1974-05-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second Report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.

[Stage Direction]
Third Report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East), seconded by Mr. Yvon L'Heureux (Chambly) moved:: That the petition of Alliance Security and Investigation Limited, which petition was not filed within the time limit specified by Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, with the Third Report of the Clerk of Petitions tabled in the House on Tuesday, April 30, 1974, to enable the committee to make the recommendations it deems appropriate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does it please the House to adopt said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House on the subject of the wages and salaries of employees of the
government of Canada. As I said in this House the other day, the government has been giving this matter serious consideration. I am sure you are aware that an increasing number of employers across this country, as well as in most other industrialized countries, have been taking special action to adjust their employees' wages and salaries to meet the effects of unusual rises in costs. Since the first of this year, major employers outside the federal Public Service have, as a result, begun to adjust wage ranges, provide their employees with lump-sum payments, re-open wage agreements or adopt other measures to increase employee compensation.
The government of Canada has always had a policy of paying its employees at levels which compare fairly with those of other employers. We closely monitor pay movements outside the Public Service to maintain our position in this regard. In arriving at pay settlements with various groups of Public Service employees during the course of 1972, 1973 and the early part of 1974, both parties at the bargaining table relied on wages and salary data as to future increases outside the federal Public Service.


Mr. Paproski:: You will not get their votes, so don't worry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Of course, the outside settlements relative to the future increase were reached at a time when it was not possible to fully foresee the degree of escalation in costs brought about by international conditions.
It is apparent, however, that in recognition of the upward movement in prices, wages and salary increases in the country generally have been adjusted more rapidly than anticipated in order to protect the real purchasing power of employees. The government has concluded that it is inappropriate to deal with this development only through the process of collective bargaining as agreements come up for renewal. Instead, special action is required in order to ensure that the pay levels of public servants will maintain their relative positions with those of persons performing similar work outside the Public Service.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government has authorized an increase in pay ranges of $500 which will have the effect of increasing the annual rate of compensation by this amount as of April 1, 1974, for all its employees, including members of the RCMP and the Armed Forces-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Watch out! The old pork barrel is rolling.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and excepting those in groups where notice to bargain has been given but no settlement has yet been reached and those in groups in respect of which an arbitral award was rendered or a settlement reached after April 1, 1974, the effective date of this general increase.
1916

May 1, 1974
Public Service Wages and Salaries
This adjustment will be added to employees' pay ranges and will become part of their regular compensation rather than take the form of a lump-sum payment. It should also be noted that this type of adjustment provides the greatest percentage increase to lower paid employees.
We took this pay action because it is our policy to maintain comparability and also in response to representations from the Public Service Alliance and requests from other Public Service unions.
There are exceptions to this general pay adjustment, Mr. Speaker, as I have said. Recent Public Service pay settlements and offers have recognized the unusual wages and salary escalation in the private sector, and I am confident that the settlements for those groups where an agreement has not yet been concluded will be reflective of current wages and salary patterns in Canada.
The government believes that this measure reinforces its policy of paying compensation comparable to that paid for comparable work elsewhere and will reflect positively in the achievement of good staff relations in the Public Service of Canada.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the announcement which has been made today is an insult to lower paid civil servants. In terms of their needs, I am being charitable if I describe this action as inadequate. I received the minister's statement just a few minutes before coming into the House, but from a preliminary examination it is obvious that the fact that this increase is going to apply to deputy ministers now receiving a salary of $60,000 a year is an insult to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: At the very best, in terms of the problems that are facing Canadians, particularly those in the Public Service, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, I can best describe this action as tokenism and an election promise that is crass, if anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Somebody behind me says that the six-buck boys are riding again. I guess that is so. The very fact the government has had to at least begin in a very minuscule way the process of indexing salaries-this is what they are beginning to do-is an indication how deep the cancer of inflation has become in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The government of Canada has recognized that one of the cornerstones of our enterprise system, namely, the right of collective bargaining, has become inadequate to meet inflation which they like to blame on international conditions but which rests firmly on their doorstep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is interesting to note that in recent history it is a fact that public servants in Canada have become

discouraged with the slowness and unresponsiveness of the bargaining process. As a result, they have lost faith in the Treasury Board and in this minister. If any evidence was brought before this House in the last few days of the inability of this government to recognize inflation, or to it, it was the blush on the face of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) yesterday. I am certain he must be blushing for many of his constituents today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is always true that we have to be grateful for small mercies. I suppose the public servants who work for the government and the people of Canada will take that view. However, the announcement that they are going to receive an increase of $9.61 a week in light of today's rising cost of living will not exactly cause them to jump for joy.
I am glad to note that the government has been given a bit of a green light by my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). At least he is not proposing that the salaries of public servants be frozen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The President of the Treasury Board told us in his statement that this action is being taken in response to representations from the Public Service Alliance and requests from other Public Service unions. I hope that, in addition to any response which is being made to such requests, discussions have taken place with those organizations concerning the details of the announcement that has been made today.
There is always a difficulty about cost of living adjustments inasmuch as they have an effect on future collective bargaining negotiations. I hope it will be crystal clear that this increase of $9.61 a week does not detract from the urgency of carrying out collective bargaining so as to put those who work for the government and the people of Canada in the best possible position. Although I have referred to this $9.61 a week as being grossly inadequate for those in the lower and middle brackets, I must echo the statement made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that it is hardly necessary to give this increase to those whose salaries are $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year. I noted the pride with which the President of the Treasury Board said that on a percentage basis this method of distribution favours those in the lower brackets, but these other points must also be taken into consideration.
I note also that there are certain exceptions. This announcement has been sprung on us and we are not quite sure whether those exceptions are justified; we shall have to look into that aspect as time goes on.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about those who work for this institution, the House of Commons. I see I am getting an answer already-the President of the Treasury Board is shaking his head horizontally. Therefore the increase applies only to those who bargain with the minister as President of the Treasury Board. I remind the House that the President of the Treasury Board is also a member of the Internal Economy Commission of which Your Honour is the chairman. It seems to me that if this policy
May 1, 1974

Health
is being adopted in respect of those who work for the government and people of Canada in other buildings it should also be applied to those who work for this institution, namely, the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only other comment I wish to make is that if the government is recognizing that the pace of inflation is now so serious that the normal increases which come about as a result of collective bargaining come too slowly, the government should also realize that the same is terribly true in the case of the pensioners and veterans. The escalations that are taking place involving a couple of dollars every three months for old age pensioners and once a year for veterans are not sufficient to enable them to keep up with the cost of living and if the President of the Treasury Board feels that the policy has to be reviewed I submit that the whole policy should be reviewed right across the board.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated, it is the present situation which quite clearly prompted the minister to make this statement.
It is essential that public service employees be properly remunerated so as to carry out their duties efficiently and satisfactorily.
I think that the hon. member who blamed the minister a while ago for not having escalated these salaries right from the start in line with the cost of living increase, had not taken into account the fact that a number of public servants in the over $50,000 salary bracket would indeed have been entitled to an exaggerated increase.
On the other hand, we must realize that the government is following instead of leading the way, as evidenced by the following statement by the minister:
Of course, the outside settlements relative to the future increases were reached at a time when it was not possible to fully foresee the degree of escalation in costs brought about by international conditions.
The government continues to claim that our present situation is attributable to international factors and that it must blindly keep up with the salary trend outside the public service; it is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that we can say and emphasize in this House that the government is following instead of leading the way. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we should pause and try to identify in the first place the malaise and it is easy enough, since it is generally detected. However, we have to try to deal adequately with those basic problems giving rise to those various increases worsening inflation which could suddenly engulf us in complete bankruptcy. We have the opportunity to become aware of the problem and once for all to see the economic problems such as they are, to find popular economic solutions and not to trust exclusively experts, the so-called experts who are counselling the government in economic matters and are thus destroying in an extremely rich country such as ours, the financial and economic opportunities given each citizen to live decently with even a minimum comfort, taking into consideration the fact that Providence has bestowed upon us more than the necessary wealth, so that we are in a position to help other countries.



TABLING OF DOCUMENT &quot;A NEW PERSPECTIVE OF THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS''-STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a working document entitled "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians".
Mr. Speaker, in bringing this working document on health to the attention of the House, I would like to say a few words on why the document was prepared and on its significance.
Canadians traditionally rely upon the personal health care provided by hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to protect them from diseases and death. While the importance of such personal health care is beyond question, Canadians should be aware of how they themselves could help safeguard and improve their own health by determining how their own chosen lifestyle and their environment affect both physical and mental well-being.
The need for a new perspective on health is evident from an examination of health data. Statistics show that the five most important causes of death before age 70, measured by potential years of life lost, are automobile accidents, coronary heart disease, other accidents, respiratory diseases-including lung cancer-and suicides.
Sickness treated in general hospitals shows a similar pattern. Measured by the days of hospitalization, the main causes of illness are coronary heart disease, all accidents, and respiratory diseases.
There is little doubt that improvements in the knowledge of the level of risks imposed by the lifestyle of individuals, of human biology and of environmental factors are important elements in helping to alter this pattern of disease and death.
The approach suggested in the working paper is to identify "high risk" segments of the Canadian population and to devise programs aimed at reducing these risks. By identifying the underlying causes and taking corrective action the health of hundreds of thousands of individuals can be safeguarded before disease is sufficiently far advanced as to require expensive medical care.
It is proposed, therefore, to divide the broad field of health into four basic elements. This division, which I outlined in a speech to the Pan-American Health Organization in September 1973 is referred to as the Health Field Concept. The first of the four elements of the concept is human biology. The second is the environment, next is lifestyle and, finally, health care organization. We also suggest a regulatory strategy consisting of eight proposals aimed at using federal regulatory powers to reduce health hazards and at encouraging and assisting provinces to use their regulatory powers to achieve this end. For the research strategy there are fifteen proposals designed to help discover and apply the knowledge needed to solve health problems. It is my hope that the possible courses of action suggested for the research strategy will enable the federal and provincial governments to jointly review research funding with a view to increasing their respective contributions.

May 1, 1974
Health
The health care efficiency strategy includes twenty-one proposals to assist the provinces in re-organizing their health care delivery systems so that cost, accessibility and quality are balanced in the best interests of all Canadians. Finally, the goal-setting strategy is made up of seven proposals to set, in cooperation with others, specific goals to be attained in improving the health of Canadians and in increasing the efficiency of health care systems.
Authority for the pursuit of these objectives is widely dispersed among governments, professions and organizations. Limitations on the availability of additional funds and differences of opinion as to priorities will, naturally, require careful consideration, consultation and planning.
The basic approach of the working document was outlined to the provincial ministers of health in February of this year. The provinces unanimously endorsed it and felt that it offered great opportunities for raising the health of Canadians.
The working document will be the subject of careful review and analysis with provincial governments in the months to come in a way analogous to the study of the Working Paper on Social Security in Canada. I have asked that the working document be included on the agenda of the federal-provincial meeting of deputy ministers in June and I am planning to discuss it with my provincial colleagues at our next meeting.
It is hoped that the working paper which has been in preparation for several months will help to develop a high level of general public awareness of its objectives and will generate informed discussion among all Canadians- individuals, groups, professions as well as governments.
This working document, therefore, is not limited in its scope only to matters where federal initiatives are needed. We hope it will not only appeal to all hon. members but to the general public as well. Most important, we offer it as a rallying point for all sectors of Canadian society who have a role to play in improving the physical and mental wellbeing of Canadians.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending me the statement and the document. I have not had a chance to study the document fully but I think I get the general purport of it. No one is likely to be a champion of poor health; therefore the working paper is solidly in the motherhood realm. It states in part:
1.	It is better to be slim than fat.
2.	The excessive use of medication is to be avoided.
3.	It is better not to smoke cigarettes.
4.	Exercise and fitness are better than sedentary living and lack of fitness.
5.	Alcohol is a danger to health, particularly when driving a car.
6.	Mood-modifying drugs are a danger to health unless controlled by a physician.
7.	Tranquility is better than excess stress.
8.	The less polluted the air is, the healthier it is.
9.	The less polluted the water is, the healthier it is.
I thought we had agreed on those points some time ago. Instead of this document, interesting and acceptable though it be, perhaps it might have been wiser for the minister to aid the health of Canada by restoring the

Medical Research Council of Canada to its proper function-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -a thing about which the whole country is well aware because the standing committee has been dealing with this very serious subject for a long time. If, however, this paper and this presentation helps in any way to focus the attention of Canadians on the need and the possibility of improving their health, certainly I am all for it just as Calvin Coolidge said the minister was against sin. We need to be awakened to the urgency of the physical fitness or rather the physical unfitness of our population. We Canadians are one of the world's nations most affected by spectatoritis, with thousands of people sitting in the stands or by their television sets watching a few professionals performing for the entertainment of the masses. The masses should be in the arena.
I have grown sick and tired of the weeding out process which begins not at university, not at high school but at the elementary school level where the best survive in athletic contests and what is left for the rank and file of our young people is merely to get into the cheering section and to applaud loudly for the elite. That does nothing for the physical development of our young people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: All the evidence calls out for mass participation programs, and I am happy to announce that I have joined in the program in the Confederation Building. I do not know whether the young people there are involved in the minister's department but they are the finest diplomats in Ottawa because when I took my first test I knew it would be an achievement to get down for the push-ups, and a triumph to get up, but they said I did well.
While this document is welcome I must confess to you, sir, and to the minister that a more important document came to me today, a document on prices and the poor, the report of the National Council on Welfare on the low income consumer in Canada. How in the name of heaven can the people of Canada be healthy if a great proportion of them cannot buy proper food? We have now learned what we have always suspected, namely, that the surrender to inflation on the part of this government causes the worst victimization of the poor of this country.
This document outlines this very matter grimly and very painfully. It states that the cost of the food which the underprivileged and the poor most rely upon is rising fastest, such as hamburgers, weiners and so on. How can we talk about health if we cannot nourish our people because of the economic situation? The most grievous problem facing this nation today is that the economy is not healthy and therefore the people are not healthy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So I would say that if the minister and his colleagues can neither diagnose nor cure the ills of the economy they should not prevent someone else from doing
May 1, 1974

so. As amateur psychologists, both the minister and I know that there is nothing better for health than a happy state of mind, and I would say that a new government would bring about that state in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with all these statements and announcements being made these days, one wonders what is happening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is happening with the NDP?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this instance, for some reason an advance copy of the statement did not reach me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As for the
booklet, when the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macqua/rie) referred to it I turned around and picked up a copy from a colleague's desk. The page I opened, page 17, warned me against overeating because it leads to obesity. I assure the minister I will take that warning seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The importance of the subject of the health of the people of Canada cannot be overstated, and on that basis we welcome the study that has been made and is now presented to us. We also welcome the fact that this study is the result of discussions among the governments of Canada, indeed, all 11 of them. We are interested in the minister's analysis of the situation that what counts is to be concerned about human biology, the environment, and our life style. We are also interested in the various suggestions that are contained in the statement and, I presume, in the booklet itself. Like the hon. member for Hillsborough, I would feel happier if at a time like this the minister had not withdrawn funds from the Medical Research Council of Canada. It is actions like this that raise questions about a document such as this.
I am also aware of the fact, after 90 seconds of examining this booklet, that there is a significant difference between it and the working paper on social security in Canada, that orange paper that the minister tabled in 1973. That paper had in it specific proposals, specific dates by which those proposals would be implemented, and references to cost and to where the money would come from. Even with the specifics that are in the orange paper we are having trouble getting action within the time frame in which some of us think such action should be achieved.
But when I look at this statement and this document I find very little that is specific. I find no dates at all by which these various improvements are to be achieved, and I find no reference to the cost except for one ominous sentence in the statement the minister made a few moments ago. He said that "the limitations on the availability of additional funds and differences of opinion as to priorities will naturally require careful consideration, consultation and planning". I suggest that that sentence by the minister is fair warning. We must not leave here today thinking that the ball is rolling for great improvements in
Health
the health of Canadians. He has warned us that there is no money, he has warned us that there are differences of opinion among the various governments, and so these things will be a long time coming. All that we have here are some ideas that make very good reading. However, they are in an important field. We shall study them with interest and, in so far as they are in these documents, we will press whatever government is at Your Honour's right for action with regard to the specific proposals contained in this document.
Whenever I am on my feet I manage to bring in a certain subject which I regard as relevant to the one on which I rose to speak. In terms of health one of the tragedies of our time, with all of our affluence, all of our resources and all the money we have, is the number of people past the age of 60 who are finding it so difficult to keep going until the age at which pensions are available. I think that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare would like to do something for the health, physical and mental, of those people who are 60 years of age and over, he could do something very specific and very real by lowering the pension age to 60.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, obviously health is the most precious possession of each individual and as the government is concerned with improving the health of the population, we hope that the minister, through his publication "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians" will reach, at least partly, his objectives.
Mr. Speaker, we understand the need to improve the health of Canadians, since international statistics show that we are not at the top of the list in this regard.
Consequently, we must act without delay and the government must direct, for instance, that harmful medication be taken off the market.
Moreover, there is today the famous drug problem. I see that the abovementioned publication makes reference to it. I wonder whether we should not move further in this area. Drugs are deteriorating the health of part of today's young population. A serious approach to this problem is therefore required to protect future generations from nightmares.
Mr. Speaker, prevention is better than cure; this proverb continues to be true, and I think that all the medical profession will agree that the major cause of ill health is nervousness. God knows that Canadians are getting increasingly nervous. So that people will not have ulcers, heart attacks or even car accidents, they must feel secure. And since the minister is responsible for social security, I wonder if he could not improve the health of Canadians, first, as the member who preceded me said, by ensuring those who are 60 years old a decent income, in granting them a sufficient old age security pension that would free them from the financial worries that lead them to doctors, hospitals and drugs. The same thing should be done at all other levels of government; that is why one of the first measures to improve the health of Canadians would be to provide for a real minimum annual guaranteed income, at

May 1, 1974
Health
least to eliminate all those illnesses and causes of poor health due merely to the fact that people are insecure. We give this advice to the minister in the hope that he will give it the consideration it deserves.



FINANCE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Bank of Canada, from its inception in 1934 up to 1956, has maintained its interest rate at 2 per cent, considering that chartered banks have agreed to a maximum of 6 per cent during 33 years, from 1934 to 1967, considering also that as of today, the interest rate is raised to the usurious level of 13.5 per cent and is one of the major inflation causes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must stop the hon. member for Rimouski, who shall return to his seat, to remind him that the preamble of the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 does not abide by the rules of the House. I think that he should indicate without delay what is the motion that he is putting to the House, avoiding all those "considering" and this preamble which, in my mind, is perhaps too long.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House take immediate measures required to direct the Bank of Canada to restore its rate at 2 per cent and the chartered banks to come back to the 6 per cent ceiling.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table two copies in both official languages of the study on public transportation in central western Ontario, Bruce County, Part Three, by the Canadian Transport Commission.



NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION ACT


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30 to $39.99 per month (c) $40 to $49.99 per month (d) $50 to $59.99 per month (e) $60 to $69.99 per month (f) $70 to $79.99 per month (g) $80 to $89.99 per month (h) $90 to $99.99 per month (i) $100 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $299.99 per month (m) $300 per month and over?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Number of pensioners receiving less than $25 a month, 258.
2.	Number of pensioners receiving $25 a month, 130.
3.	Number of pensioners in receipt of: (a) $25.01 to $29.99 a month, 579; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 a month, 430; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 a month, 601; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 a month, 1,699; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 a month, 753; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 a month, 606; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 a month, 517; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 a month, 523; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 a month, 1,428; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 a month, 1,615; (k) $150.00 to $199.99 a month, 3,537; (1) $200,00 to $299.99 a month, 6,500; (m) $300.00 and over, 6,736; Total 25,912. In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under $25 in 1973 there are 23 former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CN service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic pensions ($25)
May 1, 1974

and employees who had very short service and small contributions. In addition, there are various pension agreements between CN and other Companies, such as Canadian Pacific Ltd., CP Telecommunications and the Ontario Northland Railway, where each Company issues separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CN is in this statement. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-USE OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Finance since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the
2(a)
MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd.
B.C.P. Advertising Co. Ltd.
Dubuisson Publicite et Conseils Inc.
Ronalds-Reynolds & Company Limited Crombie Advertising Co. Ltd.
Note: Above advertisers are responsible for Canada Savings Bond and Government of Canada marketable bond advertising. Agency appointments are reviewed each year. Orders are given to respective agencies as required during the year and in accordance with the respective Treasury Board budget authorizations. No competitive tenders were used for the appointment of the above agencies. In each case this method of expenditure was approved by Treasury Board.
(b) All advertising placed through these agencies was for purposes of promoting Canada Savings Bonds in various media, with the exception of Crombie Advertising Co. Ltd. This firm was responsible for advertising of Government of Canada marketable bonds.
3. Name and Addresses: MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd. Ill Richmond Street West, Toronto, Ontario; B.C.P. Advertising Co. Ltd., Room 444, 1010 St. Catherine Street West, Montreal P.Q.; Dubuisson Publicite et Conseils Inc. Montreal P.Q. These firms have all been used during the term of the present Minister.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to reserve to Canadian corporations and vessels the extractive based shipping in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and, if not, what is the basis for such decision?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: As announced on September 24, it is the intention to implement the recommendations of the Darling report restricting coasting trade activities to Canadian flag vessels. This restriction will include vessels operating in the Arctic Archipelago. It is not, however, the present intention to limit international shipping in the Arctic Archipelago to Canadian corporations and vessels. Following World War II, Canada has pursued
Order Paper Questions
expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Finance during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1.
MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd., Ill Richmond Street West, Toronto, Ontario; B.C.P. Advertising Co. Ltd., Room 444, 1010 St. Catherine Street, West, Montreal, P.Q.; Dubuisson Publicite et Conseils Inc. Montreal, P.Q.; Ronalds-Reynolds & Company Limited, 154 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario; Crombie Advertising Co. Ltd., 550 Sherbrooke Street, West, Montreal 111, P.Q.
		Total Billings by	
		Calendar Year	
Date of	Termination of	(In Thousands	Appointment	Appointment	of Dollai	*s)1972	1973April 20/72	March 29/73	1,059	70April 20/72	-	354	398 (E)April 20/72	March 29/73	287	-April 1/73	-	-	1,385 (E)July 2/73	-	-	25
a general policy of utilizing the most economical bottoms available for all international shipping and this policy applies in the Arctic, as in all of Canada. This policy is under continual review and may be changed to meet altered economic or national circumstances.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What has been the total administrative cost of the Central Travel Service to date?
2.	What has been the total amount collected from departments, agencies and branches of the government to date?
3.	What has been the estimated saving to date to the government by having this service available in terms of money saved by the taxpayer?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The Central Travel Service is in two parts. The first is a reservation service which is derived from the air carriers and involves no cost to the government and, thus, no charge to departments. The second part involves the auditing and payment of government personnel transportation accounts and the negotiation of rates with hotels and car rental services. The administrative cost of this part of the service for the first eleven months of the 1973/74 fiscal year was $125,287.
2.	In the first 11 months of fiscal year 1973/74 which is the first year in which charges have been levied, Central Travel Service billings on departments at the initial rate approved for revenue dependency have totalled $192,679.
3.	Direct savings to government departments resulting from the efficient auditing of accounts and reduced hotel rates during the first 11 months in fiscal year 1973/74 are estimated at $326,205. In addition, indirect savings occur as a result of the sharp reduction in the number of individual departmental travel invoice payment transactions which are replaced by a consolidated monthly transaction per carrier.

May 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions CONFIDENTIALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INFORMATION


Mr. Forrestall: With reference to page 1.58, paragraph 5.2 of Volume 1 of the Official Languages Administrative Systems Manual, what are the security policies for the Department of Supply and Services as directed by the government guidelines for EDP operations?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The general security policy for DSS in all areas, including EDP operations, is as specified in Chapter 90.11 of the departmental Administration Manual. These comprehensive over-all security regulations will be followed by the Personnel Application Centre and additionally, in the case of the Official Languages Administrative System, access to data will be restricted to authorized recipients only. This will be achieved through recorded control of both input and output distribution so that only approved agencies and individuals will have access to the information. The list of the authorized agencies and individuals is determined by the Treasury Board Secretariat, Official Languages Branch. The security policy will be reviewed to ensure full compliance with the guidelines for EDP Operations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of the Solicitor General since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of the Solicitor General during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Ministry Secretariat: 1 and 2. Nil.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 1. B.C.P. Advertising, Dominion Square Building, 444-1010 St. Catherine St. W., Montreal, Province of Quebec; Denton Ogilvie Advertising Ltd., 620 Cathcart Street, Montreal, Province of Quebec.
2.	(a) B.C.P. Advertising, $67,300; Denton Ogilvie Advertising Ltd. $54,900. The above amounts are the total amount of contracts awarded at various times throughout the year. Contracts were in every case awarded in accordance with the Government Contract Regulations, and referred to higher authority when this requirement was necessary in the proper format (e.g. T.B. Submission), (b) The general subject matter was recruitment for regular members, special constables and civilian members in technical and professional categories.
3.	B.C.P. Advertising Cusack Advertising, Toronto, Ontario; Cusack Advertising has not been used as the firm has gone bankrupt.

Canadian Penitentiary Service: 1 and 2. Nil.
National Parole Board and Service: 1 and 2. Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the name of the company which supplies Air Canada the plastic head-sets used for in-flight movies and stereos?
2.	With reference to the answer to Part 2 of Question No. 2,952 (a) what is the cost of the plastic head-sets (b) if this information is proprietary, could the government advise on what date these head-sets were put out for tender and/or if they are put out to tender (c) could the government advise the names of all the companies who bid on the plastic head sets and the names of all the companies to which the tender was sent?
3.	With reference to the answer to Parts 4 and 5 of Question No. 2,952, what is the reason for the loss in profit of $320,000?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. In-Flight Motion Pictures Inc.
2.	(a) The cost of these headsets is considered proprietary information, (b and c) Headsets are supplied as part of a total in-flight entertainment package purchased from In Flight Motion Pictures Inc., which includes projection equipment, films, sound tapes and head-sets. Because In Flight Motion Pictures Inc. was the only established supplier of an in-flight entertainment package when Air Canada first made this service available in 1971, the contract was not put out for bids.
3.	The reduction in net revenue between 1971 and 1972 was due primarily to increased cost of supplies, reduced flying because of strikes by government air traffic controllers and radar technicians in January and February, 1972, and a substantial increase in the number of charter flights which provide complimentary bar service.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What measure does Air Canada use for assessing freight rates from (a) Europe (b) the United States (c) Asia?
2.	What is the cost in each case, per unit of weight, for (a) commercial imports (b) goods and belongings of tourist Canadians returning to Canada (c) goods and belongings of immigrants to Canada (d) gifts from foreign citizens to resident Canadians (e) goods and belongings of returning Canadian citizens who have been employed for a period of time overseas?
3.	What monetary unit is used for payment of such costs?
4.	What basic rate of exchange applies?
5.	Do freight rates reflect fluctuations in bank rates of exchange?
6.	What guidelines are used in making changes in rates?
7.	Do the same rates as above apply to shipments from Canada overseas to corresponding destinations overseas and, if not, what is the variance?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The basic measure used by Air Canada for assessing freight rate is the weight of the shipment, with the resulting rate reflecting the distance involved. Depending upon the size of the shipment, a container rate, a specific rate for the commodity in question or general rate may be offered.
May 1, 1974

2.	Air Canada is a common carrier which means that rates apply equally to all consumers who meet the conditions applicable to the rate, i.e. shipment is the same commodity, shipment is the same weight, shipment is the same origin and destination.
3.	Price quotations are given in local currency or their dollar equivalent.
4.	The basic rate of exchange which applies is the IATA set of rates of exchange or the bankers' buying rate, whichever provides the greatest revenue.
5.	The freight rates are changed to reflect fluctuations in bank rates of exchange when the variance exceeds 2.5 per cent up or down.
6.	Rate changes are generally made on the basis of changes in costs of handling and carrying the traffic involved, or to fill aircraft space which under certain operational conditions is difficult to fully utilize.
Order Paper Questions
7.	General commodity rates are essentially the same to and from Canada. However, in order to correct directional traffic imbalances, a number of specific commodity rates are available which are directional in nature and generally result in lower levels from Canada compared with to Canada.


Mr. McKinnon: For 1973, by month, for service flights overseas, what was (a) the number of passengers carried on such flights (b) the number of military passengers on duty carried on service flights (c) the number of dependants travelling on such flights (i) to join or accompany the serviceman on posting (ii) accompanying the serviceman or travelling independently on leave or holiday (d) the number of civilians, not dependants of servicemen, travelling on flights for any reason (e) the number of Members of Parliament travelling on service flights for any reason?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Monthly Utilization of Scheduled Trans-Atlantic Service Flights (East and West) 1973
Sep-	No-	De-January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	tember	October	vember	cember(a)	2,935	2,931	3,528	3,179	3,512	3,157	5,501	4,270	3,396	2,829	3,039	2,061(b)	1,224	792	1,274	1,228	1,797	1,551	1,869	889	1,613	1,424	1,453	798(c)(i)	120	156	206	260	304	1,014	3,150	2,124	198	162	134	110(c) (ii)	1,525	1,874	1,784	1,474	1,346	532	415	1,173	1,408	1,005	1,317	1,029(d)	64	108	262	148	39	40	57	64	143	223	131	116(e)	2	1	2	69	26	20	10	20	34	15	4	8
Note: The exact division between the number of service members and the number of dependents travelling on leave or holiday is not available,
therefore para e.(II) represents the total of both categories.


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	(a) How many airports are federally controlled in Canada (b) what are their names and locations?
2.	What is the total number of employees in the Montreal and Toronto airports and, of these, how many, excluding flight crews, are paid by the government?
3.	What are the names and salaries of the administration staff?
4.	(a) What were the operation costs of each airport for the year 1973 (b) what were the total revenues of each?
5.	How many employees in all these airports speak (a) French only (b) English only (c) are bilingual?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. (a) The Department of Transport owns and operates ninety airports, (b) Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Deer Lake, Nfld.; Fredericton, N.B.; Gander Inti., Nfld.; Goose Bay, Nfld.; Halifax Inti., N.S.; House Harour, P.Q.; Moncton, N.B.; St. Anthony, Nfld.; Saint John, N.B.; St. John's, Nfld.; Sydney, N.S.; Stephen-ville, Nfld.; Wabush, Nfld.; Yarmouth, N.S.; Baie Comeau, P.Q.; Cartierville, P.Q.; Fort Chimo, P.Q.; Frobisher, N.W.T.; La Macaza, P.Q.; Mont Joli, P.Q.; Montreal Inti., P.Q.; Quebec, P.Q.; St. Hubert, P.Q.; Schefferville, P.Q.; Sept lies, P.Q.; Earlton, Ont.; Gore Bay, Ont.; Kapuskasing, Ont.; London, Ont.; Muskoka, Ont.; North Bay, Ont.; Ottawa Inti., Ont.; Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; Timmins, Ont.; Toronto Inti., Ont.; Wiarton, Ont.; Windsor, Ont.; Baker Lake, N.W.T.; Churchill, Man.; Coral Harbour, N.W.T.; Kenora, Ont.; Red Lake, Ont. Regina, Sask.; Resolute, N.W.T.; St. Andrews, Man.; Saskatoon, Sask.; Sioux Lookout, Ont. Swift Current, Sask.; The Pas, Man.; Thunder Bay, Ont.; Winnipeg Inti., Man.; Yorkton, Sask.; Pitt, Meadows, B.C.; Port Hardy, B.C.; Prince Rupert, B.C.;
Quesnel, B.C. Smithers, B.C.; Tofino, B.C.; Victoria Inti. B.C. Calgary, Alta.; Cambridge Bay, N.W.T.; Edmonton Inti., Alta.; Fort McMurray, Alta.; Fort Nelson, B.C.; Fort Resolution, N.W.T.; Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; Fort Smith, N.W.T.; Fort St. John, B.C.; Grande Prairie, Alta.; Hay River, N.W.T.; Inuvik, N.W.T.; Lac La Biche, Alta.; Lethbridge, Alta.; Norman Wells, N.W.T.; Springbank, Alta.; Watson Lake, Y.T.; Whitehorse, Y.T.; Wrigley, N.W.T.; Yellowknife, N.W.T.; Abbotsford, B.C.; Hope, B.C.; Kamloops, B.C.; Penticton, B.C.; Prince George, B.C.; Princeton, B.C.; Sandspit, B.C.; Terrace, B.C.; Vancouver Inti., B.C.; Williams Lake, B.C.
2.	There are 329 continuing Ministry of Transport employees at Toronto International Airport, and 358 at Montreal International Airport.
3.	Because of the broad range of categories of administration staff employed at the 90 airports, it is not possible to answer this question.
4.	(a) and (b): Detailed financial statements are available for major airports only; rather than give a partial return, totals for all 90 airports for the fiscal year 1972/73 are as follows: Operating Costs, $134,410,880; Revenue, $69,654,965.
5.	(a), (b) and (c): This information is not available.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many companies were asked by the Department of Finance to complete a survey or were interviewed as a means to evaluate the

May 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions
economic impact of the special tax measures introduced for manufacturing and processing industries?
2.	(a) Has the government prepared a report as a result of such survey and/or interviews from information disclosed (b) will it be made public and, if so, on what date?
3.	For each province and the territories (a) what was the number of companies involved (b) what was the result of any economic impact in terms of employment?
4.	Was the survey made by personal attendance or by forwarded questionnaire and (a) if by the former, how many persons were involved (b) if by the latter, how many questionnaires were forwarded and subsequently received?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
Department of Finance did not undertake a survey to evaluate the economic impact of the tax measures introduced for manufacturing and processing industries. The Minister of Finance did, however, supply a covering letter for a survey undertaken by an interdepartmental committee, known as The Tax Measures Review Committee. The committee reported that 1,088 questionnaires were mailed to manufacturing and processing corporations.
2.	(a) The Tax Measures Review Committee prepared a report which was based on the above survey, (b) The interim report of the Tax Measures Review Committee was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, March 29 1974.
3.	(a) The following is a breakdown of the number of questionnaires sent to firms in each province in connection with the tax measures review survey: Alberta, 37;
	Atlantic	Quebec
-1973	$	*Expenditures	5,115,000	17,997,000Per Capita	2,458	2,975-1974	Expenditures (April 1, 1973 to February 28, 1974)	6,319,000	6,939,000Per Capita	2,991	1,141


[Stage Direction]
British Columbia, 95; Manitoba, 37; New Brunswick, 28; Newfoundland, 6; Nova Scotia, 28; Ontario, 514; Prince Edward Island, 1; Quebec, 330; Saskatchewan, 11; Yukon Territory, 1; Total 1,088. (b) A regional estimate of the employment created as a result of the tax measures is not available.
4.	(a) Interviews were requested with 250 companies of varying size. A total of 21 interviewers were involved, (b) A total of 1,088 questionnaires were sent to manufacturing and processing firms. The companies which were not interviewed were requested to forward their questionnaires by mail. The committee's report states that information from a total of 782 responses was included in the report. No separate breakdown is available for the response rate from the companies which were not interviewed.
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by Defence Construction Limited (1951)?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?
Hon. James Defence): 1 and 2.	Richardson	(Minister of	NationalOntario $	Prairies S	British Columbia $	Yukon and Northwest Territories $10,134,000 1,295	8,820,000 2,475	4,756,000 2,116	nil nil14,372,000	15,101,000	2,449,000	nil1,810	4,208	1,058	nil


Mr. Boisvert: According to the latest figures available, what is the total strength of the Canadian Armed Forces and, of this number, how many are French Canadian?

Question No. 527-Mr. Rowland:
1.	Does the Department of National Defence intend to operate again in July and August 1974 the VIP fishing camp in Labrador known as Eagle River or SAR I?


James Armstrong Richardson: Total strength of the Canadian Armed Forces, 81,875; number of Francophones within the total, 17,319.


Mr. Rowland: How many boats, outboard motors and other similar items of survival equipment are held on the Eagle River or SAR I inventory?


James Armstrong Richardson: There are no boats, outboard motors or survival equipment on the SAR 1 Eagle River inventory. No equipment is procured specifically for use at SAR 1 Eagle River, however required equipment is provided on short period loan from Canadian Forces stocks at other bases. Normal survival equipment carried on Canadian Forces aircraft is used for Search and Rescue Training.
2.	What has been the dollar cost of the camp's operation to the public for each year 1968 to 1973 in terms of (a) transportation costs of servicemen volunteer camp staff from their home units to and from Goose Bay (b) extra costs other than salaries for servicemen participating in the operation (c) aircraft operating costs shuttling guests and equipment between Goose Bay and the camp site (d) total repair costs to aircraft damaged in the operation?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. There is no present intention to close down SAR 1 Eagle River which has been operated each summer for several years.
2. (a) Nil. Servicemen proceed to and from their home units to and from Goose Bay via scheduled or training flights which operate within the monthly flying rate and annual budget rate established for these aircraft, (b) For 1973 the ration cost was $2,268 and the outboard motor fuel cost was $306. Military and government hosts pay personally for incidental expenses of staff, as well as for all direct camp costs for themselves and their guests, (c) Bush training for SAR Helicopter Crews is included in

May 1, 1974

over all annual operating funds allocated for these aircraft. Total annual allocation for SAR Labrador helicopter is 3,600 hours. Of this amount, approximately 1,080 hours are allocated to crew training. This training includes cross-country and bush-type flying in conditions similar to those found in Labrador. Approximately 150 flight hours per year are utilized for transportation of personnel and equipment between Goose Bay and SAR 1. (d) On July 22, 1969, a CH 113 Voyageur aircraft conducting a training flight to SAR 1 was damaged as a result of engine failure, but no aircraft has been damaged on flights related solely to operations at SAR 1.


Mr. Godin: 1.	In how many provinces is the Loans-Investment Program 197375 in effect (a) for each province, what amount did the government grant (b) have the provinces used such grants in whole or in part?
2.	During the negotiation stages of this Program, did the provinces undertake to approve its application and, if so, in what percentage?


John Napier Turner: 1. See
Reply to Question 136.
2. The terms of the Winter Capital Projects Fund, including the amount of loans available to each province were described in the form of guidelines which were approved by the Provinces.


Mr. Howie: What studies, if any, into the merits of a fixed crossing between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are now under way and on what date was the latest such study completed?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The most recent study into the merits of a fixed crossing between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island was completed by the Stanford Research Institute in July 1968. Reviews of various aspects of the problem have been carried out subsequently at frequent intervals, for example, the 1971 Wilbur Smith and Associates study of traffic and revenue forecasts.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In the past 12 months what underwater surveys and/or inspections have been made of the Irving Whale?
2.	What is the currently estimated cost of raising this ship and/or its contents from the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence?
3.	What are the present intentions of the government in reference to this pollution threat?
4.	From what groups or individuals has the government sought advice and technical assistance on this problem?
5.	What representations have been made by the Government of Prince Edward Island on the matter and on what dates?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. On October 13, 1973, the Department of National Defence Submersible SDL-1 descended to the deck of the Irving Whale.
Order Paper Questions
2.	In October 1971, the lowest tender for the removal of this vessel and contents was $1.7 million. The present price would probably be between $2.5 and $3.5 million, allowing for the present inflationary trends on similar kinds of work.
3.	The government is presently planning to make a very complete survey of the Irving Whale this year. At the same time, investigations are being carried out to determine more fully the effects of temperature, time and pressure on heavy oils with a view to determining the courses of action to be taken, even whether the oil is a pollution threat under these conditions.
4.	During late 1971 and in 1972, the ministry prepared a form letter which was sent to a large number of experts around the world for advice or comment on the rate of biodegradation of the oil in the vessel and rates of corrosion of the hull in that depth and temperature. As a follow-up to these inquiries, two officials of Marine Services of this ministry proceeded to the United Kingdom and Holland to speak to other experts in the field of salvage, as well as of oil and steel, to ascertain whether attempts should be made to raise the Irving Whale or leave it where it is. The replies to the form letter indicated little information on either subject is available. Without exception the salvage experts, and others, recommended that the Irving Whale should be left where it is.
5.	(a) On June 7, 1973, the province requested a copy of the Divers Report, of a proposed dive in the summer of 1973, be made available to the province, (b) On March 26, 1973, the province acknowledged receipt of a letter from the minister relating the outcome of its world canvass of authorities on oil degradation, steel corrosion and salvage of the Irving Whale, (c) on March 6, 1973, by telegram, the province requested a meeting on the outcome of the Ministry of Transport's findings on additional information; and stated the conditions under which the province would be a party to any decision to raise the Irving Whale, (d) On February 6, 1973, the province requested action on the raising of the Irving Whale, in citing representations by the Tourist Association of P.E.I. (e) On June 12, 1972, the province forwarded a letter containing a suggestion from a citizen on the disposition of the Irving Whale, (f) On May 17, 1972, the province refuted statement that province would not approve raising of Irving Whale in summer, and requested issuance of a press release that the vessel would be salvaged that year, (g) On February 16, 1972, the province acknowledged conditions under which it would agree to the raising of the Irving Whale, (h) On January 7, 1972, the province acknowledged receipt of a set of contract documents relating to the proposed raising of the Irving Whale, also requesting an understanding of the conditions under which such a project would be undertaken.


Mr. Laprise: During each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 (a) what was the total amount of interest charged to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (b) what amount actually was paid (c) what was the balance outstanding?


John Napier Turner: May 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions
	Mtl-Lake Ont. Sec.-	(000's S) Welland Section Charged to Charged to		
	Operations	Operations (1)	Construction	Total
Balances payable-				
31st December 1969	$ 66,521	-	5,398	71,919
(a) Interest charged to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-				
1970	18,803	1,024	5,260	25,0871971	19,770	2,011	7,867	29,6481972	20,622	2,121	11,406	34,1491973	21,699	13,577	3,344	38,62080,894	18,733	27,877	127,504(b) Interest paid by The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-	1970	11,667	1,024	75	12,7661971	12,280	2,011	18	14,3091972	8,830	2,121	356	11,3071973	7,707	13,577	4	21,28840,484	18,733	453	59,670(c) Balances payable-	31st December 1973	106,931	-	32,822	139,753
(1) Welland operating interest was recovered from the annual deficit vote.


Mr. Fortin: Since the delineation of boundaries for underwater resources of the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba relating to Hudson Bay were defined by 1912 legislation on the extension of boundaries, have representations been made by any of these Provinces to the government and, if so (a) what were they (b) on what dates?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the total amount expended to date or contracted for on the program entitled "Multi-Culturalism is sharing your Heritage with other Canadians" in (a) the press (b) radio and television?
2.	What amount has been expended in the Ethnic Press to date?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: 1. (a) $231,000; (b) nil.
2. $231,000 for the fiscal year 1973-74 under the Multicul-turalism Program.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the action taken against the owner of the ship that polluted the waters of the St. Lawrence at Montmagny, in October, 1970, produced

any results and, if so (a) has there been a judgment (b) what is the nature of the judgment (c) has it been effected (d) on what date?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The incident referred to involves the former Quebec City ferry Cite de Levis, which was being broken up at Montmagny, P.Q. and occurred at a later date than that referred to. On September 28, 1972 oil entered the waters of the St. Lawrence River from the Cite de Levis and the vessel's owner, Mr. Angelo Nittolo, was summoned to appear before the court on that date; but the hearing was postponed until April 6, 1973. The hearing was postponed on four subsequent occasions and at the present time the case is due to be heard on May 17, 1974.


Mr. Herbert: Will the Minister of Finance, in an effort to encourage healthy family relationships, give consideration to permitting the same tax deductible expense privileges to the spouse as are accorded to secretaries that accompany company personnel when they travel on business?


John Napier Turner: Under the Income Tax Act as it now stands, there is no discrimination as between secretaries and wives in deducting travel expenses. If the secretary or wife is travelling to, in the words of the act, "gain or produce income" for the taxpayer's business, the expense is deductible as long as the amount is not unreasonable. If the secretary or wife is travelling simply as a matter of pleasure, then the expense is not deductible in either case. The Department of Finance is prepared to give consideration to any suggested amendment to the Income Tax Act.
May 1, 1974


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the estimated totals of lost revenue to CBC in each of the next five years resulting from compliance with the report of CRTC to reduce advertising?
2.	Would the responsible Minister recommend less programming, reduced quality of programming or increased appropriations in order to meet this loss of revenue?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: In
reply to Part 1, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The report of the CRTC includes proposed conditions of licence only for the CBC. It is not yet certain that the proposed conditions will pertain. The CBC, as provided by section 17 of the Broadcasting Act, has requested consultation with the CRTC with respect to these proposed conditions. The results of this consultation will determine the next step to be taken. Assuming the imposition of such proposed conditions the loss, plus the increased expenditure to the CBC, would total many millions of dollars, the approximate amount of which is now being calculated. The estimated gross advertising revenue for radio, for example, for the fiscal year 1973-74 is $3,410,000. The estimated gross advertising revenue for television for the same fiscal year is $56,930,000.
2. Should reduced involvement in advertising be attached as a condition of licence and should the CBC agree this would not unreasonably impede the provision of the national broadcasting service, it would appear increased appropriations would be required. I would support neither less programming nor a reduction in the high quality of current CBC programming.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Part 3 of Question No. 2,845 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that final architectural plans had not been completed for the construction of a Headquarters for the Rideau Canal System at Smiths Falls, Ontario, what is the nature of all plans that have been made to this date, what are the names and addresses of all engineers or architects involved and what fees have been paid in each case for services rendered?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Plans have not been developed for a new Rideau Canal Headquarters at Smiths Falls. No outside consultants have been retained and therefore no fees have been paid.


Mr. Nystrom: What is the estimated cost to the federal treasury, in terms of revenues foregone, of (a) the two-year capital cost allowance (b) the reduction in the corporate tax rate, in each year 1972 to 1975?


John Napier Turner: There has been no breakdown of estimated cost as between the two year capital cost allowance and the reduction in the corporate tax rate. There is an unusual measure of uncertainty with regard to the direct or indirect effects of the corporate tax measures as a whole on revenue because of the
Order Paper Questions
lack of historical record of the taxes paid by manufacturing and processing industries as now defined in the regulations. Because introduction of the legislation was delayed, a relatively small number companies took full advantage of the two-year write-off in 1972. Thus, the tax data for 1972, when it becomes available, will not be representative. We are likely to have some idea of the direct effect of the tax measures on revenues only when the 1973 tax data is available which will not be for some time. The direct impact of the measures provides only a limited indication of their total consequence. The corporate tax reduction has contributed to increased business and investment and the overall scale of industrial activity. The consequent growth in incomes has had a beneficial effect on revenues which reduces the cost of the tax measures themselves.


Mr. Andre: Did the government solicit bids from private shippers prior to its awarding of the Eastern Arctic shipping contract via the Port of Churchill to Northern Transportation Company Limited and, if so (a) how many bids were received (b) what was the highest bid (c) what was the lowest bid (d) which company submitted the lowest bid?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Bids were not solicited prior to authorizing Northern Transportation Company Limited to establish the Keewatin resupply service based at Churchill. (a) N/A. (b) N/A. (c) N/A. (d) N/A.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	What is the value at current market prices of the numismatic collection of the Bank of Canada?
2.	For what reason did the Bank of Canada acquire a numismatic collection?
3.	For what reason does the government not direct the Bank of Canada to sell its numismatic collection and remit to the government the money derived from the sale, in order that the government use the money to help the people survive the inflationary monetary policy of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance?


John Napier Turner: 1. No
attempt has been made to determine the current value of the Numismatic Collection of the Bank of Canada. A large part of the collection had been in the hands of the Federal Government for many years and was transferred to the Bank of Canada from the Public Archives of Canada in 1965. Other considerable portions have come to the Bank as gifts from public-spirited Canadian citizens and institutions. Part of the collection, predominantly Canadian numismatic items, has been acquired by purchases form private collectors and numismatic dealers in Canada and other countries during the past twelve years. Many of the items in the collection are unique and others are so rare as to almost never come on the public market. It would therefore be almost impossible to calculate a realistic market value for the collection.
2. Having the sole authority for the note issue the central bank has a natural interest in Canadian paper money and over its earlier years it gradually accumulated

May 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions
a limited collection of numismatic materials related to this interest. Aware of this, finding no comparable interest or expertise elsewhere and deeming the development of a collection not to be part of its responsibility, the Public Archives, with the approval of the Secretary of State, in the mid '60's, turned over its substantial but unorganized volume of numismatic holdings to the Bank with a view to the establishment of a comprehensive representative numismatic collection. The Bank's collection, now regarded as the National Numismatic Collection, is an important part of Canada's heritage. Almost every political, social and economic event in our history is reflected in the coins, tokens and paper money which have been used in Canada during the past 300 years and plans are under way for a money museum in the Bank's new Head Office building project in which the Collection will be displayed for the benefit of the Canadian public.
3. It is considered to be in the public interest to have a national numismatic collection.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the government given consideration to requesting the resignation of Mr. L. Picard, current President of CBC and the appointment as President of CBC of Mr. Pierre Juneau and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Has the government given consideration to requesting the resignation of Mr. Pierre Juneau, current Chairman of CRTC and the appointment as Chairman of CRTC of Mr. L. Picard and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Communications as follows: 1. The government has not given any consideration to requesting the resignation of the current President of the CBC, Mr. Laurent Picard, and the appointment of Mr. Pierre Juneau as President and is not aware of any reason which would necessitate such a consideration.
2. No. There is no reason to do so.


Mr. Howie: What is the estimated projected cost of the Pickering Airport?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The estimated cost of the initial phase of Pickering Airport, based on the same development plan as used in the estimates Blue Book, shows in addition to the $389,684,000 on page 27-40 of the Blue Book the following items: Operations Building, 9,465,000; Aprons, 25,000,000; Electronic Aids and Installation, 10,280,000; Additional amount, 44,745,000; Per Blue Book, 389,684,000; Total, 434,429,000. These costs are in 1973 dollars.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: How many females are employed under the Public Service Employment Act currently earning in excess of $25,999 per annum (a) what are their names (b) what are their positions?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 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.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce 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.



NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS IN CANADA

Mr. Rynard: 1.	As of January 1, 1974, by province, how many physicians are actually practising medicine in Canada (a) full-time (b) part-time?
2.	By province, what is the distribution of specialists and general practitioners in Canada?
3.	What is the total number of doctors engaged in (a) full-time (b) part-time research?
4.	What is the total number of doctors engaged in medical school teaching (a) full-time (b) part-time?
5.	How many doctors, by province, are employed in administrative positions by (a) the federal government (b) provincial governments?
6.	What is the total number of doctors, by province, employed in administrative positions by (a) industry (b) insurance companies?
Return tabled.


Mr. Reilly:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Again I point out that I have a question on the order paper-in fact, I have several-No. 552 which has now been there for pretty close to six weeks. I pointed out to the hon. parliamentary secretary a few days ago that it is not one of those questions he complains about which cost $1 Vi mil-

May 1, 1974

lion to answer. He could get the necessary information by picking up the telephone. This matter is important to some of my constituents and I wish he would get on with it.


Mr. Stevens:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that I have two questions on the order paper, No. 222 and No. 225, which were originally on the order paper in the last session. They remain unanswered although they are relatively simple questions. The first asks for the disclosure of who exactly has been hired with respect to the sale of Olympic coinage. We know it is being sold but we have asked for information about it. The other question deals with information service officers of the government.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. - Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. When the right hon. gentleman says that the government cut personal income taxes last year by about 12 per cent, does he mean that the average taxpayer will be paying roughly 12 per cent less in actual dollars during 1973 than was the case in 1972?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I mean something to that effect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if I can find it, Mr. Speaker. It is a figure which reflects the benefit to the taxpayer of the various actions we took last year. I am sorry I do not have the detailed explanation but that is the general import of the figure.


Mr. Stanbury:: Put a question on the order paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. gentleman would like to have the question on the order paper out of the way but it is not
Oral Questions
going to be put on the order paper. Perhaps the Prime Minister can help me. In view of the Minister of Finance having recognized, when he introduced the indexing concept, that inflation actually increases the effective income tax rate under our system of progressive taxation, can the Prime Minister indicate whether the cuts in nominal tax rates of which he speaks, and to which he was referring I suppose, exceed for 1973 the effective increase in the tax on real income which resulted from the increase in the rate of inflation to nearly 10 per cent? Did the cut in the nominal rate exceed the actual increase resulting from inflation and, if so, by how much? Comment faire!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to computerize some very difficult statistical questions. I will take note of his question and make the calculations he asks for. But the effect of my statement, as borne out by statistics, is something I am prepared to repeat. It is borne out by the statistics which are official documents of the government of Canada.


George Harris Hees: That sounds like your Rotary Club speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one way of indicating that the assertions I made in the speech which the hon. member was good enough to refer to are correct.


George Harris Hees: You bored the Rotarians silly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is quite possible, but I am glad I have the attention of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings. I am glad to see him back in the House, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: The Rotarians tell me they yawned their way through your speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression we are not making much progress by this exchange. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might be recognized for a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are not making much progress.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether it would be satisfactory to the Prime Minister if I returned to the subject tomorrow after he has had a chance to have himself briefed. I took it for granted he knew what he was talking about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Leader of the Opposition knows what he is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad he has the support of his colleagues-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 1, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when he says they are not making much progress.


Mr. Muir:: That's not funny, Pierre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that that sort of exchange proves figures do not lie. I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the position of Canada in its negotiations with the United States with respect to salmon stocks in each country. Has the government already reviewed or is it contemplating a review of the position Canada is taking in those negotiations? If so, can the minister tell the House what that new position is?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, and I am sure the House is aware, these negotiations have been going on for quite some time and they are extremely complex. Our general purpose is to try to ensure that we have control over the salmon that spawn in our streams. That is our over-all objective. We are engaged in extremely tough bargaining and we do not intend to hurry this bargaining at the expense of the Canadian position.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with part of the response. Am I to take it from that remark of the minister that the government is now going to withdraw the sell-out proposals it has made to the Americans and revert to the position of June 17 and 18, 1971, when we, as Canadians, agreed with the Americans that the fish of each nation belonged to the people of that nation? Is that going to be the position we will put forward?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position the government of Canada has always maintained is to get to a situation where we have complete control over the fish spawned in our respective streams. We have never sold out, we do not intend to sell out, and I hope my hon. friend will not encourage us to sell out.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena for a further supplementary and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question more directly to the minister. Will the record of agreement reached between the United States and Canada in Seattle, Washington, on June 17 and 18, 1971, on salmon problems of mutual concern, which enunciated the principle of ownership of the salmon stocks by each country, be the basis of the position which the Canadian government now intends to present in these negptiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this has always been our position. As the hon. gentleman knows, the United States has certain rights that have been acquired over the years. The

endeavour on our part to get those rights withdrawn remains the centre of our policy.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member has a supplementary. He will be recognized in due course after we have completed the first round of questioning.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission refuses to pay unemployment benefits to workers having lost their jobs not because of some labour conflict but because of vandalism in James Bay? Does the minister intend to take action so that people laid off in James Bay will receive the unemployment benefits they are entitled to?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if there is no evidence of direct participation in the dispute and they are otherwise entitled I am sure, though I will check further, that those people applying for benefits will in fact receive them, but they will be subject to the normal conditions that apply to entitlement.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the Prime Minister's somewhat generous admission in the House on April 19 that the government has over-all responsibility for the general monetary policy of the country, including bank interest rates, and in light of today's announcement that several major banks are increasing the consumer loan rate to as much as 13.9 per cent because of the general shortage of money and increasing costs since the last move by the Bank of Canada, can the Minister of Finance tell us specifically, are these increases in consumer loan rates in line with the policy of the government? If not, would he tell us what that policy is?


John Napier Turner: Mr
Speaker, the monetary policy of the government reflects action taken by the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister was quite specific when he said that the government has to be in accord with the general monetary policy set by the bank, although it does not take responsibility for specific
May 1, 1974

rate movement either up or down. The monetary policy of the government, as I have stated it and will state it again on a future occasion, is sufficient to accommodate the efficient and reasonable expansion of the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth-Wilmont will be recognized for a supplementary. I have not forgotten the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, who has a supplementary to another question.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to secure extended bank credit loans and people in many areas, indeed most areas of the country, are also finding it increasingly difficult to obtain mortgage loans even at 11 per cent, may I ask the minister if this situation is acceptable to the government and part of government policy? If not, what is the government's policy? Specifically, does the government intend to permit loan rates and mortgage rates to seek world levels which may be as high as 17 per cent, as in the case of the United Kingdom?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the economy expanding as rapidly as it is, obviously the objective of the Bank of Canada and the banking system is not overly to increase the money supply. There then has to be some selection in the according of credit. As I understand it, that selection is being made by the banks, subject to the moral suasion that I put upon them in favour of small businesses, farmers, fishermen and those areas of the economy encouraging capital expansion rather than outright consumption.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are somewhat reassured by the fact the minister has told us Canada does not intend to depart from the principles articulated in 1971. Does the government intend to make a statement on motions at an early date outlining Canada's stance in somewhat greater detail than was the case with those principles dealing with salmon fishery negotiations well prior to any signing of a further United States-Canada fisheries treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to answer this question. He has been engaging in these negotiations and doing very well. Perhaps he should answer.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been similar statements and more detailed statements made in relation to the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. The basic principles contained in the 1971 preamble to the Canada-United States agree-
Oral Questions
ment on salmon are also contained in our proposals for the Law of the Sea stance.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I said I was reassured a little earlier because after the statement by the Minister of Fisheries I am not reassured at all. What I am really asking is whether the government intends to bring to this House its position as a result of the outcome of these negotiations before any signing takes place?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are proceeding. The next such negotiations are set for September. No real progress has been made in these negotiations with the United States. Until we make progress, we do not see any point in reporting further.


OVERFISHING OF BERING SEA HALIBUT-GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS TO SOVIET UNION-POSSIBILITY OF CONFERENCE TO REACH AGREEMENT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In order to resolve the present overfishing of halibut stocks in the Bering Sea by the Soviet Union, have any steps been taken to arrange a conference with a view to securing agreement with the Soviet Union that they will enter into agreements which come under the North Pacific Fisheries Commission and abide by the terms of that treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I answered a similar question yesterday. The answer to the question is yes. We and the United States have approached the Soviet Union and Japan. Both of them have indicated a willingness to discuss the question. The problem with Korea is there are no diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Korea. Therefore it would be very difficult to arrange a five-power conference. We are therefore proceeding otherwise. If we can arrange an international conference to make greater progress, we will certainly do so.


FINANCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. I direct the question to the Minister of Finance because the Minister of State for Urban Affairs never differentiates between insured and uninsured loans. In light of the fact that on insured loans under CMHC and conventional loans the interest rates are 10 Vt per cent, 11 per cent or higher on first mortgages and 15 per cent on second mortgages, does the minister or the government have any program in mind to hold down or reduce interest rates which are very oppressive not only with regard to purchasing and making payments on housing but with regard to rentals which are so oppressive that people cannot afford the rents at this time?

May 1, 1974
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best answer I can give the hon. member is to suggest that a subsidization of interest rates along the lines he suggests would just add to the demand for housing and be reflected in higher capital values and prices of houses. I can refer him to no better authority on the subject than the hon. member for Don Valley, not just myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are still on the first round of questioning. I hope we can get beyond the first round. The hon. member for Calgary North will be recognized for a supplementary followed by the hon. member for Mississauga.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the announcement of an increase of $500 in the salaries of public servants, which of course will almost be cut in half after deducting income tax, will the minister advise whether that token increase is being given to those people because there is no control now on interest rates whatsoever and the sky is the limit?


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE TIGHT MONEY POLICY ON AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGE MONEY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is also supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Perth-Wil-mot. Are we to take it from the minister's response to the hon. member that we are now in a period of restriction of credit by the Bank of Canada or a tight money policy? Does that tight money policy mean no mortgage money will be available for building this year, or will the minister give an undertaking to the House that he will interfere in the system to persuade lenders to allocate at least as much funding as usual to mortgage companies and mortgage investment this year so that we can depend on a supply of new houses to help solve our housing shortage?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the way the hon. member phrased the question, since the answer to the first part is no the answer to the rest becomes non-applicable.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the government has given first reading to only 19 bills out of 46 items of legislation promised at the time of the throne speech in February, a record of performance of only 41 per cent of what has been promised, will the Prime Minister indicate when he plans to introduce some of the important legislation promised such as that dealing with unemployment insurance, the status and rights of women, young offenders and the Criminal Code so that the House and the country can have a look at these items and perhaps come to some basic decisions in the national interest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Some of these items will indeed receive first reading within the next three or four days. I remind the hon. member that the throne speech was at the end of February which gave us March and April, two months of sitting. The hon. member will recollect that of that time most of the days in March were opposition days. Consequently, I am very pleased that he has drawn to the attention of the House the record we have put forward in introducing so many bills in such a short period of government time.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, noting the fact it takes about two minutes of the time of the House to give first reading to a bill, I wonder whether the answer the Prime Minister has just given is reflective of a shift or change from government priorities announced in the throne speech last February, or does it merely mean that the government is saving up its election goodies for the last few days of this parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact it is federal government policy to allow federal public servants to belong to a union or association of their choice, and in view of the fact that some members of the RCMP are showing an inclination toward forming some type of organization, will the minister give favourable consideration to amending the present legislation which prohibits the RCMP from this action so that these federal public servants can enjoy the same privileges as all others?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when parliament passed the Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1967 it deliberately excluded the RCMP as a group of employees from qualification for unionization under that act. In the last two years we have held meetings with representatives of the constables, corporals and sergeants of the RCMP in Ottawa for a week each year, and they have shown no interest in the formation of a union. We know there is an information meeting to be held by the police association in Vancouver tonight and there is to be another in Toronto tomorrow night. We shall be watching these meetings with interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Well, I have been asked to send somebody from my office to the meeting in Toronto and I am doing so. As I say, the law now forbids the RCMP from forming a union. I personally believe it is not in the public interest that members of the RCMP should belong to a union, but we shall be watching the situation closely.



POSSIBLE HARASSMENT OF MEMBERS INTERESTED IN FORMING UNION

Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Would the minister instruct the commissioner in charge of the RCMP to stop any harassment of members of the force who have publicly shown an interest in forming such an association?


William Warren Allmand: I am sorry, but I did not hear the beginning of the hon. member's question. Would he put it to me again?


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Would the minister instruct the commissioner in charge of the RCMP to stop any harassment or disciplinary measures being taken against those members of the force who have publicly shown an interest in forming such an association?


William Warren Allmand: This question was put to the commissioner last night in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and he said there was no harassment or interference with those members who would be going to the meeting. I would hope there would not be. The two meetings in question are merely information meetings, not organization meetings.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General. In light of news reports that members of the RCMP who participate in the formation of this proposed association may be disciplined, will the minister assure us it is his policy that no member of the force participating in these events will be disciplined?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that commitment. It depends on what is done by the members. I repeat that at the present time it is illegal for members of the RCMP to belong to unions, and the administration of the force is left to the commissioner. I cannot give a commitment that the law will not be followed if the law and regulations laid down in the RCMP Act and other statutes are not complied with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ATTITUDE OF MINISTER TOWARDS FORMATION OF ASSOCIATION BY MEMBERS

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in many municipalities across Canada the police belong to associations not necessarily defined as unions, may I ask whether the minister is opposed to members of the RCMP having the right to form an association which in some way might speak for them to their superiors?


William Warren Allmand: It would depend on the terms of reference and the constitution of such associations. The Public Service Staff Relations Act defines employee organizations. It would depend on whether those associations constituted an employee organization under the terms of that act or whether they attempted to do other things. I would have to study that aspect. That is a legal question the hon. member is asking.
Oral Questions



RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO ADVOCATE CHANGE IN LAW CONCERNING UNION MEMBERSHIP

John George Diefenbaker: Even though the law as it now stands forbids the formation of unions among members of the RCMP, is there any reason why they should be denied freedom of speech to advocate a change in the law without, as a result, being penalized under the mounted police act?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, they are not. I tried to convey to the House a few moments ago that in the last two years the men of the RCMP, the non-commissioned officers and the men, have freely elected representatives from each division in Canada and sent them to Ottawa to discuss their problems with the administration. I have personally met with them privately and I asked them this very question. They spoke to me very forcefully and articulately on many other subjects, but they told me at that time that of the 16 divisional representatives only one favoured a union. The other 15 did not.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like an answer to the question I asked. The question is simply this: are the mounted police to be denied freedom to advocate changes in the law or are they to be subject to penalties for exercising that freedom which every Canadian has a right to exercise?


William Warren Allmand: No. No penalties will be imposed upon them for exercising their freedom of speech.


Mr.   Sean@: With regard to those officers seeking some kind of alliance with the police association, or the formation of a union, can the minister advise us what he is prepared to do to deal with the underlying discontent within the force which prompts such action on the part of the RCMP?


William Warren Allmand: I have met with many groups within the RCMP. As a matter of fact, when I visit detachments I make a point of discussing matters with the men. I must say that on the whole there is no discontent; the morale is quite high. There have been problems among individuals and we are hoping to meet those problems. We are trying to implement many new methods of dealing with this question of morale, arrangements for consultation and so on with the men in the force. In the past year we have taken a number of measures to that effect.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the Opportunities for Youth program. I understand there was supposed to be an announcement by April 26. Can the minister bring us up to date and tell us whether he h.~s completed his investigation of the applications and when the notices will be going out both to those whose applications have been approved

May 1, 1974
Oral Questions
and to those whose applications have been denied? Can the minister give us some information?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have dealt with some 95 per cent of the applications, I imagine. The few that are left will be resolved, I hope, within the next 48 hours and an announcement can be expected very shortly indeed.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH AND LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAMS-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT AS TO CONTINUANCE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the minister has now brought forth a new community employment program or work program, can we assume that the government has made up its mind as to the future of the OFY and LIP programs? Are they to be discontinued as a result of the new direction taken by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: I have referred publicly to our enthusiasm for the development of the community employment program which is an extension of the proposal made in the orange paper put forward by colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That position stands. In my public comments about it and, indeed, before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration the other day I have indicated that we hope to produce some pilot projects this fall and winter involving community employment which would lead, after evaluation, to a more formal program for the future. But this does not indicate any final decision in the interim with regard to the Local Initiatives Program.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish to pose one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I appeal to hon. members to limit the number of supplementaries.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very sorry. I do not ordinarily take advantage of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister has indicated that the cabinet is deciding the future of the LIP and OFY programs. All I am asking the minister is whether he has reached a decision as to the future of these programs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I put it very simply in the last sentence of my answer. No, we have not made that decision.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister has from time to time laid down, as a

basis for official recognition of foreign governments, that they should be in effective control of their country. On this basis, is the government now prepared to recognize the new regime in Portugal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are still watching developments in that country. So far there seems to have been a fairly peaceful take-over, but we would like to be absolutely sure before we extend recognition.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the minister confirm that the new government of Portugal has promised free elections within a year, that it has released political prisoners and taken steps to abolish PIDE, the political police, in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have received reports of that kind from our embassy in Portugal and they confirm newspaper reports. I share the hon. member's enthusiasm.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact there has been widespread support of the extension of the deadline under the Veterans Land Act, would the minister now say whether he is considering repeal of the 1968 deadline so that more veterans will be able to take advantage of the act, and will he indicate also if consideration is being given to increasing the mortgage loan ceiling and the minimum lot requirement?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman, this is a matter of government policy and if anything is done it will be announced in due course.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact there are only 11 months left following the extension of the March, 1974, deadline, would the minister indicate if consideration is being given to changing the whole act to suit today's needs on behalf of the veterans?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in the House, as far as veterans are concerned we are reviewing all our programs and projects at all times and if there is any announcement to be made, and the government has approved it, I will make it.



HOUSING


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it deals with the matter of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
May 1, 1974

funding of so-called student co-operative housing projects. In view of the evidence that CMHC exceeded its authority in granting loans to several of the co-operatives, would the Prime Minister consider convening a royal commission inquiry into this matter so we can get all the facts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would begin by conveying to me the facts he has I will look into the matter.


William C. Scott: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would have the appropriate House committee conduct an inquiry into the matter of granting loans to Rochdale and other co-operative housing projects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure now whether the hon. member wants a royal commission inquiry, a House committee inquiry or both.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Albert Bechard (Boriaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
Does the minister intend to contact personally the CBC authorities to put an end to these disgusting wild shows such as those presented on the French network of the CBC last Sunday night as part of the program "Les Beaux Dimanches"? Such things are unworthy of the CBC whose main objective should be to maintain Canadian unity?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that the hon. member's views are made known to the corporation.



RATE OF INTEREST PAID BY EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION COMPARED TO RATE CHARGED-REQUEST FOR LESSENING OF ACTIVITIES OF CORPORATION

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce^ With the Export Development Corporation now having to pay ll'/s per cent for short-term funds which it is borrowing on the street and yet it is continuing to lend money at 7 per cent, will the minister inform the House if he has instructed the officials of the EDC to at least restrain its aggressive lending activities in present money market conditions?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation is governed by the ceilings in the existing act, amendments to which the House passed a year ago. Very shortly I hope to be able to bring forward further amendments at the second reading stage.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister indicate to the House if he is co-operating with other export nations which have indicated a desire to enter into a world agreement to try to bring some sanity into the export financing field inasmuch as some of the richest countries in the world are getting loans at rates such as 7 per cent from Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been discussions, but I do not think any conclusion has been reached yet. I am hopeful there will be some progress in this direction.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the minister has already said publicly that we are going to "bring in a program of subsidies to pork producers", I should like to ask when he will be introducing this program, and will the money, which appears to be in the $7 per hundred weight range, to be paid by the government be paid directly to the producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out in the House the other day, several provinces have different programs and it is difficult to work out an over-all program as there is no national organization. I can say this, though, that provincial pork marketing boards, hog marketing boards, etc., are well enough organized that pork is sold on the rail and the grade, and it would not be difficult at all to pay the producers. I do not know where the hon. member got his $7 figure.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see just how close my figure is. When does the minister expect that this subsidy, this program, is going to start?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as soon as a workable program can be developed it will be announced.



GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO DEAL WITH ALCOHOLISM

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in alcoholism, and the fact that because of a lack of funding there are only a few detoxification centres where these people can be treated for their sickness, whereas in other areas they are treated as common criminals and put in jail until they sober up, and since this is a national social health problem and recognized as such, I should like to ask the minister what part the federal government is playing in meeting this problem?

May 1, 1974
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have an innovative service contribution program under which we may contribute to the funding of detoxification centres of an innovative nature. We also share in detoxification centres which are operating with hospitals on the basis of 50 per cent. We share in the cost of medical care up to 50 per cent. In addition, we are funding some 27 homes for special care as a constructive service in respect of alcoholism under the Canada Assistance Plan.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I believe it was last week that his parliamentary assistant provided the House with some details about the department's thinking in respect of the possible location of part of Air Canada's overhaul facilities in Winnipeg. What was lacking in that response was any kind of time frame within which Winnipegers can look for that decision to be made. Can the minister now give us a more precise date in respect of the time span involved before a decision is made?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing new since that answer is that I met with the president of Air Canada and we discussed this matter. He was supposed to supply me with information, data and projections with regard to what Air Canada intends to do.



INFORMATION CANADA


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I should like to ask whether he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Senate finance committee which recently completed a review of the operations of Information Canada, particularly those in chapter nine which point up the dangers inherent in dealing with outside agencies. The report says among other things that they tend to have the distressing smell of pork about them and should be very carefully vetted by Information Canada, with that agency acting as a screening body. Does the minister propose to adopt that policy?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for Information Canada. I did receive the report yesterday and I am studying it, but perhaps the Minister of Labour might like to reply.


Peter Reilly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should have directed the question to the Minister of Labour.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member repeat his question?


Peter Reilly: I would be pleased to do so. I wonder whether the minister intends to adopt as policy any of the recommendations of the Senate committee on finance which recently concluded a review of the operations of Information Canada? I am particularly interested in the recommendations contained in chapter 9, which warn that dealings with outside agencies, particularly advertising agencies, could be left open to charges, although not always, of political patronage.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the recommendations of the Senate committee to which the hon. member has referred. I have met with officials of Information Canada concerning this matter. I hope to have a more detailed report from them as to what the implications are of some of these recommendations within the next week or two, but obviously we will need a little time to study them.



REASON FOR CONTRACT WITH MACLEAN-HUNTER- RESTRICTION ON TENDERING-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Peter Reilly: That being the case I wonder, having in mind that a previous minister responsible for Information Canada described its co-publishing operations as having been designed to assist Canadian publishers, particularly those in financial trouble, how it is that the agency has recently signed arrangements with the biggest Canadian domestic publisher, Maclean-Hun-ter, through its subsidiary publishing company, to publish an atlas in a situation in which only two publishers were invited to tender, the other being one owned by a British company?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am in a sense pleased that the hon. member has raised this question. I have also read the article in question. I want to assure the hon. member and the House that it is not the policy of the government, nor of Information Canada to restrict proposals for outside work of this kind involving co-publishing with the government of Canada. I suppose that automatically leads to the question, why was it done in this case? It was an intricate and complex publishing job. It involved a value judgment at the time by an official who felt he had his reasons. However, I want to assure the House it is not the policy to continue this type of procedure in the future.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he prepared any amendments to the National Defence Act which he plans to submit to the House at an early date relating particularly to the cadet movement,

and has he received any assurance from the House leader that the measure will be given some priority?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated that I intend to bring in a recommendation to the House concerning cadets and particularly that girls can be members of cadet corps equally with boys.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour. In view of the fine record that Canadian airline pilots have had in their contractual relations with Air Canada, a perfect record, is the minister aware that this record may be in jeopardy because of dissatisfaction with the methods that Air Canada used in laying off pilots during the recent curtailment of operations because of the firefighters' walkout, and will the minister use every option available to him to expedite current contractual negotiations to replace the contract that is due to expire on June 1 before trouble develops?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware that disputes involving employees of the government as such, distinct from employees in the private sector falling under federal jurisdiction, do not fall within my purview as Minister of Labour. Having said that, I think it is fair to say that I am aware of the implications the hon. member has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegreville has a supplementary. The Chair will recognize the hon. member and then call orders of the day.



STATUS OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister bring the House up to date on the status of negotiations involving the air traffic controllers, and can he give the House any assurance that a walkout will be averted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are continuing satisfactorily at the moment in Quebec where the controllers' association is having a convention.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Will the air traffic controllers have an offer in their hands tonight so as to avoid a strike this Sunday?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, under the services of a mediator offers and counteroffers are continually under discussion.
Profiteering Practices PUBLIC SERVICE



REGIONAL WAGE DISPARITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ELIMINATION

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact the government has now announced a salary increase for the Public Service, can the President of the Treasury Board indicate what action, if any, will be taken by the government to eliminate wage disparities existing between certain areas of the Public Service? I am thinking, for example, of the disparity existing between personnel on ships owned and operated by the Ministry of Transport operating on the Atlantic coast as opposed to those operating on the Pacific coast?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the choice as to pay dispensation at the present time is left to the employees collectively to choose the alternative of either national rates of pay across the country or regional rates of pay adjusted to different circumstances. That is the employees' choice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-29, to amend the Combines Investigation Act in relation to profiteering practices, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order by way of caveat so as to not hold up these proceedings. I want to point out to Your Honour, and to the House, that as a result of the legislative delay in doing anything useful for the country, the government is now engaged in spewing out trickles of hastily conceived and ill-prepared legislation. With particular regard to this measure, I want to point out that three clauses of Bill C-29, clauses 7, 8 and 9, are directly linked to Bill C-7 which is now before a committee of the House, and that while there would be a strict right to rely upon that constitutional concern I want to file a caveat by pointing out that our party will feel free at some future stage in the proceedings, if necessary, to apply either to consolidate the bill or ensure that this bill does not conflict with Bill C-7. I am filing that as a caveat at this time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill C-29, to amend the Combines Investigation Act in relation to profiteering practices. This bill will enable the government to temporarily freeze prices on
1938

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
goods where there is evidence of profiteering and will provide a means to roll prices back in these circumstances. The bill reflects the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) commitment to Parliament and Canadians made last year when he said the government would be prepared to introduce measures to protect the consumer against those who may attempt to take advantage of the present situation by unwarranted price increases. The Prime Minister further stated during the throne speech debate in February that:
We will not allow corporate profiteers ... to pile up unearned windfall profits at the expense of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the government has already applied a broad set of policies to attack inflation and reduce its effects on Canadians. Along with this, by introducing Bill C-29, the government is carrying out the commitment as expressed in the Speech from the Throne to stop business from taking advantage of current economic conditions to unduly enhance profits. The legislative proposals would stop, in specified circumstances, a producer or merchant from exacting, on the sale or distribution of an article, a profit margin greater than that customarily obtained. The bill would also stop attempts to enhance the price at which an article is eventually sold by withholding from sale or distribution an inventory of that article substantially in excess of that normally held. Such practices defined in the proposed legislation as exceptionable trade practices are generally regarded by Canadians as particularly unacceptable in inflationary conditions. These practices would become unlawful in the circumstances set out in the legislative proposal now before the House.
The bill proposes that the exceptionable trade practices provisions would come into force on declaration by the governor in council. Such declarations would be made by the governor in council normally after consideration of reports issued by the Food Prices Review Board or such other boards as might be established under the authority of the Inquiries Act or other legislation to inquire into the causes of particular price increases, actual or proposed.
Before making a declaration, the governor in council would have to be satisfied that a situation existed or was likely to exist which would have a substantial effect on the price of an article or a class of articles, thus tending to seriously affect the living costs of all or a great majority of Canadians. But in emergency cases, declarations could also be made by the governor in council without first having had a board report, where it was satisfied that such a situation existed and that immediate action was required to protect the public interest.
Declarations made under the proposed law would be specific, applying to a particular article or articles at all or any levels of distribution. The order giving effect to the declaration would specify the period of time during which the declaration was to be effective up to one year. However, the governor in council could extend the period of time initially specified for further periods of up to six months if satisfied that the situation giving rise to the declaration continued to exist. In making a declaration, the governor in council could also invoke the price notification provisions set out in the legislation. Under these

provisions suppliers could not increase the price of the article in question over its base price unless the director of the combines investigation branch was notified 30 days in advance of the proposed increase or such shorter period as may be specified by the governor in council.
The application of these provisions will have the effect of imposing a temporary freeze on the price of the articles in question during the notification period. The governor in council would prescribe by regulation the definition of the base price for the purpose of this notification procedure.
The definition of base price prescribed could vary in accordance with the article declared and the practices under which it is normally sold. For example, the base price might be the price charged on a certain date, or such higher price as the firm can demonstrate that it customarily charged during the preceding 30 days. The reason for this wording in this hypothetical example would be to avoid forcing firms who happened to be having a sale on a certain date to use the special sale price as the base price. It is important to note that the base price is prescribed only for pre-notification purposes and does not necessarily have a relationship to a customary profit margin.
Under the bill, the governor in council would also have authority to make exemptions from the pre-notification requirements. Depending on the circumstances, one would expect that for very small firms, for example, it would be possible to exempt them from pre-notification rules as such a procedure could impose an unreasonable and onerous requirement on such small firms. However, such an exemption would cover pre-notification requirements only and the price of the article or articles supplied by the exempted firm would still be required to meet the customary profit margin test.
The new measures would not apply to agricultural produce in an unprocessed state when owned or sold by the primary producer or to unprocessed fishery products when owned or sold by a fisherman. It could apply, however, at other levels of distribution for such products. The governor in council when making a declaration would issue guidelines specifying the manner in which suppliers would determine the profit margin that they customarily obtain and which they could not exceed.
Customary profit margin could be defined differently for each level of distribution. For example, the method to be applied could be different for a manufacturer as opposed to the retailer of a product. The term "customary" could be prescribed to the margin realized during a given past period of time. For example, the guidelines could stipulate-and this is only a hypothetical example-that the customary profit margin would be based on the average profit margin of three years in a specified five year period, which could exclude the immediately preceding year.
In setting out the manner of determination of customary profit margin, consideration would be given to the prevailing economic climate and the business cycle of the particular sector. In addition, the guidelines would be sufficiently flexible to take into account their application to firms operating at low levels of profit or at a loss, or to new businesses.
May 1, 1974

The administrative and investigative machinery required to administer the proposed legislation would be provided through the office of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. Immediate steps are being taken to provide additional resources for these new duties. To ensure administrative feasibility, the legislative proposal would broaden the powers of delegation of the director so that responsibility for administering the exceptionable trade practice provisions could be fully delegated to a deputy director. In conducting inquiries, the deputy director would exercise the same powers as those conferred on the director and the Part I of the Combines Investigation Act.
The director would be required by the legislation to conduct an inquiry where he had reason to believe that a supplier was engaging in or was about to engage in an exceptionable trade practice. Inquiries would also be initiated by the director when directed to do so by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Such inquiries could only be instituted, of course, where a declaration from the governor in council was in effect covering the category of article or supplier in question and would be a key step in the process of enforcing the revisions in the law and regulations against those not complying with them.
In determining whether to initiate an inquiry, the director under the act would have access to the information and research obtained by the original board of inquiry, if there was one, unless it had been collected on a confidential basis. Information on supply and prices normally collected by various departments and not otherwise confidential in the government would be available to him. He would also be able to evaluate and compare the information in the price notification notices of all firms supplying the article or articles covered by the declaration.


Mr. Hellyer:: I wonder if I may ask the minister if the lack of any other minister in the House at this moment is an indication of the enthusiasm of the government for this bill and their support of it or lack of support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think it indicates the confidence of the government and of the backbenchers in the measure, unlike my hon. friend's party which has to travel in packs. They have to keep an eye on one another to make sure they are not stabbing each other in the back.


George Harris Hees: They walked out on you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I was saying, he would also be able to evaluate and compare price notification notices of all firms supplying the article or articles in question. It is expected that the public would also bring information to the attention of the director, which would assist him in deciding whether to carry out an inquiry or continue it if the information came in the course of one being carried out.
Once a declaration was made, firms would calculate their customary profit margins and their base prices in accordance with the guidelines established by the Governor in Council. If a firm found that it is within the profit margin guidelines, it would not be required to take any
Profiteering Practices
action until it wished to raise a price above the base price. Before giving notice to the Director of Investigation and Research, which would have to be done 30 days prior to the price increase, or such lesser time as is specified, it would have to ensure that the new price would not result in a profit margin in excess of that customarily obtained.
However, if the firm calculated its customary profit margin and found that it was exceeding the guidelines, it would be expected to roll back its price. Failure to prenotify a price increase after declaration with regard to the product covered by it, could result upon indictment in imprisonment for two years or, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for one year or both.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, reconstituted as the Trade Practices Commission, would hear complaints from the director about exceptionable trade practices; for example, that a person was selling or about to sell the article so as to obtain a profit margin greater than the one prescribed by the act and regulations. If on the basis of the application made by the director, the commission was satisfied that the person to whom the application related was engaging in or about to engage in such an "exceptionable trade practice", it could order the person to cease and desist from engaging in the practice. Such an order, in effect, would roll back that person's prices to the appropriate level to meet the customary profit margin requirements.
In addition, the commission could require the supplier to give up all or any portion of the excess revenues he had realized as a result of his engaging in the "exceptionable trade practice". The commission could require the supplier to give up this excess revenue in one of three ways: either by refunding it to the person from whom he derived the excess revenue or, if those persons were not reasonably identifiable, by an appropriate reduction in the sale price to persons thereafter acquiring the article from him or finally, if neither of the first two methods were practicable, by paying it to the Receiver General. The Governor in Council would also have the authority to vary or rescind any order of the commission.
Once a declaration was made, superior courts would be authorized under the legislation to issue interim injunctions at any time on application by the Attorney General of Canada enjoining suppliers from engaging in exceptionable trade practices with respect to declared products. These injunctions would preclude firms from taking action which may be unwarranted until the director had an opportunity to carry out an inquiry or for the commission to reach a decision on a matter. Non-compliance with such court orders could result in a fine or imprisonment.
Also, orders of the commission would be enforceable through the courts with non-compliance resulting in the imposition of fines or imprisonment. Persons found guilty of non-compliance would be liable, if convicted on indictment, to imprisonment for two years and on summary conviction, to a fine of up to $10,000 or to imprisonment for one year or to both. Commission orders would also be subject to review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
27451-59',

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
It can be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation provides a mechanism which will permit the Governor in Council to act promptly once there is a report by a board of inquiry, such as the Food Prices Review Board. Boards of inqi 'ry could be set up in other areas as required with instructions to report within an appropriately short period of time. Furthermore, if necessary, the Governor in Council could declare the powers of this act in force without a board report on the basis of information available generally to it from normal government sources.
It is the government's intention, following enactment of this legislation, to proceed to establishment of other boards to inquire into pricing practices in certain areas that have a pervasive effect on the economy. I say this to answer those incorrect assertions made by some who have suggested that the government would be prepared to take action only with respect to the food area. In fact, the government would be ready, where necessary, to make use of the authority it is seeking in this bill as soon as it is finally approved by parliament and proclaimed in force. In any event, the existence of this legislation should act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise feel they can engage in profiteering with impunity.
In addition to the temporary freeze resulting from the declaration, an interim injunction could be obtained at any time to prevent the continuance of profiteering practices until the inquiry can be completed and the commission has dealt with the matter. This means that this legislation would have an immediate impact the moment a declaration is made.
Also, there would not be uncertainty after a declaration has been made. The declaration itself would specify the levels of distribution and the products to which it applies. In addition, specific guidelines for the determination of base price and customary profit margins will be provided by the Governor in Council. Therefore, any businessman affected would be able to determine when to give advance notice of a price increase to the director. He would also be able to determine whether he was exceeding customary profit margins and should therefore roll back his price.
Attempting to provide a single definition for customary profit margin in the bill would, I submit, not be practical nor could it be fair or effective. I say this because no single definition would always be correct for each and every sector of the economy. That is why we believe it is necessary that the Governor in Council have the authority to establish guidelines for determining a profit margin based on a determination of what is appropriate for the product and sector in question.
Mr. Speaker, we believe the measures in this bill have general support and approval among Canadians. They would provide an instrument not now available, to permit the government, on behalf of the people of Canada, to deal with pricing practices, which are particularly unacceptable during inflationary periods. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to give prompt second reading of this bill and to enable it to become law at the earliest possible date in the interests of all the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister I can understand in a way

why he was deserted by his colleagues in what surely must have been his finest hour. I was intrigued to hear him make the kind of statement that should more appropriately have been made before a committee when it is examining a bill of this kind, because there was no reference whatsoever to the philosophy, if there is any, behind the bill. I doubt if there is any. The minister made some reference to this bill being a part of the government's policy to deal with inflation. What policy, Mr. Speaker? It is certainly not apparent to this House and it is certainly not apparent to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister likened himself to a traffic cop making selective arrests here and there. That is consistent, because obviously the government has no policy and the minister is like a traffic cop making arrests in a situation where there is no speed limit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today will do nothing to bring relief to the people of this country who are suffering under a record high inflation of 10.4 per cent-let us make no mistake about that-notwithstanding any empty, high sounding phrases which the minister brought in today from the Speech from the Throne which opened this session because this bill and government action to date bears no relation to, and indeed is consistent with, the pious platitudes of the government made through the mouth of His Excellency.
S00)
Neither will this bill bring down food prices which have increased at the unbelievable rate of 18.6 per cent over the last year. Neither will this bill do anything about the serious situation in housing in Canada. The bill does not refer to housing. It specifically excludes housing. The minister said during his press conference that food prices are the principal objective of the bill. We have heard this before, in the Speech from the Throne opening this session and in the Speech from the Throne opening the session prior to this one, when there was talk of setting up a food prices committee.
What do we have at this time for dealing with food prices. We have the Food Prices Review Board. It has been in existence for just over one year and has been described by the Consumers Association of Canada as a useless, expensive appendage. What relief has the Food Prices Review Board brought the Canadian consumer.


An hon. Member:: None.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we believe it is necessary to limit profit margins during periods of high inflation. We believe it is necessary to limit profit margins to a level which enables industry to earn a rate of return sufficient to encourage new capital investment but, at the same time, to prevent windfall profits or uneconomic returns inherent in periods of inflationary expectations and new competitive market situations. This is inherent in our prices and incomes policy which was placed before this House more than one year ago.
May 1, 1974

What will this bill achieve? The difference, of course, is that ours is a comprehensive program. We do not intend by our program to fix the price of individual articles, as this bill sets out to do, and this, I might add, is one of the basic weaknesses of this bill. It is clear that the government does not intend to use this legislation to deal with inflation. Obviously, this will amount to a selective control policy. That is what the bill sets out to do. It will enable the new and very powerful Trade Practices Commission to freeze and roll back prices of every product or class of products, if it is found that their suppliers are making more than the customary profit margins or have withdrawn this product from the market to raise prices. This amounts to nothing more nor less than a selective price control policy. We reject that.
It seems most irregular to me that there should be such a dichotomy between what the government says and what it does. For example, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who is a former minister of finance, told this House on March 15, 1974, in his capacity as acting minister of finance, as recorded at page 570 of Hansard that:
... selective controls ... are bound to be arbitrary. They are bound to have a selective effect which may not be acceptable.
He went on to say:
Selective controls are likely to single out particular groups for government action, and to leave others untouched. That is fine in theory, but the trouble is that it leads the government into a general program because every group in the community wants someone else to be the target of government action.
It is worth continuing to read from this speech. The minister went on to say:
The second point is one of general application... It is the problem of anticipation... All of the people selling goods in the country would be inclined to say, 'Let us get our increases put into effect before the government takes these measures.'
I suggest that the Minister of Consumer Affairs would have done well if he had read the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs before introducing this bill. On the occasion in question, the minister condemned the use of selective controls because of Canada's large dependence on foreign trade. He said:
One would be forced, from putting on selective price controls, into selective export controls.
I commend those words to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray).
The use of selective controls by this government is nothing new. We are all well aware of the government's bread and milk subsidy programs, two programs which by the end of March had cost Canadian taxpayers $120 million and $87 million respectively, but did nothing to hold down prices. The government announced on September 4 of last year that milk prices would remain at current levels for 12 months. Notwithstanding that statement, milk prices to consumers rose last month, despite the subsidy, by about four cents a quart. We are told by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that we can expect further increases in milk prices. Bread prices also rose from two cents to four cents a loaf last March, despite the $1.25 per bushel wheat subsidy which was imposed on September 4 to hold down prices, and despite the unheeded mumblings and grumblings of the relatively impotent
Profiteering Practices
Food Prices Review Board. Of course, the crowning failure of selective controls by this government was in its attempt to control beef prices and increase production by introducing a beef subsidy last March 15. The result was a complete disruption of the cattle market and even heavier losses to cattle producers.
This is the kind of result selective controls have on producers and consumers. Yet this is the kind of control the government is opting for under this proposed legislation. I wonder when the government will finally wake up to the fact that selective controls are inherently unfair, in view of the fact that they tend to discriminate against certain sectors of Canadian society and certain products. Only a comprehensive price and income stabilization program could hold the line on inflation while not jeopardizing any particular group.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been referring to this bill as an anti-inflation measure. Really, a most careful scrutiny of the contents of the bill would cause even the most objective observer to harbour the gravest doubts about it. I doubt if this piece of legislation will do anything at all to combat inflation. If the government's past performance can be used as an indicator, it is easy to see that it has consistently refused to accept the recommendations of various agencies to hold down even the most blatant examples of price increases.
Consider the report of the Food Prices Review Board on eggs. This report was made by the board on January 9. At that time the board said that egg prices were too high, and it recommended that the government take steps immediately to roll back the price of eggs. The following day the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he would do something, that he would take action on the report. When the House resumed, the buck was passed by the minister, who is the best buck passer in the government-and God knows we have a cabinet of buck passers-to the Minister of Agriculture, who is no mean performer himself when it comes to buck passing. He, in turn, passed the buck to the Farm Products Marketing Council, where the buck has stopped. We have not heard from that body since then, notwithstanding the fact that eggs have risen in price over 31 per cent in 12 months in Canada, and no action has been taken to date. Surely the minister knows that eggs are a most important source of protein for low income earners of this country.
The situation with regard to rising bread prices was identical. The Food Prices Review Board stated that any increase beyond two cents a loaf would be unwarranted. The government refused to take any action and prices went up in some cases as much as four cents a loaf. With the labour unrest in the country and the difficulties of the small bakers, we can expect even greater increases in the price of bread this year. In light of this experience, it seems to be too pious a hope to expect the government to now change its stance and start accepting the recommendations of its various boards and agencies.
It is important to note that this bill merely gives the government the option of acting to prevent price increases. There are no built-in guarantees that the government will do so. Even if the Trade Practices Commission recom-

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
mends a price roll-back or price freeze, cabinet may choose to ignore it. In view of so many past examples of just this kind of thing, we are really not expecting much from the government if this bill in fact ever becomes law.
As it stands, this bill seems to be a mere piece of fluff and unworkable in its present form. It gives all the appearance of being hastily contrived and a measure of political expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The determination of what are excess profits is so vague as to be almost meaningless. The bill says that the excess profit margin of a supplier is one which is greater than he would customarily obtain. Just how "customary profits" are to be determined is anybody's guess. We had hoped the minister would enlighten us on that today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How could he when he doesn't know?


James Aloysius McGrath: That is right. That is why we got no further enlightenment from him today.
Another point of vagueness in the bill is the determination of the base price of a commodity under examination. This is to be up to the discretion of the governor in council. In addition, the cost of a product is to be computed on a basis consistent with that used in the last completed fiscal period of the supplier. A determination of profit margins using these criteria could result in gross injustices, both to the producers and to consumers who have to pay the price. So much depends on how cabinet interprets the margin of profit that nobody will know where he stands.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, has this government really envisioned the possible implications of its definition of excess profits? According to one economist, it would require a very large group of well informed bureaucrats, each having a sound knowledge of a particular industry, article or product to be able to give proper advice to the government. God knows that bureaucracy is large enough under this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely, the minister knows that profits are a cyclical phenomena and that establishing a customary profit margin for a product based on the last decade may not be an easy task. In fact, it may be impossible.
If you base your measure of customary profit margin for a firm on last year's performance, for example, it would not be appropriate for every industry. Some were depressed while some were having a bumper year. Therefore, this government will only be increasing an already large bureaucracy, and God only knows what the result will be. The Food Prices Review Board is a good example. When the Food Prices Review Board was set up on May 28, 1973, its initial budget was $500,000 and its permanent staff numbered about 20. Since then its budget has quadrupled to the point where it is almost $2 million and its staff has more than doubled to 48. In addition, the Food Prices Review Board has entered into 29 contracts for 31 studies, thereby further increasing its bureaucracy.

Let us take a look at the power of this bill. The cabinet is given the ultimate decision as to what action to take with respect to demanding payment from suppliers or price roll backs and freezes under this bill. It may, on its own initiative, declare an emergency situation and refer the pricing policy of a particular supplier to the Trade Practices Commission.
Again on its own initiative, it may order the supplier to pay the Crown what it has decided are undue profits. In my view, that constitutes an arbitrary imposition of tax without reference to a ways and means motion of this House. I hope the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will have an opportunity to say more about that later.
In order for the cabinet and/or the proposed Trade Practices Commission to exercise the discretionary powers under this bill, it will be necessary to closely monitor the market place. The minister may say that this role will be carried out by the Food Prices Review Board. I see the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), a distinguished member of the food prices committee, smiling because he is skeptical. He knows whereof I speak. If we had to depend on the Food Prices Review Board to do the monitoring necessary under this bill, I would tell the House that this speaks for itself. Furthermore, the process by which this bill would become operative could be a long and cumbersome one which would considerably diminish its effectiveness.
Editorial writers and columnists all across the country have either dismissed the bill as so much political puffery, which it is, or have described it as bad law, which it is, that should never find its way as presented into the statute books of this country. The bill is imprecise in its application and vague in its definition. We have a responsibility to all our constituents. It would hang like a sword over every business person in the country because it could be selectively applied at any time. In the words of today's lead editorial in the Globe and Mail "There would be no fair warning". After the contribution by the minister today, he would do well to sit and ponder what he has produced before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We believe that if this bill ever passes, and we doubt very much whether it will become law, it should be subject to regular parliamentary review. Let me make it clear that this party utterly rejects the position that it should stay on the statute books of this country in its present form. If the opportunity presents itself, we will be moving amendments to try and strengthen and improve what is good about the bill and delete what is bad.
My point is that this bill is unacceptable to this party in its present form. We merely look upon it as another halfhearted attempt by this government to hang on to power, another half-hearted attempt to fill the shopping basket of the NDP in order to buy time while the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) keeps telling us the worst is yet to come.
May 1, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends and I have given the bill now before us very careful study. Indeed, we gave it very anxious study to determine whether it is a measure which can really help Canadians, which can really reduce the heavy burden of the increasing cost of living under which Canadian families now labour.
I want to emphasize that this is the only test which should be applied to this bill: will it in fact be of value to Canadian families? The ingenious framework underlying this measure-and it is extremely ingenious, so ingenious that it is a maze rather than a process-can obscure the issue, but cannot help it. We have also studied, for reasons I shall explain in a few moments, statements made by government spokesmen with respect to this bill-statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the minister who introduced this legislation and who will carry the responsibility for its implementation.
In view of the nature of the bill, we wanted to find out what the intentions of the government as to the application of the bill when it becomes law are likely to be. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you immediately that on the basis of the bill which we have studied and on the basis of the timid statements made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), statements which I shall outline during the next few minutes, we find it impossible in conscience to support this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: So long over there, its been nice seeing you!


David Lewis: I want to say to members of the Conservative Party on my right that they would be in the same boat if they were across the aisle, because if legislation is to bring effective results for the benefit of the people of Canada at this stage in our history it would be necessary for the government to possess the will and the courage to challenge and reduce the powers of the corporate market. Unless a parliament and unless a government has the will to challenge corporate power in this country, whatever is presented will inevitably be mere window dressing incapable of any effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I said we have paid particular attention to statements made on behalf of the government with respect to this bill. Why have we done so? We have done so because this bill, unlike many others, depends entirely-I repeat, it depends entirely-on the manner in which it is implemented by the government. I remind members of the House that the proclamation of the bill is of no effect. If this bill were passed today and proclaimed tomorrow, proclamation would have not the slightest effect. None of the bill applies to anything when it is made law. This is literally the case. None of the bill applies to anything, because before it can make any impact a second step is required-a declaration, as the bill calls it, a declaration by the government making the provisions of the bill applicable to an article or class of articles. The government
Profiteering Practices
can either declare the entire bill applicable or they can declare only part of the bill to be applicable; they are not obliged to declare sections 51, 52 and 53 which deal with a price freeze and with notification. They are not obliged to declare those sections if they do not wish to do so.
The bill gives the government a further power, the power to define what is meant by customary profits. This definition is binding on the director of research, binding on the commission, and, presumably, binding on the courts, if an issue gets to the courts. The government is the body which makes the decision as to what is the base price under sections 51, 52 and 53. It is the government which has the power to apply or not to apply the terms of the bill to an article. It has the power to apply the whole bill or to apply only part of it. It has the power to define customary profit, the power to define what is the base price. I say the bill is not worth the paper it is written on unless the government is prepared to take action. In these circumstances, the intention of the government-what the Prime Minister said when he told us the bill would be introduced, and what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said when he introduced the bill and made statements to the press outside this chamber-are of great importance in considering whether or not we can support this legislation, since they indicate what the intentions of the government are.
I turn, therefore, to a report in the Montreal Star of April 25, a report which appeared in a number of other papers. Here is part of this report. I quote:
The Prime Minister indicated that the legislation might not be proclaimed until needed. He suggested that the threat of it would be enough to stop companies from profiteering.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been making these threats for months. I have not noticed that profiteering has stopped, and to suggest that this might happen is sheer silliness.
Then, I note what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said, according to a recent report. Again, I quote:
The minister indicated, however, that the powers were to be used sparingly. "They would only apply to the most serious and obvious cases".
So those are the intentions of the government. They bring down a bill which gives them the power to act and they inform the people of Canada that they do not intend to act, except, possibly, in the most serious and obvious cases. In other words, a little profiteering is okay, you can get away with it; only when there is immense profiteering on a scale that even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) cannot deny, will the government act. And the Prime Minister says: Maybe we shall not have to act at all.
When the government tells us they are concerned about profiteering I cannot help recalling that both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) have been going about the country in the last little while telling everybody within earshot and everybody who can read that profits and high profits are a good thing because they encourage investment and create jobs. Am I supposed to believe that a government consisting of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who made the statement to

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
which I referred a few months ago, is likely to make this bill work except in cases no one could possibly overlook?
In fact, in one of the supporting documents the minister issued when he introduced the bill-and listen to this, Mr. Speaker; how can the minister expect us to support the measure in these circumstances-the statement appeared: "Available evidence does not suggest widespread abuses".
I do not know what the minister means by the word "abuses". All I know is that a report in the newspaper this morning of a private survey of 111 companies in this country showed an increase in corporate profits for the first quarter of this year amounting to 70 per cent over the first quarter of last year. Part of that increase was undoubtedly connected with exports going outside this country but a major portion was made out of the hide of the Canadian consumer. What more evidence does the minister require in order to show that there had been abuses?
We have placed on record on a number of occasions in this parliament the profits made by various sectors of the economy including, for example, figures showing that the profits made by Westons had risen 86 per cent in 1973. When the minister gave us an example in one of the documents he presented-I know he changed it today-he said the customary profit would be the profit made a year ago. That is not going to make George Weston cry or tremble in his boots. He is going to laugh all the way to the bank with that kind of active profiteering. I emphasize again my reference to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as that is of particular relevance and particular emphasis because of the fact that under the act he is to administer this bill; he is to implement the bill. If this government continues and the job is left in his hands, in view of the statement he has made, that alone is reason enough for voting against this bill.
Members of my party and I have frequently emphasized that we are opposed to over-all price and income freezes and controls. I could not help but feel a little amused when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was castigating the government for the relatively small bureaucracy the bill might produce, and when he was suggesting a comprehensive price and income freeze and control. Really he ought to have had his tongue in his cheek, as I cannot think of anything that would require a larger bureaucracy, than that kind of policy.


An hon. Member:: It would help the unemployment problem.


David Lewis: We have opposed this and so have members of the Conservative party in spite of what they say. At one moment they say they want comprehensive price and income controls. At the next moment they say there will be no price control at the farm gate, and that is a pretty good exclusion. At the next moment somebody says that, of course we cannot freeze all wages and we will have to let somebody have a little more flexibility, and at the next moment somebody mentions some other exclusion. The reason they make these exclusions one after the other is that even they realize when they state it that their policy

is either unworkable or unjust, and is most likely both unworkable and unjust.
There are a lot of people who claim that certain workers in Canada should be prevented by law from striking. We have had evidence of the fact that because there is a law that makes striking illegal does not necessarily mean some people will not in the tragedy they find themselves, and in the distress from which they suffer, take action which may be unlawful as far as the law is concerned. To suggest that those people should have their wages frozen, that the hospital workers in Ontario should have their wages frozen for even 90 days, and for another year and a half or two years, is really too uncivilized.
We have equally rejected the idea that the government can do nothing, because there are areas in which action is possible. We have suggested among other things four ways in which to ease the pressure of inflation in Canada, and I have chosen my words carefully. I do not think any policy can, in the present international situation, remove the pressure of prices, and anybody who suggests that he can wave a wand and end inflation in Canada completely, does not know anything about economics, or is dishonest, or is both lacking in knowledge and dishonest. It cannot be done.
There are ways in which the burden of the cost of living can be reduced and there are ways in which profiteering at the expense of the people can be effectively stopped. We have suggested an effective agency with power to roll back unjustifiable increases in prices. We have urged an excess profits tax and we have urged a two-price system for a number of major commodities so that Canadians are not forced to pay the price for their own products that the international markets can now command. We have also urged on the government and on the country a policy on mortgages that would reduce mortgage rates to 6 per cent, which would be of immediate assistance to every family seeking a house and to every family renting a unit.
Of course, I appreciate that this bill does accept the idea that there is profiteering and that profiteering should be stopped, but I have no illusions about the fact that it was intended at least in part, before anybody on the Liberal side jumps to his feet, and I would even be inclined to suggest in major part, and even go further than that and suggest a significantly major part, as a sop to the NDP members in this House. But we do not intend to accept a piece of legislation that plays a hoax on the people of Canada.
Let me now deal with the bill itself. Why do I say it is a hoax? First, please note that it does not cover services, and that plays an important part in people's lives, because what is involved in services are not merely lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects, important as they are, but also involves banks, insurance companies, loan sharks, mortgage corporations, restaurants and transportation, although transportation has its own CTC, and all of these areas affect the cost of living directly. I simply do not know what kind of timidity prevents the bill from applying on a selective basis in all the areas that affect the living of Canadian people.
May 1, 1974

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in more than one newspaper report I have read is quoted as having said that this bill does not apply to housing. If that is true, that alone condemns the bill as worthless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Just imagine pretending to deal with profiteering and leaving the builders and developers to do as they like with the Canadian people and the lives of Canadian families. That is my first objection, that it does not apply to services, housing and that kind of area. Second, the minister has made clear in introducing the bill that the sections which give the government authority to invoke the provisions of the bill on its own without a prior inquiry would be used only in emergency cases. Those are his words.
In an emergency the government could itself without any prior inquiry declare the application of the bill to an article or class of articles. In order to do that the government would have to have some information. If it is to rely on information from the Department of Finance, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or Statistics Canada, if that is to be sufficient to deal with the situation, why in heaven's name do we have all this rigamarole about people making inquiries under the Public Inquiries Act? I ask the minister whom he is trying to fool. If it is possible to act on the basis of information already available through the normal departments of government, why is there this rigamarole in respect of this bill? The fact is that it is impossible for the government to act really on the kind of information that is available through the various departments. Therefore, I come to a very major omission in this bill which makes it exceedingly weak if not worse; that is, it does not provide for a continuing agency monitoring and inquiring into prices right across the line in this country.
If one meant business, if one were serious about this, obviously what one would do is have a continuing monitoring agency to see what is happening in respect of prices with the power either under the Public Inquiries Act or special powers, I do not care which, to look at the books of the companies enterprises and concerns involved so that there would be on a continuing basis the kind of information on which a government might quickly act. But we do not have that. We have no monitoring device which has any power. The government is to act on some information undefined at some time, God knows when. That is a big hole in the legislation.
I object as strongly as I can, thirdly, to the fact that the bill is given into the hands of a part-time commission. I just cannot understand that. I cannot understand it because it indicates to me a lack of seriousness. The job of implementing or administering this bill is given to the Trade Practices Commission as it is now to be called, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission as formerly called, which has an immense job now under the old act. The new competition bill will add tremendously to its duties. It will be very busy dealing with all sorts of things that are now described and defined in the old act and in the new competition bill. We therefore ask whether giving that commission the job of looking after the cost of living
Profiteering Practices
of the Canadian people makes any sense to anyone who is serious about the matter.
The government realized what it was doing and in part tried to put somewhere in the bill a clause which says that any application by the director of research to the commission should be given priority insofar as is practicable. Insofar as it is practicable-who is to decide that and when? I suggest it is a sign of a lack of seriousness that the government could not establish a special commission full time that would be allocated to this important job, to this most important job so far as the lives of the Canadian people are concerned. If the government wished to make this a permanent commission, why does it not have a second chairman so that there would be a separate panel of the commission to deal with nothing else but the application and implementation of this legislation. It is my feeling that the absence of a full-time commission to deal with this simply fails to show seriousness.
Then, when we look at the way in which the information is to be gathered, again I cannot understand that. I may be missing something, but I studied the bill for two days. I have re-read it thoroughly until I know it almost by heart, and I just cannot see it. What is the normal process? Remember that the minister said that only in an emergency would the government act on its own motion. The normal process is an inquiry by someone under the Public Inquiries Act, either the Food Prices Review Board or the other inquiry that the minister said the government comtemplates appointing. So, you have one inquiry and on the basis of a report from that inquiry the government makes a declaration applying the act to certain articles. When it has done that there is another inquiry by the director of research and investigation of the Trade Practices Commission and when he has finished there is a third inquiry by the commission itself.
By the time this elongated process ends the skin of thousands of consumers will have been completely taken off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have asked myself a dozen times since I read the bill, if these people mean business why is there this elongated complicated process. You appoint someone to make the inquiry and on the basis, of that inquiry you make a declaration and shoot it to the commission to make the order. If the commission feels it is necessary to have a hearing the parties concerned will have their day in court. This I fully support because it is part of our law and tradition. I have no objection to that. The commission has that hearing by appointing an inquiry before the declaration and after the declaration and then that is followed by a further inquiry by the commission. At every stage there is delay because of the way in which a company could withhold its books, lose its invoices or lose its bills and the way in which it can obfuscate and obscure the facts from the inquiry. The delay at every stage of the process makes this bill not a serious bill.
Then, we have an important part of the bill, clauses 51, 52 and 53, which contains the germ of what we in the New Democratic Party have been after for a couple or more years; that is the power to stop a price increase if it is undesirable and anti-social. Heaven's above, the steel cor-
1946

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
porations have increased steel prices half a dozen times in the last 12 months, and steel enters into the construction of homes and of every appliance we use. The nickel manufacturers have increased the price of nickel. The prices of copper, lumber, bricks, cement have all increased. All of these things that enter into the cost of living have been increased immensely in the past 12 months. In our submission, these firms should be made to give notice in every case that they intend a price increase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: When a thorough but quick inquiry is made and a price increase is found to be unjustified, there must be immediate authority to tell the company that they cannot increase their price. I invite members of this House, members of the press and the public to read sections 51, 52 and 53 carefully. What you will find is, first, as I have already said, that the government does not have to declare those sections; it can declare the rest of the act without them. Second, you will find that even when they declare those sections, all that will happen will be that the firm will have to give notice within 30 days or an earlier period. There is nothing in those sections that gives anybody except the court the authority to say to the firms: the price increase you propose is unjustified and you cannot have it.
Neither the commission nor the government is given the power to do that. So, in order to freeze the price after notification of a price increase, the minister was bold enough to say that he had the power to freeze the price. I tell him he is talking through his hat. He does not have that power. In order to freeze the price, the attorney general of Canada (Mr. Lang) will have to go to court and make an application for an interim injunction, which he could get ex parte under certain conditions.
I have practised enough law, not for very many years of my life but enough of it, to know that when you start on that road, the consumer will not get any help. There is a hearing in court and probably an appeal from the decision of the court, and God knows when the price freeze will actually apply. Why is that? If the government provides in the bill a way in which people must give notification of a price increase, then what is it that prevented this government, other than its lack of seriousness, from adding a subsection saying that in such cases the cabinet, the governor in council or the commission will have the authority to say; You cannot increase your price unless we give you permission to do so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is what it says.


David Lewis: It does not say anything of the sort. Let the minister read his own bill. In order to get that, he will have to go to court.
The kernel of the bill, of course, is the definition of customary profit and the definition of base price. Why did the government make reference to what they call "customary profit"? This is where I think my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), is wrong when he says that this bill represents selective price control. It is nothing of the sort. It is an ill-digested attempt to stop

some obvious, serious and visible profiteering, and that is all. If it were going to be a selective price control bill with any meaning, then I suggest that the criterion should have been a reasonable price in the light of increased costs of production, taking into account inflationary influences on the cost of production. An assurance should have been given to the consumers in Canada that the profits which have been made in the last two years at their expense will not be the guide as to what they are to pay after some law comes into effect, but the guide will be the price they paid before inflation became unbearable to the people of Canada, say two or three years ago, adjusted to the increased costs of production 'ncluding the weight of inflationary influences.
That is not a complicated concept and it could have been written into the law so that everybody would know, not only the consumer but the supplier, exactly what it is we are after, and no selective price control mechanism is of value if the price is held at the level which it has already reached in relation to the profits that the corporations have already made. For heaven's sake, how much more are you going to let the corporations make at the expense of the people of Canada?
I want to express one more criticism of the bill and then make a few more general comments before my time expires. I object to the fact that the bill says that inquiries are to be in private and that even the commission may, if it decides, hold its inquiries in private. One of the values of this kind of legislation is that the people of Canada know what is happening to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Once the cabinet makes the decision that there is enough reason to declare the act applicable to certain suppliers and certain products, there is no excuse for having the inquiry in private, other than the protection of the profiteers.
Over a year ago we urged parliament and the government to establish a Food Prices Review Board with power. We got a Food Prices Review Board without power, and all the time that very intelligent chairman of the board goes around the country babbling things, the prices continue to go up. We agreed to the foreign investment bill, and after urging that it be strengthened we succeeded in having it strengthened, but so far only a part of it has been proclaimed. The most important part has not even been proclaimed, and I do not know what has happened to it. With regard to the Trade Practices Commission, let us remember the years that that commission has taken to deal with anything concerning the Canadian people. Let me remind you of the sugar cartel in Canada. After the three firms involved had already been fined, it took the commission ten more years before they got them into court again, and in the meantime there have been absolutely criminal increases in the price of sugar to the Canadian consumer, while the commission took ten years to find out again what it had found out ten years earlier.
I state to the government, to my friends in the House in all sections through you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not prepared to accept the kind of sop that the Food Prices Review Board has turned out to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The points which I made with regard to the bill, the statements of the government to which I referred, indicate clearly that neither the bill nor the government are serious about assisting the Canadian consumer in a meaningful and effective way. It is a sop to us which we are not accepting. It is a piece of political windowdressing that attempts to tell the Canadian consumer that something is being done for him when in fact nothing is being done for him.
Finally, we reached a decision, not with any glee because the condition of the Canadian people in the present situation deserves the attention of this parliament and of this government. Canadians deserve legislation that will reduce the burden of the cost of living on the Canadian family, that will really hold prices in selective areas at a reasonable level, and that will really hit everybody who is trying to profiteer at the expense of the Canadian consumer. We need such legislation, but we need legislation that is good, that is tough, that is effective, that is serious and that is meaningful. We cannot let the government get away with the kind of legislation it has now proposed, mere gestures in an area which is too serious to be treated with the contempt that, in my view, this bill suggests.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, once again we find that this government is not interested in solving problems. In an article published in La Presse the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) is reported as saying that this bill is first and above all intended as an instrument in the fight against inflation. Going through the bill clause by clause we realize that it will not solve inflation problems but change the name of the "Restrictive Trade Practices Commission" to the "Trade Practices Commission." It is fantastic to see how a name change can help people!
Furthermore, the number of standing members will be increased from 4 to 7. That might at least help create three more jobs but what will people derive from it? Absolutely nothing, probably a little less money. Three jobs will be created at the expense of the people of this country who will have to pay further taxes to pay for those three jobs. People did not benefit from it yet.
What about the authority to appoint five temporary members if necessary. The bill indicates further that that will not be used often.
Third, the commission has no other power than to inquire and report its findings to the minister but not on its own only after securing leave to inquire. They cannot even inquire on their own. They have to secure permission to inquire from the government. And there is still talk about wanting to solve inflation problems, those of the years 1980 or 1985 and not those of today. But when permission has to be secured to do a rush job type of inquiry as witnessed in recent years I am sure that people will feel the taste of inflation problems for a hell of a long time yet.
Fourth, the Governor in Council determines what products will be investigated. It seems to me this bill would allow for pressure to be applied on companies.
Profiteering Practices
Go and see them before the election with the bill and tell them: If you do not contribute to the election fund, your production will be declared under the legislation. If you contribute, we will let you go. The Liberal party is sticking a knife in the manufacturers. No provision of that bill deals with sectors which precisely contribute to inflation in Canada. Service industries, banks, finance companies and real estate operations are left out. Recently, the Bank of Canada was allowed to increase its interest rates. Now automatically, the chartered banks increased theirs, thus raising production costs in Canada. The government is not considering a review of that practice. If it prevented the banks from exaggerating, prices could be reduced and the public would be satisfied instead of leaving the so-called inflation die out, as it is now, but nothing is done.
Finally, the bill states that if there are abuses-after three series of inquiries, as was suggested by the hon. member who spoke before me-if the government decides that abuses actually took place it can force the manufacturer or the company to pay back the excess profit not to the consumer but to the government. This is a new method of taxation. They do not have the guts to go and tax people because it is not politically advisable but they found a new way of levying a new tax through companies. And who is going to foot the bill? Still good old John Q. Public because of shameless gouging not abusive practice on the part of companies but intellectually abusive practice on the part of this government. There is no proposed solution, nothing specific in the sense of facing any or all sectors of the economy with the possibility of consumer protection. The bill says only that if a government feels it should apply the act at some point it will do so but if it does not feel it should at some other point it will apply it in part or not at all. In other words, as was so properly suggested in the heading of a column by an economic critic, "An act that will check absolutely nothing." A non-act. We waste our time discussing pious wishes, leading Canadians to think they will be able to meet all their needs with their current purchasing power. If but a ray of hope could allow them to look forward to that then we could say an effort was made to help them. But Bill C-29 now before us indicates in no way any possibility or ray of hope for Canadians that their current purchasing power will enable them to meet all their needs. As I said earlier, banks and finance companies are allowed to increase their interest rates. There is complaining about higher salaries but the cost of production and production financing is allowed to go up to such an extent that no increase in salaries will ever catch up with production cost. In other words, the government cannot give any guarantee whatsoever, it is not seeking any means to ensure that $1 in wages will equal $1 in production. The situation is allowed to deteriorate and when we compare the figures with those of 1940, we realize that today $1 does not buy $1 in production, but 18 cents. There are loud complaints about inflation, international inflationary pressures, while in our countries, the cost of houses is allowed to get higher. For instance, we still have an 11 per cent tax on building materials that is another factor in price hikes. Nonetheless, we complain about inflation!
Legislation like Bill C-29 is introduced, a bill which is not really a bill, but simply a sheet of paper to make the
27451-60}

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
population believe that the minister did finally wake up. However, we can be assured that such a bill will represent a considerable amount of work for the members of parliament during the next few days, if only to convince the minister to make some useful suggestions, because it is easy to see that Bill C-29 has missed the boat and missed it lamentably.
These, Mr. Speaker, were the few comments that I wished to make and, in closing, I should like to tell the minister that he should not only try to put the population to sleep but to wake up himself and as soon as possible, because it is not with a bill like this one that he will stop the inflationary price increase and the arrogance of certain companies like the oil product companies, for instance, or the sugar manufacturers, who, as was stated a while ago, could not care less about the government and continue to increase their prices. However, the government helps indirectly these companies to laugh at the government by introducing a bill like Bill C-29, in which they are told quite simply: We are here, but we shall not bother with the problem and if, at any time, we feel that you are acting up too much, maybe then we can apply a little pressure to scare you.
But the government is not at all serious in introducing such a bill, and I hope that the minister will at least have the decency to wake up before third reading and propose amendments to the House or accept amendments which will at last enable the population to have if not a satisfactory legislation, at least a partly logical one instead of a nonsensical one.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, once again, the government has introduced a good bill because one hears from the other side of the House speeches of contradictory indignation. The NDP contends that this bill would tie the hands of business and inhibit its ability to compete in world markets, an ability which is important as we are an exporting nation. Presumably the NDP is thinking of the way business should be run under an NDP government. I suggest that under such a government, unemployment would rise to over 20 per cent, and that government would be kicked out, as well it should be. I am referring to the tying-of-the-hands-behind-the-back of business approach of the NDP.
On the other side of the record, we hear the contradictory indignation of the Conservative party. What does the leader of the party suggest we should do with regard to those exorbitant or unconscionable profits being made by a very small segment of our business community. We should, as the Progressive Conservative party suggested in British Columbia, hold an informal inquiry. This bill occupies ground somewhere in between those two positions. We say that in cases where business is making an unconscionably large profit the government is obliged to act. That is the philosophy behind the bill.
I was surprised to hear the leader of the NDP this afternoon say that he could not understand why inquiries in relation to excess profits should be conducted in private. I think he has been a politician too long, and too far removed from the courts and the days when he was a practising lawyer. He stated that if there were some

suggestion of some particular business making unconscionable profits, that business should be deemed to be guilty and be required to prove its innocence in the full glare of publicity. I suggest, with respect, that is contrary to everything we have been taught under the British system of justice. The hon. member, after the next election, will be given the opportunity to return to the practice of law and learn what justice under our constitution means.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the hon. member some clients from his side of the House lined up?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We also heard members say that the government has done nothing to fight inflation in Canada. We can take that to be nothing but political rhetoric, because when such people are faced either this year or next, with a list of the things the government has done, they will be forced to admit it has done a tremendous amount to combat inflation.
What does this bill endeavour to do. As was indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) before and since that time, the government has been actively exploring the means to prevent profiteering from increasing prices. As a result, we have the bill before us to amend the Combines Investigation Act in relation to profiteering practices. It will provide the government with authority to protect Canadians from certain price gouging and profiteering practices which can occur in present conditions of inflation. I submit the government is carrying out its responsibility in this area because it is concerned that certain business enterprises have been taking advantage of current economic conditions and unduly enhancing their profits.
The available evidence does not suggest that these abuses are widespread, but if one listens to the political rhetoric of the opposition one might think that they are extensive. I submit that the proposed measure will enable the government to deal with these abuses where they are found to exist. No such legislation now exists, and the government is obliged to bring forward a measure such as this. This is not the only measure, but is one of the measures in this area.
In my view, this bill will be a boon to those businesses making large but not excessive profits, because they will be given the opportunity to put before the commission or tribunal facts and figures to show that their profits are not exorbitant. They will be able to deal with political rhetoric as practised by the NDP, and the NDP will learn that you cannot fool all the people all the time, a message they have been slow to learn.
Recently, the position adopted by the NDP with regard to percentages was attacked by the Ottawa Journal, which showed how ridiculous is the approach of that party when it considers increased profits in percentage terms. That newspaper mentioned a mining enterprise which had lost substantial sums of money for 10 years and in one year, according to the criterion of the NDP, had increased its profits by 4,000 per cent. It asked, would this increase in profits be challenged as exorbitantly large in view of the losses sustained over the last 10 or 15 years.
It is interesting to note that when we deal with small amounts of money, or small increases in profits, percent-
May 1, 1974

ages are quoted. When we speak of return on investment, and there is a minimum return on investment, we hear millions of dollars mentioned, not percentages.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indicated that the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices met several times and made excellent recommendations, most of which the government accepted. Probably only one has not been accepted, the recommendation with regard to establishing the standing committee on consumer affairs. I bring that recommendation to the minister's attention. It was an excellent one.
It was suggested that the Food Prices Review Board is a monitoring board. The food prices committee did not reach its decision lightly. Our terms of reference said that we had to confine our recommendations to the food industry. It was a Progressive Conservative government of Alberta which recommended that it not be a tribunal with powers to roll back or fix prices. Their recommendation was a monitoring board. In effect, that recommendation came also from other sources. It was solely the decision of the food prices committee. It was the decision of the committee based upon evidence presented to it by no less an authority than the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta. This Food Prices Review Board came up with excellent reports. I am not surprised that it is being attacked by the Progressive Conservative party because it showed the temporary wage and price controls policy of the Conservatives for the sham it is.
In times of shortage, we bring in this kind of legislation to cope with someone who might gouge as a result of the inflation which exists today in Canada. However, in times of shortage you do not put on controls. You do not try to control the import of foodstuffs from outside the country. The Conservatives have yet to indicate how they would control prices established in the international market.
A careful reading of the report of the Special Committee on Trends and Food Prices will indicate that among the recommendations there is a suggestion that one of the causes of inflation, particularly in the food industry which probably has the greatest impact, is the effect of increasing production. It is spelled out throughout the Speech from the Throne that this, in fact, is an area in which we must be moving. We must increase production, not only on the farms, but in the manufacturing industry. That is the approach that will win in the long run, not some temporary panacea such as wage and price controls.
The political speeches we heard this afternoon were almost a gasp of desperation from the opposition. It is interesting that one member says there is no place for a westerner in the Progressive Conservative party. On the other hand, we find that in Quebec there is a place in the Conservative party for a candidate judged to be too separatist by the Union Nationale party.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the hon. member who has the floor relate those remarks to the bill before the House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so. Apparently the hon. member was not listening to all my speech. He only listened to a part of it. I indicated that the
Profiteering Practices
official opposition party, in its attack on this bill, was not making a sincere attack. It is really a desperation measure brought on by the splits within that party. The are not attacking the bill on its merits, but are simply trying to nudge their new-found NDP friends into an election.
No one suggests that this bill is the complete answer to the problem of inflation and rising prices. It is simply an attempt to attack one area where individuals might be taking advantage of the present situation. It is wrong to suggest no other measures have been taken. I could just list a few things. We have lowered income tax, particularly for those at the lower end of our tax scale. We increased family allowances, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, veterans pensions and the Canada Pension. This is only one more measure in the attack we are making within the scope of an individual country to fight inflation.
If this bill and the other steps I have suggested are not the answer, we have to look to other parties for alternatives. What would be the situation if the official opposition had been the government for the past 16 months? We certainly would not have had a bill like this, although most assuredly we would have needed it. That party was advocating a deficit of $2 billion to $5 billion. It has not made up its mind how far it should go. What would that have done to inflation in this country? We are a trading country. That measure would have induced inflation.
The official opposition has talked of a 90 to 120 dav freeze. When criticized, they decided it would not work too well and opted for 90 days until my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) pointed out that if you interfere in the market place to this extent, you cannot do it on a temporary basis. He said that price increases and production would simply be held back, and we would be hit with their full effect at the end of the 90 or 120 day period. We heard suggestions from time to time that the measure that should be taken would be to put on wage and price controls for a period of two years. I must say that 33 per cent of the young Conservatives had the good sense to realize this was not the policy to combat inflation, particularly the kind we have in Canada today.
We hear the opposition parties talking about the fact that interest rates have been on the increase and should be lowered. They say that money should be lent at lower rates. Who would lend? When I hear that, it reminds me of the story that has been told in this House about the lady who went to a store and told the storekeeper she could buy bananas down the road for 20 per cent less. When the chap asked why she did not go down the road to buy bananas for 20 per cent less, she said they did not have any. The storekeeper told her that when he did not have any bananas, his price was 50 per cent less. That seems to be the philosophy of the opposition party.


Mr. Dick:: What is the point?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am surprised the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) does not understand. He was not listening.
Rather than surrender to inflation, there has been a recognition by this party of that particular factor in our economy here today. Where most parties in past throne speeches have tried to hide behind things difficult for the

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
country or any political party to face, we spelled out the problem in the throne speech. We indicated the measures to be taken. Just as important, we indicated some of the measures not to be taken; certainly not the imposition of wage and price controls.
This bill is complicated. We are dealing with a complicated situation. We recognize that the majority of businessmen in Canada are not taking advantage or charging exorbitant prices. We have to deal with a very small segment of the community. Sometimes large businesses make excessive profits. These have to be identified and price gouging has to be stopped. This bill is one step in that direction. I am prepared to support this bill, not as the be-all and end-all, and not as the way to stop all exorbitant profits, but certainly as one weapon in the arsenal we are using to fight inflation in Canada.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are asking why the government had the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) bring in this bill as an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act. I suppose some might suggest that this measure is given an aura of respectability in the sense it is not a new act, but an amendment to a long-standing and existing act. It may gain some respectability by appending these new powers to an existing tribunal, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which will now become known as the Trade Practices Commission.
There is another explanation that may have more credibility and which is receiving a much wider degree of acceptance in Canada. It is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who might normally be expected to introduce a legislative measure of this nature, wanted to get as far away from this piece of legislation as possible. Indeed, I think that the presence or lack of presence of ministers in the House this afternoon is a clear indication that the government has some reservations about this legislation. They have thrown it out as a trial balloon. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) called it a sop to his party. The government has made a scapegoat of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because it now appears he will fall flat on his face.
The other significant aspect of this debate is a statement made today by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not have the advantage of the Hansard record of today's proceedings, but I will quote the statement as accurately as I can. I think it is important, not only in the sense that it tells a story concerning this piece of legislation and the evolution of the NDP, but because it tells the story of this 29th parliament and what has been going on, if the people of Canada do not already know. The leader of the NDP said "We are not prepared to accept again the sort of sop that the Food Prices Review Board turned out to be". To my way of thinking, that is a candid admission that they have been handed sops in the past. They have accepted them, they have been had, and the people of Canada now know that. I do not really want to gloat and say "We told you so" but maybe this is the importance of the conversion we have witnessed today. It is a sign that a minority party in this House, a party which has for so many months prevented the people of Canada from having a say con-

cerning the economic questions confronting this nation, has at last admitted that it is time for a change.
The leader of the NDP attached a good deal of importance to statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since this bill was given first reading on Monday. He also referred to statements made by the Prime Minister. Since the powers for which provision is made in the bill are powers which are delegated to the executive, and to a tribunal, and since they do not become operative automatically, but at the pleasure of the government, the hon. member for York South was correct in saying it was important to take these statements into account when assessing what the government will likely do following the bill's enactment. That is a responsible position and it is one which members of my party will take.
I am glad to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his place because I want to throw out some challenges to him. Perhaps he can arrange for some answers to be provided. Can the minister indicate who are the suspected offenders in terms of gouging and profiteering? What are the mischiefs to which the legislation is directed? Is it the price of oil, is it the oil companies which the government intends to reach through this legislation?
Now, if we look at the bill carefully we find that oil may be exempt. The bill refers constantly to "articles", and the term, "article" is defined in the present Combines Investigation Act as meaning "an article or commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce". Mr. Speaker, there is another bill before parliament, presently in committee, Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, which extends the definition of "article" and included in that extended definition is "energy, however, generated". We can only conclude that if the government found it necessary in Bill C-7 to extend the definition of "article" and if the bill now before us were to receive speedy passage before Bill C-7, and we had to rely on the old definition of "article", then "energy, however generated" would be excluded.
Let me suggest some further examples. Does the government have in mind the price of eggs? The price of eggs may be exempt under this legislation because it relates to an agricultural product. There may be profiteering on the part of those who sell eggs, but they are exempt. What else does the minister have in mind? He has declined to give us any of the necessary information. The whole philosophy of this legislation, if there is any, is to place these powers in the hands of the Governor in Council, the cabinet, which in turn may seek the advice of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Trust us, they say, and somewhere along the line we may take action. In my view, this is not good enough. It is too arbitrary. It runs contrary to a fundamental rule of law, a fundamental principle which should be contained in all legislation which receives the approval of the House.
Consider certain other sections of this legislation. What about services? Services were mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and by the hon. member for York South. Now the minister certainly mentioned them when he spoke not long ago in the debate on
May 1, 1974

Bill C-7. They are included in that bill. He said that 20 per cent of the gross domestic product of this country was comprised of services, and that this percentage figure was increasing. Yet for some mysterious reason which the minister could have explained in the last two days, services are not included. Is the minister suggesting that there is no possibility of profiteering or gouging on the part of the professions in Canada? Is he suggesting that management consultants, accountants, those involved in private transportation enterprises, advertising agencies and consumer finance companies are incapable of engaging in profiteering or gouging? Why were they excluded? Again, this is a selective policy, and it is one which should not be supported by members of this House.
Reference has been made to the cost of housing. Again, I refer to the definition of "article" as contained in the Combines Investigation Act. If this bill were to be dealt with expeditiously and passed quickly-I hope it will not-the word "article" which would be applicable would not include housing. There is a new definition of article in Bill C-7 which may include aspects of housing. I quote: "article" ... includes:
(b)	deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property ...
(c)	deeds and instruments giving a right to recover or receive property ...
It may be that under the new definition control over inflated housing prices could be brought, partly at least, within the purview of the bill. But they would be exempt under the existing definition. That gives rise to a further problem of legislative structure causing confusion not only to members of this House, who for the last two days have tried to come to grips with legislation and attempted to understand what it is supposed to do, but causing confusion in the sense of putting this bill in the framework of the existing Combines Investigation Act and other proposed amendments to that act.
Bill C-7 was introduced in this House first on March 11, and the second reading debate commenced on March 13. It received second reading approval and was referred to the standing committee on finance on April 1. There have been three sessions of the finance committee to deal with the provisions of that bill at which the minister and his colleague have attended to give evidence. Now, we have this bill given first reading in the House on Monday and brought forward for debate today, and it includes some definitional changes when compared to those in Bill C-7. The point is that there is an overlap, and there has been no attempt to coordinate the two pieces of legislation.
Not only do we have that confusion, we have an indication from the government that this Bill C-29 is not going to be referred to the finance committee which is geared up for the next two months to deal with the very complex provisions of Bill C-7. It is to be referred to the justice committee. That is the committee which the government hopes will give it quick and easy treatment. To confuse the matter further, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last Thursday and again last night indicated that there are further amendments to Bill C-7, some of which will muddy the waters a little more because these amendments to Bill C-7 will have an effect on Bill C-29.
Profiteering Practices
The point of my remarks in this area is to suggest to the government that it should try to pull it all together. The government is confusing members of this House and the people of Canada. If it is going to proceed under the Combines Investigation Act it should present us with a package that has been carefully worked out, giving us some examples of where it is going to apply it, and giving us examples of the sort of mischiefs that it is trying to overcome, and some of the alleged abuses existing in the market place. It should tell us how it will work out, and then let the House of Commons and the people of Canada make their judgment. It should not proceed as it has proceeded with Bill C-29 and Bill C-7, and the amendments to Bill C-7, in this haphazard fashion which gives the appearance at least that someone hurriedly drafted the bill on the weekend preceding the day it was introduced.
The most charitable thing I can say about this bill and the way it was introduced is that it was either put together by somebody who really did not know what he was doing or, alternatively, and this may probably be the case, the form of the legislation was lifted from some wartime legislation introduced in the early 1940's or, indeed, in 1916 or 1917. It looks suspiciously like wartime legislation, and the form is very much akin to what Parliament introduced in that period. Certainly, it is not relevant to the real problems of today.
The hon. member for St. John's East pointed out that the substantive difficulty with this bill is that it represents a form of selective price controls and the focus of the legislation is on profit margins in respect of a particular article or class of articles. This tends to be selective because the choice of products or articles is left up to the governor in council. This may go too far. However here we find the nub of the inconsistency between this bill and the prices and incomes policy that has been recommended by the Progressive Conservative party, because that prices and incomes policy, if the hon. members opposite took the trouble to read what that policy is, focuses only on profit margins in industrial sectors, and it is temporary in nature. It represents a more comprehensive approach which does not attempt to single out or select particular articles of trade or particular products for discriminatory treatment.
Indeed, the nature or scope of the term "industry" could be so broad as to include all processing and manufacturing industries, and it would affect profit margins of those industries only in the broad sense, allowing the price of individual articles or products within those industries to be determined by the people who run the industry and who know best through experience and through vigorous competition in the market place, what will sell and what will not sell, and at what particular price.
Where the role of the government comes in with our prices and incomes policy is in setting reasonable profit margins for a given industrial sector, based not necessarily on the difference between a base year and the subsequent year, which could build in all sorts of inequities for both consumers and businessmen, but based on profit margins measured by return on investment. This may involve a "return on investment" concept which is measured over a much longer period of time than one year. The base year concept which is really the basis of this

May 1, 1974
Profiteering Practices
particular bill, and which will be determined by regulation of the governor in council, may well be a period involving just the year 1973. Indeed, the example which the minister has touted in his press release involves a one-year period, which may be last year, as determining the base year on which profit margins are determined.
What if you have a company, and we have some particularly in the food retailing field, which showed a tremendous profit last year, and that becomes the base year? What this bill suggests to the company is that their profit for that year, will be entrenched into the system and that as long as the company does not exceed that rate in the following year it is okay. But supposing that company in 1973 had been engaging in profiteering and gouging? The mechanism which the government is setting up here might operate to exempt the company from the price freeze and rollback treatment that is proposed by this bill. That is why it is inequitable.
I suggest to hon. members in all seriousness that the bill should not look at particular articles or particular products, but at industrial sectors. The bill should also look at profit margins over the long haul and should key on return on investment. There may be companies that have experienced a loss position for three or four years, and suddenly through changes in the market they may have a good year in terms of profit. That good year may be necessary if that company is to survive, just to recoup its losses for the previous three or four years. One should look at margins over the long haul, and look at them through return on investment. Any governmental agency worth its salt could work with that concept and it is far more equitable.
Quite often not only members of the Liberal party but my friends in the New Democratic Party as well, look at this in an overly simplistic way, taking prices one year and prices the next year, figuring out costs for that very short-term period and arriving at respective profit margins for those years. That is not how the system should work. The system should be based on the concept of return on investment, and it is that concept which determines whether capital is attracted into any industrial sector, whether it be the service sector, the manufacturing sector or the processing sector.
Some mention has been made in the context of this debate of the exemption for agricultural products and fish products. I suppose one really cannot quarrel with these exemptions, except that in this particular bill the existence of exemptions points out the selective nature of the bill. While agricultural producers will be exempt in terms of the products they produce, at the next level up, and I am talking about the distributors of agricultural products, they are going to be subject to the price freeze and rollback regime of government under this bill.
Anybody who knows how a system of this sort has operated in the past, how it has operated in the United States and Great Britain, will know that if the mechanism is invoked in terms of distributors it will only take a matter of a week or two weeks before the freeze or rollback works its way back to the primary producer. Some hon. members opposite may ask: So what? I will tell them "so what". With this bill which is selective in its application the primary producer may find himself frozen in

terms of the price of his product, but he gets hit on the other side because his costs are not frozen. That is the inequitable result of a selective policy of this sort.
That is the reason it is so necessary that any major piece of anti-inflation legislation purporting to authorize price freezes or rollbacks must be comprehensive in nature. It must not be selective. It must cover all aspects of the economy in a broad sense. In case some hon. members might think such a policy as our party has recommended is interventionist in nature, and perhaps as interventionist as the administrative framework which will be set up under this bill, let me again emphasize that it is not necessary to go into an industrial sector and pick out selective products or articles or classes of articles for specific treatment. Indeed, the whole basis of our policy is to preserve the free enterprise system and give it some broad guidelines in terms of return on investment and let it work out its own pricing policy within its own sector. I think our prices and incomes policy is the salvation for business in Canada, small or large, and ultimately the consumer.
I for one would not favour this bill becoming a permanent feature of the statute law of our country. The concepts which were introduced for the first time in this House on Monday are untried and untested. I think at the very minimum, as suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East, there must be some form of parliamentary review. Perhaps we should even consider the concept of a self-destruction clause after a period of one or two years when the bill has had an opportunity to run its course. The point is that Parliament must have an opportunity to look at this sort of legislation if, as appears unlikely, it should pass. This review should be, compulsory because the legislation is dangerous in its delegation of powers to the executive, is untried, and because the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today, yesterday and on Monday refused to provide an adequate explanation as to how this legislation will achieve the particular goals that are sought to be achieved and failed to demonstrate an understanding of the nature of the inflationary problem and how to deal with them.
There are some very real, practical legal and substantive difficulties in relation to the specific provisions of this bill. Without wanting to take up too much time I wish to review some of these difficulties because I think it is important that they be placed on the record for Canadians to see. In many respects this bill is an unprecedented delegation of arbitrary power to the executive of this country. Comparisons have been made, suggesting this is almost like wartime legislation, that it is almost like an economic War Measures Act. That may be too strong a comparison. I think it does, however, contain an unprecedented delegation of power which should be of concern to members of this House.
In the first instance, the act may be invoked through the process of a cabinet declaration respecting an article or class of articles. The minister indicated that in the usual case it would be expected that this declaration would not be invoked until after there was a report or recommendation by a body acting under the Inquiries Act such as the Food Prices Review Board. But if one looks at section
May 1, 1974

50(2) one can see that the Governor in Council can circumvent the section whereby the process is initiated by the report of a body under the Inquiries Act. This is the situation where the cabinet can decide that to "await the outcome of such an inquiry and report would not be in the public interest".
In such a case the cabinet could make the declaration unilaterally without the report merely because, in its own opinion certain pricing practices would be likely to have a substantial effect on the price of an article or group of articles which would seriously affect the living cost of a majority of Canadians. That is a pretty fantastic power. Some may say there is a time limit, and that a declaration is effective only a year. However, in section 50(3) one can see there is a possibility of an extension for a period not exceeding six months. However, that is for only one order for extension. If one reads the section closely it is clear that there could be one for six months and a second order for another six months. It would be very easy for the cabinet unilaterally to keep that declaration in place ad infinitum; in other words, to provide a permanent measure of control for a certain article or class of articles. This is getting as close to a managed economy as one can get all in one fell swoop.
I think that would be a dangerous situation and one which would be seriously debated. I have another concern that the government can exempt any class or classes of persons or transactions from the 30-day reporting requirement under section 52. No standards or guidelines are given concerning the conditions or criteria under which such exemptions could be granted. Would the exemptions be granted to certain industries dealing in products subject to a declaration because they were in financial difficulty and should be allowed to increase their prices without having to give notice to the Director under section 51, or would it more likely be the case that only the friends of the government could secure an exemption.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock.
Profiteering Practices


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if someone on the government side is able to confirm that we will continue with this legislation tomorrow?


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will be continuing with this bill, subject to any discussion between house leaders tomorrow morning.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could we have an undertaking in these particularly trying times that if there is a change we will be notified very early in the morning.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I will give that undertaking.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think this House would like to have drawn to its attention that approximately one and a half hours ago a former member of this House for many years, and a public servant in Canada for most of his life, passed away, George Doucett. George Doucett was born on May 16, 1897. He was first elected to the Ontario House in 1936. He was re-elected in 1943, 1945, 1948, 1951 and 1955. As a minister of the Crown, he was first appointed in 1943 and re-appointed in 1948, 1949 and 1955 as Minister of Highways and Public Works in the province of Ontario. He resigned in order to run for the House of Commons and was first elected in 1957. He was subsequently elected in 1958 and in 1962. He passed away in Carleton Place an hour and a half ago. I call this to the attention of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members appreciate the remarks of the hon. member and feel the same way he does. I think we must proceed with the adjournment at this time, and this question could be brought up on motions tomorrow if the hon. member intends to get other messages of appreciation from different parties.
It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 2, 1974