view can become meaningful only to the extent that there is improvement in the procedures and remedies available for their application and enforcement.
Here, too, I believe the bill would bring about positive change. The bill calls for the Attorney General of Canada and the provincial attorneys general to be given the power to seek interim injunctions to prevent the repetition or continuation of alleged offences against the act until the main issues are settled by the courts. This would be a completely new procedure in so far as competition law in Canada is concerned.
Equally new is the proposal that anyone injured by a violation of the act would be able to sue for full damages and costs. As I have said previously, I believe that to be meaningful this right should be exercisable not only by an individual citizen or government but also by citizens as a group through class or representative actions.
It is my hope that the bill in the form in which it is finally approved by parliament will enable class actions to take place for damages caused by violations of it, in so far as the federal parliament has the authority to make such a decision. As also I have said previously, I have already asked officials of my department and of the Department of Justice to explore what further drafting may be required to accomplish this important objective.
The bill also contains proposals that could well lead to a speeding up of the bringing to trial and disposition of cases dealing with competition matters. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the present law states that such cases can be brought either in the provincial courts or in the Federal Court, but in order to bring such cases in the Federal Court the consent of the accused must first be obtained. The new bill proposes that where the accused is a corporation it would not be necessary for the Crown first to obtain its consent in order to bring a case under our competition law to the Federal Court. It also proposes that trials could be held either in the place of residence of the individual or company involved or in the place where the offence was committed. These proposals, I think, would enable the Crown to have regard to the volume of work
March 13, 1974

already pending in a particular court before deciding where to launch a certain proceeding.
Hon. members will have noted that the proposals in the bill are cast in the form of amendments to the existing Combines Act and not as a complete replacement for it. This, I submit, will make easier to apply and will make more immediately effective this first part of the government's program to modernize our competition law.
I would also submit that the bill deals not only with matters of direct and current concern to consumers and small businessmen but also proposes important changes in broader areas of competition policy which are applicable to large as well as small companies.
I think this is demonstrated by what I have said about such matters as the extension of the total purview of our competition law to services, the change in the definition of the term "unduly", as well as giving the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission the authority to review certain kinds of business practices.
What, then, remains for the second stage of competition policy? I think it could be said that generally speaking there is a need to develop legislation containing additional criteria and methods upon which to judge mergers, monopolies and specialization agreements. These, although they may be restrictive of competition, could on balance be in the public interest through their effects on efficiency and productivity, depending on the particular circumstances involved.
There have been many arguments made that there are circumstances where the criminal law approach alone should not be used, but instead there should be a way of applying statutory tests to determine what the effects of a proposed merger would be on competition and efficiency. If the tests are not met, it could be argued that there should be a procedure for dealing with the transaction by appropriate remedial orders.
Certainly a high priority will have to be given in stage II to provisions which will enable competition law to play its part in helping improve the efficiency of Canadian business and its ability to compete abroad. In the bill to implement stage I which is now before the house it is proposed that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission be given new jurisdiction to review and, in certain circumstances, to make remedial orders about certain kinds of trade practices. Another aim for stage II is to decide what other trade practices should be made subject to review in the same way.
Among the practices which we are looking at are interlocking directorates, delivered pricing, reciprocal buying, quantity discounts, and loss leaders. Their effects may vary depending upon the circumstances, and these practices, I think, are candidates for handling in the same way as are the trade practices covered in stage I, that is, initially by a civil approach rather than by a criminal one so that under proper circumstances the economy would not be deprived of what could be instruments useful for competitive purposes.
As I have said, I think we should consider whether general jurisdiction in the trade practices area should and could be created at the federal level similar to that exercised by the Federal Trade Commission in the United
Competition Bill
States. This body, as the House may know, in addition to having jurisdiction to prohibit or modify specific activities has broad authority to prohibit unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices generally in the marketplace. It has authority to issue cease and desist orders under threat, initially, of civil penalties and to issue guidelines with respect to practices in a specific industry or with respect to certain kinds of practices, irrespective of the industry in which they are found.
I have said previously that one argument for the federal government using a general approach in the general trade practices area would be that it would be done on a national basis and would therefore help bring about a useful degree of uniformity across the country. I have argued that this would avoid a multiplicity of possibly overlapping and confronting rules, and thereby facilitate Canadian economic activity.
All that I have said so far underscores the necessity in stage II of making decisions on appropriate institutions and procedures to enable any possible policy changes of the kind I have mentioned to be carried out fairly and effectively. Decisions in this area are another objective of the second stage of competitions policy. By having the areas which I have just mentioned, particularly those dealing with mergers and specialization agreements, dealt with in the second stage of competition legislation, I think there can be greater certainty that this will be consistent with the government's evolving industrial policies and its foreign investment policy. At the same time, by asking the House to deal now with Bill C-7 I am taking action on behalf of the government to enable parliament to take decisions earlier than would otherwise be the case in some important areas particularly relevant to present public concerns linked with current inflationary pressures.
Let me now take a moment to pay tribute to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) for their efforts which helped lead to the bill now before the House.
In conclusion I want to say that the proposals in Bill C-7 to implement the first stage of the government's new competition policy, as well as the proposals to come in the second stage of policy development will, I submit, result in legislation which will at one and the same time help bring about a more efficient and productive Canadian economy, and help provide expanded consumer protection in a marketplace characterized by high technology and massive organization of production and distribution. I therefore urge the House to give second reading to this bill as quickly as possible so that it can go at the earliest possible stage to committee for detailed but, I hope, speedy consideration and decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that our party joins this debate on major amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. On the one hand we are glad that the government has finally learned its lesson after the debacle it created with its infamous Bill C-256, the competition act, in the twenty-eighth parliament. The bill before us today represents a rejection of the omnibus nature of the earlier proposal,

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
and it rightfully proceeds in an incremental fashion. It is in a form which is more manageable in size and is less radical in its philosophical and legislative thrust. Also, I think there are practical advantages to bringing in this scaled-down competition policy as an amendment to the existing act, as opposed to introducing a brand new act.
We are also pleased that the government appears to be giving some priority to the consumer protection aspects of competition policy, a course of action strongly recommended by PC members of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices last spring, which recommendation eventually found its way into the first report of that committee. I suppose that if this government is going to do nothing to try to stop inflation, the very least it can do for consumers is to provide some means of redress against the misleading or unfair practices of unscrupulous merchants in the marketplace.
I said we approach this debate with mixed feelings. On the negative side, we are rather puzzled by the sudden haste of the government in introducing a bill of this magnitude and importance on a Monday and rushing it into second reading on a Wednesday, two days later. The legislation involves fundamental philosophical considerations of a political, legal, economic and federal-provincial nature. It creates, to all intents and purposes, a new, highly centralized agency which has the potentiality of interposing itself into a major segment of Canadian political and economic life. Affecting matters within both federal and provincial jurisdiction, the bill will permit the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to alter or restructure market distribution systems in Canada in an unprecedented fashion.
The point is that this bill, in its substantive impact, is no minor tinkering or legislative patchwork job. It is major legislation and deserves careful scrutiny and a full and informed debate, not only by members of this House but by the many businessmen, consumer groups and provincial governments who will be directly affected by its provisions.
I want to make it clear to the minister that it is the position of our party that persons, associations or provincial governments wanting time to study and analyse this bill should have it in order that meaningful briefs can be presented to the standing committee to which it is referred. We would suggest that a minimum period of some four to six weeks prior to commencement of committee hearings might be in order to permit this study, analysis and preparation, fully acknowledging of course that this bill is identical in form to the one the minister introduced on November 5, 1973.
A more important reason for our mixed reactions to this bill relates to the main reason why the bill was probably brought on in such haste. That is the shocking revelation over the past few weeks of the apparent inability of the Canadian government to protect Canadian economic sovereignty, as was so clearly evidenced by the almost aborted sale of Canadian locomotives to Cuba by MLW-Worth-ington Limited of Montreal. Members will recall that the company is a United States subsidiary carrying on business in Canada but which felt bound by the provisions of

the United States trading with the enemy act. That foreign law would have prohibited the sale to Cuba.
Obviously, the minister has felt compelled to bring in the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act because they contain provisions granting powers to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to review instances where foreign judgments, foreign laws or directives from foreign managers are contrary to the Canadian public interest and, after according full opportunity to be heard, to make orders forbidding their implementation in Canada. As indicated by my leader on several occasions in this House last week, we agree with the goal of this legislative provision. It is obviously designed to prevent another MLW-Worthington situation from occuring.
Yet let us examine what the bill before us actually does in this area. Decisions which can have a fundamental policy impact on relations between sovereign countries, and adversely affect Canada's foreign trade or external relations, are delegated to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Who ever heard of it before this bill was introduced? The government, wrongfully in my view, will be abdicating its own responsibilities to make policy decisions of this magnitude. We would strongly urge that the government reconsider vesting decisions of this sort in the Commission and consider vesting these decisions in the governor in council, in the same fashion that it does in making decisions to reduce tariffs or in making decisions respecting "significant benefit" under the Foreign Investment Review Act.
It would be all right for the RTPC to make recommendations to cabinet, but let us not have any abdication of responsibility on fundamental questions of economic policy. The Canadian public are entitled to know what the government of Canada will do about the implementation of a foreign law or directive that may affect our external trade or relations. The government should take the responsibility and not pass the buck to the RTPC.
What are the dangers of allowing the government to abdicate its responsibility in this area of fundamental policy? One has to refer only to the speech last Thursday of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in the throne speech debate to see a graphic example of what I mean. In explaining to the House why he had been unable to pursue any real transportation policy as Minister of Transport, the minister gave this little anecdote:
Hon. members may say, "You are the minister: you do it." I have a few answers to that, Mr. Speaker. It is true that hon. members gave responsibilities to the minister, but they forgot to give any authority at all in many instances ... I told you I would not make a political speech. I am just trying to tell you the facts. Everything is done the same way. We have the CTC, which has final authority over almost everything, except in a few cases where there is provision for an appeal to the minister.
That explains the whole problem. The government must not be allowed to abdicate its responsibility to a subordinate agency and then come back and tell the Canadian people that it does not have the power to pursue a policy which it considers necessary.
Now let us move on and look at some of the other powers granted to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The most far reaching power granted to the RTPC is to review instances of refusals to sell a product and to order a supplier to supply, or to recommend tariff
March 13, 1974

changes. At first blush this power seems disarmingly simple and reasonable. But upon further examination one can see that its practical implementation may have a radical impact on the nature of distribution systems for products in Canada which may well be inconsistent with the real economic and structural facts of life in this country.
The provision effectively will put the onus on the seller to justify his distribution system when he is called before the commission. That will likely be the general approach since the act invites the imposition of sanctions if the commission finds that the reason for inability of the person to obtain adequate supplies of the product is "an inadequate degree of competition in the market". There is no onus on the Director of Investigation and Research who brings the initial application to prove the inadequate degree of competition. Clearly, there is an open invitation for the commission merely to find it. The conclusion that refusal to sell is synonymous with inadequate competition may be too inviting for the commission under these circumstances.
But perhaps even more important than this reversal of the onus of proof is that this section represents a denial of the fundamental right of any seller to deal with whomsoever he wants. Not only does this right have a solid foundation in the common law of English jurisprudence, but the American legislation, with all its sophisticated provisions, clearly has no restrictions of this nature. Neither was any such restriction ever considered by congress when the legislation was last amended. Yet in that country, discount selling, which apparently is the aim of the minister in proposing the power for Canada, is flourishing to a far greater extent than in this country.
From the manufacturers' and distributors' point of view, taking away their right to refuse to sell in Canada would have a huge impact on their existing marketing systems of distribution. The provision also raises serious questions for various franchise systems, the practice of private branding, offshore suppliers and technical servicing requirements. These are matters of detailed substance which will have to be explored at the committee stage of this bill. One would hope that the minister might provide a fuller explanation of what he is trying to achieve and how he justifies the means that he has adopted. Also, one would hope there would be some explanation as to why this provision permits the commission to single-out one supplier for attention rather than merely authorize an order of general application to be applied to all suppliers in the same position.
There are also problems of procedure with the powers that are granted to the RTPC over refusals to sell, exclusive dealing practices, tied sales, market restrictions, etc. The minister very ably went through some of the procedural problems and provided some of the answers. While the act does specify that in the exercise of these powers the parties affected must be given "a reasonable opportunity to be heard", and that is a matter subject to judicial review in the Federal Court, the commission is left to make its own rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its duties and functions under the act. This may well lead to uncertainty and possible arbitrariness in proceedings before the commission, problems
Competition Bill
which might otherwise be overcome through specifying certain minimum procedural protections in the legislation itself. That is the drafting approach we would favour.
For example, the act is silent as to a right of reasonable notice of the hearing, the right to call and examine witnesses and to cross-examine other witnesses, the right to reasonable adjournments of the hearing and the right to a written decision with reasons. Perhaps more important as a practical matter is the silence of the act on the extent to which a party to be affected by an order of the commission will have access to and advance notice of the research done by the commission's staff in preparation for the hearing. With respect to a hearing on a refusal to sell application, for example, a manufacturer or distributor would want to have some advance information as to the concentration ratios the commission would be likely to adopt as its test for determining who is the dominant seller supplying goods in conditions of "inadequate degree of competition."
Even more important is the relationship of the commission research staff to the commissioners who will, after all, be making judicial and quasi-judicial decisions on many of the applications before them. In order to maintain the decision-making integrity of the commission in a quasi-judicial context, should not the commission's staff be attached to the Director of Research and Investigation, who makes the initial application, instead of the commission in order to guarantee fairness and the appearance of fairness?
Finally, it is our view that the standing committee giving clause by clause study to this bill should examine carefully whether there is need for a substantive right of appeal to the courts from an order of the RTPC. It is acknowledged that sections 18 and 28 of the Federal Court Act provide a comprehensive right of review of commission decisions made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis. The minister is quite in error when he calls it a right of appeal. I hope the minister will provide the rationale for the sufficiency of this review right in light of the recommendations in many of the briefs already submitted for a broader right of appeal.
One of the significant and more desirable aspects of the bill before us today is the application of many of the prohibitions of the act to service industries. This obviously has been included as a result of a very strong recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada in its interim report on competition policy released in August, 1969. The importance of this change is demonstrated by the fact that service activities previously not subject to the prohibitions of the act make up approximately 20 per cent of the gross domestic product of Canada.
There are various classes of service industries which are exempted for one reason or another. The largest, most important class of exemption is service activities which will be covered by laws, usually of a province or municipality, which regulate or authorize them. For reasons not entirely clear, the minister has not specifically included the exemption in the provisions of the bill but has taken the position that it flows from judicial interpretation.
486

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
The minister points out that following the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1957 it was held that regulatory schemes based on valid legislation, whether federal or provincial, could not be held to be "to the detriment of or against the interests of the public", as the then Combines Investigation Act put it, nor could they be schemes "to unduly limit or prevent competition" within the meaning of the then section 411 of the Criminal Code. This class of exemption will include services such as the professions, telephone companies and other forms of communication, and electrical power industries. They will all continue to enjoy immunity from combines prosecutions to the extent that their activities are specifically regulated or authorized by law.
We seriously question whether the reliance on judicial interpretation is really the right way to go about providing this class of exemption. As a practical matter, it will create uncertainties for various service industries which will be unable to determine whether their pricing practices are exempt from the federal prohibitory net. The securities industry is a case in point. While the bill specifically exempts bond and stock underwritings and primary distribution by groups of investment houses acting together in order to spread the risk, it is silent as to the rates of commission charged by brokers on the purchase or sale of listed or unlisted securities. The commission rates on all listed shares are set by the by-laws of the stock exchange which are subject to review and approval of the provincial securities commission in most cases.
On the one hand, it may be argued that because the bill specifically exempts bond and stock underwriting and primary distribution, then by implication it would include within the net of its prohibitions agreements as to its commission rates. Yet there is a 1907 judicial precedent, King V. Gage, holding that the by-laws of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange were not an undue restraint on trade and therefore exempt from federal combines law. However, that precedent would apply only to commodities regulated by the exchange which would not include unlisted shares traded by brokerage houses, the commission rate for which is generally agreed on as a matter of practice.
The practice of leaving the matter of judicial interpretation not only flies in the face of the normal doctrine of paramountcy, but it leaves quite an unacceptable and uncertain result for service industries wanting to know where they stand. In this regard, reference should be made to the remarks of Professor Bruce MacDonald of Queen's law school, an expert in the combines field, in an article in the 1969 Canadian Bar Review. I quote:
It may be that the courts, in refusing to apply the doctrine of paramountcy in favour of the Combines Investigation Act over provincial regulatory legislation, have achieved a politically viable solution. But when political accommodation is dependent upon a legal solution formulated by the courts, completely satisfactory results are fortuitous.
I suggest that the minister give consideration to providing a specific clause outlining the nature of this exemption for activities subject to special regulation. Clause 92 of Bill C-256, the competition act, in the last parliament attempted to do this, and I think a clause along these lines would be preferable to the form of the act before us today. In this way, service industries could have a much clearer

indication of whether their activities violated the act and whether they required special provincial legislation to legitimize their situation. I would mention, in particular, real estate agencies, advertising agencies, optometrists and telephone answering services which will find the situation somewhat unclear and which, along with the investment houses, would be assisted by a more specific clause.
I also want to indicate support for the clause of the bill providing that proclamation of the law in relation to agreements in restraint of trade in the service sector may be brought into force at a later date than the remainder of this legislation. This is necessary, obviously, to permit a reasonable time for the service sector to modify its practices in the light of the new provisions, or for them to be covered by valid provincial legislation, a process which takes a considerable period of time.
There are other specific exemptions of service industries which we find puzzling. For example, no rationale has been given for the exemption of collective bargaining activities. We think it is high time in Canada that the government applied anti-combines laws to the labour unions. We wonder whether it is the government's present coalition arrangement with another party in this House that prevents them from moving in that direction. Last September 20, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave an interview to Anthony Westell of the Toronto Star in which the right hon. gentleman said this:

We accept that big business and big unions are monopoly type powers that can be the cause of certain types of cost-push inflation, and we acted to counter that. The main thrust of our competition act didn't pass in the last parliament, but we said in the Speech from the Throne that we are going to reintroduce it in a different form. The main thrust still will be to counteract that monopolistic power. It will be to restore competition so that big businesses, monopolies, oligopolies will not be able to keep prices up or wages low because they have such a large hold on the market.
I intend, as Prime Minister, to counter that type of monopoly. I would include eventually the monopoly of labour in some of the large unions. But as you will see from our bill, as you saw from the last one, we are dealing first with the monopoly of business because that is the more dangerous one ... having dealt with that, if we are successful, we may also act in other laws to deal with the monopoly of labour.
Well, let me tell the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that we think the government should deal with the monopoly of labour in some of the large unions right now, in the context of the bill which is before us.
Another curious exemption is the banks. While the bill creates minor amendments to the Bank Act dealing with agreements as to service charges, the amounts or kinds of loans or services, or persons to whom the loans or services will be made, we believe the minister should at least provide an acceptable rationalization as to why the banks should continue to be treated differently, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. This is a different and softer type of combines regime than exists for other financial institutions such as the trust companies and insurance companies.
The banks in this country, while they have been prosperous and efficient, have never been noted for their competitiveness. This is only too well known by small Canadian businessmen unable to secure adequate financ-
March 13, 1974

ing for their proposed business activities. Perhaps at the next ten-year review of the Bank Act there will be time to consider this question. In the meantime, I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) will provide an acceptable rationale for their exemption from the present bill, at least something better than has been contained in the flurry of documents emanating from his office over the past few months.
Now, going back to the consumer protection provisions dealing with such matters as misleading advertising, bait and switch selling, untrue or misleading warranties or pyramid selling, it is in this area that we have the fewest differences of opinion with the government. However, there are a few matters of principle which give us cause for concern and which we would like the minister to consider prior to the committee stage of the bill. For example, on the misleading advertising provisions, why has the government eliminated the defence of mens rea or honest mistake by the merchant or advertiser prosecutions under those sections? In moving from the "credulous man" test to the "general impression" test, why did the government consider it necessary in section 36(5) to insert a "literal meaning" test as well? Why has the government sought to exempt printers and publishers from misleading advertising prosecutions, but not broadcasters? Should they not all be liable to prosecution if what they print, publish or broadcast is materially false or misleading?
To what extent, if any, has there been consultation with provincial governments which, after all, have power to introduce their own legislation on warranties and testimonials, pyramid and referral selling, bait and switch selling, and so on. What assurances can the minister give us that the legislation will not duplicate or conflict with provincial legislation, thus causing uncertainty and confusion for those in the marketplace? It is significant in this respect that the minister, upon introducing Bill C-227 on November 5 last, told us that he planned some form of provincial consultation after the bill had received second reading and been referred to committee. This was certainly a presumptuous posture on his part, indicating that he wanted to establish a parliamentary toe-hold as a bargaining tactic before approaching the provinces.
This, surely, is not the way to conduct federal-provincial relations; I would have thought that the government, as a result of its experiences in the field of energy, would by now have learned its lesson. This subtle but gradual erosion of provincial powers through unilateral extension of the criminal law is inimical to most provincial governments and it is about time the federal government started consulting and co-ordinating in the consumer area, rather than confronting and cajoling.
As a general proposition, and speaking personally, I am inclined to support the section of the bill bringing professional and amateur sports within the ambit of the Combines Investigation Act in the same way as other services, with the exception of specified arrangements among member clubs of the same sporting leagues. The commercial exploitation of young Canadian athletes has been going on for too long now, particularly in professional and amateur hockey.
We want to take a close look in committee at the provisions which purport to take into account the need for
Competition Bill
clubs to agree on arrangements for maintaining a balance among teams in their own league, particularly as this may affect many local amateur baseball and hockey leagues throughout Canada which could not survive without this sort of guarantee. At the same time, as the government moves in this direction it might consider ways and means by which a portion of the large signing bonuses paid to coming young professionals might be returned to the communities which developed their playing abilities, for the promotion and maintenance of the amateur leagues there as well as for the further development of young players there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: There ought to be some sort of economic return when those young players come along and hit the big time, and I believe the government should give us a commitment that they will do something about it. I am pleased to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in his place. I cannot help but wonder why the sections promoting competition in professional sports could not somehow have been brought to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is blatantly seeking to protect the monopoly of the Canadian Football League against the competitive threat to the Toronto franchise of the World Football League. It is a sorry spectacle to see one minister of this government promoting competition and another, in the same week, seeking to deny it. Perhaps the Prime Minister might reconcile these ideological differences of opinion and clear up the confusion.
The bill before us provides important new civil remedies for persons who have suffered loss or damage resulting from a violation of the act or an order of the commission or a court, together with his full costs. Under the previous competition act, Bill C-256, there was provision for double damages, but the government has now wisely concluded that this was overreaching. The bill also provides that, for the first time, the courts will be able to issue interim injunctions to prevent the commission or continuation of suspected offences against the act until the main issue is disposed of. In many practical business situations this protection is even more important than the right to recover damages, because it allows victims of anti-competitive practices to take immediate action to protect themselves, pending ultimate court adjudication.
I thought the minister was really becoming quite bold when on February 2, in a speech he made in Toronto, he recognized the necessity for civil damage suits through class or representative actions. He said at that time:
It is my hope... that the bill in the form in which it is finally approved will enable class actions to take place for damages caused by violations of it, insofar as the federal parliament has the authority to make such decisions. I have therefore asked officials of the combines branch under the Department of Justice to explore what further drafting may be required to accomplish this important objective. Of course, it may well be unlikely (and here I am not expressing a final opinion) that the federal parliament will have the power to authorize class actions in those courts whose procedures are determined by provincial authorities. However, the bill proposes that the right to sue for damages which I have mentioned can be exercised not only in the provincial courts, but in the federal courts as well. And, I would presume that the federal parliament would have authority to deal with procedures to be used in a court created under federal law.
27398-32J

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
Well, Mr. Speaker, some time between February 2 and last Monday the minister lost his nerve, for unfortunately we see no class action provisions in the new bill that he has brought forward. I sincerely hope that his courage returns by the time the bill is discussed in committee.
As for the criminal penalties in the bill, the government has apparently learned its lesson and is no longer trying to bludgeon the business community to death as it did with its $1 million and $2 million fines in the earlier bill, and the invidious section which presumed directors liable for offences of which the corporation had been convicted, which was really a denial of the due process of law.
However, by leaving the maximum fine under this bill at $10,000 with an alternative or supplement of imprisonment for one year, there may be the danger that the courts will be invited, perhaps to an excessive extent, to make use of the imprisonment section for serious contraventions of the act. I would prefer to see the maximum monetary fine increased to, say, $25,000 both as a move away from imprisonment as a means of regulating the economy, and in recognition of the fact that a monetary fine must on occasion be sufficiently high in order that it does not become just a licence fee as the price of continuing illegal activities.
There are many more problems with this bill which will undoubtedly come to light in the course of discussions in committee and as a result of the submissions that I know will come forward from consumer groups, business groups and from provincial governments. The far reaching powers to be granted to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will require the closest scrutiny both as to substantive standards and as to matters of procedure. Throughout the complex legislative process that lies ahead in which the government seeks to grant new powers of intervention in business, to create a new agency, and to set up new standards of business behaviour, it will be good discipline for a member involved in the process to ask himself from time to time whether all the provisions of the legislation are really necessary, given the economic and structural facts of life in Canada today. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that members on this side of the House will ask themselves that question from time to time, and that will be our pragmatic approach as we assess each area of regulation.
As for the minister's purported second stage of his competition policy dealing with industrial restructuring, mergers, monopolies and specialization agreements, let me simply say that he should proceed with extreme caution. My colleagues on this side of the House will have more to say on this later in the debate.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I offer this bill a qualified welcome. I think it is a useful piece of legislation, by and large, so far as it goes. I agree with the decision of the government to proceed with this phase of the competition policy about which it has talked for some time. Meanwhile, we await the second, and in my judgment more important, phase that the government suggests will be along before the end of the year.

However, I want to say at this point that I do not agree that we need to wait that long for the second stage of the competition bill. Just because we move now to consider the implications of the legislation before us does not mean that there is any good reason to delay stage two. I therefore begin by urging the government to accelerate its schedule and to introduce the second stage of its competition policy at an earlier target date than it now appears to plan.
I should like to make one or two comments on the remarks made by my hon. friend from St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I do not fault the government for its haste in bringing in this bill on a Wednesday, having first introduced it on Monday. It is, of course, the same bill that was introduced in this House in the last session, and it is in many respects the end of a process that began a couple of years ago when the government initiated a wide ranging discussion on competition policy.
From my point of view, this legislation has appeared none too soon. I hope the bill will proceed to committee without lengthy debate and, in view of the fact that much discussion has already taken place on the general principles and philosophy of competition policy, that we can avoid the bill's being bogged down in committee as it is lobbied by one group or another over a lengthy period of time.
Of course, this is not to deny the right of interested parties to appear before the committee. But I am not anxious to be party to a procedure which sees the effective implementation of this bill delayed for a long period of time while many of those groups which have already had a substantial say in the formulation of the government's basic, philosophic approach come back to have another crack at it.
On many aspects of this bill I defer to the expertise of my learned friend from St. Paul's and associate myself with some of the caveats that he has entered against specific aspects of the bill. I would, however, most emphatically dissociate myself and my party from his views on the collective bargaining process and, I may say, from the views which he quoted as being those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In this respect I p.m afraid his bias got the better of his learning.
The organized labour movement will indeed be surprised to discover from my hon. friend that it is a monopoly, especially when organized strikebreaking is allowed to flourish across the country, not excluding in provinces governed by the same party to which my hon. friend from St. Paul's belongs. As far as I and my party are concerned, the fundamental premises of collective bargaining are inviolable.
I should like to comment upon some of the specific aspects of the bill which relate to its objective of creating an environment of fair play in the marketplace. We heard evidence before the committee on trends in food prices last year indicating that in that particular industry, as indeed in many others, such fair play was not currently being provided to consumers. In its survey of retail food stores published in November, 1973, the Food Prices Review Board drew specific attention to a number of practices. I had a look through that report to see to what extent their recommendations were reflected in this bill. For example,
March 13, 1974

the Food Prices Review Board drew attention to the practice known as double-ticketing. Let me quote from their report, page 7:
The practice of raising the price of a food product which is on the shelf of a store, and on which the price has already been marked, by restamping or adding another price label, is one to which consumers object strongly. It may well be that it is an accepted business practice to revalue inventories as prices change, but the practice of raising the price of food items in the store by double-ticketing is unacceptable to consumers.
I note that the bill accepts the recommendations of the review board to eliminate the practice of double-ticketing, but I also want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the bill in no way interferes with-and I emphasize the words-the accepted business practice to revalue inventories as prices change. All that the bill does is to make it an offence, where two prices appear on an item, to sell the item at other than the lower price. But it takes no position on what I regard as the reprehensible policy of very many retail stores, of increasing the price of commodities already in inventory when the price of new shipments is increased. All this bill will do is to make the retail stores a little more efficient at changing labels; it will not solve the problem being faced by the consumer when inventory stock is increased to the price of new shipments.
Secondly, the Food Prices Review Board drew attention to what it refers to as the unavailable supplies of specials. The report states that many stores advertise weekly special prices for specific food products, and that although in some cases these specials are available in sufficient quantity to meet the demand, in many cases they are not. The bill deals in some respects with the problem but it does not really deal with the point emphasized by the board, that even where a store provides a so-called raincheck, some stores may adopt as a matter of policy the practice of not providing sufficient stocks of specials. Instead, they hand out rainchecks for the purpose of drawing customers back to the store on perhaps an unnecessary visit in the hope that when there they will purchase more than they would otherwise have done.
Other aspects of retail food practices which the board found unacceptable are misleading in-store practices like end-aisle displays, red lights over meat counters, hidden cash-register windows, misleading price signs, and so on. As the board said, these practices often confuse and deceive customers and it recommended specific action in each case, which so far as I have been able to make out is not reflected in specific provisions of this bill. Exaggerated price claims, proliferation of size in packaging, strengthening and bolstering of the inspection services of the department are all features of the Food Prices Review Board report which, again, so far as I have been able to make out are not included in the bill as it now stands.
While on the one hand, as I have said, I welcome the bill in a qualified way, I draw to the attention of the House that not even the limited range of practices which the Food Prices Review Board identified has been dealt with in the bill, and I therefore give notice to the minister of our intention to proceed in committee to move amendments to fill in the gaps.
Competition Bill
There are other features of this bill that perhaps are worthy of brief comment. I welcome efforts to broaden the provision under which action may be taken against misleading advertising and false marketing information. Here, again, I am of the opinion that these provisions require strengthening. I feel it is hightime the consumer was protected in a stronger way, not merely from deceitful statements in advertising but also from statements which create an impression or a broad representation that turns out not to be the case. I applaud the fact that the bill addresses itself to this problem.
Certain selling practices to which my hon. friend has referred, such as exclusive dealing and tied selling, are covered in the bill, and I welcome their inclusion as a logical and inevitable addition to the range of economic activities covered by the bill. I have some misgivings about that part of the bill dealing with extraterritoriality. As has already been mentioned, the implications of this problem have been brought home to us forcefully in the last couple of weeks in the case of MLW-Worthington Limited. I am not at all sure that the avenue being explored by the government in this bill to deal with the problem is adequate or is the best one, and I hope my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), will have something to say on that matter during this debate.
I cannot help but welcome the reference to and provisions to correct what the bill refers to as abuses against intellectual property. That is similar to occasions when the Liberal government steals an NDP program. Out of selfinterest, if for no other reason, I think that is a proper focus in the bill.
Certain features to protect small businesses-and I gather this is the principal purpose of their inclusion- such as refusal to deal provisions, consignment selling, exclusive dealing and otherwise, again at least begin to come to grips with the problems we heard much about in the food prices committee. There was a great deal of evidence to the effect that this was an important feature of the relationship between retailers and their wholesale distributors. The Food Prices Review Board in its February 28 review of bread prices had something to say on that matter and I quote from page 14 of their report:
The independent regional bakeries have found access to retail shelves limited or blocked by integrated or exclusive contractual arrangements between retail chains or groups and major bakeries.
Therefore, out of my interest in the matter of food prices, to say nothing of my concern for fair play in the marketplace, I again welcome the move the government is making in this direction. There is a provision in the bill, on which I do not propose to comment in detail, that deals with protection of athletes under certain conditions. It may be that my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), will have something to say on that matter.
There are one or two omissions I had hoped the government would deal with. One which has been referred to is the matter of class actions in which my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), has taken particular interest. Another is the vexing problem of what to do about loss leader selling. The minister indicated before the committee during the last session that the

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
government did not intend to proceed at this time in respect of these matters, I gather because it had not made up its mind what policy to follow in this area. I would make the point that I suspect no blinding rays of inspiration are likely to strike the minister in the coming months and we might just as well deal with them now as later. Certainly in one area, where confectionery and tobacco distributors in eastern Canada have been affected by loss leader techniques of certain wholesale companies, real hardships have been created. I know this group hoped this bill would deal with this problem, as indeed I did too.
So much for a brief rundown of the bill itself. Let me now turn to some other aspects of the over-all problem. First of all, it seems to me that in passing a bill of this kind we are in a sense placing our trust in the effectiveness of the department, and the agencies which report to it, to implement the bill in an aggressive and effective way. I must say that my impression of the department has been that it is suffering from a severe case of tired blood, to put it as charitably as I can.
Let me give some examples. The bill refers to strengthening the powers of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, but it is a fact, as has been adduced in the House recently, that this commission is understaffed and that the commission itself is minus most of its members; there have been vacancies for some time which the government has not moved to fill. I could not help but wonder why the government is moving to give more power and authority to that commission without at least providing it with a full complement of members. We give it new responsibilities in this bill, but there is no one there to carry out those responsibilities.
Looking through the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending 1973, I noticed that the funds which were appropriated for the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which in that year totalled $248,000, were far from having been spent. While I do not wish to criticize the government for measures of economy, at the same time I cannot help reflect that a commission which began with a modest appropriation of one-quarter of a million dollars and which ended up spending only something like $100,000 is a commission which is not exactly burning out its bearings. I am led to the conclusion that there is a good deal of room for new energy and initiative in that area.
The minister admitted in the House recently that the department has been doing virtually nothing in the way of monitoring price movements. I can think of two examples, beef prices and steel prices. I know that is not central to this bill, but to me it is symptomatic of the lack of aggressiveness and concern by the minister on behalf of the consumers. The increase envisaged in the current estimates which have been tabled in this House for the combines investigation branch and the competition policy section of the minister's department is not reassuringly large compared with the remainder of the department. It would not appear to make any sense, having given the combines investigation branch and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission new power under this bill, that we should not expect an increase in the way of costs.

Again, I do not want to criticize the government for saving the taxpayer's money, but I wonder how seriously the government intends to take the commitments which are implicit in this bill. This bill, and indeed the whole area of consumer affairs, requires an interventionist department and an interventionist minister. Can we reasonably expect this from that department and minister? On the basis of the performance so far, can we be sure that the government and the department are committed to take the muscular role on behalf of consumer which the minister has suggested in this House, and to stand behind the kind of commitment that is contained in the words of this bill?
I hope the minister, whose evasiveness is a byword in Parliament, will alter his performance in the coming weeks. We nead no more thrashing about as on the bread price issue. I refer, as well, to the curious new schedule the minister and the Prime Minister have announced in respect of the Food Prices Review Board. This does not reassure me, nor does the refusal of the government to say anything specific about the need to empower the minister, or his department, or the Food Prices Review Board, or a new prices review board, or any agency, to enforce the roll-back of prices when increases cannot be justified. The minister's refusal to do this leaves a question in my mind concerning whether the government is serious about its commitment.
There is in my party great skepticism concerning competition bills and policies. We worry whether these bills and policies are designed to lull the consumer into the assumption something is being done, while in fact no serious effort is being undertaken by the government to interfere with the traditional right of the business community of Canada to lay down the terms and conditions on which it will do business and to set prices as it sees fit.
At the core of any competition policy that seeks to come to grips with real problems lies the matter of market structure. Some kinds of market structure, such as those we can see in Canada, are the very antithesis of competition as the average person understands the term. There is the domination of an industry by one or a few companies, or the domination of one sector of the economy by a few dominant and related industry leaders. There is a good deal of evidence that this kind of industry domination, this oligopolistic domination, is the norm in the Canadian economy rather than the exception. I concede that the minister readily accepts that this bill in no way tackles that problem. Presumably the so-called phase two of the bill will do so.
However, let us not be under any illusion in this House that passage of this bill, with its useful measures, will in any serious way come to grips with the problem of domination of the economy by a relatively small number of corporate giants and the consequent problems which flow from that domination. Let me mention some aspects of the problem. There is the problem of administered prices which reflect not the cost of production but what the traffic will bear. When we come to the performance of Canadian companies in the past year, we do not have to look very far to see abnormally high profit levels, manipulation of supply, monopsonistic purchasing methods, and excess capacity. There are industry or sector common
March 13, 1974

fronts vis-a-vis the consumer, as we saw a few weeks ago with the bakeries. And there are those very unfair retailing practices with which this bill does deal.
If we did not have in this economy a prevalent condition of market domination and concentration, we would not have nearly so many instances of unfair treatment in the marketplace as we have today and much of the necessity for the bill would be obviated. It is true that market concentration does provide some economies of scale. That, of course, has been the traditional argument for concentration. However, we must ask ourselves whether the advantages which accrue from such concentration go to the firms, or to the consumer and whether the leverage of domination is being used against, and not for, the consumer.
In many instances the consumer does not enjoy any economies arising from large scale. I recognize that my allegations are broad, but I am sure any member who sat on the committee on food prices last year or who has dealt with the problem of competition over the years will recognize the force of my remarks. After all, what is the incentive to efficiency, low prices and public service, when competition is minimized and you can make your buck anyway? Our over-all policy objective, as we begin the process of establishing a so-called competition policy for Canada, surely must be to preserve the genuine economies of large scale and advantages which accrue from them and translate those into benefits for the public.
I have mentioned evidence of market concentration in Canada, some of which we heard before the food prices committee. I had hoped that committee would have been reconstituted in this session so that in that vitally important sector of the economy we might begin to hear evidence in a detailed and systematic way on the matter of concentration. I regret that my colleagues both in the Liberal and Conservative parties did not see fit to support my motion to recommend to the government that that committee be reconstituted.
The kind of concentration that I am talking about does not always result in criminal, premeditated collusion to which this bill and the Combines Investigation Act address themselves. What happens in so many cases is simply that there exists a tacit understanding that prices will be kept within recognized bounds, rather in the same way as one country manipulates its currency with regard to another. There is no collusion, no obvious premeditated interrelationship, but rather a general, tacit, unspoken but nonetheless effective agreement that competition per se will not be allowed to get out of hand.
We heard in the food prices committee about the so-called supermarket price war of three or four years ago and how the retail chain which initiated that earned the undying resentment of its competitors, what commotion its activities created within the retail food industry, and how grateful all the major supermarkets were when that kind of price competition was brought to an end and stability restored. By and large, it remains true today, and it does not really matter what supermarket you shop in, there is little difference in price and the price is always wrong.
Competition Bill


An hon. Member:: By gosh, it is.


Terrence Wyly Grier: A few years ago a royal commission in western Canada undertook an in-depth study of monopolistic grocery retail trade practices. I refer to the Batten report which concluded that there was indeed a high degree of concentration resulting in excess profits, excess capacity, self-cancelling and costly advertising campaigns and luxurious and expensive supermarkets. The report in fact calculated the cost of this to a family of four as being almost $120 a year. That is a high price to pay for concentration. The report said specifically that Canada Safeway and George Weston Ltd., possessed sufficient power to enable prices to rise above competitive levels. It recommended investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. There have been efforts to discredit the Batten report, but it is interesting to note that a recent ruling by the Alberta Supreme Court has ordered Canada Safeway to reduce its domination of retail grocery markets in Calgary and Edmonton.
In a speech made last year, as reported in the Financial Post, an advertising executive said the following when speaking to the Canadian grocery distributors institute meeting in Toronto:
So what's so bad about industry co-operation? After all, your competitors aren't your enemies but your consumers are.
I suggest that that kind of attitude is engendered and bred by the absence of any vital competition. If we take a look at the instance of concentration in the food industry-and I only give a few examples because I do not have a great deal of time left-we discover, for example, that in the breakfast cereal manufacturing industry the four largest plants account for 90 per cent of factory shipments. Sugar refineries account for 65 per cent of the four largest plants. In food retailing generally the four largest establishments account for 41 per cent of all the sales in Canada. In the slaughtering and meat processing industry, the four largest firms account for 58 per cent of the value of factory shipments. In flour milling, the top four firms account for almost 80 per cent of the value of factory shipments, and so the story goes.
Moving out of the food industry and taking a look at industry generally across Canada, we discover that in the pulp and paper industry the four largest enterprises account for 36 per cent of factory shipments. In newsprint mills, the four largest enterprises account for 44 per cent. In iron and steel mills, they account for 77 per cent. In steel pipe and tube mills-and we will need a lot of steel pipe in this country if we are going to build pipelines-the four largest firms control 78 per cent of factory shipments.
In motor vehicle manufacturing, a classic example, the top three or four firms account for 93 per cent. In cement manufacturing, a group recently in the news, the top four firms account for 77 per cent. In petroleum refineries, the top four companies account for 80 per cent of factory shipments; and among manufacturers of mixed fertilizers, about whom we will hear a good deal in the weeks to come, the top four companies account for 62 per cent of factory shipments.
These are all terribly important and positive sectors of the Canadian economy. As consumers and as builders of the Canadian economy, we will rely upon these manufac-

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
turers and industries for supplies in certain vital areas in the years to come. I want this House to ask itself to what extent parliament and the government, to say nothing of the ordinary consumer, can be assured of fair treatment by the suppliers.
There has been evidence in recent weeks of certain companies being prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act for activities in restraint of trade. The fact is that right now the Canadian people are terribly conscious of the fact that they cannot be certain, either at the retail level with which this bill deals, in areas of advertising with which this bill deals, or in the far more fundamental areas of the kind of structure under which this economy operates, that they are getting fair treatment in the marketplace. Until we deal, not merely with the provisions of this bill but with the whole area of the market structure, we will not have dealt with so-called competition policy.
This bill, rightly, deals with certain kinds of retail practices, certain types of wholesale transactions which go some way toward assuring a greater degree of fairness in the consumer marketplace, and this is important. But the bill really addresses itself to the result of lack of real competition and to the symptoms of the problem, rather than to its root causes.
The minister says he will be coming along within a year with the other three-quarters or 90 per cent of his competition policy. I think the minister would do well to reflect that a year is a long time in the life of this parliament, and that it would be in the best interests of all of us, not the least of whom are Canadian consumers, if he would hurry up the process. Let us get that phase two before the committee as soon as possible, particularly if my hon. friend wants to lead a large number of lobby and pressure groups by the hand before the committee, in which case we are going to need some time. That is just another reason why I think we should proceed.


Ronald George Atkey: You want to ram it through; you don't want to listen.


Terrence Wyly Grier: The people of Canada have been putting up with a lot for a long time. This parliament has listened for a long time to the pros and cons of competition policy. I sometimes wonder what we are going to hear that is new. I am not interested in providing the louder voices with another opportunity to shout against the efforts of the Canadian consumer to get fair play in the Canadian marketplace.
I suggest, notwithstanding the interjection of my learned and hon. friend from St. Paul's that the separation of this stage of the competition policy from the more fundamental area of market concentration, although valid for the purposes of expediting discussion, is an artificial separation and ought not to be regarded as grounds for unduly delaying the introduction of the far more important sections which we yet await.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the minister a few days ago and read for the first time in this House on March 11, Bill C-7, concerning

the combines and bank acts, is a most important bill and also fairly bulky.
This bill contains several technical amendments and we will have the opportunity of giving it further consideration in committee and in this House on third reading. Our party will have several amendments to propose. This bill is extremely important because it deals with mergers, monopolies, limitations of all types on trade and free competition, and with other matters vital to the Canadian consumer. I read all the amendments contained in this bill and it reminds me of a gardener in the spring who finds that his tree is diseased, that some of its branches are dried out, that there is something wrong with it, and decides to water it when it is the roots that are diseased.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) wants to deal with the problem of mergers, combines, by looking after the branches when our economic system is ill.
Mr. Speaker, there are, on the other hand, some interesting points and before going into the crux of the matter, I should like to say to the minister that some amendments are valid, for example, those dealing with misleading advertising, misrepresentations made by salesmen or retailers when selling their products and also misleading or invalid warranties or guarantees when the products are sold to the consumer. Those are the three items which I consider extremely worthwhile.
I think, however, that the more important amendments are those dealing with competition. I do not find in this bill valid amendments which could alter the fact that in Canada monopolies are still in control. The elimination of competition, Mr. Speaker, is extremely detrimental economically to the consumer. For years we have objected to American or foreign companies coming to Canada to develop our natural resources. When we object to those foreign companies developing our natural resources, Mr. Speaker, I think it is not enough to expose them, we must have legislation that would then allow Canadians or Canadian companies to develop, here in Canada, our natural resources. I have absolutely nothing against foreign companies. If they settled in Canada, it is because we did not develop our natural resources. We have been unable to shape a policy to allow us to benefit from our own wealth without resorting to foreign capital.
Mr. Speaker, that is why it was proposed to do away with the elements which made competition impossible until now because the production or distribution of our goods were in the hands of monopolies, we have never been able to suggest positive solutions. We have heard much that is negative until now, but few positive suggestions that would allow the Canadian economy to be developed by Canadians in Canada. Even now, we are studying a bill that advocates a negative solution to that problem which has always existed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to define the distinction we, Social Crediters, make between private enterprise and monopolies.
The Social Crediters have always been against monopolies, but they are in favour of private enterprise.
Some of our socialist friends take pleasure in confusing "private enterprise" and "monopoly". Free enterprise must
March 13, 1974

be denounced and means should be taken to make it powerless. We are in favour of private enterprise but not of free enterprise.
Free enterprise enables a group to control the market in a given area. Free enterprise is not private enterprise.
Some companies in Canada are no longer private enterprises because they have no more competition. Those, in our view, are actually monopolies and that is why Social Crediters are opposed to free enterprise, monopoly; they are in favour of private enterprise.
That is why Social Crediters have always wholeheartedly supported private enterprise in Canada and why we denounce free enterprise at times. Free enterprise and private enterprise are two different things.
So, in the proposals, recommendations, suggestions that we make on various bills introduced in the House, we advocate an economic system based on private enterprise and not on free enterprise or, in other words, monopolies.
Through this bill, the minister meant to put teeth in the Combines Investigation Act. He has incorporated into this bill some positive political measures, but such measures without the adoption of positive economic measures at the same time does not solve anything at all. If we pass positive political measures which are not supported by economic measures enabling individuals to compete against monopolies, we will remain in the clutches of monopolies, mergers and combines, which will have to pay fines, but according to the figures quoted today, less than 1 per cent of the profits made by monopolies have been subjected to a fine.
The measures that the minister has included in this bill deal especially with the small businessmen who will be subject to this bill like anybody else, but they will have no effect on the multinational companies.
How can this bill bring about a change? What can bill C-7 do against multinational companies which are now increasing overnight all prices at the same time, invoking the false pretext of the oil and gas shortage? Under such a bill, the minister cannot act against the multinational companies which hold sway over our economy. The only thing he can do is to fine them $2,000 or $5,000, a ridiculous amount for them which is tax deductible.
What shocked me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to note that the government is trying to punish and restrain everybody. However, at the same time, banks are given special privileges.
Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, the banks are the basis of the existing monopoly which controls the others. According to its whim, the monopoly of money and credit can create a monopoly of production or destroy it. And when I hear people who strongly denounce monopolies, and rightly so, in such and such a sector of industry, and yet, refrain from attacking the very monopoly which creates all the others, I feel they fall short of the target. They go only after the small fry, overlooking the villain who will go on with his dirty work.
Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration will enable us to look after the sick while allowing the disease to spread. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) referred
Competition Bill
earlier to a US firm in Montreal which recently sold locomotives to Cuba, something it could not do in the United States because of the American embargo on Cuba. This same firm located in Montreal, imposes on its competitors a 210 day waiting period for the delivery of the parts required to repair Diesel engines and locomotives thus compelling big industrialists who own locomotives with Diesel or other engines, to go to this one company in Montreal which has the parts on hand. This means that this firm has the monopoly of repairs and maintenance, that no one will dare compete with it because its competitors must wait 210 days for the delivery of parts. Yet, even the National Harbours Board, with Diesel engines in need of repair must go to this American firm if it wants quick repair or delivery and pay the price asked.
Mr. Speaker, what is this bill going to change in respect of this American company which exerts a monopoly on parts and delivers them to its competitors when it is good and ready, thereby compelling users of heavy machinery to do business with it.
Mr. Speaker, in the speech he delivered on January 24, 1974, to the County York Law Association of Toronto, the minister said on page 8, and I quote: "Among those practices, there is the refusal to sell, the consignment sale, the exclusive rights, binding sales, market restriction".
Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in this bill that will prevent that American company in Montreal to restrict the market or to impose exclusive rights. In fact, it presently has the exclusivity of the market, with no competitors or no other company to take its place. There is another thing that struck me in the Royal Commission report: from 1972 to 1973, there have been 188 inquiries, i.e. 100 less than in 1971-72. And of the 3,470 cases that were studied, in only 68 cases a verdict of guilty was brought in. But of those companies found guilty, most have not yet paid their fines.
Let me now quote from an article by a company accountant, published in the Globe and Mail issue of Tuesday, March 12, 1974, page 5:

A fine of $150,000 against Ocean Construction would be comparable to a fine of $750 against an individual earning $50,000. The same fine against Canada Cement Lafarge would be comparable to a fine of $130.63 against the same individual.
Mr. Speaker, the present Combines Investigation Act is inefficient. Nothing in the wording of this bill proves that we will be able to apply it without going back to the source. In our economic policy, we have not developped any means designed to encourage private enterprise in Canada, to help the individual to compete with large companies, to maintain and control free enterprise. We want to assist private enterprise in Canada, but we want to do it with positive means and not negative legislation so as to enable private enterprise to compete with free enterprise in Canada.
I have here a letter dated November 2, 1973, which appeared in the National Association of Tobacco. The second paragraph states and I quote:

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
Our group is very concerned by our federal government's lack of interest and shortsightedness as regards certain deficiencies of the Combines Act. Ever since its implementation, businessmen throughout Canada have challenged Section 34 of the Act and predict what would happen if no change was brought about. Their predictions have now come true but we are still doing nothing to bring about the necessary changes. The serious dangers anticipated for small business are now reaching their highest point and they will soon have reached the point of no return. Therefore, we ask that this matter be raised in the House during this session and that a solution be found in the next few months.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in this House, on March 1, 1974, we are living in an economic system where production is in the hands of a very small group. At present, economic organizations have absolute control over a given type of production. Me. Speaker, whatever regulations we may pass, as long as there is no competition between producers to enable them to dispose of their own production, without having to go through monopolies of distribution, Mr. Speaker, no anti-combines legislation will be efficient. We keep going around in a circle and we shall never get any results.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters maintain that we should put into effect a consumer policy thus making production available to consumers. We must put forward a policy designed to finance production so that producers may control it entirely thus escaping the control of any monopoly which may exist between production and consumption.
This is why it is utterly silly and inconsistent to speak of nationalization, government control, socialization, of putting everything in the hands of the government, of public concerns, of multinational corporations or cartels. It does not make any sense at all. Why? Because in an exclusive system of production there are people-and we know some in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada- who lay down the law. They challenge it, they pay fines and do not fear convictions. They are then exclusive agents, masters of both consumers and producers.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to private enterprise, concrete legislation is needed at all costs to bring it to heel. My hon. friends from the NDP do not seem to make any distinction between private enterprise and free enterprise. That is why from time to time they wonder if we are socialists when we expose monopolies, combines, multinational corporations which have exclusive power over a given production.
We use roughly the same terms as they do but we do not want to replace a multinational enterprise by a state enterprise as they want to do because when we create a state enterprise it hides behind bureaucracy and legislation. With the principle I put forward and which we already stated in this House on March 1, 1974, we will allow producers to become independent from multinational corporations, combines and those who now have the economic power.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not see anything in this bill. Wider powers are given to those who hold the monopoly over creation of credit. There is no reference to the ten chartered banks in Canada which have the power to create an economic crisis or prosperity in this country tomorrow morning.

A good friend of mine was telling me recently that he once borrowed $240,000 from the Industrial Development Bank, made all his payments and cleared his debt. He had become even more solvent than he was when he borrowed in the first place. And now he has not yet received approval for a loan of $30,000. The thing has been dragging on for six months. That means that banks are now creating a climate of economic crisis and if tomorrow morning they want to start a crisis in Canada this Bill C-7 will be of no use whatsoever because it does not deal with the control and creation of money.
Small combines, trust companies, those that own billions of dollars in assets are exposed but not those that make billions, that create billions as banks can do.
The greatest monopoly of all is the monopoly of credit, of that money which is reserved exclusively for banks. Six years ago, a U.S. Senate committee of inquiry was instructed to investigate combines and monopolies in the United States. When the chairman of the committee made public the inquiry report, he said: There is only one monopoly in the United States, and that is the monopoly of credit, for it is the one that breeds all the others.
Mr. Speaker, Social Crediters have often denounced this in the House. We want the Bank of Canada, the bank of the people, which is our institution and our financial organization, to be the one authorized to give credit to Canadians when they need it. We do not want the banks to retain this power they now have. Banks should be business institutions that accept deposits and lend the depositors' money, institutions in the money business that have a right to make profits. But banks should not have the monopoly to make this kind of money called "credit money".
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is quite convinced that his bill will make tremendous reforms in our combines system, our monopoly system, but it will affect only the small businesses, not the big ones, for the latter are quite able to dodge the regulations, just like banks will manage to evade the bill.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer And Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in this debate as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), and all the more so because this is one of the most important and progressive pieces of legislation this government has introduced since it has come to power.
Indeed, the purpose of this bill is to maximize human and capital resources, so that the whole Canadian economy and all Canadians, consumers as well as producers, can benefit from it.
Indeed, the policy on competition is one of the basic elements of policy on commerce and because of this, its complexity and its scope, the minister has introduced this bill as a first step in an in-depth revision of the various measures that bear, directly or indirectly, on the whole field of competition.
Hon. members will recall that in 1966, the Liberal government asked the Economic Council of Canada for an
March 13, 1974

in-depth study on that matter. In 1971, the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) introduced Bill C-256 which gave rise to virulent debates through the country and when the present minister was invested with this portfolio he decided to conduct an in-depth study, step by step, in that field.
Recently I heard the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) criticize some alleged shortcomings of that bill. I was listening with all the more suspicion because I remembered that the last review of the Combines Investigation Act had been made under the last Progressive Conservative administration in 1960.
And what happened in 1960 when the Progressive Conservative government decided to amend the Combines Investigation Act? I wish to quote an article by Queen's University Professor H. G. Thorburn, in a book entitled he systeme politique du Canada published by the University of Ottawa in 1970 under the direction of Mr. Louis Sabourin.
In this article, Professor Thorburn declares at page 217, and I quote:
When the Conservative party gained power in 1957 after 22 years in opposition, it did not feel at all bound by the combines legislation passed under the Liberals. The Conservative government announced that the act was going to be revised, encouraging everyone concerned to make representations. Two years later, the Conservatives introduced their bill in the House of Commons. The bill was aimed at meeting the requirements of the financial world.
And I quote now from page 219:
Voluminous briefs were submitted by commercial associations representing the interests of large businesses. They included amendment proposals which were obviously aimed at blunting the teeth of the legislation-
Since the government bill was largely a favourable answer to the demands of businessmen, it was normal that consumers, farmers, and workers organizations, which were all dissatisfied with it, appealed against it. However, the legislation was written in such technical terms that several groups that would reasonably be against the bill, considered they did not have the expertise to assert their objections. However, the Canadian Consumer Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture... were outrightly opposed, with the support of some economists and political scientists.
On the subject of economists, the professor says, and I quote:
They were the only group not representing a large sector of the population. On one hand, they possessed unequaled competence and were obviously disinterested. Personnally, they stood to gain nothing in this matter, whatever the outcome, except as average citizens. Economists were therefore unanimous in their opposition to the bill. In all, twenty-eight economists and five political scientists made their opinion known to government. ... They made very serious representations and their analysis was also supported by highly technical demonstrations. Their conclusion, however, was clear and unanimous.
One economist even stated that the amendments were meant to undermine the effectiveness of the steps taken by the Canadian government against combines, since it would become much more difficult to lodge successful legal proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, this is how some economists in 1960 considered the planned revision of the competition policy advocated by the then Conservative government. They unanimously rejected it to say nothing of the Canadian Consumers Association and other groups which I mentioned a while ago.
When the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) wants to point out some deficiencies, we must listen with much misgivings, since the policy followed by the official oppo-
Competition Bill
sition when it was in power gave rise to the objections to Canadian consumer groups and all the economists who then submitted briefs to the committee.
I quoted a study by a Queen's University professor, one who is uncommitted, in order to prove how we took a step backward in 1960, on account of a Conservative government.
I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, how proud I am to take part in this debate because the bill introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), is a very ambitious one, not because of the various phases that will follow but because of its very substance. Indeed, it takes the form of an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act and not that of a replacement. Therefore this part of the government program to modernize the legislation on competition will be easier to administer and will come into force more quickly since it will be based on the process and the machinery related to the Combines Investigation Act.
Since the bill constitutes a set of amendments, the jurisprudence which will accrue from it will of course still be useful, except to the extent that amendments will make some parts obsolete. In other words, the practitioner who will be called upon to make a decision about the enforcement of the legislation will be on rather familiar grounds.
Some people are wondering what makes a bill such as this so important. In that regard, I would like to read a paragraph from page 8 of the 1969 report of the Economic Council of Canada, and I quote:
It would be wrong, however, to leave the impression that the consequences for efficiency of a relative absence of competitive pressure are invariably an esoteric matter, beyond the capacity of an ordinary intelligent person to discern. As everyday observation will confirm, lack of strong competition in a company's product market increases the risk of sloppiness, poor use of productive resources, and excessive production and distribution costs. An environment is created in which both waste and a comfortable, if not necessarily spectacular, profit margin can persist, undisturbed by clear and urgent signals from the market.
This brings us to a fundamental tenet relating to competition policy. The institution and maintenance of a competition policy such as presently exists in Canada may be taken to reflect a belief that, over the greater part of the economy, competitive marker forces are potentially capable of allocating resources better and more cheaply, with a less cumbersome administrative overhead, than any alternative arrangement such as wholesale public ownership and control, detailed government regulation of enterprise, or self-regulation by large industrial units within a corporate state.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, a competition policy is extremely important since it enables all Canadians to share the wealth of the country and obtain the best products at the lowest price possible.
What are the various points covered by that essential bill? Obviously, as the minister stated earlier, the first is:
(a)	A series of prohibitions on specific commercial practices prejudicial to the consumer's interests. Those provisions provide criminal offences or bring desirable amendments to existing prohibitions as follows:
(1)	The provisions of the present bill dealing with misleading advertising are altered and made clearer to apply to all kinds of false statements made to the public about products and services rather than only to printed material.

March 13, 1974
Competition Bill
If the bill is passed, as I hope, the general impression of statements as much as their literal meaning will be taken into account.
(2)	false or misleading guarantees or warranties are forbidden.
(3)	any sale at any price that exceeds the lowest of two or more prices is forbidden in the case of goods with double ticketing.
(4)	pyramid sales are forbidden within limitations and referral sales as defined are forbidden,
(5)	bait and switch and replacement sales are forbidden,
(6)	sales above advertized prices are forbidden,
(7)	promotional contests are forbidden subject to certain rules,
(8)	the prohibition of resale pricing is strengthened.
And, Mr. Speaker, I only touched on one of the aspects
of this bill now before hon. members. I could go through everyone of those points on misleading advertizing. We now know how we are going to be able to get more readily to those who want to go around the market rules, the area of warranty, list all possible cases where to comply with the act warranties will have to be other things than misrepresentations beyond the safeguards of civil law.
Another thing contained in this bill introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) is that from now on,
(b)	Upon a request from the Director of Investigation and Research the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission may
(1)	examine cases of refusal to sell and after giving the supplier every opportunity to make his case, order him to supply his customers or recommend tariff changes;
(2)	still upon request from the Director of Investigation and Research-
(2)	examine cases where consignment sales were used to control the prices of a dealer or set price differentials between competitors and after giving the supplier every opportunity to make his case, order him to cease that practice;
(3)	to review cases where exclusiveness, that is to say to demand that a buyer only trades in a few specific products, is practiced by large suppliers in order to substantially limit competition and, after giving suppliers reasonable opportunities of being heard, to issue the necessary order;
The Commission, when requested by the Director of investigations and research, is authorized:
(4)	to review cases where tied selling, that is to say the sale of a product tied to the sale of another, are practiced by large suppliers in order to substantially limit competition and, after giving the suppliers reasonable opportunities of being heard, to issue the necessary order.
(5)	The Commission is authorized to review cases where the market restriction, that is to say when the supplier, as selling condition, imposes restrictions as regards the market where his customer may carry on his business, is practiced by large suppliers in order to substantially limit competition and, after giving the suppliers reasonable opportunities of being heard, to issue the necessary order.

And finally, the Commission, when requested by the director of investigations, is authorized
(6)	to examine cases where foreign judgments, laws or directives from foreign directors are found to be contrary to the public interest and after having afforded people concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard, to issue orders to forbid their implementation in Canada.
Here is something else, Mr. Speaker, concerning this extremely important bill, namely:
(c)	legal prohibitions as to interest associations, mergers and monopolies limiting themselves mainly to articles and staple production and trade, are more far reaching and concern all services and industries that supply services.
As hon. members know, this is a major change that does not concern services but only the supplying or sale of articles. Service provision represents a more and more important part of the Canadian gross national product, and it was only normal for the government to include from now on certain aspects of the service sector in the field that is covered by the legislation. I continue:
(c)	... According to the already well-established jurisprudence, prohibitions under the law do not apply to restrictive trade practices expressly authorized under present federal or provincial legislation.
Of course in some sectors the market is controlled, and it is not our intention either to disturb certain practices that are not meant to be prejudicial to the market system in Canada.
In another field, it is said that:
(d)	it is clearly stated that for a restrictive agreement to be considered as contrary to the law because it unduly reduces competition, it is not necessary to prove that its effect would be to remove all or almost all competition.
As we know, the Supreme Court recently interpreted agreements to reduce competition. It forbids only those which would eliminate all competition.
And again:
(e)	According to the bill, the following practices become new offences:
(1)	a company established in Canada cannot apply guidelines coming from abroad implementing an agreement which is against this legislation;
(2)	offer rigging;
(3)	unreasonable agreements on participation in amateur and professional sport;
(4)	failure to comply with an order of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will become in itself an offence in the future.
Another subject covered by this bill is specified in the following clause:
(f)	Provisions are included to authorize and facilitate civil prosecutions to recover the loss or damage resulting from a conduct which is against the act, up to the total sum in question, plus the cost of the inquiry and of the prosecution.
This is, in my opinion, a measure that the present government is very courageous to put forward and it will
March 13, 1974

greatly contribute to the stabilization of the market system in the country.
Here is another important clause:
(g)	Clause 32(2) already stipulates that a court cannot hand down a conviction if it is established that an agreement relates only to some particular questions. These questions are complemented by agreements on the size or on the shape of containers, the adoption of the metric system and measures for the protection of the environment.
The bill also includes new proposals providing for the presentation, when the proof is made, of non-confidential
Competition Bill
official statistics and it indicates how they should be prepared and presented.
Mr. Speaker, I did not deal with all subjects covered in this bill but I think I did mention enough to show hon. members that the legislation introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) should be supported unanimously by all members who have at heart the promotion and progress of the Canadian economy.


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

Thursday, March 14, 1974