1970-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Goode.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House I would like to indicate the intended business for Friday. It would be our intention to call as the first item of business government order No. 92, second reading of Bill C-208, with regard to the Bills of Exchange Act, to be followed by government order No. 66, the report stage of Bill C-182, to amend the Supreme Court Act.



TRANSFER OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL FROM FINANCE TO JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among representatives of the parties with respect to a further redistribution of the work of the Finance Committee. I believe there will be found to be agreement to the transfer of the bill with respect to investment companies from the Finance Committee, to which it was referred after second reading, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If that assumption is correct, perhaps the following could be made an order of the House:
That the provisions of the Order of the House made February 16, 1970, in relation to the reference of Bill C-179, An Act respecting investment companies, to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be rescinded and that the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Forreslall:: On division.


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Liberal House Leader what he means by directing this bill to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was felt that the only committee approaching the Finance Committee in wisdom and sophistication was the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On
division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I can only say that the minister has completely disarmed me, but I do not believe what he says and so I will consent to it on division.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 based upon an urgent and pressing necessity.
The circumstances urging me to propose this motion arise from the widespread rejection of the Operation LIFT program and the recent statements by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) that the program will be implemented as announced despite the rejections and submissions made by the national farm organizations and other farm groups, clearly outlining the inadequacies of the program.
It is imperative that the government take immediate steps to overcome the widespread confusion and frustration existing among western farmers, created by the contents of the Operation LIFT program. I therefore

April 29, 1970
Questions
move, under Standing Order 43, the following
motion:
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
That as the great majority of farmers in western Canada have rejected the LIFT program, this House recommends that the government alter its proposals and bring forward new and acceptable programs to meet the urgent and desperate situation of western agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville under Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This shows the scandalous disregard for the farmers of western Canada.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mrs. Maclnnis: What studies have been made or are being made in preparation for the jumbo jets now in prospect, particularly on (a) the additional pollution of the atmosphere which they will cause and its effects on people living in the vicinity of the airports (b) the hazards to hearing and to nervous health occasioned by their flights (c) the effects on cloud cover and weather generally?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: (a) No
specific studies have been done or are being done at present by the Federal Government on the pollution of the atmosphere by jumbo jets and its effects on people living in that vicinity of airports.
The Department of Transport has advised that there is not likely to be an increase in pollution with the jumbo jets as fewer jets are expected to be flying, at least until the passenger travel increases considerably. In addition, new combustors for jet engines which reduce visible exhaust pollution have been given a safety approval by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.

In a report on the Air Quality Survey in the vicinity of the Toronto International Airport, measurements did not implicate aircraft activity during the period November 1968 to November 1969 as a major cause of pollution at ground level in either Etobicoke or Peel County.
The Health effects of such pollution on people living in the vicinity of the airports, it is expected, would be the same as pollution from motor vehicles and power plants as essentially the same pollutants are emitted.
(b)	No specific studies have been done or are being done at present by the Federal Government concerning hazards to hearing and nervous health in preparation for the jumbo jets. The Department of Transport is monitoring noise levels at Toronto and Montreal International Airports.
Manufacturers, operators (airlines) and Government aviation officials have advised that the noise will be no greater for jumbo jets, e.g. Boeing 747 than the current jet aircraft such as the DC8, Boeing 707, etc.
To this might be added, for information, that at the International Civil Aviation Organization Special Meeting on Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Aerodromes, Montreal, 25 November-17 December 1969, it was concluded that a study of this problem would be complex, costly and require a long study period. Accordingly the following recommendation was developed:
"Recommendation 2/1-Research on the effects on human health of aircraft noise exposure in the vicinity of aerodromes:
That (a) it be acknowledged that aircraft noise exposure in the vicinity of aerodromes has not been demonstrated as being harmful to health or hearing and that evidence which might so identify it would be unlikely to come from other than long-range studies which, to the knowledge of the Meeting, have not yet been concluded; and therefore (b) selected States and International Organizations, including the World Health Organization, should be requested to actively pursue, and collaborate in, medical and psychological research on the effects on man of long-term exposure to noise such as occurs in the vicinity of aerodromes.
(c)	It is believed that the additional amount of combustion products released by the jumbo jet aircraft will be small and therefore no studies have been made on effects on cloud cover and weather generally.
April 29, 1970


P.E.I.-MANPOWER OFFICE PLACEMENTS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	In the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many people were placed in employment by the Canada Manpower Offices in Summerside and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Since 1966, by year, what is the number of staff employed in Charlottetown and Summerside in Canada Manpower Offices?
3.	Since 1966, by year, what was the total cost of operating these two offices?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Reply for the Department of Manpower and Immigration: 1.
Questions
Fiscal Year	Summerside	Charlottetown1965-66	3,049	3,0131966-67	2,150	3,1101967-68	1,241	2,9221968-69	1,050	3,826*
These figures do not include placements in casual employment but they do include university placements.
2. Continuing full-time employees on strength

Canada Manpower Centres at:
Charlottetown
Fiscal Year	P.E.I.
1965-	66	141966-	67	181967-	68	211968-	69	20
3. Cost of operations:
Summerside


P.E.I. 12 14
[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
Summerside
[Stage Direction]
54,935.49
73.782.00
94.327.00 106,215.00
Charlottetown
[Stage Direction]
50,685.62
93,678.00
136.850.00
154.254.00
*(This centre was opened in August, 1968 and is manned by two persons on a part-time basis).
St. Dunstan's University CMC Charlottetown P.E.I.
N/A
N/A
N/A
St. Dunstan's University CMC Charlottetown P.E.I.
5,770.00*

Mr. Alexander: 1.	What is the present balance of the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	What are the yearly contributions to the Canada Pension Plan in total by all individuals and employers?
3.	What are the total payments, by year, since inception, to date, to the benefit recipients of the Canada Pension Plan?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. $2,855,280,000 as of February 28, 1970.
2.	1969, $737,442,655.
3.	1967, $611,604; 1968, $10,407,127; 1969, $38,109,558.


CNR-PENSION PLAN BENEFITS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has CNR brought its pension plan into line with the Pension Benefits Standards Act and, if
not, for what reason and in what respect has CNR not implemented the provisions of the Act?
2.	Did CNR ask for time to upgrade its plan to conform with the legislation and, if so, by whom, for how long and under what authority?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of the question is, yes. The answer to part 2 is, no.


CPR-PENSION PLAN BENEFITS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has CPR brought its pension plan into line with the Pension Benefits Standards Act and, if not, for what reason and in what respects has CPR not implemented the provisions of the Act?
2.	Was CPR given time to upgrade its plan to conform with the legislation and, if so, by whom, for how long and under what authority?
3.	Has CPR agreed to the proposals made by the representatives of the government and, if not, what steps are being taken to get CPR to meet the provisions of the Act?

April 29. 1970
Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is as follows: No. The CPR claims that the Pension Benefits Standards Act does not apply to its pension plan. It has not been considered appropriate for the government to make public any of the details of a private pension plan. The answer to part 2 is as follows: Yes. The CPR was given until May 12, 1970 to have its plan conform with the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the Superintendent of Insurance under the authority of that act. The answer to part 3 is as follows: See answer to part 1 and 2.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES' FIRMS-INVITATIONS TO TENDER F.O.B. MONTREAL
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	In invitations to tender issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is it the policy to specify on all tenders sent to firms in the Atlantic Provinces that the prices quoted for goods are f.o.b. Montreal, and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, on which occasions and for what reason do the tenders carry the stipulation?
2.	Is the Department considering some method whereby bidders in the Atlantic Provinces will be placed in a more equitable position for contracts awarded f.o.b. Montreal delivery?
3.	In invitations to tender, will the Department in future consider specifying prices quoted for goods as f.o.b. an Atlantic Port?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No. (a) N/A; (b) When goods are for shipment to the Eastern Arctic; they are marshalled at and shipped from Montreal under arrangements with the Department of Transport.
2.	No, as it is not considered that bidders in the Atlantic Provinces are in a different position than those in other parts of the country.
3.	No, the f.o.b. port for all such shipments is prescribed by the Department of Transport.


ONTARIO-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,751
Mr. Serre:: What was the federal government's contribution to the Government of Ontario and its agencies for the construction of schools for vocational training, retraining and upgrading for each year since the inception of the agreement?
[Mr. Orlikow.l


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1961-	62	8,624,6651962-	63	119,357,1381963-	64	59,350,0751964-	65	16,139,9521965-	66	31,397,7321966-	67	44,289,9111967-	68	37,464,5741968-	69	9,202,1281969-	70	7,685,243



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What are the names of the executive assistants, special assistants, administrative assistants, executive secretaries, and all the ministerial aides serving on the staffs of Ministers of the Crown?
2 How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?
3.	When were these people appointed, under what authority, and what are their salaries per annum?
4.	In addition to the above, have any further such positions been established, but are at present vacant and, if so, what are they and what is the salary offered per annum?
Return tabled.


CMHC-FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO QUEBEC HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): 1.	How much money was made available to the Quebec Housing Corporation by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for each year 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70?
2.	Of these sums, what were the amounts used for construction of homes for the aged in the same years?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARETRAVELLING SPORT DEMONSTRATION
Mr. MacDonald (Eg-mont): 1.	Is there a travelling sports demonstration commissioned by the Department of Health and Welfare and, if so (a) who are the members of this demonstration (b) how were they selected (c) where will they be performing and on what dates?
2.	Did they receive invitations or how was their itinerary drawn up?
3.	What is the cost of this demonstration and who will contribute to these expenses?
April 29, 1970

4.	What is the purpose of this demonstration?
5.	How will its effectiveness be evaluated?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 387, 437 and 438?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notice of motions be allowed to stand.



VIET NAM-CORRESPONDENCE FROM MRS. CLAIR CULHANE AND DR. ALJE VENEMMA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 387-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with and reports to the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency from Mrs. Clair Culhane and Dr. Alje Venemma with respect to their observations concerning Canada's involvement in foreign aid to Vietnam, possible misuse of Canadian aid and reported atrocities.
An hon. Member:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



MAIL TRANSPORT, MONTREAL-BRIEF BY PIERRE BRETON TO GOLDENBERG COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 437-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the brief submitted by Pierre Breton of the G. Lapalme Inc. to the H. Carl Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry into Mail Transport in Montreal.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Mr. Goldenberg that the brief was prepared by Mr. Pierre Breton in a private capacity with the assurance that it would be treated as confidential. In view of this trust the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MONTREAL MAIL TRANSPORT-BRIEFS, ETC., TO GOLDENBERG COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 438-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, briefs, tables and submissions presented to the Commission of Inquiry into Mail Transport in Montreal.
Motions for Papers
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliameniary Secretary io President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Mr. Goldenberg that no papers or briefs were submitted to the commission at public hearings as none were held. Two papers were received from parties on a private basis on the understanding that they would be treated as confidential. In view of this I trust the hon. member will agree to withdraw this motion.
David Orlikow: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I believe affects all members of the House. We have had two cases in a row where there has been a reservation of public documentation because people have felt they could make submissions without having their submissions presented to the House. I think that is wrong because the result of the agreement reached between the private individual who presents a brief or the like and somebody outside the House is that members are debarred from seeing the document.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I suggest to the hon. member that this is hardly a point of order. I think this would be the very point which would be debated if the minister, for good or other reasons, refused to table the documents. The member who put the motion, in this case the hon. member for Winnipeg North, then has the option to ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Surely this is a question of privilege affecting all members of the House.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not, of course, accept the argument which has been put forward by the government. I have expressed my opinion before that there is too much secrecy. I ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I wish to direct a question to the
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance. Have the sharp declines on Canadian and foreign stock exchanges-I refer particularly to yesterday-caused the minister to conduct a review of the government's policy of slowing down the economy? I ask this question in view of the report that these declines are due to the expectations of business regarding the future and in view of the already heavy level of unemployment in the country.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a day on which stock exchanges throughout the world declined. I understand the decline in the New York market was greater proportionately than that in the Canadian market. I believe it was the influence of the New York market in Canada rather than the policies of the federal government.


Mr. Stanfield:: A supplementary question. I am sorry to learn that the Minister of Finance does not have any understanding of the relationships between world events and those in Canada. I ask the minister whether these events in Canada and abroad have caused the minister to conduct any consultations with his counterparts in other countries in order to ascertain what this may signify in terms of international trends?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have recently talked to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in Korea and to the Minister of Finance in Japan with regard to the economic outlook in western countries. It appears to be relatively optimistic except for the great problem in all western countries of overcoming inflation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary. It looks as if the minister might have pursued the inflationary policies of 1929. I ask the minister whether it is still-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, if I touched a raw nerve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister whether, despite these developments that are causing concern, based upon expectations in the business community, it is still the intention of the minister to proceed with his consumer credit regulations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in 1929 I was six years old so I did not have very much influence then.


Mr. Hees:: You were much smarter then.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I answer the last part of my hon. friend's question in the
affirmative.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I say to the minister that at least he is holding his own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members seem to be in particularly good voice today, but that does not make it easy for the Chair to follow the questions and answers. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the gloomy forebodings which are coming from Wall Street and which have resulted in the President of the United States announcing that he will be making a statement on economic conditions in that country, and in view of the effect that this situation may have upon Canada, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government is assessing the situation in light of these events and is planning any change in direction in the policies that the minister outlined yesterday?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government is, of course, continuously assessing its policies from day to day. If there were to be any change in policy it would of course, be announced in the House in the ordinary way.



STOCK MARKET DECLINE-CONSULTATIONS WITH BANKS ON CHANGING PRIME INTEREST RATE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any consultations are being held by him with1 the governor of the Bank of Canada and the heads of the chartered banks in regard to any change in the prime interest rate, in view of the situation as reflected in the stock market drop?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I meet regularly with the governor of the Bank of Canada; as a matter of fact, I spoke to him yesterday. The prime interest rate charged by the chartered banks
April 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
is, of course, a matter for decision by the Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I doubt wheth-banks, not the government.	er that supplementary calls for a reply. I have
.	the impression that this was not the intention


Mr. Monleiih:: Not any more.	behind the supplementary question.


Edgar John Benson: However, unlike what happened under the previous Conservative government, the governor of the Bank of Canada and myself are continuously in consultation.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada always takes his cue from and follows the policy of the government of the day?


Edgar John Benson: No.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to get into an argument over the previous question because the law has been changed-the minister has apparently forgotten-and the government now has that responsibility. The minister did not know that.
My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and has to do with speeches that may be delivered from time to time by His Excellency the Governor General, the rule being, of course, that Governors General can speak only in generalities. May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not there has been any change in the traditional policy under which the Queen and her representatives, in making speeches that in any way contain material that may be of a political nature, or can be interpreted as such, can only deliver them provided they have the consent and approval of the Prime Minister? I am phrasing the question in a general way for very good reasons instead of particularizing.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, answering the question in a general way, there has been no change in policy, whatever it was, in regard to the relations between the Queen and the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister knows what the rules are.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently he does not know any more about that subject than the Minister of Finance knows about his.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Elgin.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


George Harris Hees: That is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


George Harris Hees: No. I thought Your Honour recognized the hon. member because he wanted to ask a supplementary. He does not.


An hon. Member:: Who is running the House?


Mr. Bell:: Who is running the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Not having my blinkers on today, I saw the hon. member for Elgin from the corner of my eye.


Harold Edwin Stafford: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware that two Canadian fishing tugs valued at approximately $80,000 were seized and eight Canadian fishermen arrested and apprehended at Painesville, Ohio, yesterday and are currently being held in custody for fishing on the United States side of Lake Erie, and that the penalty for such violation is a possible $200 fine per fisherman in addition to the confiscation of boats, nets, equipment and fish by state authorities, and if so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member coming to the question?


Harold Edwin Stafford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If so, what action does the government intend to take?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We have been in touch through the Department of External Affairs with the Vice-Consul in Cleveland and he is giving every necessary support to the fishermen. We have also from time to time reminded the United States authorities that their northern

April 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry limits are the international boundary line in Lake Erie.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Have the Americans ever committed similar offences and, if so, do we give them the same treatment?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. We have a gentleman's agreement. They police their own fishery in that respect.


ADDITION OF EXPERT ON U.S. POLITICS TO CANADIAN EMBASSY STAFF IN WASHINGTON
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the obvious need for consultation between the United States and Canada on pollution control legislation, the conservation of our fishing resources and other matters such as the one raised by the hon. member for Elgin a few moments ago, is the government planning to add a full-time expert on United States domestic politics to the staff of the Canadian embassy in Washington?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: One of the functions of our ambassadors and other diplomats abroad is to become expert in the affairs of the countries to which they are accredited.


ATLANTIC SALMON-REPRESENTATIONS TO DENMARK
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs now tell us, in reply to a question which was taken as notice on Monday, whether any representations have been made to Denmark following the latter's threat to withdraw from the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, in which question is involved the taking of Atlantic salmon on the high seas by Danish fishing vessels?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The terms of a message which will be transmitted to Denmark have now been agreed upon and I expect we shall convey our views to the Danish government very soon.


POST OFFICE
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Postmaster General participating in

the important talks which are going on at the present time between the government and the postal workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The talks are in front of a conciliation board, Mr. Speaker, and it is not usual for a minister to involve himself at that stage.


George Harris Hees: Is the Postmaster General sharing responsibility on behalf of the government in this matter with the President of the Treasury Board?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further question? Will the right hon. gentleman tell us whether the Postmaster General is still administering his department?


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


George Harris Hees: Come on! Up Up!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Postmaster General has resigned since there has been no sign of him in the House for three weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is really supplementary to earlier questions. In view of information that is appearing that there is a tremendous increase in plans for construction of commercial and business buildings while there is a sharp drop in residential construction, which would indicate there has been a failure of the minister's deferred depreciation program, is the minister giving consideration to a more definitive policy of capital allocation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the forecasts indicate the underlying strength of the Canadian economy and that it will move forward quickly in the future and I hope at a reduced level of inflation. However, I am not at the present time considering increasing the differential with regard to depreciation.
April 29, 1970


RETURN TO FLOATING EXCHANGE RATE
Max Saltsman: In view of the effect that is being experienced in the Canadian economy as a result of repercussions in other nations, is the minister giving further consideration to freeing the exchange rate in Canada and returning to a floating exchange rate?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, Would the minister either deny or confirm the presence of Russian nuclear submarines in the Arctic?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I had a similar question yesterday and I believe I indicated at the time to my hon. friend that probably Admiral O'Brien had qualified his statement pertaining to so-called Russian submarines. I did look at the press report and I was happy to find that he did actually qualify his statement.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question must be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of the interest of Canadians and their concern about pollution in recent months I must ask whether or not the minister can indicate if the government of Canada has sought and received from the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics assurances parallel and similar to those we sought and demanded from our neighbours to the south in terms of maritime movement in our Arctic? 1 refer particularly to the voyage of the Manhattan.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


POLLUTION
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that his supporters in committee have rejected the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as co-ordinator of pollu-22218-59J
Inquiries of the Ministry tion control activities in Canada, will the Prime Minister take action to settle the factional dispute among his ministers and designate a pollution control co-ordinator?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Peace River. Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was waiting for an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not allow an answer because the question is obviously out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows he cannot ask a supplementary to a question which is out of order. Perhaps he might ask a different question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then may I rephrase the question by leaving out the preliminary statement. May I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to designate a minister to co-ordinate pollution control activities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do assure co-ordination of pollution activities in a variety of ways, cabinet committees being one of them.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries, through several pieces of legislation and the Fisheries Act, now has primary jurisdiction in the field of pollution control, will consideration be given to having him co-ordinate all activities relating to pollution control which now is under four or five different ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for the suggestion which I must say is not very helpful.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would direct the same remark to the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo who asked him the same question and received a polite answer.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. G. H. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the

April 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry fact that Dr. Kenneth Cox, the medical investigator who did such a brilliant job in connection with confining the typhus epidemic on the Oronsay, has been compelled to offer his resignation, will the minister consider referring this matter to the parliamentary committee which has jurisdiction or the establishment of a judicial inquiry under the Inquiries Act?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I question very much the premise in the hon. member's statement that he was forced to resign. The hon. member is correct in that he did resign. I undertook that I would supply answers to the hon. member's questions concerning this whole matter and I hope to do so in the very near future. I would like to learn the hon. member's reaction to those answers and then I will determine what form of action should be taken.


SIDE EFFECTS OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES- AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On March 16 the minister promised me he would consider making public the report of the medical committee under the auspices of the Food and Drug Directorate in respect of their study of oral contraceptives. Now that this report is to be circulated to all doctors in Canada, will copies be made available to the public?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take that matter under consideration.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House whether he has officially received any applications for approval of a merger between La Banque Populaire and the Banque Provinciale du Canada under the terms of the Bank Act?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Permission was sought and I made an announcement to the House to indicate that under the authority given to me I had approved such a merger.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns alleged abuses at the Windsor border in connection with the U.S.-Canada car pact and it stems from a statement made by the President of the Customs and Excise Officers Association that dutiable products are being smuggled into Canada camouflaged as auto parts which are duty free. Is the minister aware of this situation and what steps have been taken to eliminate this abuse?

Hon. Jean-Pierre Coie (Minister of National
Revenue): To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, these allegations seem false as there may be several check points for such parts coming into the country. None the less, we have set up a committee which is now investigating these allegations and, should they prove to be true, we shall take steps to remedy this situation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently this problem arises from the working conditions. I should like to ask the minister whether the working conditions have been changed in any way?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, a committee has also been established to look into labour conditions at Windsor.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report of the committee on the healing arts just released, which indicates a very grave crisis in respect of medical care involving an acute shortage of doctors and a great need for medical schools as well as complete chaos in respect of health legislation, would the minister get in touch with his counterparts in the provinces to consider ways and means of meeting this grave situation?
April 29, 1970


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is close liaison between the federal health authorities and the provincial health authorities now on the whole question of the health delivery system and its cost and efficiency. Meetings are being conducted on a continuing basis and the whole area will be discussed at the next federal-provincial meeting of ministers of health. We think that the health delivery system in Canada is probably one of the finest in the world. We do not agree with the conclusions of the report to which the hon. member referred.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister is aware that it was his government that brought in medicare-


An hon. Member:: And you voted for it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: -and he must accept the responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Philip Bernard Rynard: He did accept the responsibility and then cut back the health resources fund, the very heart of the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.




Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: May I ask a
question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister finally reached a decision in regard to making representations to Washington in opposition to the scheduled underground nuclear tests in the north Pacific?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not yet received the information that would be necessary for us to reach a decision on this matter.


Barry Mather: Can the minister say why, when the government protested against a much smaller test last year, it is taking so much longer to make representations against this much larger test?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is an argument rather than a question.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


RAILWAY LINE RELOCATION POLICY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question regarding the severe traffic impediments which occur as a result of railway lines running through some of our major cities. Would the minister discuss this serious matter with the railway officials with a view to determining an immediate policy and implementing it in order to alleviate this very serious urban problem?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: As I indicated in the House a few days ago, such discussions as the hon. member suggests are already under way. In addition, we have involved the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities as well as, in this particular case, the government of Manitoba and the council of the city of Winnipeg with a view to having the situation in Winnipeg, which is very similar to others throughout the country, be a sort of pilot project, and this combined group is going to bring in recommendations as quickly as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the House any indication as to when he expects this very important report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: A week ago Monday I met the representatives of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, among whom was a Mr. Wolfe of Winnipeg who indicated that good progress was being made and he hoped to have the report shortly.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easf Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question also dealing with traffic and it is directed to the Minister of Transport. I wish to ask him whether Air Canada has made him aware that it is considering the moving of its eastern headquarters from Halifax to Montreal? If so, what does the minister intend to do about it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have not had any such advice from Air Canada officials.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister has not been informed of a number of things Air Canada is doing, but is he aware that this company

April 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry which operated with six vice-presidents-that may have something to do with the austerity program-now has 19 vice-presidents and there are three more to come?


Gerald William Baldwin: Just like the cabinet.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the Minister of Transport
inform himself about the situation and advise the House at an early opportunity why it is necessary to consider the removal of the regional headquarters from the Atlantic provinces to Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. William Knowles (Norfoik-Haldimand):: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that his department and the provincial government have declared Lake Erie fish to be free from pollutants, and as the minister has also ascertained this from first-hand inspection, would he issue a directive to his inspectors to permit the sale of fresh fillets of perch which is a very lucrative market for the fishermen who sell this product?


John (Jack) Davis: The question is one of testing all of the fish. At present the fish have to be held for some time and therefore have to be held in frozen form. Until we have sufficient testing apparatus and men trained to speed up the tests in large numbers we are unable to clear the fish. We want to be absolutely sure that the fish meet all our requirements before they are sold in this country or exported.


William David Knowles: Would the minister at least undertake to speed up the testing process? These men are forced to hold them for periods of up to two weeks before they can get an answer.


John (Jack) Davis: We have several new machines on order and we are training the necessary staff as quickly as we can.


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry regarding the recent closing of

Howe Sound to sports fishing because of mercury pollution. Could the minister inform the House as to the source of the mercury pollution, its extent, and the measures being taken to control it?


John (Jack) Davis: We know that the source of the mercury pollution is the FMC Chemicals caustic soda and chlorine plant at the head of Howe Sound. We do not know the extent of the pollution, but we hope to have the results on fish tests by the end of the week.


CHEDABUCTO BAY-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might beg your indulgence and ask a question supplementary to one asked the other day when the Minister of Transport was not in the House. It has to do with pollution. Can the minister indicate to the House the procedure to be followed or the date on which the government will be in a position to announce the procedure to be followed by residents in the Chedabucto Bay area of Nova Scotia with respect to compensation for the damage they have sustained as a result of the Arrow disaster?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The procedure has been
explained to the residents of Chedabucto Bay on a number of occasions by both representatives of my department and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. In addition, quite a job has been done cleaning up the fishermen's nets and the like, and I understand that tenders were called yesterday for the cleaning up of shore installations. So to this extent the work is under way. If there is any specific inquiry, either I or the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will be glad to look into it.


HOCKEY-SUGGESTED TELECASTING OF JUNIOR A HOCKEY FINAL BY CBC
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Because of the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is no Canadian hockey team in the NHL playoffs this year, and in view of the fact that either Montreal or Quebec will be playing Weyburn, Saskatchewan in the Memorial Cup Junior A hockey final series, would the Prime Minister make representations to the CBC with the

April 2S, 1970
objective of having them telecast this important, all-Canadian series?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly make those representations. I think the viewing public of Canada should be given an occasion to see how Montreal or Quebec can go and beat the teams in the west.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Wait until they get you out west.


An hon. Member:: Now we know where you stand.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not rising to inject a note of regionalism, but I wonder if the Prime Minister would not apologize to the House for the sorry state hockey has reached under his leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the reported recent visits to Canada, in particular one last week, by Mr. Stokely Carmichael, that preacher of race hatred and violence, can the Solicitor General tell us under what circumstances that gentleman arrived in Canada?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot. I presume he came with the proper clearance from the Immigration Department, and I will refer the question to my colleague in charge of that department.


George Harris Hees: Everyone is passing the buck. TAXATION


PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF WHITE PAPER ON REFORM
Thomas Miller Bell: I have been waiting to throw this question at the Minister of Finance for two days now. Why did the minister say in Toronto on Monday that he was surprised at the public acceptance of the white paper on tax reform?


Edgar John Benson: was pleased, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member should not be prepared to wait a while for the reply.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. As one who received another 100 letters this week objecting to the white paper, may I ask the Minister of Finance how the public can demonstrate any more strongly that they object to its proposals?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look closely at what I said in Toronto he will see I indicated that the general principles of the white paper seemed to be fairly well accepted, for example, the idea of a capital gains tax, redistribution of the tax burden


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary question.


WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the careful reading that I too give to the minister's speeches, and in view of his statement that the legislation to be introduced will contain many changes from the white paper as presented, will the minister undertake to make a statement to the House at an early date, or before the committee, indicating what changes the government proposes in the white paper?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to note that the hon. gentleman has read that speech since I did not speak from a text.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply read the newspapers.


Edgar John Benson: In any case I suppose I will be appearing before the House of Commons and the Senate Committees in due course when they have particular questions to raise with regard to particular aspects of the white paper. Of course, at that time I will indicate my thinking in this regard, but it is up to the committees to make their recommendations. I have a great deal of respect for the committees of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this question sincerely. Having presented

April 29, 1970
Inquiries Of the Ministry some proposals to the Canadian people which are to be taken seriously, and having indicated that there will be many changes made in those proposals, does the minister not feel he has some obligation to tell the Canadian people what changes are to be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a restatement of the question asked previously by the Leader of the Opposition.


FINANCE
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Was the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission asserting government policy last night when he acknowledged that the government's tight money policy can have almost no effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase the question. He knows he cannot ask it in those terms. It would be better if he could seek the information directly rather than by referring to a statement made outside the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's view that its monetary policy can have almost no effect on multinational corporations which have the ability to transfer cash reserves from one country to another?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would say that our monetary policy, carried out through the Bank of Canada, has more effect on Canadian residents than it has on foreign residents who may be moving foreign funds into Canada and who have foreign funds available to them when we have tight money policies in this country.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to recognize two or three members in the back rows who have not had an opportunity to ask questions today.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is 
the minister now in a position to inform the House when we may expect the tabling of the interim report of the LeDain Commission inquiring into the non-medical use of drugs?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that the report would be available within the next two or three weeks to the government, at which time the government will have to determine the disposition of it.


POLICIES TO RAISE PRICES TO CANADIAN PRODUCERS TO EUROPEAN LEVEL
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Athabasca.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will excuse me if I am short of breath after popping up and down for 55 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Yewchuk: In any case I would like to put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of recent reports by the Alberta Wheat Pool that wheat producers in the European community get more than twice as much for their wheat and almost four times as much for their barley as Canadian producers, does the Prime Minister have any intention of announcing or having one of his ministers announce any new policies in the near future that would bring the prices to Canadian producers into line with what European producers are getting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister not be willing to look at the programs of the Europeans and the Americans to see if anything could be learned that would be useful in Canada in raising the prices to our producers?


WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ALTERNATIVE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the widespread disappointment expressed by farmers and farm organizations about some of the shortcomings of Operation LIFT, can the Prime Minister give western farmers any assurance of alternative assistance for 1970?
April 29, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a few times, and the subject matter has been dealt with many, many times by the two ministers involved.


POLLUTION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the government completed tests to determine the quantity of mercury in the Ottawa River and, if so, what are the results and is there any action contemplated?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have received the results of tests made in the Ottawa River which show it is marginally over the tolerable level of half of one part per million. Because the commercial fishing season is about to begin, I am today asking the responsible ministers in Ontario and Quebec who are administering the federal Fisheries Act to close the Ottawa River for commercial fishing through the summer season.


ACTION AGAINST INDUSTRIES TO RECOVER FINANCIAL LOSSES
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister say whether the government has yet taken any action against any industry to recover financial losses in relation to mercury pollution in the various areas in which it has been observed?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Some of the amendments to the Fisheries Act now before a committee of this House would enable us to do that, however.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Government House Leader. When can we expect the motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, which has been on the Order Paper since April 14, to be proceeded with in view of the fact that it contains an 2221&-60
Inquiries of the Ministry unanimous recommendation that the committee adjourn from place to place on the east coast of Canada before the estimates go through on May 31? Quite a number of arrangements have been made for that trip.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate having discussions with the other House Leaders with respect to the general question of travel by committees of the House during the balance of the session. I think the hon. member will recognize that it will be difficult to have more than one committee away from the House at any one time, and there have been a number of requests along these lines. I also believe there has been general agreement in that committee that the request should not be brought forward until the middle of next month.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York North on a question of privilege.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on what I believe is a misquotation in Hansard at page 6346, line 42, where I am reported as having referred to:
... the end of the horse personified by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
Then there appears this reply:


George Harris Hees: Oh, go back to Grade 3!
I believe that should read, "Come back to Grade 3."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct that. All members on this side of the House have passed through Grade 13 but a large number on that side are still in Grade 3.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to break through the shennanigans to raise a serious point of order. The Standing Committee on Regional Development has before the House a unanimous recommendation in its second report, and the recommendation-


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. gentlemen opposite
should have some respect for their own backbencher.

April 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Howard Lundrigan: As I was saying before I was interrupted from half a dozen places in the House, the Standing Committee on Regional Development unanimously recommended very early in April, and so reported to the House on April 14, that it adjourn from place to place on the east coast of Canada, following a commitment which is more than a year old. Arrangements have been made. Now we listen to the House Leader indicating that discussions are to be held in regard to this matter. There is a unanimous feeling in the committee about this request, and I have no reason to believe there is anything but a unanimous feeling in the House.
The House Leader has intimated that the motion will not be moved for two weeks, or before the middle of next month, because of conflict in committee travel arrangements. I submit this is not the case. I feel it is a waste of time for our committee to continue to meet unless the committee's report is concurred in. I think the House Leader has no right, as a member of this House, to prevent the report coming before the House, which is exactly what he is doing. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this confirms what other hon. members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point
which the hon. member makes has from time to time, been presented to the Chair and to hon. members for consideration. I am sure the submissions of the hon. member have been noted. I would not think this is a matter about which there should be debate at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has made the allegation that I have prevented the matter coming forward. I have been acting on the basis of information I received from the committee. I understood that the committee had agreed it would not, in any event, seek to travel before the middle of next month. That information may or may not be correct, but I believe I was acting on reliable information. The other question which has to be borne in mind is that if more than one committee is away from the House, it will be very difficult to carry on the business here.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved:: That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, to be known as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability, be appointed to consider reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and such other related reports or papers as may be referred to the committee, with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; and to delegate to subcommittees any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House of Commons.
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee, seven of whom shall be required for a quorum.
That when a quorum is not present, the chairmen of the said committee or of its subcommittees be authorized to proceed with meetings for the purpose of receiving and printing evidence; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is before the House a motion to establish a Joint Committee of this House and the Senate on Price Stability. Hon. members will recall that an improved approach toward the achievement of price stability was proposed in the White Paper on Policies for Price Stability which I presented just over a year ago. The new approach outlined in this white paper was clearly intended by the government to supplement and support the use of the traditional instruments of fiscal and monetary management available to the government. It was not designed to replace these traditional instruments.
In the white paper it was suggested that two new bodies were to be created to focus continuing attention on the problem of rising prices that is of concern to us all. One of those bodies, the Prices and Incomes Commission, was appointed by Order in Council last June. I gave notice to the House on December 15 last of this motion that we are to debate today for the appointment of the second of these new bodies, to be known as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability. This is the motion we are debating today.
April 29, 1970

The white paper on policies for price stability envisaged that the joint committee would provide a very valuable parliamentary forum for the public consideration of the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission and for public hearings and airings and reviews of trends in major price and income development in the private sector of our economy. The white paper recognized the necessity of undertaking a continuous analysis of cost and price developments and of studying the causes and effects of inflation outside the traditional framework of the government decision-making process.
The government proposed the formation of the Prices and Incomes Commission to perform this function, a proposal that at the time received wide support and led to the commission's establishment last summer. In the white paper we said of the commission that its "primary influence should be directed to rallying a strong sense of social responsibility, on the part of those making private price and income decision, in support of the national interest in price stability". We further said, "To achieve this, it will be necessary for the commission to win the continuing acceptance and co-operation of major economic interest groups" and gave our opinion that it could "win this support only by maintaining close consultation with such groups on a regular basis." In the statement I made at the time of the appointment of the commission I said:
The commission will be asked to inquire into and report upon the causes, processes and consequences of inflation and to inform those making current price and income decisions, the general public and the government on how price stability may best be achieved. The commission will be authorized to prepare and publish from time to time under its own authority specific reports on:
(a)	the results of their studies and investigations of the matters outlined above;
(b)	current developments in costs, prices, productivity and incomes in particular sectors and industries within the economy and for the Canadian economy as a whole.
Following its appointment, the commission accordingly began by devoting most of its efforts toward establishing close relations with leaders of major economic interest groups and winning their support through private discussions for a program of voluntary restraints on prices and incomes. There was at that time, as there has been since, criticism of this approach. Some people suggested that the idea that leaders of interest groups might be induced to give adherence to such a program was illusory; others, while not ruling out the possibility, considered that 22218-601
Price Stability
agreement could be achieved only after the commission had engaged in a lengthy program of self-education followed by public education. Nevertheless, the commission persevered even in the face of setbacks which seemed insurmountable some months ago, and this February it achieved a good measure of success in reaching its initial objective. At the National Conference on Price Stability a large group of business leaders agreed on criteria designed to reduce the number and size of price increases business will make in 1970.


David Orlikow: That is a fake.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The agreement is in terms sufficiently specific to make it possible in individual instances to determine whether it is being met or not-in other words, whether these pricing criteria are being followed or not. The program agreed upon at the National Conference on Price Stability was supported by the first ministers of Canada and all the provinces at the federal-provincial conference the following week.
It is interesting to note that shortly after that conference and as a result of it we announced the deferral of a whole range of government fee increases we had intended implementing. They were deferred because of the inflationary situation in the country. Following the conference, the provinces were asked to concern themselves with reviewing their laws relating, for example, to the cost of housing and rental accommodation particularly. Following that conference some provinces have reviewed their laws and some have proposed legislation which will have a restraining effect on rent increases.
In my view, the commission and business leaders together at the National Conference on Price Stability made a significant contribution to the objective of achieving better price stability at much less cost, in terms of output and employment, than would result from exclusive reliance on the traditional fiscal and monetary weapons.
The commission has embarked on a number of reviews of specific price situations in order to determine whether these have been developing in line with the criteria. It is obviously important that the commission come to conclusions rapidly and transmit these conclusions rapidly to the firms concerned and to the governments. If it is to do this as quickly as possible it cannot hold extensive public hearings. However, I think the House will agree that public examination and discussion of these reports is needed, and surely there

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
could be no better forum for them than that provided through the hearings of a joint parliamentary committee.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In view of the flow of reviews of pricing situations that will be emanating from the commission, and the need for assuring that there is adequate opportunity for public discussion of the broader issues involved, I am urging the immediate appointment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability. In addition to its function of carrying out public examination of reports on individual price situations, the committee will also be expected to examine the manner in which the commission has gone about establishing a system for providing quick methods of determining which price increases warrant investigation. I anticipate that these inquiries will reveal the present program is having a significant effect in restraining price increases.
The estimates of my department, and thereby the Prices and Incomes Commission, is presently before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The members of the Prices and Incomes Commission tabled a statement last night before that committee outlining some of the work it is undertaking. For the sake of the record I might review that statement very quickly. The first report of the commission involved a price increase announcement by the steelmakers of Canada, including a variety of rolling-mill products. This report has been tabled in the House and should be examined by this forthcoming parliamentary committee. Secondly, they have issued a report following the National Conference on Price Stability. The report concerns price increases of tinplate. They are now examining a 6 per cent increase in the price of glass containers and examining with the Canadian Transport Commission recently announced railway freight increases.


Gerald William Baldwin: You forgot peanut butter.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will come to that. I am glad the hon. member is concerned about peanut butter.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was making lunch for my son when 1 heard that announcement.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The commission is working with the copper industry. While copper is still very expensive, we in Canada are paying the lowest price for copper anywhere in the world. The price in Canada is considerably lower than it is in the United States, and well below the world price. It is resulting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) seeks the floor to ask a question, if the minister will allow it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have a limited amount of time, but I will be happy to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: The minister can have all the tune he wants. While the minister is talking about the situation in Canada and saying we have the lowest copper price in the world, will he agree to put on the record the fact that in the past 15 months, since January 1, 1969, the price of copper in Canada has risen by 30 per cent?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the government and also the commission have indicated very clearly that we are not happy with the price of copper. However, I think we can take some consolation in the fact that as a result of the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission and its restraining influence, although in Canada we are paying a high price for copper it is a lower price than anywhere else in the world.
I will continue to review the statement filed yesterday. Another part of the work of the commission is that relating to copper. Hon. members will have noticed a statement in the press the other day following negotiations and representations made by the Prices and Incomes Commission to the Aluminum Company of Canada resulting in the price of aluminum ingot and semi-fabricated products not being increased in Canada. Although the world price has increased, the Canadian price to Canadian fabricators remains the same. As a result of the work of the commission, the Aluminum Company of Canada has agreed to keep down its prices. A full review is being conducted by the commission into price increases of tin-plated containers. I think hon. members will appreciate that price increases in glass containers and tin containers can have a pervasive effect throughout the economy, particularly with relation to consumer goods, many of which are packed in tin or glass.
In total, the commission in the period of two months has begun conducting surveys of some 40 products or product groups where price increases have been reported. Reports will be made by the commission on these investigations and will be presented to the House. It seems it will be of vital concern to have these reports examined by a joint committee of both Houses. Some of the products
April 29, 197C

on which price increases are being studied are fine papers, rubber tires, scrap metal, steel plate, cold storage charges-


Mr. Howe:: Honey.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -dyes, detergents, undergarments, lubricating oil, silicates, coflee, to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) referred the other day, honey, to which the hon. member has just referred, canned foods, peanut butter, in which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has an interest, margarine, meats, grapefruit juice, edible oils, shortening and prescription baby foods. That is an outline of some of the reviews that the commission currently has underway.
Of interest to this House, and particularly to me as Minister of Consumer Affairs, is the concern and interest of the commission in the prices of food and household items which are of such vital concern to Canadian consumers. As a result of that concern the Prices and Incomes Commission has established close liaison with the main retail outlets in both the general merchandise and the grocery sectors. On a systematic basis these sources are being asked to report markups and changes in prices at the retail level for consumer-sensitive items. There is already evidence that this procedure has restrained or prevented price increases in certain food products. Where price increases have already taken place, these are being investigated primarily to determine whether they meet the pricing criteria established by the National Conference on Price Stability.
I did not have an opportunity to participate in the debate yesterday. However, I notice that a number of members were critical of the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission. That criticism has also come forward in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which is examining the estimates of the commission. I wish to put on record that while we have a long way to go and a great task to perform in controlling inflation in this country, we are meeting with some success, considerably more than many other countries who have economies similar to Canada's.
According to the latest available figures, converted mathematically to a common 1963 basis, in December, 1969, we in Canada had a year-over-year percentage change of 4.6 per cent in the consumer price index and a .4 per cent change in the monthly index for last December. In the United Kingdom, with a government in power that is philosophically
Price Stability
aligned with the New Democratic Party, there was a 4.7 per cent year-over-year increase- not as good as Canada's-and a December increase of .6 per cent, again not as good as Canada's.
The United States, with an economy very similar to ours, had a year-over-year increase for 1969 of 6.2 per cent compared with Canada's 4.6 per cent, and a December increase of .7 per cent compared with Canada's .4 per cent. France had a year-over-year increase of
5.9	per cent and a December increase of .3 per cent. Japan had a year-over-year increase of 6.4 per cent compared with Canada's 4.6 per cent, and a December increase of .7 per cent.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would be happy to answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would he tell us what the unemployment rate is in those countries?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not have those figures in my book here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would be glad to obtain them. We have made clear, however, that the more successful the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission is in securing price and wage restraint, the more rapidly we can relax certain aspects of fiscal and monetary policy. I find this difficult to drill into the heads of hon. members opposite; I regret that after a year and a half the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) still does not appreciate this.


Gerald William Baldwin: Tell the unemployed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Try to persuade the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hear a good deal of chatter from the members of the New Democratic Party but I have difficulty determining what their position is-today it is one thing and tomorrow it is something else. I can only rely on the records of this House and on the Order Paper to help me determine what position they take. I refer hon. members to a motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), a leading member of the NDP caucus. This motion, No. 34, urges the government to-
-give consideration to the advisability of constituting a prices review board ... such board to operate publicly and with consumer representation and

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
to be given the responsibility of co-operating with the provinces to secure stabilized prices for clothing, housing, drugs, transportation and basic consumer necessities.
Mr. Speaker, the Prices and Incomes Commission has gone much further than simply co-operating with the provinces. It is doing far more than the NDP is asking in the motion to which I have just referred. We have been co-operating with the provinces. We conducted an extremely successful federal-provincial conference on this program. The commission and the government have gone much further than simply trying to fight inflation by co-operating with the provinces as proposed by the New Democratic Party.
Since its establishment last summer, the commission has given the most urgent priority to seeking the support of various sectors of the economy for a program of voluntary cost and price restraint in an effort to reduce the immediate inflationary pressures. The commission has also embarked on longer-term research into some of the more basic problems posed by inflation. A number of studies have already been started and further studies are in the planning stage. An outline of the proposed research program has recently been made available to the Commons Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which is examining the estimates of the commission.
There are those who ask: Why is further research needed? Mr. Speaker, when I note in this House and in other places the great divergence of views expressed as to the best means of fighting inflation, it seems to me that the country is still in need of effective research into inflation-someone to provide better answers than we have been getting from the official opposition or from the New Democratic Party.


Gerald William Baldwin: We just ask the questions; you are supposed to have the answers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Undoubtedly, the joint committee will also wish to review the outcome of these studies and to consider such implications as they may have for the development of new national policies for dealing with the problem of inflation. To date, the program launched by the commission following the national conference has been helping to curb inflation by restraining price increases. This price restraint has been brought about mainly at the expense of profits, because a number of companies have absorbed part of their cost increases rather than fully passing them along in the form of higher prices. The program as it stands has no direct restraining
IMr. Basford.]
influence on increases in incomes other than profits, of which labour income is by far the most important component.
In the closing statement of the National Conference on Price Stability at which agreement was reached on the current program, it was specified that the groups involved, while "prepared to take an initiative as a contribution to a broad program of restraint", wished to "emphasize that an indispensable requirement for the control of inflation is a comparable measure of restraint by wage and salary earners, by governments at all levels and indeed by everyone".
The response of the trade union movement, given to the government at the annual meeting which took place last month between the cabinet and the major Canadian labour organizations, was entirely negative. With real regret I must express the opinion that no constructive alternatives were put forward on that occasion. If labour has a contribution to make in the fight against inflation, if it has proposals to put forward, it seems to me that a joint parliamentary committee of this House and of the Senate provides the best possible forum for the expression of those views and for their examination by members of this House and of the other place.
In addition, the committee would provide a forum at which management and consumers could state their position, put forward their views and be examined and cross-examined. I hope that on further consideration the labour movement of Canada will take a more positive approach in the longer-term interest of the country as a whole and of organized labour itself.
The government believes that the fiscal and monetary restraints which it has adopted will gradually serve to restore reasonable price stability. The program of voluntary price restraint launched by the Prices and Incomes Commission will, as I said a few minutes ago, to the extent that it is successful reduce the adverse side-effects on unemployment of the fiscal and monetary restraints.
There are already a few encouraging signs that these policies are beginning to moderate the rate of inflation in Canada. I am sure all members of this House, appreciating the impact of inflation especially on those living on low and fixed incomes and the suffering it creates, will join with me in hoping that these early signs are not misleading and that we can, in fact, hope to see a real turn-around in the economy. The greater the success of the supplementary prices and incomes program in
April 29, 1970

helping to reduce these inflationary pressures, the sooner we can adjust our fiscal and monetary policies so as to provide a positive stimulus to economic activity and employment in Canada.
I believe the proposed parliamentary committee has an important role to play, not only in assisting the present program of the commission but also in helping ourselves and the commission to broaden the program and make it more comprehensive and effective.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the minister in introducing this resolution. We might refer to it as the gospel according to Mr. Basford. I do not understand his preaching to the labour movement of Canada, on which he lays so much blame for not agreeing to some of the proposals brought forward by his government and by the Prices and Incomes Commission.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We are also getting a little tired of being compared to other countries in the world when it comes to economic problems and inflationary trends. This great nation of ours is not at all similar in terms of size, resources, people and problems, to other countries. I think it is a false premise to compare Canada to any other country in the world. The United States, of course, has ten times the population we have, and if their inflation is greater than ours it is because their population is greater.
Time after time measures are brought forward in this House to deal with economic problems. Some time ago when the minister's department was established it was said to be the great panacea of inflation control. It was going to take hold of those bad businessmen who were putting up prices; it was going to straighten out the labour unions and stop their wage demands. We used this vague term "stability of prices". I do not know that there was ever a period of price stability in this country. There have always been fluctuations up and down, but sometimes prices go up a lot faster than they should. Sometimes those who are to blame for this shuffle the blame on to somebody else and insist that the measures that have been brought forward by the government have had no effect on inflation, on the cost of living, on reducing the number of unemployed or on reducing interest rates. In so many areas of the economy we have the highest percentages we have had for many years.
Price Stability
Returning to the subject of committees and having people working on problems of this type, I was rather interested to read an article that appeared in the Telegram of Tuesday, April 28, written by Dennis Braithwaite. I think there is a lot of truth in what he says. It is headed, "Asking too many fool questions" and goes on to say:
It is possible to fail through knowing your subject too well, and that is what's happening to us Canadians.
If we were a little more ignorant of what's going on we might be able to feel something for ouri country. But every aspect of Canadian life has been so searehingly investigated by royal commissions, parliamentary committees, task forces, polls, surveys, ESP and grandma's ouija board that our minds are clogged with enough undigested data to gag a computer.
The result is chronic anxiety, inter-regional suspicion and national neurosis. If we were to go on talking about our problems for the next 100 years, which seems entirely likely, we would never regurgitate all the half-truths, myths, faulty statistics and just plain wrong information that's stuck in our collective consciousness. And, in the meantime, all the talk and worry prevents our accomplishing anything or even having a good time.
I should also like to comment on one of the final paragraphs in the article because it could be applicable to this proposed committee:
Of course, royal commissions are on the way out, too expensive; parliamentary committees, in particular, Senate committees, are the thing today. The Senators, obviously, are keeping themselves busy investigating everything from poverty to the decline of burlesque in order to squelch all this talk about the Senate being a useless appendage that should be abolished.
I am not going to comment on the latter part of this editorial because those gentlemen are going to join in this committee to assist the government to ascertain what is wrong with the economy. As I say, we have had a proliferation of organizations in this area. For example, there is the minister's department which has over 600 employees. This year we also set up a standards branch' which, according to a press release issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), is an organization set up to protect the buying public and to offer assistance to manufacturers; this is said to be the major benefit of a national standards council.


Stanley Ronald Basford: But the official opposition is blocking its passage through the House.


William Marvin Howe: This is yet one more organization that is supposed to do great things for the nation, which is what the minister's

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
department was supposed to do. Can the minister claim that unemployment has gone down? Can he claim that prices have gone down or that the pressures on the economy have been reduced since his department came into existence? Probably he has further measures that he hopes will do this, and perhaps this is one that is before us today.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Marvin Howe: No, Mr. Speaker, not until I am through. If I may be allowed to continue, it is by results that we judge whether regulations, resolutions and government measures are effective. However, we sometimes wonder why we are in the present situation. I do not think it is always necessary to blame business and labour for it. I believe what the chief of Bell Canada said in one of his statemens, namely, that the problems that we have today are created by the government itself in a great many cases. I should like to quote his remarks, which are contained in a Globe and Mail report of Tuesday, March 3 this year. He said:
Much of Canada's current fiscal difficulty is due to government programs launched without solidly based estimates of their costs, Robert Scrivener, president of Bell Canada, said yesterday. The situation indirectly causes inflation, he said In a speech prepared for delivery to the Montreal regional council of the Institute of Canadian Bankers.
"As the costs of these programs have risen, as the administration expense becomes a bigger proportion of their total cost, governments have raised taxes and have thus pre-empted a growing share of the gross national product.
"This in turn has led to a more rapid deterioration in the purchasing power of money by diverting money from productive use. This inflation in turn pushes up costs."
Government programs making excessive demands on the gross national product in the name of social welfare are "the very same programs that are doing so much damage to social welfare through the inflation they have largely helped to cause."


Stanley Ronald Basford: Why did you vote for
medicare?


William Marvin Howe: I did not vote for medicare, Mr. Speaker. I fought against the Canada Pension Plan right down the line. However, we know the sort of programs the Liberal Party promises when we are into an election campaign. You might as well have voted against motherhood as vote against the Canada Pension Plan at that particular time, though a lot of people are now having second thoughts about the program. We said both in the House of Commons and in the committee that these sorts of programs are inflationary.

What did we find following the passage of the Canada Pension Plan, Mr. Speaker? The same government had to bring in two taxation measures to assist people who were being abused by the rise in the cost of living as a result of the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan. People had to ask for more money to compensate for all the additional deductions from their pay cheques. This was the reason the cost of goods and services went up. If you continue to make deductions from the amount of money a man can take home, when whether he be a businessman or a labourer the pressures on the economy will increase and get out of control.
The government had the chance in the last budget to reduce taxation. But no, the government brags about the surplus it will have. If the government had removed the 2 per cent surcharge and let labour and business spend it as they wished, instead of as the government wished, or if the government had dropped the 12 per cent tax on building materials which is contributing to the increased cost of building across the nation, it might have assisted the economy. There are so many areas wherein the government could take action instead of setting up committees and commissions and creating new departments of government. The government's fiscal and monetary policy has not worked and it is time it took a second look at some of the things that have happened in the nation during the past two years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we have been speaking of all these commissions and committees which have been set up. There are many questions on the Order Paper concerning interdepartmental reports. I should like to see some of the interdepartmental reports that are so secret and sacred, because they would provide interesting reading for the members of the opposition since I believe the truth is spelled out in them. We all remember a report that was brought into this House in 1957. We have heard some backbenchers and government members who do not know what went on in those days speak about what happened when we were the government.
Back in 1957 during the first month of that Parliament somebody found a report in the Department of Trade and Commerce. What did that report say? It said that things were not good in Canada in 1957. This was a secret report which nobody was supposed to see. Inadvertently, when the offices were cleaned out, the report was found. That report stated
April 29, 1970

that things were not good in Canada and that we could expect increased unemployment and economic problems all over the nation. We did not create that situation; we inherited it.
In 1957 the policies introduced by the Conservative government got the show back on the road, and by 1963 things were booming. The people of Canada, however, decided they wanted another government. Another government was elected and, as I say, that government is playing with the highest cost of living, the highest interest rates and the greatest unemployment we have had in many years. One of these days there will be a day of reckoning. This proliferation of committees, commissions and reports will prove to be ineffective.
There are some outstanding people serving on the Prices and Incomes Commission. In fact they appeared before the committee last evening and we discussed some of the areas in which they are making studies. Here we are talking about setting up another committee. I wonder whether the minister is aware how difficult it has been to carry on committee work in the past few weeks. In fact, last night when the committee was examining the work of this great commission on prices and incomes there was not a member of the government present, aside from the chairman. When the chairman had a call of nature and had to go out, we had to appoint one of our members as acting chairman. This is an indication of the interest government members have in the work of such a committee.
Someone said he had great respect for the committees of this House. This is one area in which I think Parliament has failed in the past few years. We all remember the days when the estimates were considered in this House, where they were given a thorough study. It is true, as people say, that on the last day or so of a session estimates representing millions of dollars were pushed through. But this happened in the House and every member had an opportunity to participate in the consideration of the estimates. Now, if a member who is interested in the estimates of a particular department should happen to be tied up in another committee he does not have an opportunity to participate in the examination of those estimates. So I believe this government's organization has failed. I believe that in a new Parliament something will have to be done to review the rules so that we can bring back to the House of Commons some of those matters which have been delegated to committees. I do not
Price Stability
think some things are receiving a proper examination under the present procedure.
Yesterday morning a committee was studying the estimates of the Department of Supply and Services which supplies goods for the government and this Parliament in the amount of $850 million. How many members were present to consider that matter? There were 7 people present to examine the expenditures of a government department that spends that very great amount of money. Yet the minister has the temerity to stand up and say he has great faith in the committee system. How can such an organization possibly be examined in one hour and a half on one day in one year? It is just not possible to carry out the required examination.
So we come to the matter of this particular committee which is to be set up, a committee which is supposed to study the reports of a commission comprising 70 experts and economists who should be able to do the study themselves. We are supposed to study them. This motion suggests that a special joint committee of Parliament be set up to study the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission and to report back to Parliament its observations and opinions thereon. In other words, it is to be a committee to report from time to time upon a series of reports, because the terms of reference of the commission do not expire until December 31.
I note that one subject being examined by the commission on prices and incomes is railway freight rate increases. The wording is, "A review is under way on railway freight rates increases". If we go back to the time when the Canadian Transport Commission was established, a great show was made by that commission in respect of taking all subsidies away from the railway. They were going to make the railways self-supporting. What happened? As soon as the subsidies were taken away, what happened to the people of Canada? They found they had to pay higher freight rates for everything they bought.
In this day and age we depend a great deal on the transportation of products from one end of the country to the other and from one part of the world to another. Freight rates represent a tremendous part of the cost of all goods which people buy and a great many of the services they use. So I maintain that the Prices and Incomes people should not be examining this matter; the government should go to the railways and the Canadian Transport Commission and have the freight rate subsidies reinstated.

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
We introduced a fund of $28 million to keep freight rates on an even keel. We never used the whole amount, but in the four years we were in power freight rates were held at the rate at which they were when we came into power, because we knew if they were increased the effect would be inflationary. Now we have government policy which definitely is inflationary and it is related to the bill which established the Canadian Transport Commission. We have mentioned this matter in the committee and in this House, to no avail.
We can anticipate that the final report of the commission, provided its life is not extended, will appear early in 1972, and the final report of the parliamentary committee upon the final report of the commission will appear some time in the late spring of 1972. That is at least two years from now. Royal commissions and parliamentary committees are often absurd enough in their own right, but to combine them as in this instance is to pile absurdity upon absurdity.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Is the government, in proposing this motion, telling the country that it intends to take no effective action to combat inflation until the Prices and Incomes Commission reports its opinion on the "causes, processes and consequences" of inflation and this new parliamentary committee then reports upon that report some time in the spring of 1972? Does the government believe that if it appoints enough royal commissions, parliamentary committees and task forces, inflation, unemployment and the rising cost of living will steal away? Is this the siren song of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to beguile Canadians, "Manana, manana and still more manana"? Some day the Prime Minister will awaken and find he has run out of mananas and he will hear the swan song dedicated to him by the Canadian people, "Yes, we have no mananas, we have no mananas, today".
I am not one of those who put the Prime Minister down as a member of the pot generation, but I must say he shows an excessive reluctance to get off his pottie. Let us not emulate the childish habit of the Prime Minister. This government motion, proposed by the Prime Minister's colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), whose ends perhaps are somewhat confused, is nothing but an invitation to all of us to sit in solemn silence on our collective potties while the minister, with a loud voice at

one end and no responsibility at the other, burps contentedly that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
We propose that if we are to have both a royal commission and a parliamentary committee, they should at least work concurrently and not consecutively. We propose that the terms of reference of the committee be widened to parallel those of the commission. This course has obvious advantages. There is the saving in time; the committee will not sit awaiting reports from the commission. There can be an avoidance of duplication; the committee need not review something that has obviously been thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the commission.
I ask: With the great retinue of people working for the commission, why do we need to examine their reports? The committee can go on to something else and thus save the time of the commission. It is a fact that the powers of the parliamentary committee are much wider than those of the commission. Both the government and the commission have admitted that the commission is constitutionally hamstrung in the witnesses it can call and the evidence it can force to be produced. The parliamentary committee is not so chained. It can summon whom it likes, investigate whatever it likes within its terms of reference and require the production of whatever evidence it wants. The commission can use the extra powers of the parliamentary committee to assist in its investigations. Equally, the parliamentary committee can use the large and expert staff of the commission without having to build up a large, expensive staff of its own.
Time is of the essence in this inquiry into inflation if the government honestly means to seek the advice of both the parliamentary committee and the commission. By useful cooperation, the parliamentary committee and the commission can shorten the period in which the investigation is made, the interim reports are given and the final report released.
We intend to propose an amendment to this motion. If it is not accepted, it would appear that the government's motion is disclosed as only another roadblock camouflaged as action in the fight against inflation, that it is only another exercise in the gentle art of pottie-sitting.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "appointed", the following :
"to inquire into the causes, processes and consequences of inflation and"
April 29, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the contemplative look on your face that you are disposed to give the matter some thought.
I know Your Honour and your advisers will be looking very seriously at Standing Order 47. May I point out that the specific wording of that Standing Order deals with what would appear to be a possible prohibition from making an amendment of this kind when there is reference of a question to Committee of the Whole-this reference is not to Committee of the Whole-to a standing committee, and this reference is not to a standing committee, or to a special committee. With due respect, I suggest that the words "special committee" refer to special committee of the House. It may well be that if it was intended to inhibit this type of amendment with regard to a special joint committee, the words "special joint committee" would be inserted therein.
The people who framed the rule said that you cannot refer it to Committee of the Whole, you cannot refer it to a standing committee, nor can you refer it to a special committee, which can only be a special committee of the House. There is a general rule of law applied here, that the mention of the one is the exclusion of the other, and we are not mentioning special joint committee. I can see a good reason for that. When we have a joint committee, which includes the Senate as well as the House, quite obviously we are beyond the rule, so the failure to include in these specific words the designation of the type of committee to which reference can be made and in respect of which there can be no amendment means it does not cover a special joint committee.
I am sure that my words will commend themselves to Your Honour and that when you have considered the matter you will be quite happy to accept this sound and salutary amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to clarify the position of the Chair at this stage. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was quite right when he indicated that he suspected I have some objections in this regard. The preliminary objections I have do not really lie within the area he discussed. My worry lies in the fact that the amendment may expand the motion before us beyond the contents of the original notice.
I am prepared to hear an argument now. However, I was going to suggest that I would take the matter under advisement so that I could consult the relevant citations and the
Price Stability
learned officers of the table before ruling. If it is agreeable-and I do not want to prevent the hon. member for Peace River or the minister speaking, if they so wish-I would prefer to make a ruling after I have had a chance for further consultation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for my wishing to say a few words at this point, and while I am on my feet I shall disclose my reason. First, may I say that if consideration has to be given to the procedural admissibility of the proposed amendment, I would like to argue that it does have validity. I heard what Your Honour said about enlarging the terms of reference, but I would ask that in your consideration of the matter you look at and study citations 201, 202 and 203 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. These are the citations that set down the general rules about amendments, suggesting that they can leave out certain words, put some other words in, and so on. But these citations also say that there has to be relevancy. I should like to read the following from citation 203:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
It seems to me that in view of the fact that the motion in the name of the minister asks the special committee to consider the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, surely anything that comes within the ambit of the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission is relevant. I know of nothing more relevant than the causes, processes and consequences of inflation. Therefore, it would seem to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is one that should be considered in order.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
However, I said I would indicate my particular reason for intervening at this point. It so happens that the next speaker is to be my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and I hope that I am not stealing his thunder if I indicate that he proposes to move an amendment. Until the present amendment has been ruled on, is my colleague's amendment an amendment or a subamendment? If there is no ruling at this point, I should like to suggest that my colleague be permitted to present his amendment subject to Your Honour's ruling on the first one. If the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) is

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
allowed, then my colleague's amendment could be a subamendment thereto. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey is disallowed, then my colleague's proposed amendment could be an amendment to the main motion. Therefore, if Your Honour is not ruling at this point on the validity of the amendment that has been proposed, I hope it will be considered in order for my colleague, at the conclusion of his speech, to present his amendment subject to Your Honour's ruling on the first one.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, as I understand it, it is your wish to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) as to whether it is in order. If possible, I would like to reserve my position on whether it is in order until that time.
I rise really on the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) simply to indicate my feeling that the procedure he requests of Your Honour is agreeable to me, namely, that Your Honour reserve decision on the amendment now before the House so that we may have the issues properly before the House for the purposes of debate-even if there has been no decision by Your Honour on the first amendment-and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) be allowed to move, as he apparently intends to do very shortly, another amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I interpose that this matter could be very simply-disposed of if the minister, having been greatly impressed by what was said by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe), by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and in lesser vein what is being said by myself, would see fit to accept the amendment of my distinguished colleague and that which I understand is going to be proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). This would simplify matters and show the minister to be the container of a great degree of common sense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous agreement to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River, I think it would be wiser to follow the course of action suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There are one or two points I should like to clarify in my mind before ruling on the amendment, but that

would not preclude the hon. member for Winnipeg North moving an amendment at the conclusion of his remarks.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey concluded his speech and sat down while I was reading his amendment. You will recall that I endeavoured to ask a question which he said he would accept at the end of his speech. Would he now allow me to ask my question?


William Marvin Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member was very critical in saying that my department did not appear to be doing very much. In view of this I wonder why his party, the official opposition, in connection with the inordinately high price of pharmaceutical drugs allied itself with the international pharmaceutical bandits who were charging the high prices and caused a year's delay in the passage of legislation, as a result of which that legislation is only now becoming effective? Further, when we have legislation before the House which would give the department much greater powers to investigate and inquire under the Companies Act and deal with embezzlers, defrauders and those sorts of people, his colleague the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is violently opposing the passage of the legislation, so that the department cannot acquire this power.


William Marvin Howe: I certainly deny the allegations made by the minister, and I do not think it is fitting for a man in his position to make allegations of that type. Certainly the 11 per cent sales tax was taken off drugs, but did it have any effect? It did not, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that the inflationary pressures created by the government had eaten up this relief bit by bit until it represented no assistance, and drugs were no cheaper.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to members of the New Democratic Party that the government brings forward the resolution proposed today by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). When we get the kind of increases in the cost of living which we have had in Canada in recent years, and the kind of complaints which have resulted from them, the government must appear to do something even if it does not really intend to do something. So, we have a resolution proposing another parliamentary committee.
April 29, 1870

Price Stability
Let me put on the record just what has happened to the cost of living in Canada in recent years. These figures can be found in an interesting discussion of government policy, both monetary and in relation to prices and incomes, prepared by Professor Grant Reuber of the University of Western Ontario. I am sure the minister has these figures in his possession. In 1966 the cost of living went up 3.6 per cent, in 1967 4.1 per cent, in 1968 4.1 per cent, and in 1969 despite the government's alleged program to deal with inflation, the cost of living went up by 4.6 per cent.
That inflationary spiral is continuing. While the government is conducting its so-called campaign against inflation, unemployment is rising at an alarming rate. Let me use the figures for the same month of each year so that nobody can argue that I am trying to exaggerate the situation or to cook the figures, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested the other day when questions were asked of him. Let us take the figures for the months of March during the last four years. In March, 1967, 5.3 per cent of the labour force of Canada was unemployed; in March, 1968, 6.4 per cent of the labour force of Canada was unemployed; in March, 1969, 5.7 per cent of the labour force of Canada was unemployed, and in March of the present year 542,000 people, representing 6.7 per cent of the total labour force, were unemployed.
Increasing unemployment is a direct result of the government's policies which are supposedly designed to deal with inflation. The government's policy for dealing with inflation, and with respect to which the proposed committee will function, is one of voluntary restraint. Let me put on the record what the government and its key officials have said about this policy. I quote from a story by Victor Mackie in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 23, 1969:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau warned Canadians Monday they must join with the federal government in fighting inflation with greater vigor in 1970 or run the risk of a devalued dollar, a destroyed middle class and soaring unemployment.
We have got both higher inflation and soaring unemployment.
The Prime Minister is quoted further:
"In 1970 . . . we have no choice but to fight inflation . . .
"We can only get tougher, we will not get weaker," he promised as he sought to impress the press conference with the determination of his government to cope with inflation.
"Some say the government will get frightened if unemployment goes up as we fight inflation. If they think we will lose our nerve they are wrong. We will not," he said.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
He said in the same interview that he would not be afraid of a 6 per cent unemployment rate. He was not afraid, but we now have an unemployment rate greater than 6 per cent. A report in the Globe and Mail of February 3, 1970, about a speech of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, says as follows:
Louis Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, defended Canada's anti-inflation measures yesterday by saying that without the restraints, the situation would have been worse.
The newspaper report goes on as follows:
On the cost side, the evidence is no more encouraging. Average weekly wages and salaries in Canada continue to show a year-to-year gain in the range of 7 to 7.5 per cent, which was greatly in excess of the trend of productivity increases-
Then the governor is quoted as saying:
The Prices and Incomes Commission has recently taken an important initiative, which deserves the full support of the whole community.
In other words, the governor was speaking of policies of restraint. The chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission spelled out what these policies mean in an interview with David Crane, as reported in the Globe and Mail of April 24, 1970. The newspaper report says as follows:
Asked if, following the failure to reach an accord with leaders of organized labor on voluntary restraint, a program including controls was being considered, Mr. Young said people would have to wait and see-
Mr. Young publicly attacked leaders of organized labor in a Calgary speech earlier this month for their refusal to support the restraint program and said they would consequently have to accept some responsibility for growing unemployment and declining industrial production in Canada.
In his speech today the minister regretted that the two major Canadian trade organizations, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Federation of National Trade Unions, rejected the government's urgings for policies of restraint. Although the minister compared increases in the cost of living that have taken place in various countries

including Great Britain-and in Canada, he did not compare unemployment rates, saying he did not have those available when asked about them.
Well, I happen to have them here. My source is the International Labour Organization Year Book of Statistics for 1969. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rates are set out in it. It lists the percentage of the labour force unemployed in 1969. These are the rates for some of the major industrial

April 29. 1970
Price Stability
countries of the western world: Norway, 0.6 per cent; Germany, 0.5 per cent-in other words, half of 1 per cent-Holland, 0.9 per cent; New Zealand, 1.3 per cent; Australia, 1.4 per cent; Denmark, 1.6 per cent; Sweden, 1.9 per cent.
In the United Kingdom, the country the minister said had experienced a cost of living rise greater than that in Canada, the unemployment rate in 1969 was 2.2 per cent. In Finland the rate was 2.3 per cent; in Italy, 3.1 per cent; in Belgium, 3.3 per cent; in the United States 4.1 per cent. In Canada-I hope the minister is paying attention-the rate was at 4.6 per cent, the highest of all those countries. Is it any wonder that the leaders of the two major labour federations have rejected the government's policies?
There are reasons other than those involving unemployment that lie behind the rejection. I suggest, first, that those organizations have rejected the government's policies because those policies would inevitably, as I have already said, lead to more unemployment. The Prime Minister himself called for higher unemployment when he said he was not afraid of a 6 per cent unemployment rate. Secondly, the government's policies of restraint give no protection to poor people who are working for very low wages, who have fixed incomes, who receive pensions or welfare payments and who are locked for various reasons to fixed incomes. There is no protection for them in the government's policies of restraint.
Thirdly and most importantly, the government's policy of restraint ignores all sources of income but wages. I have challenged the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission again and again, as I challenge the minister, to give one illustration showing that the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission has ever called on any group except the working people, has ever called on any organization such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association or any similar organization, to show the kind of restraint which it is demanded that leaders of labour ask their members to show.
May I talk about some of the groups I have just mentioned. Representatives of the medical profession attending the conference of which the minister speaks about so proudly said that profession would not raise its fees. Why shouldn't they agree not to raise their fees? Has any group in Canada enjoyed a

greater bonanza than the medical profession has enjoyed in the last couple of years as a result of medicare plans and being able to collect all fees for all the work done? And those fees have been increased.
If the minister wants to see it, I can show him proof that the doctors in my province, Manitoba, have increased their fee schedules in the last two years by over 50 per cent. Has any group of workers increased its pay rates by anything close to 50 per cent in that period? Certainly the doctors offered to hold the line. Having stolen the horse, they are now prepared to lock the barn door. The same thing goes for engineers. Allow me to cite some more examples, Mr. Speaker.
The Globe and Mail in February of this year carried a report prepared by H. V. Chapman and Associates Ltd. on the percentage of executives who earned more than $20,000 in salaries and bonuses. Their incomes in 1969 rose by 9 percentage points over their incomes for 1968, and in 1967 and 1966 there were similar increases. In other words, in those four years executive incomes rose by 40 per cent. I did not hear the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission lecturing the presidents of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers Association and urging them to hold the line on executive salaries.
The University of Toronto professors obtained a unilateral pay increase, as announced on April 25 of this year, for next year of 10 per cent. The professors at York University obtained an increase for next year of 14 per cent. I am not suggesting this is too much, but I have not heard any appeals on the part of the government or the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to presidents of Canadian universities asking them to hold the line.
Let us also look at the salaries of the top civil servants, the people who are giving advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The salary of the governor of the Bank of Canada was recently increased from $50,000 a year to $75,000 a year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hold the line!


David Orlikow: The government keeps as much of this sort of thing as possible secret, but I presume that along with the $25,000 increase in salary the governor of the bank obtained a comparable increase in his pension benefits. When the governor of the Bank of
April 29, 1970

Canada lectures ordinary working people to show restraint, I suggest he might begin by showing some restraint himself. The Deputy Minister of Finance has also been quoted as supporting the government's policies of restraint. On September 1, 1963, the Deputy Minister of Finance was being paid $24,000 a year. In September, 1969, the Deputy Minister of Finance was being paid between $37,000 and $40,000. The increase in that seven year period was far supperior to anything the average worker woud have received.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
On September 1, 1967, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was being paid $26,500. He is now being paid between $35,000 and $37,000 a year. That is a pretty substantial increase in three years. So it goes on down the list. The deputy ministers are doing very well. I am not complaining. Most of them are probably well worth what they are being paid. However, I suggest that restraint should begin with those who can afford it. If we expect the workers to show restraint, we must set an example. This is not being done by those who are setting the policy.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he could not understand the program and policies of the NDP in relation to the inflationary spiral which we are encountering. It is not that difficult to understand, but the minister does not want to listen. We reject the policy of the government concerning voluntary restraint in fighting inflation in Canada. We submit that policy is futile. In saying this we are joining the best advisers, some of the most eminent economists, academic and professional, in this country.
I wish to quote from the last annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. This council was not appointed by the NDP; it was set up by this government. Some of its members were appointed by this Prime Minister. I quote:
Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs.
That report was issued last September. I say to the minister that the members of the Economic Council were a hell of a lot more correct in their predictions of what would happen than the governor of the Bank of Canada, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the Deputy Minister of Finance, to whom the government listens.
Price Stability
The government does not want to listen to its own Economic Council.
I wish to put on record some comments by the best academic economists in this country. I quote from an article which appeared in Toronto Star of April 20, 1970:
Montreal economist Jack C. Weldon,-
A professor at McGill University.
-said the policy has resulted in 12 per cent of French-speaking males in Quebec being out of work.
This will be translated into Parti Quebecois and Creditiste votes in the April 29 Quebec general (election), the McGill University professor warned -and will threaten national political stability.
By coincidence I am speaking on April 29. I wonder whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would care to speculate either publicly or privately about how many hundreds of thousands of votes the Parti Quebecois will get today because of the stupid restrictionist policies being put forward by this government which supposedly believes in one Canada. Professor Weldon goes on to say:
The government has allowed its prestige to be tied to a goal that was irrelevant and could not be achieved destroying inflation ... and it has abandoned its power to attain a very important goal: A reasonably high level of employment-
Senator Lamontagne, a former cabinet member, a man who had served on a number of royal commissions, recently made a speech in Toronto. This article in the Toronto Star reads in part:
Senator Maurice Lamontagne, an economist and former Liberal secretary of state, reaffirmed last night his belief, expressed in Toronto last month, that Ottawa's policies demonstrate an "unconscious cynicism'' since their main effect is "to reduce employment and curb the development of the weakest spots in our economy."
Later on the article states:
Mrs. Rosalind Blauer, assistant professor of economics at Brock University in St. Catharines, also disagreed with Trudeau's analysis of unemployment.
She said Canada is buying very little gain in price stability with major sacrifices in production, and at heavy social cost.
She argued that pensioners and welfare recipients are the only ones really hurt by inflation, and that the government could compensate these groups for inflation at relatively little cost to the rest of the taxpayers.
That is a concrete suggestion. Of course, the government will not listen because it does not fit into their Hoover-type of economic thinking. We regard the Prices and Incomes Commission as a patsy and frontman for the

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
government. We believe the chairman has forfeited the right to be considered as an objective and honest person dealing with this country's grave social and economic problems. We believe that the present activities of the commission have no effect on inflation. The government is using the commission to do and say things which the government does not have the courage to do. The commission is calling for restraint mainly, if not exclusively, on wages and not on other sources of income such as salaries, rents and dividends. We believe the results of the commission's conference on price stability with business and industry was a complete fraud. The minister talked glowingly about the results achieved there.
I suggest that the commitment which the minister received from the captains of industry to keep prices below increased costs was so conditional as to be almost totally ineffective. Let us look at some of the results before and since the commission held that conference. In my question to the minister earlier I referred to what happened to the price of copper. Since January 1, 1969, the price of copper to Canadian users has increased by 30 per cent. Copper is used in the production of almost every commodity in Canadian industry. For the government to be proud of what they have done in controlling the price of copper would be ludicrous if it were not so serious.
I wish to now deal with the price of nickel, which increased last year by over 25 per cent. What happened when that price increase was announced? The United Steel workers of America, which represents nearly all, if not all, the workers engaged in the production of nickel, called on the Prices and Incomes Commission to hold public hearings. Their call was rejected and ignored. I wish to put on record exactly what happened. I read from the December, 1969, issue of Steel Labor, the official publication of the United Steel workers of America:
Ottawa's Prices and Incomes Commission are continuing their semi-private "investigation" into steel price increases and wage boosts but have caved in completely in the face of International Nickel's colossal 25 per cent price boost.
After visiting Canada's steel companies "privately," the Prices and Incomes Commission summoned Steelworkers' representatives to a meeting in Ottawa on Thursday, November 13. Accompanied by CLC secretary Dodge and research director Russ Bell the Steelworkers' group composed of national director Mahoney, research director Milling and research assistant Norton, refused to meet unless the discussions were taken down in detail by a court reporter.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister will gather that they have already had so much experience with the Prices and Incomes Commission that they are not willing to proceed unless there is a court reporter present to make sure they would be reported honestly.
The steelworkers have agreed to supply-on condition that the information be made public-details about productivity and labour cost improvements. Copies of the data are being supplied to the steel companies. No similar data is being supplied by the companies to the union and no details of discussions with the steel industry have been made public.
The real cave-in on the part of the federal Liberal administration came when super-corporation INCO, after charging that the recent wage settlement was "inflationary" refused to join in a union request for an investigation into wages and prices and then announced a massive 25 per cent price hike. Ottawa, asked by district director Sefton to investigate the situation, backed off in a rush.
Rough estimates indicate that the cost of the recent settlement would be less than (Canadian) $86,000,000.
This was more than offset by the increase of 9 cents per pound announced by INCO prior to 1989 bargaining. Combined with the latest increase, the two price boosts should produce extra INCO revenues valued at more than $700,000,000 (Canadian dollars) during the contract period, enough interest free dollars to finance most of the corporation's projected international expansion program for the same period.
You see, Mr. Speaker, a wage increase of $86 million brings about a price increase which will bring the company $700 million. What does the government do about it? What does the Prices and Incomes Commission do about it? Nothing at all. Is it any wonder that the labour movement is unhappy? Is it any wonder that the labour movement rejects the appeals of the Prices and Incomes Commission?
We have heard about the banks. The banks agreed at the conference not to increase their rates of interest. The interest rate on bank loans has never been as high as it is today. Let me put on record the situation of the banks. I quote from the Globe and Mail of February 25, 1970:
Aggregate profit-after taxes and appropriations for losses-of the seven largest chartered banks in the year ended October 31, 1969, was more than $157 million. This was a 26.5 per cent increase from the previous year, which was 13 per cent higher than the fiscal 1967 level.
This is an increase of 40 per cent in two years. Is it any wonder that the banks should have agreed very quickly to hold the line? Why shouldn't they? They have already robbed the Canadian people blind. I could go
April 29, 1970

on and talk about the way in which Eatons and Simpsons have increased credit charges, and so on. This is why the labour movement, the economists, the New Democratic Party, reject the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission. The commission's investigations are held in secret. There is no opportunity for the workers in the industry or for the consumers affected to look at the books and examine the submissions made to the commission.
Incidentally, submissions are called for only after price increases have been announced and are put into effect. The review procedures established by the commission are heavily biased in favour of industry and commercial groups.
An officer of the industry concerned is seconded to the commission to perform the analysis. In other words, it is like saying to a robber, "Please come in and look at the books and tell us if you are taking money out of the till." Could anything be more ludicrous?
Finally, the reports of the commission do not contain any detailed documentation to enable them to be analysed. As hon. members know, the commission conducted a survey into the price increases related to tinplate. The report showed that companies can raise their prices and still abide by the letter of the price restraint formula to which they agreed and of which the government and the commission are so proud; they can still make the price increases they have in mind, increases which the commission says are inflationary. Yet nothing can be done.
The minister says he does not understand what we in this party propose. I intend to spell out in clear terms what our policy is, and even this minister will be able to understand provided he has the grade 3 education about which the hon. member for North York (Mr. Danson) spoke earlier today. We call for the disbanding of the Prices and Incomes Commission. We propose its replacement by one which would control the price of key commodities, commodities of basic importance to the Canadian people, while placing restraint on all forms of income, not just on wages as seems to be the main objective of the present chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
To achieve equitable distribution of income and to ensure that sacrifices, if necessary, will be made by all levels of society, not just by the poor, we propose a comprehensive incomes policy which would cover all forms of income, that is, it would include profits,
Price Stability
rents, interest, professional fees and unincorporated business incomes. If this policy were followed, the government would not be experiencing its present difficulty in securing the support of organized labour. The Prime Minister and the minister have been critical of organized labour because in its submission this year it was not practical; it was negative, it only criticized.
It is not for me to defend organized labour; I am certainly not an official spokesman for them. But I believe it is important to look at the submissions of the Canadian Labour Congress in 1968 and 1969. I am sure one would find in those submissions proposals for an incomes policy. In other words, the Congress of Labour was saying that if the government would place some restraint on other forms of income, they, the congress, would be prepared to support the application of restraint to wage increases affecting organized workers. I imagine they got tired. They found that the government was not interested, that it was not prepared to put the squeeze on those whose salaries were rising rapidly, or on the businessmen who were making more money every year and who are permitted to charge off all sorts of extras, when making up their income tax returns, which working men are not in a position to include. The congress saw that the government was not prepared to put some restraint on the earnings of the professional people I have mentioned. The government is only interested in putting restraint on workers' wages, and this being the case the CLC is not endorsing the incomes policy. A comprehensive incomes policy such as we propose must include the provision of a guaranteed income to avoid injustice and hardship. It must take account of the plight of low-paid workers, disparities between classes of employees and increases in the cost of living.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let me approach the conclusion of my remarks by telling the minister that if he wants to know what we in the New Democratic Party think should be done specifically to meet the problems of the 1970s, I would refer him to the minority report prepared by members of the New Democratic Party on the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee when it dealt with the subject of interest rates. I should like very briefly to put on the record some of the measures they proposed:
1.	We should immediately compensate the victims of inflation by ensuring that welfare benefits rise at least as fast as the cost of living index:

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
-by abolishing the ceiling o 1 2 per cent per annum which the Liberal government has imposed on the rise in old age pensions and benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
-by regular increases in the minimum wage and farm and other primary support prices.
-by requiring private pension plans to be based on best years' earning with a cost of living escalator.
2.	Immediate steps should be taken to monitor the allocation of credit by the financial system in Canada.
This would mean that those projects which have some social benefit would get the money they needed, instead of only those that make the most money.
3.	The profits of financial institutions resulting from higher interest rates must be stopped.
I have already illustrated what happened to the profits of the banks.
4.	In order to control profits of financial institutions, interest rates and credit allocation and to give the central bank a lever that it might use to have greater immediate control over the financial system we propose that all financial institutions engaged in the business of banking be regulated by the Bank of Canada whether they be federally or provincially incorporated.
5.	As we indicated earlier, one of the areas where the existing structure of institutions was responsible for price increases in Canada resulted from our trading relationships with the rest of the world. To give us more freedom of action until such time as the world monetary system becomes more flexible we propose that Canada immediately move to a floating exchange rate.
6.	Since advertising and promotional costs contribute to inflation by raising the costs and prices of many consumer goods, which in turn, stimulate credit expansion etc.-some form of tax on advertising promotion would have a lot of validity.
7.	We reject the present condition in which social capital formation rather than private capital formation must bear the brunt of harm done to the long term capital market by inflation.
The minister has talked about how the provinces at the conference on inflation which was called by the federal government agreed with the federal government. I do not want to say that the minister was not telling the truth, but I do say that it is certainly stretching the truth a long way to say that. Anybody who read the submission of the government of Manitoba to the conference knows that it placed emphasis on the need to look after the plight of those people in need and the need to put public good and benefit ahead of private good and benefit before adopting a policy of restraint. It was only partly agreeing with the federal government's program. I do not want to be unparliamentary, but I say that is really stretching the truth.

Having said that, I propose to move an amendment to the resolution introduced by the minister. This amendment proposes two things. It seeks to amend the resolution on two grounds. First of all, we propose that the Senate be excluded from the committee. Secondly, we propose a substantial widening of the powers of the committee. Without going into detail-some of my colleagues who will be following me will spell this matter out-we object to the inclusion on the committee of members of the Senate, for obvious reasons. We believe it is plain and that the record is clear that there would be an obvious conflict of interest on the part of many members of the Senate. We find it difficult to believe that Senators who are directors of industrial and financial corporations in Canada can be entrusted to protect the consumer's interests in Canada. Let me give one illustration. The chairman of the Banking Committee of the Senate, Senator Hayden, is a director of more than a dozen corporations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am afraid his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether I could take the time to move my amendment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should inquire whether there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue so he can move his amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: For the reasons I have mentioned, I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended, (a) by deleting the words "joint" and "Senate and" from line one; (b) by deleting the words "Joint Parliamentary" from line two; (c) by inserting in line three, after the word "appointed", the words "to inquire into and report upon the trends in the cost of living in Canada and factors which may be contributing to changes in the cost of living:" (d) by deleting from line eleven the words "act on behalf of the House as members of" and by substituting therefor the word "comprise"; and (e) by changing the semicolon after the word "evidence" in line fifteen to a period, by deleting the word "and" at the end of the said line and by deleting the final paragraph of the said motion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure what Your Honour's disposition of this amendment will be, but in view of the fact that it is ten minutes to five and that the hon. member for Peace River is
April 29, 1970

Price Stability
anxious to speak, I wonder whether we should defer a ruling on both these amendments at this time. I take the position that both of them are out of order and are not relevant to the motion before the House, but I will advance my reasons later. In the remaining ten minutes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
go to six. There is no private members' hour.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sorry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My proposal is as follows. I think at this time I would be in a position to make a ruling on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey. I would reserve my decision on the second amendment, though having given it a cursory reading I suspect that substantially the same objections will apply. However, in view of its complexity and in fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I should like to give it the same attention that I gave the first amendment. If the House is disposed to hear my ruling on the first amendment now, I will proceed to give it unless there are some procedural points that hon. members would like to raise.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would address myself for one moment to the first amendment because I anticipated an objection along another line from that which the Chair was going to consider. If the question whether the amendment departs from the purposes of the original motion is part of Your Honour's thinking, may I address myself to that point for a moment. I think I can express my views simply by saying that if Your Honour is well acquainted, as I am sure you must be, with the terms of reference of the Prices and Incomes Commission-which are engraven upon the hearts of all Canadians-you will realize that the terms of reference are so wide with regard to the whole question of inflation and the cost of living that any special committee of the House and Senate considering reports from the Prices and Incomes Commission would in fact be directing its attention to matters with which the Prices and Incomes Commission is dealing and would be brought, of course, squarely within the additional words proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey, which are "to inquire into the causes, processes and consequences of inflation".
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.l
This is what the Prices and Incomes Commission is directed to do under the Order in Council setting it up and under its terms of reference which were added to, I think, subsequently. Consequently, when its reports are received by this special committee, the committee would be bound to inquire into them in total and the inquiry would encompass a wide enough range to deal with what has been submitted by my honourable, learned and distinguished colleague from Wellington-Grey, namely, the causes, processes and consequences of inflation. These words must be assumed to be read into the motion to start with. My hen. friend in simply correcting the omission of the drafters failed and is putting in those things which will engage the attention of the joint committee if it is in fact set up.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we take the position that the amendment is out of order for the reason that it is not relevant to the motion suggested by the hon. member pursuant to citation 203 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. There is merit in the argument that a general inquiry should not be held and that the committee should be limited to the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
If the amendment should be ruled to be in order, I would debate the merits or demerits of the amendment. It would seem to me, however, that to say it is relevant and in order would be to say that if we had before us a motion that a committee be established to consider the annual report of the CNR, this committee would be allowed to examine the over-all transportation policy of Canada. That would not be relevant to a study of the annual report of the CNR by a committee. The same thing would apply if the annual report of Air Canada was being referred to a committee and someone should move that the whole air policy of Canada be examined. I do not think this would be relevant to the consideration of the report. I submit that the motion is out of order because it goes beyond the original motion and is not relevant to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I intervened earlier and indicated my support for this amendment procedurally-and I also support its substance for that matter-I should like to say a few more words before we have a ruling from the Chair. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has at least done us the courtesy

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
of making clear why he thinks the amendment is out of order. He says that in his view it is out of order because it is not relevant to the motion now before us. I find it awfully hard to understand how an inquiry into the causes, processes and consequences of inflation is not relevant to reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission. What in heaven's name is that commission doing if it is not conducting studies in this very area?
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might take a moment to place on the record the relevant part of the motion as it stands and then to give it as it would read if the amendment were accepted. The motion as it stands calls for a committee to be "appointed to consider reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission and such other related reports or papers as may be referred to the committee". If the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey were accepted, the motion would read that such-and-such a committee be "appointed to inquire into the causes, processes and consequences of inflation and to consider reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission and such other related reports and papers as may be referred to the committee". It seems to me the insertion of the words "placed before the House" by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey would not do any violence whatsoever to the law of relevancy. If my hon. friend were to argue that the words are not needed because the authority is already there, he might have a point, except I do not think that would interfere with its procedural validity.
On the other hand, it would seem to be very clear that what is being sought by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey is relevant to what is before us in the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if I might take a moment longer to spell out those portions of Beauchesne to which I alluded earlier. I would draw Your Honour's attention to citation 201 which gives the general rationale for amendments and says in the concluding paragraph at the top of page 169 as follows:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words: (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or: adding other words.
There is no problem there. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey takes advantage of part (c) and proposes to insert certain other words. I realize that this must be read

in the light of the other rules on the subject. Citation 203 (1) states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
One reason I read the motion as it would read if it were amended is so that the consistency and intelligibility of it would be quite clear. Then we come to the other part of citation 203 (1) which states:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
Then there is a bit about exceptions having to do with amendments going into supply or ways and means. That sentence of course can be left out of further editions of Beauchesne, and let him who is interested take note. Then I draw attention to the fact that there are certain other observations. For example, citation 203 (5) says:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
This motion does not raise a new question. It just seeks to make perfectly clear that the committee in considering the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission has the authority to inquire into something that is part of the work of that committee, namely, the causes, processes and consequences of inflation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Therefore, it does seem to me that this amendment should be allowed. If I am pressing this, it is because I have seen a good many attempts to amend motions setting up committees turned down on procedural grounds. I just do not think it is right in terms of the philosophy or in terms of the processes of Parliament that if a proposal is made to set up a committee-the proposal being made by the government-the only choice we have is to take it or leave it, that there is no opportunity to alter that on the floor of the House. I should like to go back to citation 201, part of which reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration In a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
April 29, 1970

As I say, I do not think it is in keeping with the parliamentary process that once the government has proposed a committee and set out its terms of reference there should be nothing we can do about it but vote yes or no. I agree with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that there are limits, that if there is a proposal to discuss some aspect of the CNR you cannot drag into it the CPR. I do not agree with what he would not allow to be included under that heading, but I agree there are limits.
I submit, however, that the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey is well within those limits. I do not want to suggest that there is any weakness in my argument, or in that of the hon. member for Peace River. I do not want to leave any thought that Your Honour can do anything other than rule this amendment in order. But while I am on my feet I should like to make the point that if this amendment is ruled out of order, it does not necessarily follow that all of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is also out of order. That amendment is like this one in one respect, in that it modifies the terms of reference part of the motion. But there is something else in it altogether, that is, the proposal that instead of its being a committee of both Houses it should be a committee of this House only.
I hope, therefore, that whatever ruling Your Honour makes on this amendment-and I hope it will be favourable-we can have another go at the procedural aspect of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contributions. As I indicated earlier, my initial misgivings lay on the central point that has been discussed by all three hon. members, namely, whether this amendment raises a new and substantive question or whether it is simply an amplification. The hon. member for Peace River argued that it was simply a clarification of the motion, and he drew my attention to the terms of reference of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Unfortunately, I do not have the terms of reference of the Prices and Incomes Commission before me and therefore I cannot use them in trying to decide on the procedural validity of the amendment.
I must say I have much sympathy for the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his general proposition that amendments should not always be ruled
Price Stability
out of order on procedural grounds. There may be a higher argument, referred to as the political process, which should allow for a greater degree of flexibility, and he may have a very good point. But I am not in a position to achieve that higher purpose by way of a ruling. That is something that a committee of the House will have to look into, and I think it is a perfectly valid point.
One of the most difficult things for a Speaker is to be caught in the position of ruling out amendments proposed by hon. members. However, unfortunately, from time to time this is the position in which we find ourselves, and we are bound to be guided by the precedent and citations we have available to us.
In trying to decide whether in fact this is a new or substantive question, for which notice should have been given, or an amplification, I consulted the motion and the operative section seems to me to be the following:
-the Joint Parliamentary Committee on price Stability, be appointed to consider reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and such other related reports or papers as may be referred to the committee.
That seems to be a very specific provision of the motion. The amendment is to amend that motion to include the following, "to inquire into the causes, processes and consequences of inflation".
Faced with that, and without the benefit of the terms of reference of the Prices and Incomes Commission before me, I have had to decide, and I have decided, that in fact this is virtually a new, substantive question. Having made that decision, 1 was then required to consult previous rulings by Speakers, and also Beauchesne. I have here one ruling which combines both the citations from Beauchesne which I was going to use, plus previous rulings. It is a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Michener on December 7, 1962, which came about as the result of a point of order raised by a distinguished member from the province of Alberta. I will read parts of his ruling:
On the matter of whether this amendment can be received at all, I would draw hon. members' attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 291

That is the citation I was going to use in dealing with this amendment.
-which reads as follows:
"When the House is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice".

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
Later in his ruling Mr. Speaker Michener quoted a previous ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and I would like to put this on the record as well. It reads as follows:
I could give the hon. member many more citations and rulings by Speakers. There is one by Mr. Speaker Macdonald which appears in Journals for April 4, 1951, page 243. He ruled that "an amendment cannot be moved giving the committee wider powers than those which were set out in the Notice of Motion".
Then, there is another ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald's on November 2, 1951, as contained in the Journals, page 67. He said, and I quote:
"I might say at this time that if the Minister himself proposed an amendment which would widen the terms of the resolution I could not allow it to stand unless it was with the unanimous consent of the House".
It seems to me that I am faced with substantially the same situation today and I must say, albeit with regret, that I must rule the amendment inadmissible on the grounds I have cited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I now assume that Your Honour is taking under further advisement the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I suggested earlier, out of courtesy to the hon. member for Winnipeg North I should give at least the same amount of thought to his amendment as I did to the first amendment, and I will later be in a position to rule on the motion before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there are two subjects in it, maybe you should give twice as much thought to it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will consider Your Honour's admonishment. I realize now in which direction you will be leaning when we consider the amendment. Your Honour will note that I rose very slowly. I thought that surely a member on the government side would come to the aid of the minister. There he sits forlorn, lonely and isolated.
We have in the House eight members of the government party, the largest number it has had at any time this afternoon since we began considering this motion. Not one of those eight members saw fit to rise in support of the proposal which the minister brought before the House. A short while ago we saw here the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). Now we see the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker). Surely hon. mem-

bers coming from an area where there is a very decided interest in the effect of inflation will, before this debate is completed, stand up and tell us that they support the unusual and extraordinary proposal put forward by the minister and contained within the motion.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I say, I am shocked that the minister cannot at this time dredge up any support from his party for this motion. One of the reasons might well be that the motion is something of a fraud, something like the department which the minister has the honour to head. Apart from those orthodox aspects which were previously the subject of other departmental activity, I think it is a department which was conceived in fraud, born in shame and nourished under hypocrisy. All this time the minister and his predecessor who first engaged the attention of the public and of this House in connection with this department have attempted to persuade people that it had a function, that it would guide the poor, unfortunate consumer through all the problems which were envisaged as facing him during the course of the next few years.
It is a department, Mr. Speaker, which is engaged in obtaining by false pretences $10 million from the people of Canada-the department of false pretences to the extent of $10 million-and I am of course excluding from the departmental estimates those items which deal with the other orthodox or regular functions of the department which were being dealt with previously by other departments. In looking through the annual report I discover that one of the main additions to it is the "Department of Information and Public Relations." I quote:
During the fiscal year 1968-69 the Information and Public Relations Branch added two components to its organization, a media relations division and an editorial division.
The media relations division was established to co-ordinate relations with all news media in Canada through continuous meetings with members of the media, press conferences, interviews, official releases and background material on the legislation and activities of the department.
It goes on and on for another four or five paragraphs. This is a pretty good indication of the proof of the charges which I have levelled against the minister, not as an individual, not as a member but in his responsibility in administering the affairs of this department which adds nothing to the protection of the consumers of our country. That has been carried forward, Mr. Speaker,
April 29, 1970



in the terms of the motion before us, supported and reinforced by the fact that the minister refused to accept my suggestion that he might well agree to incorporate into the terms of the motion the amendment offered by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe).
Your Honour has made a ruling on that amendment. Of course we accept the ruling, but still I point out it is wise for the minister, if he wants a committee that will do a valuable, useful job, to consider that amendment between now and the conclusion of this debate, reviewing, reflecting and contemplating so that he may well come to the decision that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey will add strength and sinew to this motion. As it stands now, Mr. Speaker, after the rejection of this amendment I And it very difficult to see anything useful in the committee. The motion reads:
That a special joint committee ... be appointed to consider reports-
It is limited to considering these reports.
-of the Prices and Incomes Commission

That is pretty strict wording; there are pretty strong limitations on what the functions of this joint committee will be, even strengthened by the addition of members of the other place, which of course is an issue which hon. friends to my left will deal with at a later time. The word "consider" is very restrictive when we consider what the committee will be able to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought I might be asked a question. Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that before the hon. member for Winnipeg North moved his amendment the hon. member for Peace River suggested to the minister that he might accept both amendments, does that still stand? In other words, will the members of his party support us in cutting the Senate out of this operation?


Gerald William Baldwin: Not at this stage, Mr. Speaker. At the time I spoke I was not aware of the full content of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Had
you no faith?
Price Stability


Gerald William Baldwin: I sometimes have faith in the hon. member but not always in the views expressed by his party. Occasionally we are ad idem but there are times when we are not. In addition to considering reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, the committee is authorized to deal with-
-such other related reports or papers as may be referred to the committee-
The committee is emasculated so far as its freedom of movement is concerned. It is only to consider parts of the PIC and such other matters as may be referred to it. We all know how these committees operate, and we know that it is only at the instance of the government that this special joint committee will have any authority, any right, any jurisdiction to consider issues related to this extremely serious and dangerous question of inflation. It is only when the government sees fit to bestow, out of its generosity, those rights on the committee that it will have an opportunity to do so. What use is this committee, inhibited, restricted, tied closely to the PIC reports and whatever else the government wants to give it? Under those circumstances I find it very difficult to support the motion. I will have to give it very careful thought before this debate is concluded.
I divide my argument into two parts. I deal with the whole question of committees and the powers of committees. These are questions that must be considered. Any member who comes to a decision on this question must first direct his attention to the value of a committee of this kind, or of any committee. To illustrate my point I wish to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of Monday, April 27, 1970. It is collaterally relevant to this issue and to my argument because it deals with the powers of government and the opportunities of committees such as this to influence the operations of the government. Although the editorial happens to mention my name, that is only incidental. I quote:
Inside and outside Parliament, the Conservative opposition, notably Mr. Gerald Baldwin of Peace River, has mounted a campaign against what it sees as an alarming trend toward authoritarianism in the Trudeau government.
The action of cabinet ministers in attacking Auditor General Maxwell Henderson for his expose of government waste, the white paper on tax reform, the setting up of Information Canada, and more have provided ammunition for Conservative critics.
But a pertinent question is whether the Conservatives are winning public support by attacking the growing power of government at the expense of Parliament.

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
The editorial then goes on to discuss in some detail the rather extraordinary questionnaire circulated in the United States seeking the views of people in that country to this and related questions, which to me indicated the most alarming movement, if the response to the questionnaire is correct, toward strong, authoritarian, dictatorial government at the expense of the public and its representatives, that is, the Congress in the United States and Parliament in Canada. That goes right to the root of the issue here.
Why have a joint committee if it is not to have any real function, if it cannot act effectively, strongly and diligently, and whenever required have the requisite degree of flexibility to direct its attention to all the issues surrounding inflation? I am not going to take the time now to attack the Prices and Incomes Commission and what it has done. I haven't much faith in what it has done or what it is going to do. I think it is simply a matter of the government having established a lightning conductor to steer away from the government some of the wrath and rage of people who have been hurt, who have been damaged and who have been injured by continuing inflation and by the way in which the government is dealing with it by calling upon the unemployed, the oppressed, the disinherited, and the poverty-stricken farmers to bear the full brunt of this war against inflation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I will deal with that later. I want to direct my attention to this question: What is the value of setting up a committee of this kind? In view of the very rigid position the government has taken, as illustrated by the objection to the amendment moved by my colleague, I can think of very little that can be effectively done by the committee. The government is growing stronger and more powerful, as both speakers who preceded me pointed out. The establishment of task forces of specialists and the tremendous building up of the monolithic apparatus of the Prime Minister's office and of the Privy Council give me cause for concern.
We in this House could have in our hands a very effective and useful means of attacking this trend. I do not suggest that some commissions are not essential. Governments must be strong, powerful and flexible if they are to move rapidly in dealing with emergencies and situations of a crisis character which, in the kind of world we live in today, will be more and more evident. Although I do not like these powers in the hands of government, I

feel that we will have to live with them. Yet why, in the name of heaven, must this Parliament every day pass over to the government extensive powers? I will not go back over the debates of the last two or three days, but what has been happening illustrates the extent to which this House is being asked, in breach of its plain duty and responsibility to the people of Canada, to give to those who sit on the treasury benches power to deal with the lives, property, freedom and economic rights of the people of Canada.
Last September the report of the Committee on Statutory Instruments was brought before the House. Had that report been implemented even partially I should have experienced less difficulty in accepting what has been happening. The report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments-it was a very carefully drawn up, well documented, unanimous report by members from all sides of the House-pointed out the grave dangers which are evident in the operation of certain tribunals, ministerial task forces, Crown corporations and those emanations of government which have seized and are now exercising greater power.
The report of the special committee illustrated ways and means by which we might deal with that matter. It was brought in with loud hosannas. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the chairman of the committee told us that at long last Canada, which had been delinquent in this field, would have some means of dealing with the excessive powers of government.
We were approaching the tag-end of the session. I have on several occasions asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the Prime Minister, in the House and outside, what the government intended to do about this report and whether it intended to implement all or any part of it. I venture to say that the government will make no attempt to implement any part of this report. There will be no means by which members of the House will have any measure of freedom in telling their constituents-and they should have this right-and the people of Canada what are the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I mention that body in order to bring myself within the relevant terms of this motion.
How, then, can we stand idly by and listen to the minister in a glib and devious way attempting to suggest that what the government is attempting to do here will be very nice for the people of Canada? Until there is
April 29, 1970

some means by which the Parliament of Canada in general and we in this House in particular, have the opportunity of telling our people what they must be told, I think we should beware. It is the business of the opposition to oppose generously, properly and in a constructive way. But surely hon. members on the government side must have some qualms, some fears, as to what they are doing to the people of their country when they so docilely permit the government to have these powers.
I have grave doubts about this matter and cannot be convinced, having read the motion as it now stands, that anything useful can come out of it, particularly after the minister repudiated the very sensible suggestion we made which would have permitted a more intelligent, wider and more constructive approach to be taken by the committee in dealing with the recommendations and reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
Surely the members of this House who are to be on the committee, members who have a direct liaison with the people they represent, who travel from place to place in Canada and who, not only in terms of interest but in terms of self-interest wish to find out what people are thinking about inflation and the various reports and recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Commission, should be given the right to make recommendations to this House through the medium of this committee, whether or not the government wants them to do so. Yet the government is saying by this motion and by what has been indicated by the minister, "No; you will not be allowed to do that. You will only be allowed to deal with and consider the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission and such other matters as we in our graciousness and magnanimity entrust you to deal with."
Who could have confidence in a committee of that kind? For this reason alone I would be very dubious of the value of the reports. I hope that before a final decision is made by the Chair on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) there will be a change on the part of the government, that the minister who is inflexible may become flexible, that the minister who is now unreasonable may become reasonable and will accept at least that part of the amendment which corresponds to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey, which would give more teeth to this committee.
Price Stability


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope the hon. member will not retreat. I hope he will ask the minister to accept all of the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated my position. Mind you, the hon. member is very eloquent. Of course, we in this party are always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. However, we do not hear them too often, except when they come from our own ranks.
What about the value of the committee itself? The minister referred to some universal recognition given at the recent federal-provincial conference but he was very selective and very shrewd in his statement. He did not read from the statement of conclusions dated February 17, 1970, which by coincidence I happen to have in my file, when painting a glowing picture of the acceptance by the federal-provincial conference of this proposition and the validity and value of the Prices and Incomes Commission. He forgot to read what appears on page 3, which is as follows:
The conference confirmed the determination of the federal and provincial governments to co-ordinate and renew efforts to bring back price stability and sustained economic growth and social progress throughout Canada.
9 (5:30 p.m.)
I can accept that part; this is what the minister had in mind. I continue:
At the same time, the conference recognized that inflationary pressures were distributed unevenly across the country, and that some parts of Canada were suffering from unemployment or lack of development as well as from inflation.
As Your Honour well knows, that fact is recognized in a province not so far from this city where today the voters are coming to a decision. Some parts of Canada are suffering from unemployment and a lack of development as well as from inflation.
In view of this, it was recognized that anti-inflationary policies should be applied as far as possible in a way which would not add to the difficulties of regions which were experiencing high unemployment or economic problems.
The Prime Minister should have that passage read to him every day. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) should read and understand it. He sat in at that conference, yet he is ignoring the conclusion to which he as a member of the conference gave credibility and acceptance.
In this connection, some Premiers maintained that, at the same time as broad anti-inflationary measures are carried out, the federal government

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
should take such actions as would offset any negative effects on the economies of slow growth areas, and which, with additional federal input, would further help the basic problems of regional imbalance of the Canadian economy.
Why did the minister not read that into the record? Those of us who attended some of the meetings as observers noticed that this was the greatest concern to the Premiers of the provinces. The minister conveniently forgot to read that passage into the record. This is what was worrying the representatives of the regional areas, in this case the Premiers. This is what is worrying many of us in this House, both as Canadian citizens and Members of Parliament representing regions. I am greatly concerned about the effect of the government's anti-inflationary program on the people of my constituency in northern Alberta.
Some provinces expressed the view that the federal government must give leadership-
God help us! Where are we going to find this leadership?
-in solving the inflationary situation, and British Columbia and Alberta suggested that the federal government should decrease or eliminate certain taxes, particularly the indirect sales tax and tariffs, to reduce some of the current pressures on prices in Canada.
What indication do we have that the government is seriously contemplating this suggestion?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be delighted.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In view of the remarks the hon. member has just made, can he explain why the chief financial critic for the opposition, on the night of the recent budget advocated an increase in some tariffs?


Gerald William Baldwin: It may well be that the financial critic had something in mind at that time. I am talking about the proposals of the federal-provincial conference which received approval from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and to which their signatures are attached. The government is sitting in the driver's seat. They have said to the people of Canada, "Trust us. We will look after you. We will do the things essential to bring you happiness, prosperity and a just society". Why is the minister not attempting to persuade his colleages who were present at that conference to implement these very specific proposals irrespective of what anyone

else says? If the colleagues of the minister suggest that, they will have my support and the support of a great many members of this House and people from all over Canada. I continue quoting:
Some first ministers also stressed the importance of ensuring that governments do not over-react to inflation to an extent which could lead to widespread unemployment and recession, particularly since a number of economic indicators already point to the possibility of higher unemployment and slower growth in 1970. A concern was also expressed that emphasis needs to be given to continued and expanded productivity and economic growth.
How much more hypocrisy can this country stand, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said at a formal meeting with the first ministers of the provinces of Canada that this is what the country needs. They said that they believed in this. What do we now see with regard to unemployment? I do not need to go into that. Every day in this House members, particularly in the opposition, plead with the government, pointing with apprehension and alarm to what is happening in their regions and provinces. All they receive is a cold, uncompassionate and calculated indifference from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
For these reasons I have the greatest difficulty in giving any support to this motion which does not promise much for the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know the disposition of the House, but I am in a position to make a ruling on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, unless hon. members prefer me to wait in order that they may argue it procedurally later. I do not want to force any ruling on the House at this time. I am in a position, though, to give my ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the hope and confidence that my previous arguments persuaded Your Honour to treat this amendment with more tenderness than the last one, I would agree that Your Honour might give your ruling now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was very impressed with the force and cogency of Your Honour's reasons in connection with the first amendment. The second amendment goes much further than the first amendment, and Your Honour's forceful and cogent ruling on that amendment surely applies with double impact to this amendment.
April 29, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even ii that is true, Mr. Speaker, surely it applies only to that part of the amendment that has to do with the terms of reference. Nothing has been said today that questions the validity of that part of my colleague's amendment which suggests this should be a committee of this House only, rather than a committee of both Houses.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure what I should say about the contributions of hon. members. I make the point which I think is anticipated, if not obvious, to all hon. members. It is that essentially the same objections I had to the first amendment apply to part of the amendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I quote section (c) of the amendment:
(c) by inserting in line three, after the word "appointed", the Words "to inquire into and report upon the trends in the cost-of-living in Canada and factors which may be contributing to changes in the cost-of-living;"-
My objections to that are the same as the objections I had to the earlier amendment. I again refer hon. members to citation 291 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. However, there are other parts to the amendment. In considering that I must again quote Beauchesne, citation 293, toward the end of the citation. It reads as follows:
When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order.
I am therefore obliged to rule that the amendment before me is out of order. This does not preclude at a later date the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if it is his disposition, moving an amendment which would contain those provisions of the present amendment, minus the section that I find objectionable. For these reasons I rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say on our behalf that we accept that course of action, namely, that if we wish to move the part that is not out of order, we can do so at a later stage. However, is it not also the prerogative of the Speaker to suggest from the chair that an amendment be altered so as to bring it in order? I wonder if Your Honour considered that the offensive part be eliminated and that the rest of the amendment stand? We are in Your Honour's hands. We are prepared to do it either way.
Price Stability


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Frankly, I had not considered that option. I was not sure whether it was available to the chair. I suggest precedurally it might be more correct if the hon. member will follow the other course, namely, someone else from his group might move the amendment, minus the section to which I object, at a later stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
always do what Your Honour suggests.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to have an opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). While I am dealing with the subject matter, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions I would like to pose.
I had the privilege of spending some time in the committee which studied the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I was at times disappointed in the attitude of some of the chief officers of that department who seemed to lack the answers, or were not prepared to give them to the committee. It appears the minister has now appointed more heads to this new department than one would normally find on a western ranch. Some 70 of them, I understand, are highly-paid officers. When members on a committee ask questions, one would think they would be entitled to get some kind of answer.
To a large extent the fault lies with the committee set-up; there is no way of exercising any pressure on a department or on its officials to ensure that answers are given. As long as I stay in this House I shall continue to fight to bring back into this chamber the study of departmental estimates by the whole House.
I believe the government is over-reacting to the issue of inflation. In this connection I for one, made alternative proposals to Dr. Young and others, proposals which they were not prepared to accept. Indeed, they were reluctant even to comment on them. One of the more serious difficulties facing this country is the shortage of housing. Some of us tried to deal with this question in the committee, with Dr. Young present, to determine whether any attempt had been made by the commission or by any other branch or agency of government to discuss with the municipalities what action the government should take in connection

April 29, 1970
Price Stability
with land acquisition. Dr. Young thought this was beyond the scope ol his authority and declined to elaborate.
Why should we approve this motion to set up a committee of both Houses to report from time to time its observations and opinions, and to send for papers, persons and records, to sit during adjournments, and so on? What is the reason for this request? I mentioned a few moments ago that there are 70 highly-paid officials employed by the department- and there are more to come. This is a complex organization in itself. Why should a joint parliamentary committee be appointed with power to call for witnesses, papers and documents, to conduct research, and then pass the information on to a department which is already established to do this very work? To me, it smacks of additional control of our economy.
I have never particularly favoured joint committees. They tend to become authoritative and hard to handle. I do not believe the recommendations which have been made so far even by committees of our own House of Commons have been accepted by the government, unless the government had already made up its mind to do so. I do not believe a joint committee will get the necessary answers. One of the questions put to Dr. Young was along these lines: What has the department done in the light of information available for some months now, to the effect that roughly 80 per cent of the union contracts in Canada become renegotiable in 1970?
I wanted to know what steps had been taken in light of the fact that the unions have turned down the minister's request for wage restraint. I do not believe a joint committee or any other committee of Parliament will be able to deal with this issue to the satisfaction either of hon. members or of the minister. I should like to know whether the committee which is to be set up would have the power to call the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) before it to explain government policy in regard to one of the problems which has arisen in relation to housing, namely, the continuance of the tax on building materials.
We pursued this line of questioning in the committee, as the minister knows, and Dr. Young's answers on the subject were extremely vague. It puzzles me why we should wish to set up a new committee to consider inflation and the spiralling cost of living, and then leave on the statute books a tax of a kind which directly affects one of the most important industries of Canada. To me, this does not make sense.

In 1969 the housing industry reported a rise in the cost of housing of something like 6.9 per cent. If the minister intends to take serious steps to reduce costs, he should approach his task step by step. At one time I asked the minister-if I did not, I apologize I might have asked Dr. Young-whether, if the minister was not prepared to let competition find its own market levels, he would tell us what objection the government had to instituting immediate wage and price controls, as was done in wartime, for four or five years or until the economy had stabilized.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with this type of measure. We experienced reasonably good years during the 1940s, during the last war. It would at least assure one thing to the people of Canada, including the business community and people in the work force, namely, that the price of commodities would remain stable for a certain period. It would give business some assurance that their profits would remain reasonably stable over a given period. It would control rents. It would also control land and housing costs. I can see very little objection to compulsory wage and price controls.
My argument is that although the administration of such a program might be difficult, it would be no more difficult than trying to administer this kind of department, particularly in light of the fact that labour groups in the nation have said no to the minister's request for restraint. Although business has not said so, it has not done much in the way of practising restraint.
I do not think it is fair for the government to delve into the private operations of companies. Neither do I think it is fair to set up a bureaucracy made up of so-called paper-tigers supposedly to give the economy some sort of stability. I have before me an article from the Vancouver Province which reads in part as follows:
If the average citizen came away from 1969 with the impression that the federal government hadn't actually done much to protect him from exploitation by business and the vagaries of life ... well... he isn't that far wrong.
But there are a stack of government moves just around the corner that should mesh well with the consumer revolt, the public outcry against environmental pollution and concern against galloping inflation.
Yet, as we enter 1970, Canadians must face this sober check list:
April 29, 1970	COMMONS
Then follows a list of problems that the country has been facing for a number of years. Approximately a year and a half ago the minister set up this new department which was going to cure all these ills within a very short time. Therefore, I ask the minister: Before we set up this kind of committee, would he tell the House exactly what he expects the committee to do above and beyond those responsibilities which fall within the minister's own department? What can the committee do, how will it be doing it, and what effect will it have?
I cannot see how a joint parliamentary committee that would sit on a year around basis will solve what the minister has pointed out is a very serious problem. I do not know what the committee's main function will be. Is it going to call before it representatives from General Motors in order to find out next year's price of Cadillacs? What is this committee expected to do that could not be done by the department as presently constituted?
For example, there is the service and information branch, and the research branch. I
DEBATES	6445
Price Stability
presume that the research branch could research costs and potential price increases in any given industry. I suppose that the operations branch is responsible for the administration of the other smaller branches that are spread across the country. The function of the compliance branch, I presume, is to see that when the government asks a corporation not to increase the price of its commodities in a given year, the corporation so complies.
If that is the case, why do we need a joint parliamentary committee to do the work that these various departments should in fact be doing? We also have the standards branch, in regard to which I ask the same question: Does the minister expect the joint parliamentary committee to call before it representatives of manufacturers from across the country and give to them certain standards that they should follow? That is not the responsibility of a committee. I can see very little purpose in approving this resolution.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 30, 1970