1979-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, with respect to the government's policy on ex gratia payments.
Since four payments with reference to R. McGregor Travel Ltd., Olympia-York Developments, Ste. Marie Air Services and Mirabel Land Expropriations amount to approximately $3 million, and since no provision on an ex gratia payment basis appears imminent for cases such as that of Dr. Alexander Peter Treu or, for that matter, Mrs. Lucille Dube, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the President of the Treasury Board set out clearly on motions the criteria which apparently recognized a moral obligation in the case of Olympia-York for guard services, etc., while refusing any compensation to someone like Dr. Treu, and to explain this contradiction.
What constitutes benevolence under the government's code of ethics?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the proposed motion can be put to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of an excellent brief presented this week by the Royal Canadian Legion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), I move:
That this House support the position of the Royal Canadian Legion that the government introduce without further delay the necessary legislation to provide pro rata pensions for the widows of disabled veterans where the pension rate of the veteran was below 48 per cent, and that steps be taken to improve the lot of older veterans not only in institutions but also in terms of adequate home care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provision of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The proposed transfer of reservation staff in the maritimes by VIA Rail, together with cutbacks in rail services have caused grave concern to those involved. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House request VIA Rail to defer the transfer of maritime reservation staff and any cutbacks in rail services for two years so that the economic and social effects can be studied and reviewed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent is required before the motion can be put to the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.

March 14, 1979
There is a shortage of building steel with low carbon content in eastern Canada at the present time. The supply difficulties related to a tendency of some companies to set quotas on their existing stocks have led suppliers to increase their prices. Since such behaviour erodes the purchasing power of consumers in the regions involved at a time when they can hardly cope with the new inflationary push, while some companies are making record profits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House forbid those companies to set such quotas on existing stocks so that they may not take advantage of a temporarily reduced production to increase uselessly their prices without reason and boost their profits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement made yesterday by President Carter, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House express the heartfelt congratulations of all Canadians to President Carter, President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin for their notable achievement in the cause of peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the immense popularity of the motion, for understandable reasons I still will not depart from my practice of not allowing congratulatory motions under this rule.



GOVERNMENT POLICY VIS-A-VIS INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of this House.
It is quite clear to all Canadians and to the world that Imperial Oil's and Exxon's treatment of Canada and the

Canadian people places us in the role of a colony to international oil cartels. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the government to give Imperial Oil an offer it cannot refuse, that being either to comply with government policy as a private corporation or to comply with government policy as a publicly-owned corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE MEDIA


Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since we are constantly astonished at the government's use of the social insurance number as a single identifying number, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House views with alarm the directive of the Prime Minister, contained in his press release of February 28, extending the use of SIN extra-territoriaily by advising, through an urgent media logistic note, that for United States White House accreditation the social insurance numbers of members of the press would be needed.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that in a report tabled on Monday in this House the CRTC criticized the CBC for being uncompetitive and demanded that changes be made in its programming to rectify the situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery):
That this House urges the CRTC to roll back Canadian content rules sufficiently to test, on a trial basis, whether a portion of those Canadian content expenditures focused on quality Canadian programming, rather than quantity,
March 14, 1979

might begin to reverse the steady erosion of Canadian audiences watching Canadian programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HOLIDAYS ACT


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I sincerely believe all members will support my motion.
Whereas there are certain parts of our heritage and traditions which are steeped in history; whereas the word "dominion" is such a part of our history, based on the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm; whereas it is essential to adhere in some respects to tradition and heritage; whereas this fact is recognized in the Holidays Act which declares that July 1 in each and every year is a national holiday and such holiday shall be observed as such; and whereas there has been a tendency for some government departments, and particularly the Department of the Secretary of State and Crown corporations including the CBC, to ignore the Holidays Act, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher):
That this House reaffirms section 2 of the Holidays Act, namely, section 2(1) "Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first day of July, not being a Sunday, is a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name Dominion Day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On reflection, I think the hon. member will realize that he is dealing with a matter which may be of considerable importance but it is a matter of ongoing concern. I am unable at this moment to find the kind of urgent and pressing necessity of which the Standing Order speaks in order to permit this motion to be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Many Canadians are increasingly fed up and getting damned mad that government policies are
Oral Questions
forcing them to pay the highest prices in their lifetimes for everything they need, and energy costs are obviously playing a very real part in all those prices.
Because the minister is now forcing one Canadian company, and soon perhaps all Canadian companies, to break their existing contracts for offshore oil, can the minister give us any guarantee or assurance that the price for oil under these new, forced contracts will be the same or less than is presently being paid?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time we are seeing some interest on the part of the opposition on the subject of pricing policy. For years opposition members have ignored the important question of prices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Even today, the Leader of the Opposition has no policy on prices. The official opposition were against the federal government having the power to set prices, and they have been consistent in that. They are still against the federal government having that power. If it were not for that power, we would not have been able to establish prices in Canada that are significantly lower than the international price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: As a result of that power, which the opposition opposed and voted against, we have been able to provide oil to the maritimes and Atlantic Canada at substantially below the international price. What do I mean? For a six-room house, the saving this year, on an annual basis, will be $150.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the Tory policy had been in play with respect to pricing, those who own houses in the maritimes and heat them by oil would be paying $150 more than they are now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the hon. minister attempt to focus his mind on the actual question asked, namely, whether the price that Canadians-whether it is individual taxpayers or the nation as a whole-will have to pay for offshore oil on which, due to his policy, we are still terribly dependent, will be higher.
Can the minister also give us any indication or assurance, or has he received any assurance from the Venezuelan authorities, that there is any extra light crude oil for Canada from that country under any of these new contracts? In other words, not only am I asking whether we will have to pay more for that oil, but also if there is any extra oil available in these contracts with Venezuela.

March 14, 1979
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member had listened to the answers I had given before, he would realize that there are annual negotiations or renegotiations between Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela, and the customers of that oil, particularly the customer Exxon about whom he is so concerned.
The Venezuelans made it very clear to me in our discussions in January that they wanted to do business with Canadian companies on a direct basis. They were not interested in dealing with Exxon as a third party, for the very reasons we have all come to realize ourselves. The hon. member has been slow to realize that, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Yes, very slow.


Alastair William Gillespie: We think that Venezuela will want, in its renegotiation with Exxon, to set aside 100,000 barrels, which perhaps otherwise Exxon would have provided to Imperial Oil, in a contract with Petro-Canada, and Petro-Canada would then be in the position of supplying Canadian refineries with 100,000 barrels a day of secured crude.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Does the minister have any assurance that Canada will be able to pay a lesser price, the same price, or an increased price for that oil; and actually is there any extra oil available from Venezuela apart from the existing contracts?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 200,000 barrels a day of crude oil has been flowing from Venezuela to Canada. The Venezuelans have said they want to continue that flow of oil to Canada. Of that amount, 100,000 barrels have been purchased by Exxon and shipped, until recently, through Imperial Oil to Canada. Canada has intervened. The Venezuelans will be renegotiating that contract with Exxon. At that time, I would expect that Petro-Canada will be able-


Mr. Forrestall:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, apparently members of the official opposition are not interested in the very important question to Canada of security of supply. It is easy to understand why, because the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham as recently as a week ago said before the committee that if his party were in power, they would pass legislation- and these were his words-to get rid of Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Alastair William Gillespie: All Canadians can understand why they are uncomfortable-


Mr. Chretien:: They are sending Ontario down the drain.


Alastair William Gillespie: On the question of price, quite clearly the negotiations will take place around the normal commercial terms and conditions. That is exactly the same basis upon which the negotiations will take place with respect to Mexico: that is normal practice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FUTURE SUPPLY OF OIL FROM MULTINATIONAL OIL POOLS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also, is directed to the preposterous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Anybody-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Any minister of energy, mines and resources who does not know that it was the hon. member for Halifax who introduced the one-price system for energy in the country obviously does not understand what is going on in the energy policy of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: The first suggestion in the House of Commons for a one-price system across the country was introduced by the hon. member for Halifax; the minister ought to know that. It had nothing to do with his party.


Mr. MacEachen:: Why did you vote against it?


James McPhail Gillies: A minister who has forgotten-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: We cannot get the energy we need-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is indicating that he is coming to his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It is very difficult to come to a question with the answers we are receiving here today. Seeing that the minister is moving into a policy which, indeed, could take Canada away from the possibility of participating in the multinational, general oil pools for the allocation of oil around the world, I ask the minister what specific leverage he is bringing against the multinational oil companies right now to assure that under no circumstances will Canada not be able to acquire oil from the multinational oil pools. The only time we hear anything about energy from that party is when there is a crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James McPhail Gillies: Let us find out, now, what agreement he has which can be tabled in the House to ensure that under no circumstances will Canada not be able to participate and obtain supplies from the multinational energy, oil pools?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very short memory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 14, 1979


James McPhail Gillies: Not as short as yours.


Alastair William Gillespie: It was his party which voted against the one-price system for Canada. It was his party which voted against the Petroleum Administration Act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: -which gives the Government of Canada the power to set prices below international prices. The hon. member has a very, very short memory.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No memory at all.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the policy of the Tory party were in place right now, we would be paying the international price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: Stick to the question.


James McPhail Gillies: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if we could set aside this interesting debate and get back to questions on one side and answers on the other.


Mr. Clark:: The minister has no answers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley on a supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let the minister answer.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to ask a supplementary question when we cannot get an answer to any of the questions we ask.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The minister is a buffoon.


James McPhail Gillies: If we want to talk about selective memories, we have seen one in operation. But my question is very simple and very important to the people of Canada. The question is simple, and I repeat what I asked: What has the minister done, what leverage is he applying against the multinational oil companies right now-not when we have another crisis, but right now-to ensure that under no circumstances will Canada be taken away from participating in the multinational oil pools?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the policy of the Tory party is followed, we will all be paying the international price.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: We will all be paying international prices.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: There would be prices set by international companies and OPEC, and not by negotiation with the province of Alberta.
With regard to the multinationals, we have taken action because we have seen that one of the internationals, the Exxon Corporation, wanted to interfere with Canadian supply.


An hon. Member:: You are not answering the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: We have also taken action in respect of this bill because we have put through an amendment which will give Petro-Canada an opportunity to act as a watchdog for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I have received assurances from the Shell Oil Company that it will deal directly with Venezuela; it is dealing directly and it is contracting directly. I have received assurances from two other major international corporations with refineries in Canada that they, too, will seek a direct buying relationship.
My regret is that Exxon was not prepared to allow its subsidiary in Canada, Imperial, to get the same deal and the same arrangements, for example, direct dealing as Shell has done; that is why I have asked Petro-Canada to step in and obtain for Canada a secure source of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACTION TAKEN TO MAINTAIN SECURITY OF SUPPLY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology.
When Imperial Oil announced, on orders from Exxon, that it would divert oil destined for eastern Canada, the minister stated that this was unacceptable and that the matter would not be resolved to his satisfaction until Imperial had established direct contractual links with Venezuela.
Now that the minister has been rebuffed on both counts, can he tell us what concrete action he will be taking against Imperial to restore oil supplies, since Petro-Canada will not be able to get oil from Venezuela until existing contracts run out at the end of the year?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear yesterday, in answer to a similar question by the same hon. member, that because Imperial was unable or unwilling to secure a direct contractual relationship with Venezuela for 100,000 barrels a day, I had asked Petro-Canada to move in. Petro-Canada has been in discussion already with Venezuela in respect of securing a contract for the 100,000 barrels a day.
The hon. member knows that these exports are covered by contracts, and certain contracts have a period of time to run. The Exxon contract, as I understand it, has not run out, nor

March 14, 1979
Oral Questions
have some of the others, but there will come a time in the relatively near future when there will be discretionary volumes available, I have been advised, which Petro-Canada will then be able to negotiate or contract for and make available to Canadian refiners.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ele doesn't know.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister said that any such diversion would be totally unacceptable on the part of the government. The fact is that Imperial still refuses to ship 9,000 barrels of oil a day that was contracted for the eastern Canaian market. Is the minister going to let Imperial get away with that? Precisely what sanctions is he prepared to apply against Imperial in order that we get the oil that was duly contracted for us?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the action I have taken with regard to swaps and, more particularly, to Petro-Canada's role in this matter is a clear indication of the federal government's commitment to a policy. I believe that most of the oil industry also regards it as a sanction, to use the hon. member's word.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is becoming very clear to the Canadian public that, with all the rhetoric of the minister, it is Imperial Oil that has the tiger in the tank and that we have a pussycat in the energy portfolio.
Exxon has also announced that it will stop supplying oil next year to the Golden Eagle refinery which services most of the independent distributors in Quebec. The minister assures us that this shortfall will be made up by Petro-Canada importing oil from Venezuela. Is Petro-Canada, then, negotiating for oil in addition to Imperial Oil's 100,000 barrels a day share, or will Petro-Canada take over Imperial's share at the end of the year; or is the minister really telling us that it is just trying to obtain oil in addition to the 200,000 barrels a day already committed to Exxon and to Imperial? If it is the latter, then the ongoing problem of future diversions by Imperial will not be solved.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that Petro-Canada will be entering into negotiations with Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela.


An hon. Member:: Will be!


Alastair William Gillespie: That national company will decide on its allocations to Exxon, to Petro-Canada, to Shell and to other Canadian refiners. Venezuela has clearly stated a preference

for dealing with the national oil company of Canada and a preference for dealing on a direct basis.
I believe, given the fact that they have also given this commitment, that they will continue to supply us with 200,000 barrels a day, and that the 100,000 barrels a day which Petro-Canada will be obtaining will mostly come out of the hide of Exxon.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last Tuesday, March 6, I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he had finished his inquiry on the eligibility of surplus civil servants of the Public Service Commission Language Bureau for the career counselling program. Lie answered the following, and I quote:
As I recall, we have decided to protect those people whom the hon. member referred to in the question he asked me. In other words, I think that those people who might want to follow a career counselling program will be protected until new funds are available.
However, during the last few days, several of those teachers were refused access to the career counselling program. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether he is really responsible for the decisions he makes in his department, whether he is the boss in his department? Finally, do surplus teachers of the Public Service Commission Language Bureau have the right to avail themselves of the career counselling program, yes or no?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, it is clear. Mr. Speaker, I checked that, after which I gave that information to my hon. colleague. I checked that with the people in my department. Of course we provided funds amounting to $4.3 million but we allocated all those funds to the people who have already registered for that program. If my memory serves me well, about 100 teachers from the Language Bureau were not admitted in that program but there are something like 250 or 300 teachers who are registered. The funds which will be available by April 1 have already been earmarked for the teachers and the other people who are already registered in the career counselling program.


Gérard Laprise: On a supplementary. I understand the reply given by the President of the Treasury Board, but teachers who want to participate in this carreer counselling program are being told that funds are used only to pay public servants and allow them to travel in Canada, and that there are no funds available for them until April 1. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us if these teachers will be eligible for funds under this program as of April 1 ?
March 14, 1979


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, the additional $4.3 million allocated to this program has already been paid to teachers, about 250 of whom are already registered for this course. They will be using the $4.3 million after April 1. I think that some 100 teachers are not registered, because of insufficient funds, unfortunately.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on another supplementary. The minister tells us there are no longer sufficient funds for those 100 teachers to register with the CCP. With a view to making up to some extent for the injustice inflicted upon those French language teachers when it was decided to cancel the program before 1983, at which time it was originally supposed to end, could the minister not find funds, somehow, somewhere, to give them the same opportunities as the other teachers?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I can look into that suggestion but last year the amount available was $1.7 million, I believe, and we have now increased those funds to $4.3 million. However, I shall see if perhaps other funds cannot be used to that end.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the truly scandalous way that Vietnam is ridding itself of its citizens of Chinese descent-reminiscent of nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews-and in view of the fact that Canada is taking more of these refugees from Vietnam than any other non-involved country, is the Canadian government making a firm protest to Hanoi of its practice of extorting money from ethnic Chinese by Vietnamese government officials and then actually putting these ethnic Chinese aboard unsafe and unsanitary freighters by means of Vietnamese government launches?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want either to confirm or deny the various specific matters raised by the hon. member, because I am not personally aware of them.
I do know, as I am sure do all members of the House, that the plight of the Vietnamese refugees is most deplorable, and in that regard we have made repeated representations to the Vietnamese authorities. I believe that within the next few days a further representation will be made in Hanoi.
So far we have been encouraged by the reports we have had from the Vietnamese officials that they are prepared to be more forthcoming. I say that with some qualification because I do not want to raise hopes inordinately. At the moment, the Vietnamese have said that they are prepared to be more co-operative and perhaps to eliminate some of the practices to which the hon. member referred. In order to make sure that the matter is moved on as fast as possible, our representatives
Oral Questions
have been instructed to take that initiative as quickly as they can, which will be within a few days.


PRICE OF OIL PURCHASED THROUGH PETRO-CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who so far today has evaded answering three specific and important questions about his so-called arrangement with Venezuela.
Can the minister tell the House of Commons whether he now has specific guarantees that the price of oil through Petro-Canada would be lower than or at least the same as the price we now pay? If he has those guarantees, will he tell this House today or by tabling later this week exactly what those precise guarantees are?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that they will be the normal commercial terms.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is another way of saying no, he has no guarantees. I wonder if I might ask the minister whether-there is a great deal of shouting on the other side, Mr. Speaker, so I will wait until they calm down.
My question to the minister now is this: Does he have any guarantees, now, that there would be oil available from Venezuela? Has he those guarantees? Will he tell us their specific nature, now, and if he cannot tell us their specific nature will he give us a specific undertaking to table later this week a document indicating their specific nature?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee one thing: I will guarantee there will be no profits paid to a third party, to a middleman. The hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot guarantee, with his policy, that that will not happen if Exxon continues. Indeed, he invites everybody to believe that he will continue with the Exxon arrangement which would cream off and guarantee third party or middleman profits. I will guarantee to the Canadian people that there will not be any third party profits of that kind.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is much better at accusations than he is at answers. Let me try him on a third matter. Can he tell this House of Commons what specific agreements he has now from multinationals involved in the oil business to guarantee Canada's continued access to multinational pools, so that in the next crisis Canada will not find herself cut off from multinational supplies?
What are the specific guarantees? Can he tell us what they are, now, in detail or will he give us an undertaking to table in

March 14, 1979
Oral Questions
detail later this week the nature of those specific guarantees he has with multinationals?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition were following the debate, he would realize this is one of the problems: that companies like Exxon will not guarantee to Canada continuing supplies. He would also realize that is one of the things we are trying to extract from the international companies. We have been after the internationals to give us those guarantees. We have not yet got them, but we hope to get them. He should also realize that while we cannot get them, we are prepared to instruct Petro-Canada, the company which he would destroy, he would dismantle, he would wind-up-


Mr. Whelan:: Shame.


Alastair William Gillespie: We intend to use Petro-Canada to provide security for Canada, which he would destroy.


CALL FOR NATIONAL INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR ISSUES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who did, indeed, establish quite a record with regard to third party payments on nuclear plants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My question concerns the conference on nuclear issues held last week in Vancouver which was sponsored by the Committee on Nuclear Issues in the Community, a federally-funded body.
Since, in the words of the national co-chairman, the conference in Vancouver produced "little results"-and, sir, I have deleted the expletives-and since the committee has only managed to hold three meetings at the community level during the past year, with negligible results, is the minister finally prepared to do what we in this opposition party have been asking for a long time with regard to this issue, that is, to set up a national inquiry to examine every aspect of the risks and benefits of nuclear power?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady had followed the remarks of the chairman, she would realize that he was placing considerable emphasis on dialogue, as we have. She would recognize that there have been three royal commissions, and that a fourth one was appointed recently. I am referring, of course, to the Hamm royal commission in Ontario, to the Porter royal commission which is continuing its work in Ontario, to the Bayda royal commission in Saskatchewan and, more recently, the Bates royal commission in Vancouver.
There has been a large number of royal commissions: four, to be exact. Those royal commissions have been examining the very kinds of questions which the hon. member says she would like yet another inquiry to examine. We felt it would be more appropriate to place the emphasis on dialogue. The problem has been that when we have tried to create conditions for dialogue, the dialogue has not occurred; it has been used as a

platform for various contending forces. Indeed, too often, unfortunately, it has turned into diatribe, not dialogue.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister happens to be relying on Ontario in this regard for a royal commission report, or on Saskatchewan, as he said, we on this side are interested in who speaks for Canada on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since we are the only country in the western world concerned with nuclear power that has not addressed this subject nationally and publicly, since the minister's in-house task force committee has not been able to come to grips with the public's concern, and since the Committee on Nuclear Issues in the Community did not even get down to the community level, I should like to ask the minister: since he is not prepared to set up a national inquiry to deal with this subject, how does he intend to have the national voice heard on this very important matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thought I noticed that the hon. lady blushed.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Iona, there is a chauvinist in your midst.


Alastair William Gillespie: Who speaks for Canada?


An hon. Member:: Not you.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think if she were serious in her question, she would recognize that this House and the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works has an opportunity of hearing-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You would not even give us a reference.


Alastair William Gillespie: -and taking into consideration the views of Canadians wherever they may be.


An hon. Member:: There is no reference.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a report was referred to that committee. It was prepared by a group of experts. That committee has had a number of hearings. That reference is presently before the committee and, at the committee's pleasure, it can call witnesses to consider that very important question.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
March 14, 1979

I come back to the subject of the government's policy on ex gratia payments which, as the government has quite properly said, are based on benevolence, public interest and no liability-although they do not seem to be following this approach with people like Dr. Peter Treu.
I ask the minister why Treasury Board emphatically rejected, on November 17, 1977, a $500,000 ex gratia payment to Ste. Marie Air Services. Can the minister explain what amazing reversal then apparently prompted Treasury Board to change its mind and pay this $500,000?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has written to me on this matter and I have replied to him, I think, on two occasions by letter. I am looking at the letter now. It seems to have had some difficulty in permeating through to the member, so I thought maybe I should take it past once more. I wrote as follows:
-in the case of the payment of $500,000 to Ste. Marie Air Services, the fact that there was at the time of consideration a bill before the House of Commons that would have entitled certain people, affected by a decision to utilize air space above their operations, to compensation.
The hon. member has written again suggesting that he is unhappy with this reply. I have requested that additional information be sought.


Mr. Stevens:: You do not understand it.


J. Judd Buchanan: Neither does the hon. member. I would be happy to pursue it further with him.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. For the minister's information, Bill C-4-which is the only possible one which could apply-does not apply. I want to bring to his attention a Treasury Board memorandum which I hope he has seen. It indicates that the cheque was delivered on March 23. It also refers to the fact that the release that cost the taxpayers of this country $500,000 for picking up some nebulous interest, no doubt, was not to be registered.
I want to ask the minister why this practice was not followed. Surely he is expected to show a little good management in this country. Why was this release not registered for that half million dollars after the policy was reversed?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, my understanding is that the payment that was made to Ste. Marie Air Services complied with the policy which was explained to him clearly in a letter, and that in fact the payment that was made complied with that policy of the federal government.
Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


OHIP-DEFINITION OF &quot;REASONABLE ACCESS TO INSURED SERVICES BY INSURED PERSONS&quot;
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it deals with the matters I raised on Monday.
I point out to the minister that the Medical Care Act which was passed by parliament in 1960 provides that contributions made to a province where there are "uniform terms and conditions to all insurable residents", and I quote:
-on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly, whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to insured services by insured persons.
My question to the minister is quite simple. What is the minister's definition of "reasonable access" which is set out in the Medical Care Act? Will the guidelines which she says her department is preparing include the problem of the deterrent fees as well as the problem of physical access where there are no doctors in the plan?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer on Monday was also reasonably simple. I answered every aspect of that question. I said that I had instructed my officials, further to the meeting of the deputy minister of health, to develop the guidelines defining the practical implications and barriers or what the four principles, including universality and accessibility, mean. I will have them make that known to the provinces as soon as it is done.
By this time I have forgotten the last part of the hon. member's question-which I also answered on Monday, by the way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario minister of health, Mr. Timbrell, when asked questions apparently spoke to the minister after our discussion in the House on Monday. He said, "The minister and I are of one mind. We are both concerned that universality be maintained; however, universality could not be defined".
Nothwithstanding that when a Liberal and a Tory cabinet minister get together, they might well produce one mind, my question is this: Does the minister agree that the federal government has a responsibility to produce-and it should not be very difficult and should not require extensive discussion with officials-a definition of the concept of universality so that it is understood by the provinces? Does she not think that the federal government has a responsibility to provide insured services to people right across Canada, when we know that these insured services are not being provided at the present time?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Dennis Timbrell and I are of one mind, then the hon. member for Cochrane is in a difficult split-personality position.

March 14, 1979
Oral Questions
I again repeat that Canadians will continue to have access to a universal system that does not have deterrent fees which prevent their getting all the health care they need. The telephone conversations I had have no relationship to this discussion. I told my colleague, the Ontario minister, that universality and accessibility are, of course, principles that we will not abandon today. We are developing those guidelines. This includes deterrent fees-which was the last part of the question-the relationship of doctors' fee schedules and the way the provinces have settled them.
I have indicated to this House that I have one question to which I want an answer. Why is it that provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have settled for such low fees for the doctors, thus permitting extra billings on the backs of the customers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE SEAL HUNT
[Stage Direction]
PETITION SIGNED BY BRITISH MPs OPPOSING THE HUNT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister of fisheries and oceans.
In view of reports in yesterday's press that 70 Labour members of parliament in Great Britain have signed a petition opposing the seal hunt and asking their government to take discriminatory action against Canada, will the minister ask the British government to advise those 70 members to address themselves to the serious problems facing their own country and cease interfering in matters of strictly Canadian jurisdiction and concern?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this House would not want me to assume responsibility for what members of another House decide to do or not do. Perhaps I can quote a famous phrase from the fishermen's union leader in Newfoundland, who reminded us that the RSPCA had been created many years before legislation was passed to protect children from going down to work in the mines.


BANK ACT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the Bank Act which expired in 1977 and was continued by action of parliament until March 31 of this year.
Does the government intend to bring in legislation between now and the end of this month concerning the Bank Act and the extension of that act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, if parliament sits for 20 days-as I recollect-in the month of March, it would be necessary to bring in a bank extension act, or in the meantime pass the major revisions to the Bank Act itself, which I regard as quite unrealistic.
I assure the right hon. member that we will take action rather than have the banks disappear in the absence of a bank extension act or an end of parliament before the expiry of the 20 days.


John George Diefenbaker: As always, the hon. gentleman answers questions fully and unobjectively. I point out to him that, with all the circumlocution he took in his answer, he failed to point out the fact that if an election is called between now and March 31, the Bank Act would continue automatically to be in effect. Is that what the government intends to do? Does the evasion on the part of the minister indicate that that is the plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to correct the right hon. gentleman-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Oh, go on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but I think the expiry date would be earlier than March 31. With regard to the very interesting question which he has posed, I think we will all have to wait and see.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House for the CBC.
In view of the fact that I made personal representations to the minister in this chamber over nine months ago concerning the CBC's broadcasting of certain WHA games in the cities of Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec City, could the minister now inform the House if either he or his officials in the CBC have given authorization to broadcasting WHA games involving Canadian teams such as the Edmonton Oilers, the Winnipeg Jets and the Quebec Nordiques, thereby giving the citizens of all of Canada, particularly Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec City a greater sense of national involvement, and stop treating us as second-class citizens in western Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that the hon. member, as well as many members on this side, made representations to me months ago about coverage by the CBC of World Hockey Association games. I did transfer those representations to the CBC, as I am sure I told the hon. member I would. I will be glad once again to communicate with them to see if they agree with the

March 14, 1979

hon. member that he has been treated like a second-class citizen in this matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Two days ago, in response to a question from the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the Minister of Finance said:
That is why I am pleased to report that the public sector, both federal and provincial, by the end of 1978 was two points below the private sector.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell me whether that statement was true or false?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the federal public sector-I cannot speak for the other two levels of government-was at approximately 7 per cent after it came out of controls, and that the private sector during the period in which it was totally outside controls was at 9 per cent, which would account for that difference of 2 per cent.


John Allen Fraser: The words of the Minister of Finance were clear; he said "both federal and provincial" in terms of the public sector. I am asking the minister whether, in fact, that statement was correct, whether those figures include total compensation or whether they are limited merely to wages.
If those figures allow for total compensation, what effect might they have on the comments made by the Minister of Labour with respect to legislative comparability in Bill C-22?


J. Judd Buchanan: Again, I am sorry I cannot give the exact figure for the provincial governments. I believe it is somewhat in excess of our 7 per cent; but the 7 per cent I quoted does, in fact, embrace compensation and it is my understanding that the private sector figure I used also embraces total compensation.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, in the course of discussion of a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to which a contribution was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), a question arose as to a possible discrepancy between various texts of Hansard and the final printed version. As has always been my practice and as I naturally would, 1 undertook to look into this matter on behalf of the House and determine the true sequence of events as they occurred.
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
The quotation by the hon. member for Athabasca was, in fact, from the press run copy, which is the first rough copy which comes from the reporter's notes. It is not verified by the reporter or by the editor; it is simply a rough copy prepared by the reporter, which has been used by the press but has never been used for purposes of quotation either by them or in the House because of its rough, unedited nature. When the reporter has an opportunity to verify the notes and the editor has examined them, a second copy is prepared. That is the copy generally referred to as "the blues" which goes to the member who is concerned in case any alterations might be required to improve the grammatical sense or the editorial accuracy of those notes before the final version is printed.
In this particular case several changes, as is always the situation, were made between the rough copy which, as I say, is not to be used for quotation, and the preliminary copy, "the blue", the one which is submitted to members for verification. The minister has said in this instance that no alterations were made by her. The alterations which were made were made by the Editor and the Chief of the Branch, Mr. Baker, who as is, thankfully, his usual practice, backs up his own floor reporters by sitting in the gallery and taking his own notes. When he examined the rough copy he made the changes which occurred and he did so because his notes indicated that those changes accurately reflected what the minister had, in fact, said.
Subsequently, since this matter had arisen, I asked him, of course, to verify his version with the sound tape and also with the television tape. He has done so and verifies that his own notes as to what the minister had said were, in fact, accurate. His notes were verified by the sound tape and the television tape. That is why the version in his notes, which appeared in "the blues" and in the final transcript of Hansard, is precisely the language used by the minister on Monday.
I think we have to say in the circumstances of the tumultuous exchanges which can take place in the House of Commons it is a mark of considerable merit to the Hansard reporters, and particularly to the Chief of Hansard that he extends this rather remarkable devotion to the accuracy of the printed word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. MCKENZIE-ANSWER GIVEN BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO MINISTER OF TRANSPORT DURING DEBATE ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to obtain clarification with regard to something which was said in the course of the debate in which I was involved in last night on the adjournment motion. I was misinformed by the parliamentary secretary-perhaps he misunderstood my question, or whoever prepared the answer he gave did not prepare it properly. I was inquiring when an independent audit would be carried out in connection with the Canadian National pension fund and when such an audit would be tabled in the House of Commons. Such a procedure was agreed to on May

March 14, 1979
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
4,	1978, when I presented an amendment to Bill C-17 in the House of Commons which called for:
A continuous audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and the pension fund of its employees shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by the governor in council and the auditors shall report annually to parliament in respect of their audits.
Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) stated in his answer to me:
-I should like to tell him that that the CN pension fund has been audited for 1978 by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand. In addition, the Superintendent of Insurance has completed an audit on the Canadian National pension fund.
The second question was: when will this report be made public? ... he should know that the annual report of the CNR is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We have a tool there which we can use to put questions to the administration-
Mr. Speaker, the terms of my amending motion call for this independent audit to be tabled in the House of Commons. I checked with the parliamentary returns branch and find they have received no audit whatsoever from any auditors. All they have is an auditor's report for 1977 and there is no information at all in that about pension funds. They have no annual report for 1978 and no independent audit of the pension fund for 1978. In these circumstances the statement by the parliamentary secretary that I can get all the information I want in the standing committee when CN officials are there is not correct. The annual report and audit are to be tabled in the House of Commons; it is not for me to go to the standing committee to get the information. This being the case, I should like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or his parliamentary secretary to tell me whether they properly understood my question last night or whether whoever prepared the answer which was given prepared it correctly.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member is exaggerating somewhat when he says that I may have misled the House last night. If you reread the text of my reply, it will be found more accurately that I did not give a specific answer to the also specific question of the hon. member, but that all I did say was a reflection of the truth. With regard to the more specific question, that is, when the report of the auditors will be tabled in parliament, I shall inquire about it and advise the hon. member accordingly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-46 respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes.


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

Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, to amend the Farm Credit 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. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 146, 831 and 1,116.
[ Text]


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to having the funds which are contributed to the western grain stabilization plan deposited in other than the consolidated revenue fund, and allowing such funds to be used for the benefit of the western economy?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The minister responsible is considering alternative means of handling the funds, particularly in relation to a request from Credit Unions.
March 14, 1979


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Ministry planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs did not finance any projects in the constituency of Richmond since the formation of this ministry in June 1971. There is no plan to finance any projects in the near future because the ministry will not be functioning after March 31, 1979.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of December 31, 1978 how many (a) deputy ministers (b) assistant deputy ministers (c) public servants who did not have the rank of deputy minister, but who had equivalent responsibility, were there in the public service and how much did they earn?
2.	Did the persons filling the positions above-mentioned receive salary increases on January 1, 1979 and, if so, what was the percentage of the increase?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	As of December 31, 1978:
(a)	There were 31 deputy ministers whose average salary was $58,468.
(b)	There were 105 assistant deputy ministers at an average salary of $46,832.
(c)	There were 67 equivalent deputy ministers who are governor in council appointees whose average salary was $53,115.
2.	There was no salary increase for any of the foregoing on January 1, 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, having regard to the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) to stand all notices of motions for the production of papers. I
Motions for Papers
want to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the fact that item No. 1 under notices of motions for the production of papers has been on the order paper since the beginning of this session, and it has not been dealt with yet. I point out that subsequent notices of motions for the production of papers have been presented and dealt with by the parliamentary secretary from time to time and that mine has not been attended to.
I am moved to bring this to the attention of the House and the parliamentary secretary at this time because during the question period the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) said that in terms of nuclear policy he wanted dialogue and not diatribe. My notice of motion, to refresh the memory of the parliamentary secretary, is the following:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery near Warman, Saskatchewan, or elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan, by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, and copies of an agreement between the government and the province of Saskatchewan or their respective agencies.
This matter has come before the House on previous occasions and the government has not produced these very important documents. The reason it has refused to do so is that the government says it has a proprietary interest in these documents, and the government feels it is not in its interest to disclose to the people of Canada all the environmental studies it is doing in Saskatchewan and what its plans are with respect to the establishment of a refinery in that province. The people of Saskatchewan are entitled to documents and information before Eldorado Nuclear Limited moves unilaterally on its plans to create this refinery.
This is another example of this government's inability to understand that the people of Canada have certain rights regarding information. I press this matter on the basis of freedom of information. If this is the kind of "dialogue" the government thinks it can get away with, it has another thing coming. I remind the parliamentary secretary again that an election cannot be far down the road. The people of Saskatchewan will remember this slap in the face and this lack of intention on the part of the government to bring forward this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I sense that the hon. member has strayed from the merits of the matter of the documents alone and is on to a slightly political discussion.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, having provided the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with at least one answer this afternoon, I thought he might have been a little bit happier. I can tell him that I had hoped to deal with notice of motion for the production of papers No. 1, but there seems to have been some foul-up in the transmission of the papers. 1 assure the hon. member that I will do the very best I can to deal with this motion very quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 14, 1979
Price Increases POINT OF ORDER


MR. PAPROSK1-DELAY IN ANSWERING ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to bring to your attention the number of questions on the order paper which were not answered today. There are approximately 82 days left for this parliament. There are 1,200 questions to be answered, and for the government to be answering three questions a day during working days is unfair. I think the government could do a much better job. I would like to see it do a much better job.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will recognize that they missed their chance to raise this subject. We have passed the item of questions on the order paper. I asked if the remaining questions should be allowed to stand, and there was agreement. After that, as we always do, we dealt with the last matter, notices of motions for the production of papers. Any further grievances about questions on the order paper will have to wait until tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to take any steps to halt the rising cost of living, and for its failure to roll back, on a selective basis, price increases which are grossly unfair and which are causing extreme hardship for all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will remember that proceedings on this motion shall expire, in accordance with Standing Order 58(11), at the ordinary hour of adjournment later this day.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion put before the House today by our party reflects what I think is the number one issue among ordinary Canadians from coast to coast. That number one issue is the skyrocketing increases we have seen over the last year or so.
Today we received some further evidence of skyrocketing price increases from Statistics Canada. About an hour and a half ago Statistics Canada announced that the industry selling price for manufacturing in this country went up by 11 per cent from January of 1978 to January of 1979. Just yesterday in the House the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) assured us that a 3 per cent cut in the manufacturers' sales tax had been passed on to consumers and that that is reflected in the consumer price index. When the

minister rises to respond, I hope he will explain how it is that that 3 per cent sales tax cut was passed on when the manufacturing index has gone up by 11 per cent. It is at its highest level since June of 1975. I think the government has been failing on that front as well as many other fronts.
The consumer price index has gone up by some 8.9 per cent. On the other hand, wages increased in 1978 by only 6.4 per cent. In other words, the average standard of living for workers in this country is going down, not up. It is going down largely because a few years ago the Anti-Inflation Board controlled wages but not prices or profits. One need only look at statistics from Statistics Canada on the average weekly wage in 1978 to find that the average weekly wage went up from $252 to $269, which was an increase of less than the increase in the cost of living. If we compute into that the increase in the cost of living, we find that the net loss to the average Canadian worker was some $340 in 1978. So the standard of living in this country has been going down.
This afternoon I want to speak about a number of things which we think should be done. In my opinion the government has not been doing well with regard to a number of things, and I will give the minister some specific examples. The minister is always looking into things. His department does not seem to know its left foot from its right foot. His department seems to exist only for cosmetic and public relations purposes. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a tame pussycat who just purrs. He has yet to learn how to growl and really mean business when dealing with big companies. There have been increases in food prices, farm input costs, lumber prices, energy prices and automobile prices. I could go on and on.
What has the government's response been to the increase in the cost of living? First of all, we had the Anti-Inflation Board which studies profits and not mark-ups. Then we had CSIP which turned out to be a disastrous little institution. Then we had the announcement the other day that tariffs will be taken off some foods. That made big banner headlines across the country. When we checked with the Department of Finance we found out that the reduction of tariffs, and the removal of tariffs in some cases, will mean a saving of only $10 million to the consumers of this country. That means that if you go out and buy a pound of raisins, it will cost you 1.5 cents less than it did before. It will cost you 2 cents less for a can of tomato juice, and it will cost you 7 cents less for a cauliflower. Some policy!
Then, with great fanfare, the establishment two weeks ago of the National Commission on Inflation was announced. Again I suggest it is nothing more than a public relations effort by this government. It has the power to investigate price increases, it has the power and authority to publicize those increases, but it does not have any power to do anything about those price increases. It is an economic eunuch. At this time we need an economic policeman who could intervene in the market place. It does not have any power to control the price;
March 14, 1979

it does not have any power at all to hold back a price while it is being investigated; it does not have any power to freeze a specific price where there has been some profiteering or some gouging of the public.
As I said, what we need is an agency that is strong. I want to suggest to the minister a number of things which we think must be done if we are to control, to a significant degree, the increase in the cost of living. Our party has spoken about a fair prices commission which would put some teeth into the government's national commission on inflation, which would take the shackles off its feet and which would allow it to have some power and some influence, a commission which would be a small and powerful watchdog with the power to roll back prices when they need to be rolled back. It would have the power to stall a price increase while we are investigating whether or not it is too high. It would have the power to freeze the price for a certain amount of time.
The minister has said to that, "Well, the NDP wants to bring back controls." We are not talking about across the board controls, freezes, or anything of that sort. We are talking about a small body that would have the power, on a selective basis, to stop profiteering or high price increases, and to force rollbacks where rollbacks are deemed to be necessary. I am talking about a powerful little watchdog, an economic hit team which would have the power to go to a bakery, a banking company or an oil company, and say, "Look, we have found your prices to be too high and they should not be that high. You are profiteering, roll back your prices." I suggest they may only look into one out of 500 or 1,000 price increases, but no one will know who will be hit next, and therefore we believe it would have the effect of keeping companies and the market place honest. We do not have that now.
The minister says, "There are all kinds of problems with it. What about the Constitution and prices being under provincial jurisdiction?" I suggest to him that when they brought in the AIB they did not have any problem in controlling wages and getting the provinces to agree. I am sure there is as much an emergency now as there was three years ago when they brought in AIB. We also have other controls in this country. We have a two-price system for wheat, we have a two-price system for copper, and a two-price system for energy. We also have the CTC which controls and regulates prices. What we can do through those agencies and with those commodities, I suggest we can do through the fair prices commission. We can expand our philosophy to the fair prices commission which will have the power, on a selective basis, to roll back prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to give the minister seven or eight specific examples of what we would refer to a fair prices commission, if he had the guts and the courage to set one up in the country. But before I do that I want to mention briefly four other things which we believe should be done if we are going to bring down the cost of living in this country.
Second, we should reinstate the food subsidies which have been taken off by this government, subsidies which were
Price Increases
imposed through the pressure of this party in the minority parliament from 1972 to 1974, food subsidies on fluid milk and on skim milk powder, and put back subsidies on bread and flour which were removed shortly before Christmas of last year. We found that when the subsidy was taken off skim milk powder about a year or so ago, the consumption of skim milk powder in the first six months after the subsidy went off went down by some 56 per cent. Yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) says she is concerned about nutrition and the health of young people.
Third, the bank rate in this country has increased by 40 per cent in the last 13 months. We have a bank rate now that is usurious, that is costing the consumers, the housebuilders, and the farmers a lot more money than it should. We are suggesting to the government that there be an immediate reduction of the bank rate by one per cent and a further gradual reduction after that.
Fourth, there is going to be a two step increase in the price of oil by $1 a barrel in the month of July and another $1 a barrel in January of 1980. We said to the government that both these increases should be rescinded. We do not need these increases and therefore we should be freezing temporarily the price of gasoline, the price of home heating fuel, and the price of other petroleum products we get from oil. I am aware that this would create some anxiety among the government's friends such as the Exxon Corporation, but if one looks at their profit figures one finds that we have played Santa Claus far too long in this country.


An hon. Member:: Trust Texaco!


Mr. Lalonde:: And Mr. Blakeney.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are saying that the regulatory agencies in this country should be beefed up and made tougher, agencies such as the Canadian Transport Commission, in terms of the freight rates and in terms of the Bell Telephone rates that are determined by the CTC.
These are five points in summary which we think should be implemented immediately if we are to decrease the cost of living in Canada.
Now I want to give the minister a few specific examples of price increases which we think warrant investigation by an agency which has the power to roll back prices or to control a price temporarily while an investigation is being carried on. These are not very obscure items, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) says, they are items that have been mentioned to us by hundreds of people across the country, items that people buy when they go into the supermarket to purchase consumer goods.
I want to say that there is a great deal of concern across the way that there will be an increase in the cost of living or an increase in inflation because of big wage demands. I want to say to the government that the most effective way to make sure that workers demand reasonable wage increases is to make sure that the price increases which workers are faced

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
with in supermarkets are reasonable and that those prices are kept low.
First I want to speak about food and the Anti-Inflation Board. In 1978 the price of food went up by 21 per cent. We look at our food dollar. I know that as compared to other countries we do not pay much for our food in terms of the percentage of our dollar. We pay about 16 per cent or 17 per cent and so do people in the United States; in Europe they pay about 20 per cent, in Japan about 30 per cent, and in India about 60 per cent. But when I take a look at the food dollar, I wonder where that food dollar has gone.
Back in 1951, when I was in kindergarten, the farmers got some 60 per cent of the food dollar. But last year, in 1978, the farmers' share of the food dollar has been reduced from 60 per cent to 38 per cent. It is that reduction in the farmers' share of the food dollar that concerns all of us from rural ridings, and it concerns many Canadians because most Canadians do not blame the farmers for the rapid increase in the price of food.
I should like to take a look at some of the specific price increases which I believe the minister should examine. I will start off with turkey. We all remember before Christmas when the increase in the price of turkeys was skyrocketing. We remember the minister saying that farmers were not producing enough; let us open the borders and fly some more turkeys in. That is one turkey who is an expert on turkeys. He said that we need more imports and that there is a shortage of supply. After Christmas and after the supermarkets were restricting the supply to Canadian consumers, we find instead of a shortage that in January there was 22 million pounds of turkey in supply. I believe the minister should have looked into it. He should have had an agency powerful enough to say to the supermarkets, "Look, roll back the price of turkeys. You are gouging Canadian consumers; you are doing it intentionally."
Let us have a look at the price of grade A turkey which is under ten pounds in weight. In the week ending February 9, 1979, as compared to one year earlier, the retail price of grade A turkey went up by some 36 per cent; but the price the farmer receives went up by only 12.5 per cent. The raw product rose 12.5 per cent and the retail price rose 36 per cent. Why does the minister not look into that to ensure that there is an agency to roll back that price to the consumers being gouged?
The same thing applies to the price of chicken. If we compare the same periods of time we will find that the retail price of chicken went up from 69 cents per pound to $1.18 per pound, which is an increase of 71 per cent; while the price the farmer received for producing chicken went up from 46 cents a pound to 53 cents a pound, for an increase of 15 per cent. I am sure it is not the worker processing chicken who received the extra cream. It is not the farmer, but I wonder about the retail companies, processors and people in between. Again the minister rose and talked about a shortage of supply, but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) set him straight by saying that there were four million pounds more chicken in

storage as of February 1, 1979, than a year ago. Still the price of chicken rose. It is rather suspicious, it seems to me.
I should like to refer to another example, the price of skim milk powder which is needed by younger people, and indeed by all Canadians. The 34-cent per pound subsidy was removed. The farmers received an increase of four cents per pound. The actual price of raw material went up by 38 cents, but when we look at the new price in the supermarkets it was up by 45 cents a pound. Why did it cost an extra seven cents for skim milk products?
Now I should like to deal with beef. We know farmers were being pressured and ripped off with a low price for beef for three or four years in a row, until approximately a year ago. Last year when prices finally started to rise for the farmers, lo and behold, the price started rising faster for the consumer. We can take a look at some of the margins and some of the spreads. The information I am about to refer to comes from the beef information centre. In June, 1978, the average markup on a pound of beef in Toronto was 66 cents, in Calgary it was 72 cents, and in Vancouver it was 94 cents, whereas the mark-up the previous year was 20 cents per pound. I am told by people in the retail business that a mark-up of approximately 25 cents to 30 cents per pound is normal and profitable for supermarkets.
Another example is the price of pork. The minister should direct his attention to this area. In the week ending June 24, 1978, compared to the week ending June 24, 1977, the price of bacon rose 22 per cent, the price of a roast of pork went up 34 per cent, and the price of sausage, which unfortunately a lot of poor people eat because it is one of the cheapest meats, went up by 75 per cent. How much did the price of pork to the farmer rise? The price of pork to the farmer rose 5.8 per cent during the same period of time. We checked out wage increases for packing-house workers and we found the annual wage increase was well within the guidelines established by the Anti-Inflation Board.
Now I should like to deal with the price of bread. Of course we had the intervention of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In a minority parliament we were able to force the minister to subsidize the price of bread for Canadian consumers. The subsidy was removed because of the so-called restraint program when government picks on the little guy. The subsidy on an average loaf of bread of 3.3 cents was removed, yet in retail stores the price of a loaf of bread rose by seven cents or more. In January the CPI indicated that the average increase in the price of bread was 13 per cent. I say to the minister why? When the price of raw material rises 3.3 cents, why does the price of the final product rise by seven cents? Between December 31 and January 1 wages and other costs did not go up. The price of raw material went up 3.3 cents, but the retail price more than doubled. The minister said he is looking into that matter. I wonder if the minister ever stops looking into anything. I wonder if he ever looks in a mirror to see whether he is being serious as the minister.
Of course the subsidy was removed on flour when it was removed on bread, the subsidy of 22 cents on 5.5 pounds of
March 14, 1979

flour. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) buys flour for his wife and five children. When he went into the store in January to buy flour he did not find a price increase of 22 cents; if was 44 cents. In the city of Regina the increase in the price of flour was 42 cents. Once again I must ask, why? When the 22-cent subsidy was removed, why was the retail mark-up 44 cents? In other words, why was the retail mark-up twice that of the raw material?
I should like to turn to the other side of farm equation which makes farmers so angry. I have spoken with farmers from all parts of the country, each and every week. When they find out that the price to consumers of the food they produce is escalating while their incomes are dropping or remaining the same, they become angry. For example, the net incomes of farmers in Saskatchewan actually will drop in 1979, while the net incomes of other farmers across the land will not change. This is happening while farm input costs are escalating rapidly.
The minister and his officials should be investigating and rolling back unwarranted price increases. Repeatedly farmers have referred to price increases in parts and repairs on farm machinery. When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was approached by farmers he was told that a little nut, bolt or part which used to cost approximately a couple of dollars now costs $10 or $12.
I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the specific example of a press drill boot. I tell the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that a press drill boot is a little metal ending which is on the end of the hose or funnel which goes between the disks when seeds are being planted in a field. The International Harvester press drill boot ten years ago cost $8 each. Approximately three years ago the same little piece of metal cost $27 each. Do hon. members know what that piece of metal costs today? It costs approximately $62. It went up by 129 per cent in three years, and in the last year it went up some 55 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: It must be made of nickel.


Mr. Benjamin:: Or gold-plated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know the salaries of steelworkers did not rise that much. Also I know the raw price of steel did not rise that much. I look at the profits of steel companies and I wonder whether the extra dollars being paid by farmers for press drill boots went to the multinational companies in terms of profits. That particular problem was referred by the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Do hon. members know what the minister said? He said, "I am sorry; we have no power to roll back prices since the AIB. We have set up CSIP to investigate, but there is no apparent violation under the Combines Investigation Act, and we have no power to roll back price increases since the AIB went to the promised land and was buried."
Price Increases
Let me give the minister a few more examples of farm input cost increases that anger my constituents. Let us consider the 100-horsepower tractor, which is a common thing on the farm these days. The average price of such a tractor, according to the department of agriculture in the province of Alberta, went up by some 16 per cent in the last year. That tractor now costs the farmer $28,000. Let us consider the combine which a year ago cost $32,000 and now costs $41,000 for the same model and the same size, but one year newer. That is an increase of some 30 per cent. Is it any wonder that the price of the final product in this country is going up at an alarmingly rapid rate?
Let me give the minister a couple of examples outside the food and agricultural area. The first example I would mention is textiles. I do not know if the minister noticed in the newspaper this morning the report that the price of textiles in this country has gone up by some 66 per cent in one case and 73 per cent in another. I wonder whether he is investigating to see if textile companies have been taking advantage of protective quotas, and whether they have been taking advantage of the reduced value of the Canadian dollar.
Then we have another example in relation to the cost of lumber which has gone up by 80 per cent in the last two years. It now costs about $1,200 more to build a house of 1,800 square feet than it did two years ago, strictly because the input cost of lumber has gone up by 80 per cent.
Let me use the very specific example given by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). The price of one board foot of two by four a year ago was 17 cents. The price today is six cents more, or 23 cents, an increase of roughly one third. At the same time we see that profits in the pulp and paper industry have increased almost without exception, in many cases to very high levels. At the same time this government has handed over $235 million to the pulp and paper companies.
If we are going to talk about restraint in this country we should make sure it is not practised on the backs of the ordinary citizens, the farmers, the workers, the old and the young. Restraint should be practised on the backs of those who can best carry the burden, the wealthy and the large multinational companies in this country.
I have given the minister a number of specific examples today of things that are of real concern to the average citizen right across this country. I do not want him to get up and say, "I am looking into this", or "I have looked into that". I want him to get up and tell us why he does not go to the cabinet and say, "Look, I need the power to change this National Commission on Inflation from a pussycat to a tiger. What we need in this country is a tough watchdog that can intervene and roll back prices in the market place. We need an agency with that power." I am sure the cabinet would not give the power to him because this minister has no clout.
The main function of this minister is to fulfil a public relations function for the government, making the Canadian

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
people believe that something is being done by the government in terms of controlling prices in this country. The government is not doing that. As much as 1 like the minister personally, and I have known him for years, this is one minister who should be fired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for incompetency.
In the two minutes I have left I should like to summarize for the minister. I hope he will respond in a serious way and not in the superficial, cosmetic way he has responded in the past. First of all I would like to see the government bring in a fair prices commission to act as a tough watchdog, or a little economic "hit" team with the power to hold back price increases while they are being investigated, to roll back price increases that are unwarranted, and with the power to freeze and control prices on a selective basis for a specific period of time.
Secondly, I want the minister to tell us why the government has ended subsidies on fluid milk, skim milk, bread and flour, those basic nutritious foods needed by each and every one of us, while at the same time it has offered millions of dollars to wealthy hockey team owners for the construction of rinks in many cities of this country, and another $200 million to the pulp and paper industry across the land.
Thirdly, I wonder if this toothless tiger, the minister from Montreal, can tell us why the government does not reduce the bank rate by at least 1 per cent in order to stimulate the economy, reduce the cost of house building and the cost of consumer and farm loans. Can he forcefully tell us whether the government is considering rescinding the $2 increase in the price of oil, that is, the $1 due July 1, 1979, and the second $1 on January 1, 1980?
Finally, will the minister tell us whether the government is going to toughen up the regulatory agencies in this country, like the CTC, in order that they can have some effective control of freight rates, telephone rates and other rates that consumers have to pay? Those are five specific things we believe the government can do. To supplement that, I have given him another ten or 12 specific items that could be referred to-


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and, through you, the people of this country, that the government is extremely concerned about increasing prices, and places a high priority on finding solutions both in the short and long-term.
I should like to make clear, however, that the problem is one principally caused by rising food prices. If one looks at the recent consumer price index one will see that the large increase

month over month was not caused by non-food items but, rather, by food items. They in turn are principally affected by the beef cycle and the cost of imported food.
What has this government done about that, and what more can be done? I want to make clear that there are no magic solutions to reduce prices dramatically but that with the right programs some price increases can be moderated and others can be stabilized.
Let me give some of the measures that have been introduced by this government to combat inflation. I will list them first and give the details later. From 1975 to 1978 we had the Anti-Inflation Board which did have the power to roll back and control prices, wages and profits. This was followed by the monitoring agency CSIP, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, followed by the National Commission on Inflation.
Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced two sales tax cuts, one in the spring and one in November, which again had a serious influence on curtailing the rate of inflation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) toward the end of last year announced an increase in the guaranteed income supplement and the family tax credit program to help Canadians of medium and lower incomes.
Another major initiative taken by the government to deal with inflation is our program to curtail our expenses and size dramatically, and I will say a bit more about that later. We also had measures to increase production and supply quotas both in the farm and fisheries areas.
Last week the Minister of Finance announced a reduction in import tariffs on food. I notice in today's Citizen on the front page a headline which states that 39 cent lettuce is on the way. It starts by saying:
After three months of paying budget-breaking lettuce prices, consumers should get a dramatic break this week as most stores lower prices nearly 50 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: Loss leaders.


William Warren Allmand: This is a general lowering of lettuce prices whereas loss leaders are usually found in one store or another. In addition to these reduced import tariffs, as was mentioned earlier in the day by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) we have had a program to help consumers of oil in the eastern part of Canada with subsidies which have kept prices down for the last few years.
As I pointed out, the AIB was in place for three years. It ended its mandate on December 31, 1978, and it had powers to control prices, wages and profits. While the NDP voted against that measure in 1975, they are now proposing controls with roll-back powers. It is difficult to understand, and they have not explained that position today.
They did the same thing last week when they put forward their other motion with respect to a commission to control and roll back prices. I will ask them now, as I did last week, how
March 14, 1979

can they suggest powers to roll back prices without also granting powers to roll back costs, including wages which are very dear to them? If costs are the cause of the increased price then certainly we cannot control the price without controlling the costs, but the NDP have not explained this or said how they can do one without the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did it.


William Warren Allmand: I was listening, and the NDP failed to explain that question on occasion after occasion. Again the New Democratic Party is continually stating and, I would submit, using the big lie technique, that while the AIB controlled wages they did not control prices or profits.


Bob Rae: That is what the conference board said.


William Warren Allmand: This statement, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely false, and I would like to refer to a few examples. Both wages and prices were controlled by the AIB between the three-year period from October, 1975, to December, 1978. With respect to prices, in 1975 at the beginning of the program the CP Index, excluding food, rose 10.1 per cent.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Why
exclude food?


William Warren Allmand: I will deal with food later. But excluding food, it rose 10.1 per cent. In January, 1979, at the end of the program the comparable figure was 6 per cent. Profit margins of industrial corporations declined from 7.19 per cent at the beginning of the program to 5.2 per cent in the first half of 1978, the last year of the program. By October, 1978, over $264 million in excess corporate revenue had been returned to consumers as a result of action by the AIB. As of August, 1978, the AIB received 377 requests for dividend increases. Of these, 117 cases representing $407 million were refused or amended.
With respect to wages during the period of controls, real disposable income per person employed in Canada grew by 7 per cent in the last three years. In the United States in a comparable period, real disposable income declined 2 per cent. The average weekly wage for Canadian workers rose from $203.32 in 1975 to over $272 in 1978, an increase of 33 per cent.


Bob Rae: How much has food gone up since 1975?


William Warren Allmand: On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the anti-inflation program of the government was successful. It certainly moderated the rate of inflation, and we will never know what the rate would have been without the AIB. We do know that our record over the last five years has been much better than most countries. In any case, the AIB controls are now terminated. All sectors of the Canadian economy agreed that this should be done, including the then NDP government of Saskatchewan and the former NDP government of Manitoba.
Following our discussions with the provinces, we found no support for a post-control monitoring body with investigative
Price Increases
powers, although the Minister of Finance proposed such a body. Consequently, following the consensus of the provincial ministers at the conference, we established the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity at the beginning of 1979. While CSIP did some worth-while work and published some informative reports, it did not have the power to compel information. Consequently, last week the government established the National Commission on Inflation which will have powers under the Inquiries Act and will be able to monitor price movement properly and other phenomena which cause inflation.
The commission will not only have a deterrent effect on unconscionable price increases, but it can highlight them publicly and recommend action to the federal and provincial governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A lot of
good that will do.


William Warren Allmand: Earlier I referred to two tax cuts initiated by the Minister of Finance last year. The first, which related to the provincial sales tax, certainly had a deflationary effect and was considered a success. The second, which is still in force, relates to the federal excise tax and applies to several consumer products. While the inventory subject to this tax cut only came on the market in January, the most recent consumer price index indicates that this tax cut is being passed on. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the non-food part of the CPI for last month increased moderately, and some products, such as furniture and clothing, actually declined. The federal sales tax cut will continue to have its impact on the economy.
1 also mentioned the increases in the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the new family tax credit. Both will provide additional purchasing power to lower and middle income families and retired Canadians to help them deal with increased prices. This is in addition to the government indexing program for pensions and the guaranteed income supplement.
I also want to repeat again that the government has programs to adjust supply and production in food products when increasing prices are due to short supply. In response to my honourable colleague's remarks with respect to my statements on supply before Christmas and after Christmas, 1 would refer him to bulletins put out by the marketing boards and by the Department of Agriculture which confirm the statements I made in the House at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Were they wrong?


William Warren Allmand: No, they confirmed that I was correct. The government recently announced new guidelines for the National Farm Products Marketing Council, which is the governing body for our marketing boards. These new guidelines, among other things, directed the council to consider not only the producers' interests but also the consumers' interests. At the same time we appointed a new chairman who was experienced in both farming and the consumer movement and who has the

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
confidence of both groups. Many of our marketing boards had already announced increased production quotas for 1979, but it is yet too early to know their effect and whether they are adequate. In any case, the boards and the council are continually reviewing these matters and can adjust their production quotas when necessary.
I had mentioned the government's program to control inflation by controlling its own size and spending. Hon. members will recall that a year or two ago the opposition was alleging that the cause of inflation was the size of the government's budget and the size of the government's deficit. As the House now knows, for the last few years the government has had a program to keep spending increases below increases in the gross national product and to curtail public employee increases to less than 1 per cent. In the month of August we announced an additional program to curtail our expenses and to keep our government program within reasonable size. Last week the Minister of Finance announced certain cuts in import tariffs on selected foods. A little earlier I referred to an article in today's Citizen which confirms that prices are already being reduced for many of these products. This action is an important measure to help moderate inflation for Canadians.
I get a kick out of the NDP's continual allegation that I am "looking into things". On two or three different occasions during his speech the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked me if I would look into this, look into that. Because I am a very co-operative minister I always like to oblige him, and when he asks me to look into something, of course I do so. Today I have outlined a large number of measures which are measures for action.
As I said earlier in my remarks, the causes of the recent and spectacular price increases in food are principally due to the beef cycle and imported foods. As hon. members know, many of our beef producers suffered low prices a couple of years ago with the result that they sold off their herds. We now have very low supplies of beef with a continuing high demand and resultant high prices. It takes about three years to reproduce a herd of beef and we cannot correct that problem immediately. It will take time, and confidence in the beef producing areas of the country.
With respect to imported foods, it is true they cost more because our dollar declined in comparison to the American dollar. During the winter months, if we want fresh fruit and vegetables we must import them from the United States and other countries. Consequently we must pay the extra 17 or 18 cents because of the difference in the dollar. People may ask why we do not do something about this. I suppose we could have pegged our currency and stored it in many ways but that would cost taxpayers a lot of money and would have repercussions in many other areas of the economy.
It is easy to observe that while the lower dollar has had some serious effects on the price of imported food products it has also allowed us to sell a great deal of our production abroad. It
[Mr. Allmand.)
has helped us with foreign trade deficits and is helping to produce the many jobs that were needed in this country.
If the allegation is made-and it has been made-that the recent price increases are due to profiteering or gouging by many of the companies in the food industries, there is just no evidence to support that at this time. There have been inquiries at all levels of the food industry and none have proved that any one level was ripping off, gouging, or profiteering at the expense of another.
The recent AIB report on profit margins in the food industry pointed out that while profits were increasing at the end of 1978, they were not out of line with historical norms. According to this report, over the first nine months of 1978 profit margins in Canada's food processing and food retailing industries varied little from the historical norms. For food processors the profit margin as a percentage of sales has declined significantly since 1973. For the first nine months of 1978 it was 3.3 per cent, equal to the 1974 low. Profit margins of food wholesalers for the first nine months of 1978 average 1.3 per cent compared to 1.21 per cent in the corresponding period of 1977 and the 1971-77 average of 1.67 per cent.


Marc Lalonde: These are facts.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What about return on investment?


William Warren Allmand: If we look at the statistics of return on investment we see there has been no spectacular increase, but there have been increases. Generally, the increases in profits in business which have occurred during the last year are a sign that the economy is improving. I think that is a good thing for this country.
A year or so ago members of the opposition were criticizing the government because business was bad. Now that we see reports of increased profits they seem to be criticizing that as well. I say increased profits are a sign that business is on the way up. That will mean more money for government through taxes, and thus more money for social programs and other things.
Of course there will always be bad actors in the business community, and individual companies that will try to rig the market and fix prices. We have had recent examples of this. All hon. members are aware of the action my department took against the sugar companies. We lost that in the trial court but won a record judgment in the Quebec Court of Appeal which condemned those companies for fixing prices, and levied a record fine of $2.5 million.
We recently had a judgment of the court against one of the leading jeans manufacturers when they tried to practise resale price maintenance. They would only distribute jeans to retail concerns and outlets if they sold them at a fixed price, which was against the law. A large judgment was made against that company.
While there has not been profiteering or gouging generally, there have been examples, and there will continue to be examples, of companies that act improperly in the market place.
March 14, 1979

What else has the government done to help consumers with high prices?


Mr. McGrath:: Change the government.


William Warren Allmand: That is the only solution the Conservative party has. Last week when the NDP put their motion before the House to deal with inflation and high prices, the spokesmen for the Conservative party had only one suggestion- change the government. They did not say what their solutions would be. As a matter of fact they have criticized the solutions we have put forward.
One thing that can be done to help consumers cope with high prices is to give them good information about food, and especially lower priced foods that are nutritious. Each week we issue information called "Food Backgrounders" which are sent to weekly and daily newspapers. These are used in the "Shop Wisely" and "Best Buy" columns, which are helpful in picking out the best buys from week to week. Where there is price competition in the food retail business it is helpful to have information on where the best buys are available. Despite the high price of beef, for example, pork and poultry have been good buys in eastern Canada in recent weeks. These newspaper columns using our background information encourage Canadians to look at these foods as good alternative sources of protein.
I recently congratulated a group of women in Ontario who set up a program called "Women Against Rising Prices." They are doing what we suggest-being selective in their shopping, refusing to buy products that are too high in price, and they are shopping wisely. We intend to continue with our programs and upgrade them to provide useful information.
Two other programs that can help save money for consumers, which we have supported strongly-as a matter of fact I made a speech to businessmen suggesting these programs before they came into operation-are the "no-name" foods and "no frills" stores. When you compare the price of a shopping basket of "no name" food products purchased in a "no fills" store, you will see considerable savings.
Another program of a similar nature that has been operating for the last two years, and which will operate again this year, is the "Food Talk" program. Last year we sent 40 or 50 teams into lower income areas, immigration areas, native peoples areas, and different areas which require information, to show them how to make the best buys in the supermarket. This helped them considerably to improve their food purchasing and to deal with their food budgets.
When the NDP presented their motion on this subject last week I stated in my speech that one of the measures I hoped to bring forward soon is the competition reform bill. When 1 said that, 1 did not intend it to be a solution to the short-term problem of rising prices in February and March, 1979. It should be obvious to the many commentators and critics that reform in competition laws could only help in the long run. None the less, it is an important reform. As I said last week, if you really want fair prices in the marketplace, your best guarantee is an open and competitive marketplace. I cannot
Price Increases
understand how many people misunderstood my putting that forward as a short-term solution. That was never my intention.
I should also like to remind the House that even under the present law the competition bureau in my department has been taking many actions and has been successful in many prosecutions. I mentioned a moment ago our actions with regard to the sugar industry and the jeans and clothing industry. For example, since the beginning of 1978 the department has had 19 prosecutions covering conspiracy, merger and monopoly, and 112 convictions in the areas of deceptive trade practices and resale price maintenance. We have also had prosecutions in many other areas of fraud and price fixing, the weights and measures program, the electricity and gas program, and so on.
I still intend to come forward with the competition reform bill. I hope it will soon be ready for the House. However, it will be a measure to deal with fair prices in the long run and not in the short run.
My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), recently released some interesting information with regard to food and food prices. In a very useful little booklet that was published, he pointed out that from 1971 to 1977 the average hourly earnings in manufacturing in Canada increased 94.5 per cent. Over the same period the price of food increased 80.1 per cent. On average, one hour of work in manufacturing would buy approximately 8 per cent more food in 1977 than in 1971.
Other interesting information that the Minister of Agriculture has provided is that in 1949 it was necessary to work 20 hours to feed a family of four for one week. In 1959, one had to work 14 hours to feed a family that size. In 1977 one only had to work eight hours to buy the same amount of food. Even though food prices were higher in 1977, it took less than half as long in 1979 to buy food for a family of four for one week.
The Minister of Agriculture is extremely proud of this government's record in helping farmers become more productive, and increasing supply in this country. I support him 100 per cent on that. Critics in the opposition pretend there is some difference of opinion between the Minister of Agriculture,'the Minister of Fisheries, and myself. They are completely wrong. We believe that in the long run the best guarantee of a good source of food is a sound and satisfied production community, whether it be in farming or in fisheries.
I wish to point out a few other matters that should be brought to the attention of Canadians when talking about high food prices. When we go into a supermarket and look at the full and long shelves of products, we note that many of the shelves are not filled with food at all but with cigarettes, tobacco products, and pet food.
1 understand that the pet food business in this country, as well as the cigarette and alcohol industries, is a billion dollar industry. These industries are certainly not declining. It is hard to understand criticism from the opposition about how poor Canadians are when we continue to increase our spending for

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
pet food, alcohol, restaurants, cosmetics, entertainment and so on.
Again referring to some of the remarks of my good colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, I note that he is very quick to point out the great waste of food in this country, the amount of food thrown out each day from our restaurants, homes, and banquets. When we look at these kinds of things we find some of the criticism by the opposition a bit hypocritical.
The NDP motion before us today is just another political gimmick. As I said before, when they had a chance to vote for price controls and roll-back powers, they criticized them severely and voted against them. This is not a serious measure they have put before us, but merely a hypocritical con game. As for the Conservatives, their only solution to the cost of food and consumer goods is to have an election. They have no policy at all.
In conclusion, I assure the House and the country that the government will take every reasonable step to combat inflation. However, we have no intention of bringing back controls or introducing measures which might bring short-term relief but result in more serious damage to the economy in other areas, especially with regard to employment and production. Now that those things are improving considerably, we want to see that improvement continue.


Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the New Democratic Party quite properly addresses attention to an increasing concern on the part of Canadians about increases in the cost of living. As the hon. member who moved the motion properly noted, one of those components is the increase in the cost of food.
It was fascinating to listen to the minister criticize the Conservatives who want an election, and to describe his own program. He started off by saying he was concerned. That is a detailed program of the government-they are concerned when something is wrong. He said that another part of their program was that they wanted more information. They have had ten years of more and more information. There has been no action, but all kinds of information. The government has just appointed a new agency which will provide more information.
The minister said that another part of his program was to encourage consumers to shop wisely. I point out to him that shopping wisely is not a solution to increases in the cost of living. It is a defence by people whose budgets are being wasted away by soaring prices. It is not a government program. It is a necessary defence by consumers across Canada.
The minister said part of his program was to welcome and encourage no name and no frills stores. Finally he mentioned "Food Talk". That is a program that completely describes not only the program but the record of this government for the past ten years. All they have done is talk about it. We have food talk from the minister, "Mr. Alltalk."
The minister mentioned 112 prosecutions. He talked about prosecutions in the area of weights and measures. A few weeks ago I raised the question of prosecutions over delivery meters

on home oil heating trucks. The minister still has not explained why out of all those 500 meters that were rejected so totally by his department that the people owning those trucks were put out of business until the meters were corrected, that out of that total they found during an eight-month investigation, they prosecuted exactly five people. The fines for those who were prosecuted were enormous. The biggest one was $600. The minister has been avoiding the issue. Now he seems to be avoiding the debate by leaving the chamber. It is at least consistent. A driver or operator of a home heating oil truck being fined $600 is like getting a licence. He could steal $600 by noon without half trying.
The specific proposal that the New Democratic Party has made in this motion, as is not untypical of the NDP, deals only with the symptoms. It proposes a band aid to deal with an amputation. While the consumers of Canada are bleeding to death the NDP has a band-aid to propose. Nevertheless, they do identify a real concern on the part of Canadians-soaring prices. The talk we have heard from the minister this afternoon is typical of a long line of talk and empty promises, and non-performance which has persisted ever since this government took office. Canadians were promised a food strategy in the speech from the Throne of the 1974. That promise has not been kept.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was going to "wrestle inflation to the ground". That was in 1974. That promise has not been kept. That was four years after he had told us inflation no longer exists. First, it no longer existed, then he was going to wrestle it to the ground and presumably, now, Canadians are expected to live with it.


An hon. Member:: He is wrestling the economy to the ground.


Rob Parker: There have been five government bodies established since 1969 to study inflation. In 1969 there was the Prices and Incomes Commission. There was a rate of inflation of 4.6 per cent in that year. In 1973 along came the Food Prices Review Board-inflation was running at IVi per cent. In 1975, the Anti-Inflation Board was set up. Inflation was 10.8 per cent. In 1978, three years later, we were presented with the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity. Inflation was running at 9 per cent. This year we have the National Commission on Inflation. The forecast range of inflation this year is from 7'/2 per cent to 9 per cent. We have the NCI and before that we had the CSIP, the AIB, the FPRB and the PIC. And I suggest that we should go to the POLLS so that we could throw this government OUT.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: It is clear that monitoring inflation has done nothing to moderate it. Indeed, the cost of administering these bodies may actually have added to the problem. For example, the AIB which was supposed to have 200 employees ended up with a staff of more than 600. The government spent more
March 14, 1979

than $70 million dollars on running that agency in the three years of its lifespan.
There were a couple of important paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne of February 1974:
The government is developing a policy on food based on the following objectives: an adequate and dependable supply of quality food for a growing population in Canada enjoying a rising standard of living: reasonable food prices for the consumer, in not requiring an undue proportion of income for Canadians to secure a sufficient and balanced diet, and for the producer in providing a return adequate to encourage production of food items which can be produced economically and efficiently in Canada.
Since that promise was made, food prices have risen by nearly 60 per cent and they are expected to rise a further 20 per cent this year-that is the figure the minister himself has used. Instead of devising a food strategy, the government has held a food conference to give the appearance of doing something. Over the last six years since 1973, while inflation rates have continued between a minimum of IV2 per cent and a maximum of almost 11 per cent, in only one of those years was the rate of increase in the food prices below the general increase. In all the other five years increases in food prices led increases in the cost of living. Food prices in Canada have more than doubled since 1971. They will have tripled by 1981.
If these general figures are horrifying, selected figures published by Statistics Canada about individual items are even worse. In the last two years beef has gone up by 82 per cent, that is, between January of 1977 and January of this year. Ground beef has gone up by 116 per cent; powdered skim milk by 76 per cent; grapefruit by 58 per cent; oranges by 96 per cent; canned orange juice by 55 per cent; celery by 57 per cent; lettuce by 161 per cent; tomatoes by 55 per cent. The list is endless. The price increases are horrifying. And what do we get from the government? More rhetoric, more agencies to study the problem, more information.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the information does not have to come from government agencies; Canadians do not need another agency to enable them to find out what is happening to food prices. Those prices are published in the newspaper every single week. Every supermarket in the country takes advertisements like the one I hold in my hand to tell people what is happening to prices. And here is the bad news: instant coffee $4.88 a jar, iceberg lettuce, on special, 49 cents a head. Every newspaper tells the same story. That one is from Ottawa; this one is from Montreal. Spaghetti and macaroni, two 500 grams boxes $1.00; bananas, 4 pounds for a dollar; bread, 3 loaves for $1.29; sirloin tip roast, $2.88 a pound. Those prices are from the Montreal paper.
Here is another page. In this case the supermarket has the gall to head the advertisement "low prices". These are loss leaders, by the way, but even so the prices are horrifying; tomatoes, two pounds for $1, lettuce, 2 heads for a $1. Over here we read: bacon, $1.69, round steak, $2.58 a pound, tomato juice, 59 cents for a 48 oz. fluid tin. But the worst thing about this advertisement is that it shows right there just what those prices were last week before certain goods became "specials" and what they will be next week after these special offers are over. That tin of tomato juice was, and will be, 76
Price Increases
cents instead of 59 cents; the steak was $3.08 not $2.58, the bacon was, and will be, $2.08, not $1.69; the lettuce was, and will be, 99 cents a head, not 50 cents a piece. Tomatoes were, and will be, $1.49 for two pounds instead of $1.
And here is the solution, Mr. Speaker; the minister has been quoted as saying Canadians may have to buy more nutritious and less expensive alternatives. He talked about some of the items other than food which are available on the shelves of the supermarkets. Well, here are some of them, here is what Canadians who find that the price of people-food is too high can buy: cat food is only $1 for five tins, dog food is two tins for 89 cents. Now if you stop drinking milk, for instance, if you stop wasting money on that and drink water and eat dog food, you can cut yow food bill way down.
The minister talks about carping criticisms from this side of the House. He cited an article in the newspaper-it was the only one he mentioned-praising what he had done. I should like to read a selection of clippings from newspapers across the country published not only in the last couple of weeks but over the last couple of years and dealing with this department and this problem. The Ottawa Citizen, for example, calls the NCI a "cynical election ploy". The Toronto Sun calls it a "pre-election gimmick". It says the whole concept reeks with cynicism. Again, from the Toronto Sun:
The finance minister said as long as some companies would not co-operate we had to assure the public we could find out what was going on. In other words, the minister does not know what is going on.
The Ottawa Journal called it "a mitigated disaster", whatever that means. There was John Gray writing in the Ottawa Journal-"Let Commission No. 5 Wrestle Inflation to the Ground". He went on: "The Liberals have latched on to the obvious; it is easier to monitor inflation that try to control it". Don McGillivray, writing in the Montreal Gazette, said the new selection body is just an election ploy. In his opinion the NCI has as much hope of stopping inflation "as a walnut has of stopping a steam roller." George Bain in a column headed "The Eleven Years War on Prices" had this to say:
There are married couples buying groceries today who had not reached puberty when this government first started talking about new competition legislation six consumer and corporate affairs ministers ago.
The following appears in The Globe and Mail:
Warren Allmand's rhetorical rage at rising prices is as pretty a piece of political hypocrisy as has come out of the Liberal government so far this election campaign.
The Montreal Star said, and I quote:
There is only one thing certain about Warren Ailmand's proposed threepronged attack on rising prices-it won't do anything to stop prices from rising.
The Winnipeg Free Press said:
-the inflation which has been primarily the cause of depleted financial reserves originated almost exclusively with government.
Talking about the serpent of inflation, the Hamilton Spectator said:
-the commission was empowered to say "tsk, tsk" unto the people and shame the serpent.
4162

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
The Globe and Mail said:
Canada's consumer price index advanced by 9 per cent last year-a bigger increase than in most other industrialized countries.
It is not just the current press which is critical. Here is something from the middle of last year in the Financial Post:
The most striking feature of the Economic Council of Canada's inflation-analysis group is the care that has gone into ensuring its role and impact will be limited.
On March 1, 1974, the Montreal Star printed the following:
Prime Minister Trudeau said yesterday the government is considering measures to help protect savings from erosion by inflation.
The criticism does not come just from the press and this side of the House. Some of it comes from the other side of the House. A member sitting on the Liberal side told anyone outside the House who would listen that he felt the government was jeopardizing its election prospects by failing to act decisively to provide clear protection against rising prices. The member to whom I refer is the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), a former member of the cabinet. Although he objects to rising prices, what he really objects to with regard to government inaction is not that it does not do anything to help the consumer but that it is jeopardizing the government's re-election chances. Here are some headlines about the minister himself. In 1979: "Allmand Talks Tough on Inflation". "Talks" is the operative word. In 1978 in the Star Phoenix: "Whelan, Allmand Disagree Over Higher Meat Imports".
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is quoted as saying:
And don't blame us if the price tag is further inflated because of currency conditions.
That is the same minister who removed the subsidy on powdered milk and drove the price up 50 per cent and sales down by 50 per cent.
Here is another headline from last year: "Allmand Orders Investigation". "Allmand May Probe High Business Profits". "Allmand's Strategy on Rising Prices Includes a Stronger Inflation Agency". "Allmand Aims to Curb Food Prices". "Consumer in the Boardroom". "Allmand Promises Close Watch". "Improve Machine Food". "Consumer Minister Has Been Consumed". The minister deserves an award for understatements for saying, "I'm not an expert in agricultural economics."
We have had many agencies and much talk. We have had eight ministers of consumer and corporate affairs since this government took power almost 11 years ago. Four of those ministers were in office one year or less, seven of them for under two years. By all counts the present minister is the least competent. He is the one who most often claims that he is misquoted, misunderstood or misinterpreted. He did it again this afternoon in his speech. While he refuses to accept responsibility, he points at processors and distributors. Are they to blame? Perhaps just a few of them. The minister points at producers. Are they to blame? Well, maybe some, but certainly not the bulk of them. He points at consumers. Are they to blame for rising prices? Have they been shopping unwisely? Have they been eating too much? When the minister points a

finger at someone else, he should realize that three fingers are pointing at himself.
This government has done nothing for the past ten years to deal with rising costs of living and, in particular, food prices. The government has made noise. A hen makes a noise when she lays an egg. This government has laid and egg, but it is cackling as if it laid an astroid. We have had Five agencies, eight ministers, hundreds of promises and thousand of occasions on which to act, but we have had zero performance. We have had dithering indecisiveness. This government and this minister have been as organized in their approach to the problem as a kitten with diarrhoea. Just as prices are soaring again, this government, which has consistently postponed an election which would be a real test of its record and its so-called policies, gives us more rhetoric, more promises, and another agency. The only area in which it is not consistent is that the Prime Minister has not appointed another new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is about time. This one has been minister for a year and a half.
The government also has the gall to tell the Canadian people there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We have news for the government. The light it sees is a train. A national food policy is overdue. If this government refuses to grasp the nettle and to work on a co-ordinated national food policy which would mean fair prices for consumers, an equitable and efficient distribution system and adequate returns for producers, then let it resign and go to the people, and they will elect a government which can do that. There are five government departments and agencies which presumably have some responsibility in this area, the Canadian Wheat Board, The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare and others. One or two of the ministers responsible drifted in and out of the House earlier in the debate, but none of them are here at the present time. If they had any real concern or any real policies, surely they would be here to respond in person to this motion presented by the New Democratic Party.
In 1972 there was an all-party committee of this House which reported a year later recommending a ten-year national food strategy. The Food Prices Review Board recommended a food strategy. The Consumers Association of Canada has recommended a food strategy, and this party, as well as our companions to my left, have recommended a food strategy. We are past the point where the problem needs looking into. We are past the point of talk. I challenge the government to do one of two things, either produce concrete proposals which it has the guts to put into effect now, or resign and let the people of Canada elect a government which will do those things.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion put forth by my colleague the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). It is quite obvious that for the last ten years inflation has become a real psychosis and remains a major
March 14, 1979

hurdle in our attempts to reach our collective and individual goals. In 1975, while we were debating Bill C-73 on anti-inflation, I stated that the austerity measures contemplated by the government did not really go to the heart of the problem. I also added that the efforts that were to be made over the next three years would not solve the problem. The government is now clutching at straws as far as inflation, unemployment and the economy in general are concerned. It is almost recognizing its inability to overcome fantastic price increases such as we have witnessed.
When the prices and wages control program was proposed, the aim of the Anti-Inflation Board was to bring inflation down to 6 per cent over a two-year period. Yet, our rate of inflation remains between 8 and 9 per cent.
This situation is as unacceptable as our unemployment rate and the present economic situation. Mr. Speaker, recently an Ottawa newspaper reported these words of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In 1970, the Prime Minister said that inflation was no longer a problem in Canada. Some time later, in 1974, he stated: We are going to wrestle inflation to the ground.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is inflation which has wrestled our bank accounts to the ground and robbed the savings of Canadian taxpayers. Since the Liberal government came to power in 1968, inflation has taken fantastic proportions. To contain inflation, the government has offered us a multitude of great promises and a series of five boards which were all supposed to defeat inflation once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the measures taken up to now, that is, government expenditure restrictions, wages controls and the review of consumer price increases, are only measures. It is about time that someone in the government show some leadership and not be afraid to take the action required.
Food price increases affect a large proportion of family budgets. For many Canadian families, housing and food account for up to 70 per cent of total expenses. The Canadian Senate established the poverty line according to this criterion. Only the families whose income is lower than the average family wages are considered poor. In 1977, 882,000 single people and 1,288,000 families of two or more people were placed in this category. This is an unfortunate situation, Mr. Speaker.
A multitude of organizations have been established to remedy to this situation, including control boards, study commissions, review boards, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, and the latest, the National Commission on Inflation announced on March 2 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). What can we expect from this new commission? Certainly not fairer prices! Will it do more than all the others before it? I would like to say yes, but I would be deceiving myself. This commission will only be another smokescreen to hide the ineptitude and indecision of the government.
Price Increases
It will be responsible for supervising changes in prices like all its predecessors, but with a little something added. I refer to the press release of March 2 published by the minister for the duties of this commission. In addition to supervising price changes, the inflation commission will inform the public about the inflationary process.
I guess Canadians need to learn or to learn over again that inflation has been gnawing at them for nearly 10, 15 years. I think every good Canadian is aware of that cancer that keeps gnawing at him. On the other hand, it is really interesting to know that Canadians are not informed about inflation. If they do not know yet what the inflation which is eroding every pay cheque is all about, the commission is going to show them. We are really lucky. We are faced with excessive inflation particularly in food prices but now we will know why our cheque is not big enough to meet the daily needs of our families and households. Then the mandate of the commission will be to identify price increases. It will be a very understandable task for a commission on inflation to carry out, and if it considers it appropriate, it will report to the government and its report will undoubtedly go and join all the others somewhere on a shelf until the government decides to disband it and create another one. Mr. Speaker, I took a couple of pokes at the new commission because it seems to me the establishment of these countless commissions on inflation has become a real joke. It creates false expectations every time, and in spite of that, inflation continues unabated.
If it turns out the government cannot come up with a real energy policy to bring inflation down, must one conclude that it gave in to the financial power of banks and big business? It is often said in government quarters that our inflation comes from abroad, that it is an international phenomenon. That may be true but only in part and it is not a valid reason not to do anything. I would like to remind you that industrialized countries like Switzerland and Germany are doing very well at this time. The ever increasing costs of energy and food we have been experiencing will only be aggravated by the fall of the dollar because those products are imported in large quantities. I think the fall of the dollar is due to a lack of confidence in financial and international banking quarters in our economic situation and the total lack of leadership to straighten it out.
The inflation that continues and will continue to affect us is due for a large part to the past mistakes of monetary and fiscal authorities. Unfortunately, the longer the inflation problem lasts, the more complex the contributing factors become. That is why we should not wait any longer to act. We cannot eternally rely on just our simple measures to counter the reduction in purchasing power. To get to the causes of the disease we will need a round table of management, labour and government representatives to draft a plan of action. I believe that procedure would not benefit one group to the detriment of others.

March 14, 1979
Price Increases


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for parliament for Wellington I am responsible for a constituency that is primarily made up of the city of Guelph, which makes up 85 per cent of that constituency and yet is surrounded by a very rural, agricultural area. There are four townships in the riding which make up the balance, the other 15 per cent of the riding. One hundred per cent of my riding, whether it be the city urban or the rural people, are consumers, but the 15 per cent in the rural townships, which are situated on primarily class one and class two agricultural land, are also largely producers. So I have in my riding both consumers and producers whom I represent, and 1 try to represent both groups responsibly. I am not a consumer or producer advocate. I like to think of myself as a constituent advocate.
I was born in the United Kingdom and lived there during World War II. As many hon. members will realize and appreciate, during World War II energy, food and many other materials in the United Kingdom were in very short supply. Thus we had to learn to live, or some may say, exist on the essentials of life. Therefore, one can imagine how amazed I was when I came to Canada in 1947 and saw the phenomenal amount of waste in energy and food. It was absolutely extraordinary the temperature at which buildings were kept, with windows open letting all the heat escape. Also, the amount of food left on plates at the end of a meal and the amount thrown into the garbage before reaching the table were extraordinary. It was prime food, food the people in the United Kingdom could not afford during the war.
At very long last we are coming to our senses, certainly in the area of energy. We realize we cannot continue to be wasteful, that energy is much more important in our economy. This was brought primarily to our attention by the OPEC actions of 1973. The message of conservation finally sunk in, and we are seeing tremendous decreases in the rate of energy consumption. The increases of the past have been lowered by a substantial amount, a little over half the rate of increase in the past. The same should happen in the area of food.
The cost of food in Canada is among the cheapest in the world. Even though it is cheaper, there is no excuse to waste it. We should conserve it. It will be a big job educating the public on the value of nutrition. I am pleased the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and her department have issued booklets which do an excellent job in the area of nutrition. Also I am glad the University of Guelph in my riding has a department which is very concerned with nutrition. That department is helping to educate the public on the importance of nutrition and good value for their food dollar.
Recently I made a suggestion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to help in the education process of the general public. My suggestion was to adopt a system somewhat similar to the one brought into being by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the area of labelling

clothes for washing and drying. All items of wearing apparel have recomendations as to how they can be washed and dried; what temperatures should be used; what detergents and bleaches can be used; and what articles can or cannot withstand.
Keeping in mind the expense involved, perhaps it would be a good idea to implement a similar type of labelling as far as food is concerned. Thus, when a person goes through a supermarket, he or she would see what produce was high in vitamins, protein, carbohydrates and other important ingredients for a nutritionally balanced diet.
Also the situation would be helped if consumers paid more attention to buying Canadian. As well as maintaining nutrition, we could assist in the area of imported inflation where we are bringing goods into the country over which we have no control of the prices and therefore the inflationary tendency they promote. For example, as far as vitamin C is concerned, we do not have to drink orange juice every morning. We grow an awful lot of apples in Canada and make an awful lot of apple juice. There is just as much vitamin C in Canadian apple juice as in orange imported from Florida. Many people enjoy apple juice as much as orange juice. How many people think, every time they drink a glass of orange juice, that they are not buying Canadian and that they could help their costs and the economy by switching to apple juice? How many people drink tea and coffee in Canada, but we produce an awful lot of milk. Today we must advertise milk so that it can compete with all other available drinks in the market place, whether they be soft drinks or alcoholic beverages.
I am glad to see the Department of Agriculture is looking into other areas of imported products which can be displaced by growing them in Canada and therefore cutting down on imported inflation. I was pleased to hear about the experiment of growing peanuts in the agricultural land of southwestern Ontario which previously was used to grow tobacco. That experiment is now reaching the commercial stage. We import $50 million worth of peanuts every year. With the devaluation of the dollar which has taken place in the last few months, the price of our imported peanut butter or our imported peanuts which go into peanut butter has increased by that amount of money. If peanuts are grown in southwestern Ontario, which now is economically viable, Canada would not have that inflationary tendency because of the imported product.
There are other areas in which we are still behaving like fat cats. I am very ashamed that we have to bring into the country 8,000 agricultural workers a year to harvest our crops. We cannot find Canadians who are willing to pick crops at harvest time. The farmers must get their crops off the fields within a very short period of time if they are to reap the nutritional benefits of freshly-ripened crops. We cannot find Canadians to do this job, so we must bring in people from the Caribbean or Mexico do do it. With record high unemployment we bring in approximately 8,000 people from outside the country.
When I was going through my teenage years, I made money every summer. My sole source of income as a student was from going into fields and harvesting agricultural crops. There was no shame in that. It was a good experience. That is the free
March 14, 1979

enterprise system of work. By taking positive action to replace imports over which we have no control of price increases, we can tackle inflation caused externally. Recently the National Commission on Inflation was brought into being to pinpoint these problems and to separate external inflation from internal causes of inflation. But the consumer is still the key player in this game; he or she has a choice to exercise. He or she does not have to buy a product in the supermarket. Consumer boycott is one of the most effective weapons of the free enterprise system.
There are other choices. We can grow our own food. We can use it while it is fresh during the harvesting season, and we can freeze the balance to use during the rest of the year.
Approximately 40 per cent of the population of Wellington riding is of ethnic origin. A number of my constituents have very large gardens. Quite frequently they grow tomatoes and peppers of varieties foreign to Canada. They use these unique vegetables in the preparation of their national dishes. I am amazed at the size and the frequency of these gardens. I am amazed at the amount of crops grown to supplement their year-round food consumption and not just during the peak season.
Consumers have another choice. If they do not want to grow their own food, they can go out and pick it. Many farmers have systems whereby people can pick their own food. They can use the food when it is fresh during harvest season, or it can be frozen and used during the balance of the year. For example, my family goes out and picks strawberries in June, corn in August, and apples in September or October. We have the produce fresh when it is in season, and freeze it for use during the rest of the year. Techniques are readily available. If a person does not have such information available, he or she can obtain it from the Department of Agriculture. That department produces booklets containing helpful advice on freezing produce.
There are various manners in which consumers can help in fighting the battle of inflation. The last thing we need is another layer of government bureaucracy. I would not want to see another group looking into the details in order to find out what should or should not be done. There are too many people interfering in the free enterprise system. We should keep government involvement to an absolute minimum. It would keep the cost of government down and it would give the free enterprise system a chance to work. The free enterprise system will work if we use all the tools available, and that includes consumer choice.
I should like to make a few comments concerning some of the facts dealing with immediate food price increases. Food price increases are expected for the first part of 1979, with price increases declining later in the year to keep 1979 price increases to the 12 per cent-14 per cent range, compared to 12.8 per cent for 1978, 8.4 per cent for 1977, and 2.7 per cent for 1976. The 1979 AIB retail survey for February shows higher retail prices for beef, bread, bakery products, fresh fruit and vegetables. Price increases in these areas can be expected for a few more weeks.
Price Increases
What are the causes for these price increases? Canadians are dependent upon foreign supplies for 35 per cent of all fruit and vegetables they purchase. In the wintertime they are dependent for about 75 per cent of their produce on foreign sources. About one third of all price increases is created by agricultural conditions that are unavoidable, whether they be weather conditions, crop failures or cyclical shortages. About one third of all price increases reflect devaluation of the dollar, reductions in subsidies, or marketing arrangements to ensure supply. These are policies necessary for economic growth, increasing employment, and ensuring the consumer food at reasonable prices.
The cost of food to Canadians is a story of which we can be very proud, indeed. In 1978 a U.S. study showed that 13.8 per cent of disposable income was spent for food in Canada. In most countries people spent at least 20 per cent of their budget on food, with people in some countries spending up to 50 per cent. Are we spending more and more every year in real terms on food? No, Mr. Speaker, we are spending less and less every year in real terms of work for the family food basket. The number of hours work required to buy food for a family of four for one week has gone from 20 hours in 1949 to 14 hours in 1959, to 11 hours in 1969, and to eight hours in 1977.
The percentage of disposable income spent on food at home has gone from 20 per cent in 1949 down to 18 per cent in 1959, to 14.6 per cent in 1969, and in the first three quarters of 1978 it was 12.9 per cent.


An hon. Member:: All under Liberal government.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Yes, the whole lot, just about.
Have food prices increased too quickly? Let us examine some statistics for the 1968-78 period, the last ten years. Gross national product per capita in current dollars has increased from $3,506 in 1968 to $9,873 in 1978, an increase of 182 per cent. Personal disposable income per capita in current dollars has risen from $2,262 in 1968 to $6,629 in 1978, an increase of 193 per cent. Labour income per person employed has gone from $5,063 in 1968 to $13,236 in 1978, an increase of 161 per cent. However, food, according to the consumer price index, has gone from $92.8 in 1968 to $208 in 1978, an increase of 124 per cent, compared to the 161 per cent, 193 per cent and 182 per cent for the other indicators I have given. Food increases, by any measure, have lagged substantially behind income increases.
What about the recent increases in food prices? Available statistics show that in the first three quarters of 1978 food prices increased 11.3 per cent for food at home, while per capita disposable income increased 23 per cent in the same period. During 1976 and 1977 food price increases were almost the lowest of all price increases in consumer purchases. In the same period the cost of energy increased almost four times.
How does Canada compare internationally? Numerous international food surveys have found Canadian food prices among the world's lowest. For example, a January 3, 1979,

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
United States department of agriculture survey found that Ottawa stores charged 21 per cent less than Washington stores for a representative 21-item food basket. In the same survey Canada is shown to have the lowest food prices in terms of average hourly industrial wages of any of the 16 national capitals surveyed. The survey reveals that in Ottawa we pay S3.36 per kilogram of boneless chuck roast while in Washington the cost is $4.01, in Paris it is $5.03, and in London it is $4.38. We have similar statistics here in respect of a dozen eggs, a kilogram of butter, a kilogram of bread, and a kilogram of potatoes.
How long do we have to work here as compared to those in these other places in order to purchase the same amount of these articles? Again, for a kilogram of boneless chuck roast in Ottawa we must work 37 minutes whereas in Washington the figure is 33 minutes, in Paris it is one hour and 32 minutes, and in London it is one hour and 39 minutes. The figures for a kilogram of potatoes in the same comparison are: five minutes in Ottawa, six minutes in Washington, six minutes in Paris, and seven minutes in London. For a dozen eggs the work time figures are: eight minutes in Ottawa, seven minutes in Washington, 27 minutes in Paris, and 24 minutes in London. The figures in respect of a kilogram of butter are: 26 minutes in Ottawa, 34 minutes in Washington, one hour and 23 minutes in Paris, and 46 minutes in London. By any international standards one wants to use, and this is from the United States department of agriculture, foreign agriculture figures, we have a very good record.
How are we dealing with food price increases? Although food price increases are largely unavoidable, the Liberal government recognized the disproportionate burden placed on the poor and the aged and has acted to help these groups through the Child Tax Credit Program and increases in the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Liberal government has also been indexing pensions and other benefits since 1974.
To monitor further the making of excessive profits at the expense of the consumer, the government has recently established the National Commission on Inflation.
Mr. Speaker, that is our record, and I think we can be proud of it.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this motion today although I am not impressed by its content or intent. It is good in theory but simply impossible to implement. It does, however, provide us with an opportunity to discuss the issue and to place the blame for these dramatic price increases where it rightfully belongs. If hon. members on the other side of the House do not agree with me, I am certain the Canadian people will when I indicate that the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of the present government.
Prices have increased dramatically in respect of most, if not all, goods and services. The reason for these price increases is not unknown. There is nothing mysterious about this, it is obvious. They can be related almost entirely to failures on the part of this government.

What are some of these failures that have resulted in these price increases throughout the whole Canadian system? Let me list some of them as follows: this government's continuing failure to manage the Canadian economy with any degree of success or competence; this government's failure to control inflation; this government's failure to do anything about record high interst rates; this government's failure to produce the kinds of programs and policies that will encourage a greater degree of self-sufficiency in domestically produced agricultural commodities; and this government's failure to produce the kinds of programs and policies that would reduce the reliance of the Canadian consumer on foreign food supplies. Those are some of the major ones. This government's failure to develop a national food strategy or a national food policy has to be one of its major failures.
When we consider the record of this government and its lack of appropriate programs and policies, is it any wonder that prices have escalated in the manner in which they have over the past few years? This government is completely incompetent in all areas within its jurisdiction and its responsibility. Its record clearly indicates that short-term, stop-gap measures, tinkering and political posturing will not relieve the problem in respect of rising prices or in respect of increasing food prices.
The latest example occurred on Monday with a tabling of the ways and means motion relating to the tariff changes. This government had the recommendations of the Canadian Horticultural Council, the producers of fruit and vegetables in this country, and the report of the tariff board for five years, since 1974. Now, five years later, and in the dying days of this parliament and of this government, we finally have those tariff changes trotted out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) with great pride and great fanfare, trotted out to be the answer to food price increases and to bring great savings to Canadian consumers.
I say that it is complete nonsense. These savings when applied translate into savings which amount to from one cent to seven cents on each item purchased. There are many examples, some of which were cited earlier today. Let us look at cauliflower which is currently selling at $1.50 a head. It would now sell for about four cents of five cents less. The prime example is orange juice. A 28-ounce can will be reduced from 70 cents to 69 cents, a total saving of one cent. We must remember though that that same can of orange juice increased in price by 250 per cent in a relatively short period under the programs of this government.
These tariff changes are nothing but political posturing and mislead the Canadian consumer into believing that it is a solution to the food price problems. Canadian consumers will soon realize that it is simply another futile attempt on the part of this government to avoid the real culprit which, of course, is the government itself and its actions. These tariff changes provide no significant benefit to those in domestic sectors of the food chain. They provide no assurance to producers that Canadian farmers will be able to remain in business, let alone
March 14, 1979

grow and expand their production. In fact many of them are left without protection.
These tariff changes provide no real encouragement to the Canadian food processing sector so that they can grow and expand their operations. In fact the Canadian processing industry will be lucky if it can maintain its present status. If government programs do not ensure the growth and development of Canadians and Canadian businesses, whatever they might be, the results are bound to be disastrous.
We have approximately one million people unemployed in Canada today. The cost to Canadians of this unemployed sector is tremendous, particularly in terms of lost potential and lost opportunity. With the right kind of leadership we could employ well over 100,000 more Canadians in our Canadian food system alone. Let me illustrate my comments by referring to a recent study done by the Canadian Fruit and Vegetable Processors Association. In that study they selected 21 fruit and vegetable items, all of which could be grown in Canada. The total imported value amounted to $92.5 million. The total man hours lost by the Canadian production and processing industries was over 13 million man hours, and the total wages lost was recorded at $51.5 million. It was estimated that the cost to Canadians and to the imbalance of trade would be approximately $110 million. It should be noted that these figures were based on the Canadian dollar when it was at or close to par with the U.S. dollar. These figures are far more significant in terms of 85 cent dollars.
Had these 21 fruit and vegetable products been grown, processed and moved through our Canadian food chain, the additional per capita cost to the Canadian consumer would be a grand total of 48 cents a year. Considering the volume of food imports and the 85 cent dollar, this 48 cents annual per capita cost to consumers would be reduced to an even more insignificant figure today.
When one considers these factors, the loss in jobs, wages and productivity, and the cost in terms of unemployment insurance, the 85 cent dollar, the degree of our dependency on imported foods and the cost to the Canadian consumer, one realizes that the total approach to this problem has been fragmented and not in the best interests of the Canadian farmer, food processor or consumer. Clearly, policies of this government have led to an underutilization of Canadian resources, Canadian facilities, and Canadian labour.
Agricultural exports increased by a mere 7 per cent in 1977 figures over 1976 figures. Agricultural imports, however, increased almost twice as much, up by 13.7 per cent from 1976. Our agricultural trade surplus decreased by 15 per cent. Surely the message is clear. If we continue this trend, we continue to travel the road to disaster. We are in need of a comprehensive and well co-ordinated national food policy. There are dozens of policies at all levels of government which affect food production, processing, distribution and consumption. In fact if one wants a good example of non co-operative federalism or non co-ordinated policies, it would be hard to beat the array of legislation and regulations affecting the food system in this country.
Price Increases
I do not believe that it would be an exaggeration to say that there are more than 20 separate federal departments, not to mention the various divisions within those departments, with regulatory authority over some aspect or another of the food system. With this kind of confusion of responsibility, jealous empire guarding remains a major deterrent to the development of a national food policy. It is with regard to this background that I have a fundamental concern, and it is questionable that we can afford to leave the food sector any longer without an over-all direction or framework within which activities and planning of all governments and the private sector can be based. We, as Canadians, have been blessed with a variety and an abundance of highly nutritional food, but our potential remains almost unlimited. However, drastic cost increases place in question the continuation of this long enjoyed or taken for granted fact.
Taken collectively, the various elements of the Canadian food industry constitute a very large portion of our total national economy and, in addition, a significant contribution to our balance of trade. Unfortunately, as a result of the policies of this government in recent years, Canada has a lesser share of the domestic market and a greater dependency on outside sources for food supplies. We see the serious pressures and lost potential that affect most, if not all, members of the food chain, and that would include consumers as well.
Over-all, when we disregard dollar values, agricultural output has seriously declined in absolute terms over recent years. The gap between achievement and potential for agricultural and food production is widening. Statistics reveal that we had the same level of productivity in the period 1972 to 1974 that existed ten years earlier. This slow growth in food production relative to demand has also shown up in a decline of food exports, to which I referred earlier, in volume terms, and an increase in volume of imports.
The old theory, still very much in practice by the government, of consumer savings by price regulations controlled by food imports, just does not bear up under close scrutiny and examination. Mr. Speaker, if it does not bear up now, where would we be if totally dependent on imports and totally at the mercy of outside suppliers of food?
To be successful, Canada's agriculture and food policy must be enconomically based. It should stimulate development and growth in production, processing and marketing. Emphasis on the latter should apply both at home and abroad. Senior levels of government must agree that the object should be to maximize the development of agriculture and food industries, thus strengthening the whole Canadian economy. It must ensure that not only fair and equitable returns are secured for the primary producers but also to all sectors of the total food chain. It must ensure as well a safe and adequate supply of nutritional food for Canadian consumers at acceptable prices. Mr. Speaker, this goal cannot be achieved by the kinds and types of programs pursued by this government.

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
The confusion and conflicts within this government have served no useful purpose whatsoever. This government has pitted producers against consumers and vice versa. It has polarized these two sectors of our society. It has prompted and promoted distrust among Canadians. Producers need consumers; it is they who purchase the produce. Consumers need producers; it is they who provide the required food and food products. We must narrow the gap and promote a better understanding between producers and consumers. We must work in concert, not in conflict with these two sectors of our society. I am confident that producers, processors and consumers will accept their responsibilities and rise to the challenges that face them.
What is needed is a government with the will, a government with the desire and ability to manage our economy, to control inflation, to lower the rate of unemployment, to encourage a greater degree of self-sufficiency in the agricultural and food industries, and to reduce dependency on foreign food supplies.
Canadians know that the major culprit in the whole food price issue is the government. "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Canadians are not going to be fooled any longer. This government will get that message, hopefully in the not too distant future when someone over there shows some leadership and musters enough courage to pull the plug and go to the country.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of participating in the debate today, on the motion presented by the hon. member of the New Democratic Party for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who, on behalf of his party, criticizes the policies of the government which he finds inadequate to control inflation, specially where foods are concerned.
That subject is of particular interest to me, Mr. Speaker, as I know it quite well, having had the privilege of sitting, in 1974 and 1975, on the parliamentary commission whose mandate it was to look into the cause of the inflation which was affecting our economy, and namely food prices. In 1975, after anti-inflation measures were adopted, I participated, in the House of Commons, in the debates on decontrol measures, an exercise considered as extremely complex, which was applied from April 1975 till very recently, the end of December I believe, when the Anti-Inflation Board was dissolved.
Mr. Speaker, for quite some time our policy has been aimed at slowing down and even at controlling inflation while avoiding other types of adjustments in our economy. Those are always difficult steps to take to maintain a very precarious balance. I will not suggest today that we have completely succeeded in reaching our aim which is to reduce the rate of inflation, but I think that if we objectively consider the situation, there is evidence that we will obtain better results at the price level, and that anyhow they are better in Canada than in most other industrialized countries.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there were a few failures in the process. They are essentially beyond our control. But even in that case we are trying to respond and to get over them. We still have much to do as is the case in other countries, but I would like to insist on the necessity of keeping confidence in our economy, because if we consider the conditions, such confidence is warranted. Moreover, I notice a more optimistic attitude toward our economy even if it does not show among members opposite or among some economists.
Let us examine briefly what happened inflationwise. About five years ago, Canada, like other countries, was hit by galloping inflation which forced prices up by almost 11 per cent in 1974 and 1975. This situation forced the government to launch its anti-inflation program in the fall and to establish regulations which contributed to the slowing down of rising prices and gradually bring the situation back to normal. But we all recognize that such a control program is mostly a psychological weapon that works well within a free market economy only if it is enforced for a limited period. For this reason we started the decontrol process about a year ago, last April.
That same month the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said in his spring budget speech that in his opinion the consumer price index would rise some 7 per cent in 1978. In fact, the rise was 9 per cent, and the difference is mainly due to higher than predicted rise in the food prices and to a new decline of the dollar which has raised the price of all imported goods. Save for an unexpected surprise, we believe the CPI will go up by 7 or 7.5 per cent this year, and again, for the most part, this rise will be attributable to food prices and imported goods. I am not for a minute suggesting such a rise is acceptable, but it will be lower than the inflation rate we have known these past years.
Following the lifting of controls, it was decided in a conference of the first ministers to ask the Economic Council of Canada to continue analysing the situation in terms of prices and costs. This request has led us to the establishment of the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity. This agency was given the task of watching for prices and costs changes so as to inform Canadians of any tendency which could possibly thwart our chances to fight inflation. Its terms of reference also included studying structural problems, likely to cause rising costs and prices, thus making the economy more vulnerable to inflationary pressures. Very recently, Mr. Speaker, the CSIP management wrote to major corporations to ask them for information relating to their costs and prices, in order to be able to make more extensive analyses.
This is covered by its terms of reference. I must emphasize however that the first proposal submitted by the federal government to the various premiers at the federal-provincial conference of February 1978 was to grant larger powers to that body in order, not to roll prices back, but to investigate, obtain

March 14, 1979

information, and so on. Quite frankly, it was the provincial premiers who rejected the idea, they asked that we do not proceed with this. New Brunswick's premier suggested he would favour a less powerful agency. Because of changes that were made, there should be more reference to control boards because that term had a coercive connotation. He wished an organization would be established that would operate on a voluntary basis.
There is dissension, Mr. Speaker. Provincial governments do not want us to establish an organization that would be more powerful than the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity. I would point out that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and cabinet are seriously scrutinizing the centre's role, as to whether in particular it should be given certain powers of control to determine in the eyes of Canadians whether some firms are making excessive profits. Whatever the decision, there certainly will be no roll-back powers. We have no intention to go along that road, because we have reasons to believe this would be wrong. In the final analysis, the only way to wrestle inflation is to have a strong and dynamic economy, and to implement a sound fiscal and monetary policy. This is the only way to ensure total recovery and growth in the private sector.
In agreement with the provinces, the government undertook some years ago to control its expenditures, to maintain them below the growth rate of the gross national product. This is what we have been doing. Monetary policy reflects our concern with inflation. A great number of other strong influences are acting to stimulate business in the private sector. We are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that our competitivity has improved at the international level. Our production costs have decreased at a time when the value of our dollar declined on foreign markets. There has been a spectacular increase in the number of jobs-more than 440,000 jobs created during the last 12 months-and in 1978 we recorded an unprecedented surplus of $3.5 billion in our trade balance. The manufacturing sector strongly recovered last year with a production growth of 9 per cent and a job creation growth of 7 per cent.
We are confident that this year the real growth will reach the 3.5 per cent mark and the known intentions of prospective investors allow us to believe that the rate of real investments will go up by 4.5 per cent for the economy as a whole. Frankly speaking, I see nothing wrong with profits, a word which someone dared pronounce. I think it is a very important aspect of the economic crisis our country has gone through namely the fact that profits are increasing. It is the main source of capital and investment required to create jobs, preserve them and generate the growth so badly needed in our country. All sectors in our economy, workers and businesses alike, should feel happy that there have been profits because without them there would not be enough money available for the workers to earn decent wages and keep their jobs.
Price Increases
Mr. Speaker, we believe that everything needed is there to ensure a steady expansion in our economy. We are indeed worried about the price escalation of imported food products which contribute to the lowering of available income of workers. We do not deny either the fact that because of the increase it will be more difficult to reduce inflation. Yet we must ask ourselves seriously if we can actually protect the Canadian people from all the elements of inflation which find their origin abroad. Any overzealous attempt to intervene in the operation of the market when there is nothing to substantiate allegations of price rigging, as here in the case of food products, would indeed be a step in the wrong direction. We would stand the risk of losing the advantage which we painfully acquired in recent years.
The federal government has been subsidizing oil supply in eastern Canada for the last three years in order to maintain an equitable price across the country for this product which represents over $1 million per subsidized day for consumers in eastern Canada. Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the reasons which motivated the hon. member of the NDP to propose this motion to the House today. I myself, as well as the consumers whose interests I defend, have had enough of unending price increases. All of us on the government side want to do something to help consumers, both collectively and individually, and in the last few years we have indeed done much to ease the burden of soaring prices.
Only recently, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has increased the guaranteed income supplement and instituted a $200 child tax credit aimed at helping poor and middle income Canadians. We reduced the sales tax and personal income tax, directly or through indexation. The latest consumer price index figures demonstrate that the federal sales tax reduction announced in the November budget is in fact felt at the consumer level, and that because of this measure, non-food products in the index have shown only a slight increase. In some cases, there has even been a reduction in the price index of clothing and furniture.
The first and most important measure taken this year to stop inflation was the establishment of the Anti-Inflation Board in the fall of 1975.
The government recently appointed a new president to the National Food Products Marketing Board. He has experience not only in agriculture but also in consumer products. It gives a chance to all food producers to be better heard. The board has received new directions and has been asked to listen attentively to the representations and to consider each case with flexibility.
The government has taken measures to show the food product consumer how to get more for his money. We have sent to daily and weekly papers, news releases showing the better food buys. Last week, for instance, we had a long article about the price of pork which was advantageous in many areas of the country. At other times, we recommend the substitution
4170

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
of other protein foods like eggs, poultry, and fish. This information is helpful to consumers.
Inflation is certainly a serious matter of concern for the government, but it should not be to the extent that the flexibility and adaptability of the Canadian economy might be comprised. The government is confident that businesses and unions also want to protect the gains made during the three year fight against inflation.
The government has full control over its spending; wages demands and agreements are more realistic, and our export prospects are excellent. Quite possibly food price increases will come down with time. In those circumstances we would be wrong to revert to confrontation, as the motion before the House today suggests, rather than insisting on moderation and seriousness. Canadians know they could not improve their capacity to meet competition and their standard of living just by increasing prices. The government will certainly not tolerate an irresponsible attitude about price and salary increases nor will it resort to control on monetary policy to discourage those inflationary surges. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the inflation we have all been experiencing, it is unfair to say that the average family is helpless against those temporary increases. If we look at the statistics of the past three years, we see that in 1975 an average family of four needed 24 hours of work to buy its grocery basket, 14 hours in 1976 and 8 hours in 1977. So you see that family income went up during those years and the government as a result of the indexing of social benefit payments like old age security pensions, family allowances, welfare, veterans pensions and others has maintained the purchasing power, as the Prime Minister suggested recently, of those who can least cope with inflation. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will say that among industrialized nations Canada is still the country which is best coping with the economic difficulties facing industrialized nations today.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon I want to take members through an average day in the life of a constituent of mine and compare that average day in 1973-74 in terms of what that person is going to be spending in 1979.
Let us start with him waking up in the morning and finding himself in his house. His house in 1973 in the city of Toronto cost $40,605. That was the average selling price of a home. In 1979 that same person wakes up and, if he wants to buy a house and is not fortunate enough to live in one, he finds that the price of the average house in Toronto is $68,500. That is. an increase of $28,000 in the average selling price of a home in the past five and a half years.
He is heating himself either by fuel oil or natural gas. Look at the price of fuel oil. In 1973 it was 25.9 cents a gallon. In 1978-79 it is 60 cents a gallon, an increase of more than 100 per cent. The price of natural gas would have been $1.23 per

thousand cubic feet. Now we are looking at $3.09, an increase of nearly three hundred per cent.
He gets out of bed and makes himself some breakfast. If he has not got cholesterol like the government he might cook himself some eggs. In early 1973 he would have spent 71 cents for a dozen eggs. In February of 1979 he would be spending a $1.05 for the same dozen eggs.


An hon. Member:: They would be a little old by then.


Bob Rae: That is true. They would not taste as good, but they would be more expensive. If he has some coffee it cost him 99 cents for a pound of ground in 1973 and the price has risen, now, to $3.27. If he decides to splurge and have some cornflakes, in 1973 it would have cost him 42 cents. In 1979 he has to pay 93 cents for exactly the same cornflakes.


An hon. Member:: A little stale!


Bob Rae: A little staler and more expensive. If he gets into his car, if he can afford to buy a car, in 1973-74 it would have cost him between $3,000 and $4,000, that same car would be selling now for $5,000 or $6,000. He would be paying, in 1973, 56 cents per gallon. In 1978 he would be spending 93 cents a gallon, and we predict that next year he will be paying over $1.00 a gallon for that gasoline.
If he was taking public transport in the city of Toronto in 1974 he would have spent 30 cents cash fare, or four tickets for a dollar. In 1979, thanks to the policies of the federal and provincial governments and the subsidies for urban transport which were supposed to come according to a promise in 1974 and never came, that same person would be spending 60 cents cash fare. That is double the price, or six tickets for three dollars.
Now what has happened to wages as he gets to his place of work? When he arrives at his place of work does he find that his wages have in any way kept up with the rise in the cost of living? No, Mr. Speaker, they have not. That person would have gone into controls in 1975, he would have been zapped by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but he did not see his food prices being zapped. And when he finally comes out of controls three years later not only has he not managed to keep up with inflation but he has fallen behind.
We also note that as we come out of controls we have not seen a wage explosion in Canada. There has not been the kind of explosion that the Prime Minister has said he was worrying about. But there has been a price explosion and a profit explosion as we come out of controls, and there is no protection for the Canadian consumer when that happens. None whatsoever.
That individual may then decide to have some lunch, let us say a tin of salmon. Let us go back to the shopping List. In 1973 a tin of salmon would have cost him 72 cents, now it costs him $1.59. If he has a hot dog it was 92 cents a pound in 1973, and $1.72 in 1979. If he decides to be healthy and have some vegetables, tomatoes cost him 49 cents in 1973, and 89 cents in 1979. It is very easy for the Minister of Justice (Mr. March 14, 1979

Lalonde) to laugh. But let me say this to members on the government side. Take a walk down the streets, visit the supermarkets and talk to the people who are in those stores. Talk to the pensioners who have to buy single fish fingers because they cannot afford to buy the entire package, finding it is too expensive and uneconomical to do it that way. We are not simply talking about the cheaper cuts of beef.
There are times in my riding when I know that people are buying food which is not intended for human consumption. Yet the government has removed the subsidies from bread, skim milk, flour and milk which would provide the kind of protection and the kind of subsidy which would guarantee lower prices to those Canadians. Ask those people how they feel. They are terrified. They know they have no control over what is happening to food prices. They know they have no control over what is happening to house programs. They do not have a government in Ontario which is prepared to listen to them or do anything about the cost of public transport. There is a price explosion in the city of Toronto right now and this government has no policies to deal with it.
If you are not feeling too well and decide to go to a doctor in Toronto, look at what OHIP fees would have been in 1973- the chances are your doctor would have been in OHIP in 1973. If you are single person you would have been paying SI 1.00 a month; it was $22.00 for a family. In 1979 the OHIP charge for the single person has risen to $19.00, and for a family it has gone up to $38.00. In May of 1978 a charitable organization known as the Ontario Medical Association set its own fee schedule for doctors, 30 per cent higher than the OHIP fee schedule. In January of 1979 that same charitable organization increased its schedule by 6.94 per cent. In the city of Toronto a quarter of the doctors are no longer in OHIP and are charging the OMA schedule. So health costs are skyrocketing.
If people are not elderly and are forced into a hospital and have to stay longer than 60 days, in the city of Toronto they will be spending $9 a day for the pleasure of living in one of those luxury hotels which we call hospitals. That is the attitude of this government and of the provincial government of Ontario. That is exactly what is happening, and if there is a common agreement between these two parties it is that in an atmosphere of cutting back government expenditures it is respectable to allow doctors to go back into the private sector. This government has made that kind of attitude respectable because of the cutbacks which have taken place.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite let that pass. I think a mistake was made. The federal government has not allowed anything like that to happen. Doctors are opting out voluntarily because fees have not been raised for ten years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can raise points of procedure, but if he disagrees with the hon. member who is speaking, he can seek the floor in due time and make his own remarks.
Price Increases


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the point is that when we look at what has been controlled over the past five years and what this government has done to the ability of people to protect themselves on the private market, it has taken protection away.
The government has controlled wages.


An hon. Member:: Come on!


Bob Rae: The Conference Board in Canada said this, not the New Democratic Party. The Conference Board in Canada has pointed out that the government managed to control wages in the period between 1975 and 1978, but not prices. Now that we are coming out of controls we can see that the Canadian public is being subjected to a price and profit explosion. That is why the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) moved this motion today. The people of Canada are beginning to recognize that it is not good to move from one impotent commission to another. It is no good to set up a series of institutions, none of which is effective in dealing with the problem of controlling prices. It is far more important to introduce a government institution which has policing powers and roll-back powers to enable the people of Canada to have the sense of protection and security they need.


Samuel Victor Railton: Dreamer.


Bob Rae: If the Government of Canada is saying that it is dreaming on the part of the Canadian people to expect to have reasonable prices and not to have gouging and profiteering, I say that the hon. member is in for a nasty surprise. The people of Canada are not dreaming when they expect that kind of treatment. They expect decent treatment. If the hon. member is saying that it is dreaming to expect security, I say he is sadly mistaken because it is not dreaming to expect security. That is something the people of Canada expect and dearly want to have. They are looking for a government and a group of people who are prepared to provide that.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville pointed out that instead of having a toothless watchdog which does not even bark any more, we should have a commission which has these policing and investigative powers and also the power to roll back. The people of Canada are looking for an Elliott Ness to protect them at this time, but they have been given an Inspector Clousseau in the person of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not even responsible for the National Commission on Inflation. The minister is not even a member of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. His only role is to come into this House on the eve of an election and announce that he will present a competition policy.
The Liberal party has had 16 years to present a competition policy. Every time the government prints up and sends to the business community a competition policy and it gets on the order paper, it is withdrawn. Each time the minister says that the government cannot make up its mind and that each policy is not good enough. He says we need another one which is different. Mr. Basford, who has left this House, proposed a

March 14, 1979
Price Increases
competition policy which was supposed to make the Canadian economy competitive, give some protection to the Canadian consumer, and provide some work. He had to withdraw that policy because of the attacks of the business community.


Marc Lalonde: The NDP fought that too.


Bob Rae: Then the government set up the Bryce commission on corporate concentration. That commission said that corporate concentration is good for the Canadian people and that we should have more of it. That is the direction in which this government is moving. One day it says one thing, and the next day something different. The government cannot make up its mind about any policy, and the minister has the nerve and the gall to come into this House and say that we need a long-term strategy to deal with prices and that that involves a competition policy. We do not have a bill. The government does not have any ideas. For all we know, such a policy has not even been approved by the cabinet. Once it is approved by the cabinet it probably will not be approved by the business community, to which this government is so beholden.
A shopping basket of 15 items cost $10 in 1973. In 1979 that same shopping basket costs $20.87. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. Unfortunately for this government, the Canadian people buy food every day and every week, and every time they buy food, this government is indicted because it has not had a food policy, a food strategy, a price policy or a price strategy for the past 16 years. This government has gone from pillar to post, and the only controls it ever introduced were controls which got at the so-called villain, wages. Wages were controlled, but nothing really happened to inflation. We had three years of wage controls which did nothing to protect the average consumer, and they certainly did nothing to protect the average wage earner. I say that the people of Canada expect a fair prices commission which would provide them with security, protection, and guarantees against gouging, profiteering and price increases. Hopefully there will be an election soon which will allow the Canadian people to have that institution.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a couple of minutes, but I was very disappointed in the last speech. I was amazed at some of the figures the hon. member used. He picked a price for one food item but missed other food items. Everyone knows, for instance, that if a hot dog cost 78 cents in 1973, one could probably buy one for $1.78 in one store but perhaps $1.40 in another, as I did a week ago. Some of these things do not really count. I think I should point out that increases in prices and increases in wages even themselves out.
I will defend the wage and profit control program which we had because it did control both. It did involve price rollbacks. That is an important point which we must remember. I would like to know how, in this day and age, and with millions of

commodities on food shelves and other shelves, one could actually control prices. There is only one way I see that that could be done in any intelligent way, and that is by controlling wages and profits because they are manageable. Those things are manageable, but prices are not so manageable because of bureaucracy, our relationship with the provinces, constitutional considerations, and so forth.
I have just a few seconds left, and I cannot say very much, but I think the motion before us is very impractical.
The present monitoring body at least has the power to subpoena, to obtain information and so forth, and with proper advertising and proper information to the public the squeeze can be put on those who are profiteering.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-12, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to withdraw a private members' bill standing in my name, namely, Bill C-351, to amend the Canada Labour Code (right to work). Upon close scrutiny of the bill I have determined that the bill would challenge the Rand formula. This was not my intention in the bill, so I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw this bill.
March 14, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) be authorized to withdraw order No. 151 from the order paper respecting Bill C-351, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right to work)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 15, 1979