1970-06-18

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF CERTAIN COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a group of representatives from the Commonwealth parliaments of Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. These parliamentarians are with us in Canada as guests of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I should also like to mention the presence in the gallery of Shri M. S. Bharti, a distinguished and highly respected member of India's Lok Sabha.
I am sure that all hon. members would want me, on their behalf, to express the wish that the visit to Ottawa and to Canada of these very distinguished friendly parliamentarians will be pleasant, fruitful and rewarding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. JOHN VOLPE, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I call to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a most distinguished visitor from the United States, the former governor of the state of Massachusetts, now Secretary of Transportation in the United States cabinet, the Hon. John Volpe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (2:10p.m.)



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PREMIER SMALLWOOD AND NEWFOUNDLAND DELEGATION

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, while we are drawing your attention to distinguished visitors, may I draw attention to the presence in your gallery of a
very distinguished delegation from our newest province, Newfoundland, headed by the Premier of that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Crowfoot has an announcement to make about matters even more mundane.



SOFTBALL GAME BETWEEN MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROTECTIVE STAFF

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you and the House that the ball game played last night between the Members of Parliament and the protective staff was won by the Members of Parliament. I say I regret to inform you of this, and in the circumstances I would urge you to consider granting these unsung heroes of the House a 6 per cent wage increase which would perhaps provide them with a greater incentive to do a better job in the ball game and also in protecting Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), for Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale), seconded by Mr. Jamieson, moves:
That upon the adoption of this motion, and continuing in effect until Friday, June 26, 1970-


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: -the ordinary hours of sitting and daily adjournment shall be-
Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to the putting of this motion today. I do not wish to indicate that we object to the motion passing if it can be
June 18, 1970

Motion to Extend Hours of Sitting properly put on the understanding that it will be effective only until the 26th of this month. But I am raising a point of order because of the question of principle involved and the precedent that the putting of this motion today would establish.
The government is attempting to use what I might refer to quite properly as an opposition day for the purpose of transacting other government business. An opposition motion on an allotted day is defined to be a proceeding in the business of supply under Standing Order 58(2), which reads as follows:
For the purposes of this order, the business of supply shall consist of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates and supplementary or final estimates; motions to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates; motions to introduce or pass at all stages any bill or bills based thereon; and opposition motions that under this order may be considered on allotted days.
Standing Order 58(12) reads:
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order, that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.
It follows, Sir, that the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council is subservient to the opposition motion and the proceedings thereon under this rule. The opposition motion and the proceedings thereon are deemed to constitute part of the government's business of supply and to have precedence "over all other government business in such sitting." I raise this question, Sir, as a question of principle in order to avoid an unfortunate precedent being established at this time.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I submit that violation of the business for this day so far as the opposition is concerned does not really take effect unless we spend unlimited time debating this motion. If we deal with it quickly, then the opposition day comes into effect the minute Orders of the Day are called. Perhaps this is a bit of hair-splitting, but it is not the first time that has been done in this place.
I rise to say that we do not object to the motion itself. We would certainly join in the objection of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) if debate on this motion goes on and we do not get to the business set down for today, but surely that will not happen.
There are two points I wish to make. First, if we get to the business set down for the day soon, as I trust we will, I wonder whether we

are doing ourselves a favour by adding an hour to this day's sitting. I have in mind the fact that there could be about five recorded votes tonight. Although the Order Paper says they are to start at 9.45 p.m. I imagine that if the time of adjournment is changed to 11 o'clock, those votes will not commence until 10.45 p.m. That would mean we would be here until almost midnight taking those five votes. For that reason I believe it would be better to have this motion come into effect tomorrow, whenever it may be passed.
Second, if this additional time is to be added between now and a week from Friday we suggest to the government that there are some things that are not planned for these few days that might be worked in, such as action on the question of veterans matters on which we are all agreed, the tabling of the Canada Development Corporation Bill, and the disposing of Bill C-196. There are two or three such items that I suggest could be dealt with in the extra time. We hope that Parkinson's law will not apply and that the extra time will not be spent on matters that we would deal with anyway even if the hours of sitting were not extended. We are not opposed to the motion, but I share the spirit of what the Leader of the Opposition said, that it ought not to cut into the opposition's time for today.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as for us, we do not object to the motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council but we would have liked to defer the study of Bill C-215 which, besides requiring a lot of the time of the House, will prevent the government from bringing forward legislation it wanted the House to pass before adjournment.
I also wish to point out it is the second time the President of the Privy Council chooses an opposition day to present such motions. In fact, it will be recalled that on last February 17, he made a similar proposal in order to deprive the Creditistes of an allotted day under Standing Orders. The present arrangements were arrived at after long negotiations, but we would not like the procedure to be maintained so that we would have to fight for our rights whenever we make opposition motions under Standing Orders.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the spirit of
June 18, 1970

moving the motion at this time was largely with the view that there would probably be limited discussion on it in view of the discussions which have already been held. I think it is perfectly correct under the rules that we entertain at this time a procedural motion before other matters are proceeded with. The point made by the Leader of the Opposition is one which probably deserves some further consideration in due course, but at this time I think the motion should be put so that we can proceed with the extended hours.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been brought forward today, an opposition day, and I can only reiterate my fundamental objection to this being done today in light of the representations made by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers. In my view it is not only contrary to the spirit but to the letter of Standing Order 58(12) which, if the matter requires any further elaboration, reads as follows:
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order-
This deals entirely with supply.
-that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this motion for accelerated sittings is nothing but government business. It is a government motion. It is not one from the opposition in any way. The Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt may purse his lips in disapproval all he wants. This is strictly a government proposal. In light of the circumstances, I object to this being done on an opposition day near the end of the session.
The government can use what happens today as a precedent on some future occasion to bring in a similar motion dealing with House business, which may be controversial or otherwise and which will eat into the rights of the opposition. It is not a question of quantum. I dismiss with contempt any suggestion that if the Opposition wants time to discuss its business, this order provides for an additional hour for that to be done. That is a red herring, Mr. Speaker, because this need not apply in the future. It is a question of what type of business the government can bring forward on an opposition day. This is our day, if I may say so as a member of the
Motion to Extend Hours oj Sitting opposition and as a member of the procedure committee. I recall all the great statements, the professions of good faith and so on, members speaking on behalf of the government when Standing Order 58 was brought in.
I have no objection to the extended sittings but I have a fundamental objection to the motion to extend the hours being brought forward today. Hon. members may have all sorts of arguments about the merit of extended sittings. I must say, however, that I object fundamentally to the government choosing this particular occasion to bring forward this motion. I say, finally, that it is quite contrary not only to the spirit but to the letter of Standing Order 58(12) to do so and therefore should not be allowed by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York South rising on the point of order?


Mr. Lewis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we really ought not to pursue the procedural aspect of the matter much longer. However, if the hon. member thinks he has a valid and valuable contribution to make, we will hear him.


David Lewis: I hope it is both, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that there is no need to indulge in lengthy argument. If the President of the Privy Council would either assure the House or amend his motion so that it would not apply to today, the whole problem would disappear and we would not need to take any more time on this procedural argument.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree to that change. Therefore the motion would be effective as of tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with due
respect, this is not my point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition. That is not his point and that is certainly not the way I understood his argument. His argument is based more on a question of principle and propriety and, as the hon. member for Edmonton West said, the matter of an hour's gain or an hour's loss is not necessarily the substance of the argument which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in opposition to the motion.
June 18. 1970

Motion to Extend Hours of Sitting
I suggest, with respect, to hon. members who have raised this point of order that the arguments brought forth are arguments in opposition to the motion itself. It seems to me that the motion should be put and that hon. members have brought arguments against it to the effect that in their view the motion should not be put and they would like to vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members can say no, but that is my interpretation of the situation. Hon. members suggest that this motion is-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not the substance of it.


Mr. Speaker:: -government business. Obviously it is not government business. We are on routine proceedings and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has quite rightly pointed out, we do not reach government business until orders of the day are called. These are routine proceedings and on routine proceedings this motion is quite in order. Hon. members may object to it. They may think that it is improper to bring it in at this time and that it may cause problems in future. That may very well be. However, so far as the Chair is concerned the motion is in order. It is submitted at the proper time and it therefore has to be put at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That upon the adoption of this motion, and continuing in effect until Friday, June 26, 1970, the ordinary hours of sitting and daily adjournment shall be as follows:
Mondays
Tuesdays and
Thursdays
Wednesdays
Fridays
from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and from 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and from 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and from 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.
That on Mondays, Government Orders shall be the first order of business taken up at 11.00 a.m. and that the daily Routine Proceedings be called at 2.00 p.m. on Mondays.
That the hour ordinarily provided for Private Members' Business on Friday shall be devoted to Government Business.
That proceedings on an adjournment motion, if any, on Mondays, Tuesdays or Thursdays under Standing Order 40(1) shall be deferred until 11.00 p.m.
That when it is provided in any Standing Order that the business under consideration shall be forthwith disposed of or concluded in any sitting, the hour of daily adjournment for that purpose shall be as stated in part one of this order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council has said that the motion need not come into effect today and in view of the fact it will come into effect today unless it is amended, possibly the simplest way out of this would be to have the motion stand until tomorrow morning when it would pass in matter of seconds.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I have no objection to the hours proposed by the minister. My objection was simply on a question of principle. If the motion was put on any other day I would have no objection to it being passed forthwith.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the point of order, the motion has been put and discussed at great length. Why not finish it today and agree that it shall apply as of tomorrow?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to extending the hours. However, I think the question that has been raised should be resolved by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as to the proper method of handling such motions on an opposition day. With this particular motion no harm is being done because there is no objection to the motion. However, if we set a precedent that on an opposition day the government can call a very controversial motion which the House will want to debate, the government could very effectively prevent the opposition making use of a day which has been allocated to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In this instance, this is the last day to discuss supply. It is a very important day from the standpoint of the opposition. In the case of the motion now before the House, there is no desire to debate it extensively or even to debate it at all.
I suggest to Your Honour and to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that some thought should be given to this matter so that what we are doing today does not become a precedent. Otherwise, on an opposition day in the future the government can call a motion, debate that motion the entire day, even by putting up its own mem-
June 18, 1970

bers, and prevent the opposition utilizing a day that has been set aside to discuss a specific matter of importance to the opposition.
We agree to this motion going through, but I hope this will not be accepted as a precedent and that Your Honour and the committee will look into the matter. The object would be, of course, to make it impossible in future to prevent the opposition from utilizing the too few days set aside for the discussion of questions in which it is particularly interested.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion now made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands follows a similar suggestion made by other hon. members. 1 am not sure that the members of the Committee on Procedure and Organization are altogether anxious to have another problem passed on to them; it seems to me that during the last few weeks we have from day to day passed on quite a number of our problems to them. But the suggestion is a valuable one and it might well be that the members of the committee, who are among the senior members of the House, would wish to consider the matter to which the Leader of the Opposition has also alluded.
This having been said, I must remind hon. members that the motion has been put, and I have therefore to ask whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the wording of the motion, since the terms of the motion would require the House to sit on a statutory holiday I should like to seek the guidance of the Chair on whether it is a proper motion or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion does not apply to a statutory holiday. If the House does not sit on that day I am sure it would not be expected that the terms of the motion should apply. I would not think that the point is well taken.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, you say that the motion does not involve sitting on a statutory holiday. Why has the government included the only Wednesday left between now and June 26 as one of the sitting days?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the motion was set down on June 11 but at the request of the opposition it was not moved earlier this week.
Measures to Create Employment


Mr. Bell:: It was not delayed at our request.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I happen to know that the house leader of my party suggested to the President of the Privy Council that the motion be put yesterday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As to that, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. gentleman is not the only member of the opposition and his is not the only opposition party.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasfings):: June 18, 1970
Gold Mining Industry


Mr. Turner (Oiiawa-Carlelon):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, as members, we should not raise objection to the hon. member taking the time of the House on an opposition day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is always glad to hear words of wisdom and words of truth, and they hope the government will react to them in a sensible manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that the motion can be put to the House only if there is unanimous consent. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 43 in order to discuss immediately the measures to be taken to improve the situation of gold mines in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the study of the Gold Mining Assistance Act warrants an emergency debate in order to clarify the situation.
If they are to plan their activities, mining companies, miners and municipalities which depend on gold mining operations need to know fairly soon what position the government will adopt.
For this reason, the House should tackle this problem immediately, thus enabling hon. members to express their views to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that the motion which he has put to the House under Standing Order 43 should effectively have been moved under Standing Order 26. The hon. member has made a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a national and urgent matter, but such an adjournment must normally be moved under Standing Order 26.

However, in order to avoid complications, I will simply ask hon. members if they agree that the motion should now be put.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion of the hon. member for Villeneuve cannot be put to the House.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Donald Campbell Jamieson: the first reading of Bill S-23 (from the Senate), to postpone the expiration of certain provisions of an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-25 (from the Senate), respecting Hudson's Bay Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the figures published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment to be 6.2 per cent as of May 23, whether he considers that this rate of unemployment is essential to the fight against inflation or whether he proposes to announce measures to increase employment in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second is that we have already announced such measures.
June 18. 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the forecast by the OECD that the growth rate in Canada will be about 2J per cent this year, which is well below the growth rate required to prevent the rate of unemployment increasing, does the Prime Minister intend to announce any new measures or is he content with the measures the government is following now as an ample method to cope with unemployment in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to improve on our methods.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether or not he or the Minister of Finance will make a statement in the House within a day or two, following these very alarming figures in association with the OECD forecast which indicate a very cruel rate of unemployment in this country? Is the Prime Minister prepared himself or through a responsible minister to indicate to the House precisely what the government proposes to do about this very high rate of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants the minister to participate in any kind of debate on this question the minister has assured me that he would be prepared to do so later in the day if the opposition in its use of this day wants to raise the subject.
An hon Member: We will.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the House prefers a short answer to this question I am prepared to try to deal with it now.



UNITED STATES POSITION RESPECTING CONTINENTAL POLICY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN POLICY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. About two weeks ago the minister undertook to ascertain from the government of the United States whether the statements contained in the letter from the White House signed by an aide to President Nixon represented government policy, particularly the sentence in the President's letter which reads:
The national security of the United States requires the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement with Canada with respect to all energy matters and the imposition of some quantitative limitations on the entry of Canadian petroleum pending the conclusion of such a pact.
22478-33J
Inquiries of the Ministry
I want to ask the minister, now that he has had adequate time, whether or not he has ascertained from the government of the United States whether the sentence I have just quoted represents government policy and what response the minister has made to that?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this statement was a letter from an aide in the White House to a group of 25 Senators who were objecting to the cut-back in Canadian oil imports. There are patent mistakes in the letter itself as it refers to an insecure supply in eastern Canada when almost 70 per cent of our supply in eastern Canada comes from Venezuela which in another context the United States has deemed to be a secure source of supply. So there is a patent conflict there. We have had no official advice concerning whether or not this represents anybody's view other than the particular aide who wrote the letter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the letter came from the President's office and indicates that the restriction being placed on the import of Canadian oil is being used as a lever, to use a polite word, on Canada to agree to an energy package policy, is the minister now telling us he has not made any inquiries of the United States government to ascertain whether or not that statement in the letter from the White House represents the policy of the government of the United States, and if he has not made any inquiry why has he not done so as he promised he would?


John James Greene: With regard to the particulars of the inquiry, I will refer that to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs who deals in such matters. In respect of the question of leverage I might point out to my hon. friend that there was some provision made as recently as yesterday for a slackening of the quotas and for providing extra quotas. If this was meant to be leverage, then it is peculiar that the quotas were slackened as of yesterday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement which the minister made both at Denver, Colorado, and more recently in Ottawa in respect of Canada's energy policy, would the minister undertake before the House recesses to make a statement on motions regarding Canada's energy policy in

June 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry order that we may see whether or not his actions support his change of opinion with respect to this policy matter?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy policy is an extremely complex one which includes many statutes. Certainly a statement on motions could at best be a very cursory and inadequate review of Canada's energy policies, even though given by myself.



INCREASED U.S. OIL IMPORTS-EFFECT ON CANADIAN EXPORTS

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advise us to what extent the 100,000 barrels a day increase in crude oil imports indicated yesterday by the United States for the last half of 1970 will affect Canadian exports to that country?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the available quantities under the 100,000 barrels that were announced will in my understanding be allocated by the oil appeal board to those areas where there is a critical situation existing in respect of refining. So it is difficult to say how much of it will be specifically allocated to Canada, but I am confident that hardship cases of our customers will be met so that some portion of that quota will come to Canada.



VIOLENT DEMONSTRATIONS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question. Could he tell the House if steps have been taken to prevent disorder which might follow in the wake of the demonstration planned by the Front de liberation populaire for July 1 next, in front of the Canada Manpower Centre Building, corner of Bleury and Dorchester Streets, in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any plans for such a demonstration. I have not received a personal invitation, but I will ask the Solicitor General to keep me posted in this regard.



PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS IN BRIEFING PRIOR TO TABLING OF LEDAIN COMMISSION REPORT-COURT CASE MORATORIUM

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I know he is dying to hear my question-in respect of the LeDain commission report. Is the LeDain commission still subject to the Trudeau veto or has the government now approved a confidential briefing period for the press from which Members of Parliament will be excluded and will this briefing take place tomorrow prior to the opening of the House at eleven o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that the question is not asked in terms which might make it acceptable to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Your Honour, I am sorry that we are all so supersensitive, but there has been some veto. The question is very clear. Will there be a briefing of the press tomorrow, prior to the sitting at eleven o'clock, from which members of Parliament will be excluded?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the
LeDain report will be tabled tomorrow. After the question period I intend to discuss with the House leaders of the opposition parties the arrangements for the briefing and the proposals we have in that regard. We shall discuss how best in our view the opposition spokesmen can be included in that briefing, if that is a satisfactory arrangement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I gather from the minister's answer that when he discusses this with the House Leaders of the various parties he will discuss the right of Members of Parliament to be at the briefing concerning which he had a notice on the board today?


John Carr Munro: That subject matter no doubt will come up in the discussion, Mr. Speaker. I do feel, however, that it could be the type of briefing that is a lock-in situation and that all the parties could be amply represented so that they may be in a position to respond to the report. That would probably accomplish both purposes in terms of having the press briefed and still having the rights of members protected.
June 18, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear on that, will Members of Parliament, if there is a briefing session held, be invited on the same terms and conditions that pertained in respect of the tax white paper when Members of Parliament were briefed?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that that is a matter which will be included in the discussion I will be having with the House Leaders. I shall make a decision after that discussion takes place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one further supplementary and direct it to the Minister of Justice. In light of the confusion, would the government consider placing a moratorium on all pending charges and trials at all court levels so that young people involved with what are characterized as soft drugs will not be punished by laws that may be changed or incarcerated in prisons while awaiting trial?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would like to put that question to me tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister's reply.


John Napier Turner: I just wondered whether the hon. member might prefer to put that question to me tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare bring the House up to date concerning what caused the complete right-about-face between his speech last night and his remarks in the House today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is pretty close to the one asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, but not quite.


An hon. Member:: We know who did it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair did not recognize the question as an acceptable one. The hon. member might have a supplementary to the previous questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is supplementary to the previous line of questioning on this subject. Was the minister on pot or full of gas when he made his speech in Hamilton last night?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the allegations of some hon. members opposite concerning what I said last night. I never made the statement that I am alleged to have made about the report not being tabled until well into the summer.


An hon. Member:: We heard it.


John Carr Munro: The source of the statement was a local radio station. They checked their tapes and agreed there was an inaccuracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is absolutely wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will soon be running out of time. The hon. member may have a point of order but I suggest to hon. members that we should then go on to another subject.


George Harris Hees: This will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister: should we believe what we heard over CBC radio this morning or what he said just now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: It was on the eight o'clock news this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I heard it on the eight o'clock CBC news.


An hon. Member:: Everybody else was listening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: This is incredible.


John James Greene: You were not quite awake, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: What a minister, what a cabinet!


An hon. Member:: You are lying.

June 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the minister's question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have to rule that there is no question of privilege. This is a debate on what was said and what was not said. It cannot be raised as a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure whether the minister was referring to me, but I did ask him a question about his speech last night. Let us be quiet and get this clarified for the record. The minister stood in his place and said he did not say what I heard him say with my own ears in his own voice. I would like to clarify this question of privilege. Is the minister prepared to stand in the House today and deny that there was a recording of his voice saying among other things that the LeDain report would be tabled or made public some time this summer? Does he deny that I heard that?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I deny that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: You are not telling the truth.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Whose voice was it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The tape was checked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has stated his point. He rose on a question of privilege. Other hon. members spoke on the previous point of order and on the question of privilege. I would think that nothing will be gained by pursuing this further and using the full 40 minutes for raising points of order and questions of privilege on the same point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We are dealing with a man who cannot tell the truth.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The truth has to come out.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which, I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, is

on another subject. On May 25 I asked him a question concerning a number of survivors who were unable to collect their benefits under the Canada Pension Plan because the deceased contributors, in most cases self employed persons, had failed to obtain a social insurance number. The minister assured me the matter would be looked into, and he was hopeful it would be corrected. I wonder if he can now indicate that this has been done?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been done.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS OF GABON

['Since we have a one-China policy we will recognize one government of China and we will not recognize two. I think that the ambassador from Taiwan, if we are successful in the negotiations, will recognize the facts.']
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the presence in the galleries of Mr. Okinda, Gabon's Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister, now that we are reaching the end of the session, give us a report on how the negotiations are going with the People's Republic of China with a view to exchanging diplomatic missions?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: So far as I know they are continuing. We are waiting for the Chinese representative to make another appointment with our ambassador in Stockholm. We expect that the appointment will be made in due course. I am afraid there is very little I can do about it. As I have said on many occasions, the Chinese are very patient and I think we have to be the same way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The mysterious East, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the exchange that he has indicated is likely to take place soon indicates that Canada will be withdrawing recognition from Taiwan?
June 18, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that we have a one-China policy now, and we will have a one-China policy in the future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You used to have a two-China policy.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Does this mean that Canada will be asking the Taiwan ambassador to withdraw from Canada, and has he been informed of this clearly?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since we have a one-China policy we will recognize one government of China and we will not recognize two. I think that the ambassador from Taiwan, if we are successful in the negotiations, will recognize the facts.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works.
As Forillon park is located at the tip of the Gaspe peninsula, will the government share in the cost of restoring the Gaspe belt highway? Its present state does not allow full development of tourist resources and involves some risks as to traffic safety.
Has the federal government been asked for assistance by the Quebec government to finance restoration of this highway?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, because of the agreements that have already been undertaken, I think that this is a question that might more properly be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion this time and ask him whether the Quebec government has asked the federal government to meet part of the cost restoring a belt highway in the Gaspe peninsula following the development of Forillon park.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, negotia-
Inquiries of the Ministry tions are still under way. In fact, we are entering new negotiations under the FRED program for the Lower St. Lawrence area. That matter will undoubtedly be brought up during the negotiations, but neither a decision nor a formal request has been made.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Communications. Can the minister inform the House as to the status of the bidding between the American Hughes Aerospace Company and the RCA Corporation of Canada for the building of the communications satellite for Telesat Canada, and if any decision has been reached on this serious problem?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: There have been two bids, Mr. Speaker. There has been no decision.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It is in connection with the problems faced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State. Would he kindly inform the House whether there was any brainwashing during the noon-hour cabinet meeting?


Winona Grace MacInnis: There couldn't be. There are no brains.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the weather that is hot and muggy. May I ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that several days ago the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec rejected the 6 per cent guideline for wage increases, and in view of the fact that the Premier of Ontario was reported yesterday in one of the Toronto evening papers as rejecting it as unworkable without price controls, would the minister inform the House whether the government or the Prices and Incomes Commission are

June 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry reconsidering their policy and are considering other approaches to the problem of fighting inflation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, rather than base our policies on news reports, I discussed this matter with the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission yesterday who, following the meeting of finance ministers in Winnipeg the previous week, is still awaiting reactions from a number of provinces as to their support for the guideline policy, which we hope will be forthcoming, and at that time we will have a further statement to make.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, from the minister's answer I gather that information which I think was given on the floor of the House to the effect, that the provincial finance ministers had agreed to the 6 per cent guideline was wrong, and that information is still expected from the various provinces. Will the minister undertake to make a statement to the House when the information is received?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, at the finance ministers' meeting, as the communique indicates, there was a very wide measure of support expressed by the provincial ministers for the policy. But a number of them, quite properly, had to report to their Prime Ministers and their cabinets, and we are still awaiting reactions from some of the provinces.



INFLATION-SIX PER CENT WAGE INCREASE GUIDELINE-PROPOSED COMPULSORY LABOUR COURTS

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he or any other member of the government has been in communication with the government of Saskatchewan about that province's proposal for compulsory labour courts to enforce the 6 per cent guideline?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not, but whether there has been communication with the Prices and Incomes Commission or with the Department of Finance I do not know. I will inquire.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STEPS TO CONTROL PRICES

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the urgency of the problem, particularly with reference to the continuing high icost of drugs for old age pensioners, would the minister make a statement on motions before Parliament adjourns for the summer outlining the steps he is taking to deal with this problem?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I made a speech last Wednesday, and I am disappointed the hon. member has not read it, in which I indicated what we are doing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Before the summer recess would the minister report to the House on the results of his meeting with the provincial ministers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the official opposition critic on consumer affairs does not realize the meeting was with provincial officials.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As I now have evidence that British Columbia's welfare minister Gaglardi has issued a directive to welfare officers to issue food vouchers only, for a two week period, to those involved in labour disputes, and as the federal minister has declared this action to be contrary to the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan, will he now take action to enforce the law and assure that those entitled to its benefits will receive them?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the recipients of notices of the nature that the hon. member has just described are in the process of being interviewed. If what the hon. member says turns out to be the case, I will have to take up the matter again with the provincial minister of welfare to ascertain whether he has breached the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan, and thereby not enti-
June 18- 1970

tied to federal sharing. However, there is one major difficulty here, and I am sure the hon. member recognizes it. If the federal government should take action of this kind we could be impairing the health and welfare of a lot of other people in British Columbia who are now receiving payments. If we cut back our share they may also be denied help, and that would be unfortunate.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question. Has the minister set a deadline, and has the British Columbia minister been warned that federal funds will be cut off should he not meet that deadline?


John Carr Munro: No deadline has yet been set because I am not personally satisfied, from the investigation of the cases we have before us, that there has been real deprivation that would constitute a blatant breach of the Canada Assistance Plan provisions. Until I am satisfied of that, I do not think we are confronted with a problem of setting deadlines.
CORNWALI___REFUSAL OF BENEFITS TO



WORKERS ON STRIKE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A couple of weeks ago I drew the minister's attention to a similar incident in Cornwall where those involved in a labour dispute were not only being denied welfare but even food vouchers, and I gave the minister a copy of a telegram I had received. I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to ascertain whether or not the situation has been corrected, and what action he is taking?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did look into that matter. It was reported to the provincial agencies and I believe that situation has corrected itself. I would advise the leader of the NDP that I do not believe the welfare agencies in Ontario have adopted a practice similar to the one referred to by the previous speaker so far as B.C. is concerned.



PRIVILEGE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I owe the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Health and Welfare an apology for comments I made from my seat. I have been buffaloed by the electronic highway. I thought I heard the minister say on the CBC this morning that the LeDain Commission report would not be tabled until the fall. I understand that the CBC has apologized to the minister, and I can do no less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize for having to interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve, but another hon. member is asking to be recognized on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has just said, I must say that I have not been informed by the CBC just exactly what the transcript reveals but naturally, if the transcript does not prove that the minister said what I said he said, I would certainly apologize to him. It was my firm conviction that he had, but if he did not say it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You must not have heard it, George.


George Harris Hees: I heard it, but if he says he did not say it, I apologize.


John Carr Munro: I wish to thank-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing.
According to the figures released by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there has been a decrease of 40 per cent in the construction of dwellings during the first four months of 1970. Can the minister indi-
8282

June 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry cate which steps he intends to take to correct that situation, particularly in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vil-leneuve will recognize that his question has a rather broad range. It seems to me that a question of this kind normally requires a general statement, which can also be made on motions. I therefore suggest to the minister to indicate to the House whether he intends to make such a statement.



QUEBEC-STUDY OF LACK OF HOUSING

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to ask a supplementary question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing if his department is now studying problems caused by the housing shortage in Quebec, in co-operation with the Quebec government, and if so, will the House be informed about the findings of such studies?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the officials in CMHC are studying these matters at all times. I made reference to these questions in the special debate which took place in the House last week. Of course, there is collaboration and discussion between all provinces on these matters.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the official figures given by the hon. member for Villeneuve, I should like to ask the minister in charge of housing if, account being taken of the concern he shares with civil servants about the housing situation in Quebec, special attention is given to this important problem?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, special attention is being given to it. I might say that in the province of Quebec, due to preoccupation with other matters during the month of May, the public housing funds allocated there were not used at the rate they ordinarily

would have been. However, this situation has been remedied now and I think you will see considerable increase in the number of low income housing starts in that province.



SECOND PHASE OF EXPERIMENTAL HOUSING

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the minister stated a short while ago that he would be making a statement on motions with regard to the second phase of the experimental housing fund of $200 million before the recess, is it the intention of the minister to make that statement on the second phase of experimental housing shortly?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember committing myself to make a statement on motions, but if that is the case I would be prepared to do it before the House rises. However, there will be an announcement within the next few days with regard to the second phase of the $200 million.



ADOPTION OF PROTEIN STANDARD AMENDMENT TO CANADA GRAIN ACT PRIOR TO PASSING BILL C-196

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the harmonious atmosphere of the House to ask a constructive question of the Minister of Agriculture, who is not far away. I should like to ask, because the adjournment of this session is drawing close without any certainty that Bill C-196 will become law, whether the minister will consult with the other parties in the House with a view to securing unanimous approval for the introduction and immediate passage without debate of an interim bill to authorize the government to establish protein grading of wheat? I believe this is a very important matter.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as you know there are provisions in Bill C-196 to amend the statutory grades, but there are several other very essential amendments to the Canada Grains Act contained within Bill C-196. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the best thing he could do for the farmers of Canada would be to encourage his members to expedite passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 18, 1970



BARLEY-MEETING OF AUSTRALIAN PRICE TO JAPAN

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: My supplementary question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. Could the minister inform the House if it is the intention of the Wheat Board to meet the Australian sale price on malting barley to Japan, in order that we can expect increased sales of that grade of barley to that country?


Otto Emil Lang: I would have to inquire from the Wheat Board about their policy in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Their general policy, of course, is to be competitive and, as a result of this, very large movements of barley are in fact taking place.



WHEAT-METHOD OF ALLOCATING BOXCARS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question also for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. Now that the railways are using potash cars for shipping grain which, in many instances elevators cannot use because the spouts are too low, thus creating disparity between competitive elevators, will the allocation of those cars be based on the number of cars or on bushel capacity so that a better balance can be created?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the block system is certainly not operated blindly in terms of the total number of cars, but rather in terms of the total quantity of grain required to be moved. The objective of the block system at the moment is to try to move grain as equitably as possible from all delivery points.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As we have one or two minutes left I wonder whether we could not agree to give other members the opportunity to ask questions.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In light of the significant fact that the Canadian Medical Association has removed the ban on abortion from its code of ethics,
22478-34*
Inquiries of the Ministry will the minister now consider legislation for the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code?


John Napier Turner: We are considering all factors as they arise from time to time, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the Royal Canadian Legion made any representation to the government protesting the entry to Canada of 60,000 draft dodgers and deserters from the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I remember the representation appearing in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but I have not had word from the minister that he intends to take action.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if, before the adjournment of Parliament, he will make a statement on the operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act which has now been in operation for one year, in view of the failure of the act in the two provinces that need it most, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, every month, a report is tabled in this House on the subject and the hon. member may see what results are achieved.
Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the hon. member for St. John's East asked me whether I was aware of the existence of a $1 billion program established in Newfoundland. At that time, I answered that I did not know anything about

June 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry it but I can tell him now that I have been officially informed by the government of Newfoundland of the existence of such a program.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that we are trying to give the opportunity to a few more members to ask questions, although we have reached the end of the question period.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since, in view of the great scarcity of general practitioners, nurses are being trained to take the place of doctors in areas that doctors have left, will the minister assure the House that no action will be taken before there has been full discussion with the National Nurses Association and the medical profession?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the hon. member that assurance. I know that the matter has certainly been discussed with the Canadian Medical Association as part of the over-all discussions surrounding the health cost report. I am not sure about discussions with the National Nurses Association.



RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DRUGS, TALWIN AND DARVON

Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the reports that the United States government is considering imposing restrictions on the use of the pain killers Talwin and Darvon, will the minister say whether his department is considering similar action for Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to answer that question today. I should like to take it as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I raise the point now, in view of some of the things the minister said

earlier, because I did not want to take up the time of the House during the question period. In view of the gratuitous apology of my colleague for Fundy-Royal with regard to certain alleged statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and since I was also mistaken about something which I thought I had heard, may I also extend my humble apology to him. In order to clarify this remarkable chain of events and/or confusion that exists in my ears-


An hon. Member:: In your head.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Not my head; my ears. I deliberately said my ears. That may have been one of the Prime Minister's canards; I do not know. In order to clarify this matter, and this is important, I hope the minister will speak to his colleague, the Secretary of State, who is to appear in the House tomorrow, and ask him to explain how so many hon. members who were listening to The World at Eight this morning heard a narration pertaining to a Hamilton meeting, with the insertion of a voice that was allegedly the minister's voice. I should like that clarified. Allegedly it was the minister's voice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for raising this as a point of order but I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion which required a simple yes or no answer. In keeping with the undertaking given at the time of the passage of the legislation one year ago, and in view of some apparent discrepancies in the operation of the act, will the minister make a statement on the operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member has asked a question. He is not alone in being frustrated. I notice a number of other hon. members who are also anxious to ask questions. If the hon. member is allowed to do so after the question period has been expired for quite a few minutes, then other hon. members will also raise other points of order and they will have to be allowed to put their questions. I appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. member is placed. If there is unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to put his question and to allow the minister to answer, the Chair certainly has no objection.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 18, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, there is some difficulty. I suggest we should at this time allow the Leader of the Opposition to put his motion to the House.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to today's debate. In view of the importance of today's debate and the invitation the Prime Minister gave to us today to bring up matters with respect to the economy, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Minister of Finance, and other responsible ministers, will be in their places this afternoon to hear our speeches on this important day near the end of the present session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told me himself that if the opposition wishes to raise any particular matter which concerns him he will gladly engage in debate on the subject.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the first two major speeches we shall be making concern the Minister of Finance. Could the Prime Minister take my remarks as notice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on this information to the minister. I know his intention is to be in the House, if called for. He may not be able to hear every part of every speech which is made, but I am sure that the essence of the message that the opposition wants to convey to him will be conveyed to him-whatever essence there is.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House express its disapproval of the administrative policies of the government by opposing items in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1971; and in particular Vote 1 of the Department of Agriculture, Vote 10, Communications and Post Office, Vote 5 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Vote 1 of the Privy Council and Votes 1 and 5 of the Treasury Board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has sent a message directly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Government Administrative Policies Benson), because I know he would not wish to miss anything I say about the question of unemployment and related matters. The Prime Minister quipped a moment ago that the Minister of Finance would be happy to hear the essence of our message, if there is any essence. I hasten to assure him that, without doubt, there is a great deal of essence to the problem, which is important for this country and exceptionally serious for our people who have been caught in misfortunes created for them by the Government of Canada. The government does not appear to take these problems at all seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The most recent Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures on unemployment are most alarming.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Prime Minister is leaving.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They show an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent for May 23, as seasonally adjusted. Without seasonal adjustment, the rate for the month is 6.1 per cent, compared with 4.7 per cent for one year earlier. Seasonally adjusted, the rate for May is 6.2 per cent. The rate of unemployment is 6.2 per cent, representing 513,000 persons, as against 4.8 per cent in 1969. The seasonally adjusted rate of 6.2 per cent is the highest seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment this country has experienced since 1962.


Thomas Miller Bell: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Employment between May 1969 and May 1970 increased by about 90,000 persons in the course of that year. Eighty-five thousand out of the 90,000 new jobs were created in the province of Ontario. In other words, in the rest of Canada the increased employment over-all was a mere 5,000 persons. The amount of employment on the Prairies was stationary as between 1969 and 1970. It was somewhat less in Quebec in May of this year than it was one year ago. It is up by some 5,000 in the Atlantic provinces, and in British Columbia it is up somewhat as well, although we must recognize in fairness that there have been some strikes in British Columbia which will affect the picture in that province.
It is important for us to look at the figures as a whole. It is significant, too, sir, that the amount of actual employment is down significantly in a number of important areas, in particular the area of manufacturing. There were 18,000 fewer persons employed in the
June 18, 1970


Mr. Benson:: Who can be within one-half of
one per cent?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does my hon. friend admit that he was wrong?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will permit a question. Can he tell me any year in which any government of Canada has been accurate to within one-half
of one per cent in forecasting?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The year is not over yet, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar John Benson: Answer the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think I have seen a Minister of Finance make a prediction in March and, within a couple of months, have shown to be substantially off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know what the result will be at the end of the year. We are simply comparing forecasts. The point is that the forecast made by the OECD shows how far below potential this government is deliberately operating the economy of this country. This unemployment was not created by accident. It is a result of policies deliberately adopted by the government. That is what I am talking about.
Yesterday, the officials of the Department of Finance gave some indication of the enormous cost to the country of the government operating far below its potential for even one year. That calculation was made on the minister's estimate of 3 or 3J per cent. If we use the forecast of the OECD, the annual loss to this country, which can never be regained, as a result of operating far below the potential is almost incalculable. It is certainly much higher than the officials admit. In addition to this, there is all the suffering and damage being done to the individuals involved. If I am wrong, I hope the minister will deny that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in Canada is now, and has been for some time, the highest of any developed country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The most the minister can possibly claim is that he has taken one or two measures which may partially offset the detrimental effects which the floating of the dollar might create. Anything the Minister of Finance has done or announced has been directed to that purpose. 1 make the charge, and I do not think the Minister of Finance can deny it, that it is the deliberate policy of the present government to run the economy very substantially below par. It is suggested that this is justified. Indeed, it is suggested sometimes that it is necessary in the fight against inflation, though I notice that the Prime Minister in reply to a question this afternoon was certainly not prepared to say that the amount of unemployment we have today is an essential part of the efforts to end inflation. He did say, however, that he was prepared to see unemployment go as high as 6 per cent per annum. We now have a rate of unemployment of more than 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted, and, of course, we all recall that it is the seasonally adjusted rate to which the Prime Minister has, in the past, attached particular significance.
So we are faced with what the Prime Minister says, and what the government does, as well as with the policy of the ministers who are carrying out the main design. I want to put this as plainly as possible. I think it is hard boiled. It is cruel. And what is it doing? I suggest it is not really working. The policy of deliberately running the economy well below its potential as an anti-inflationary measure has not worked recently in any other industrial country in the world. I will refer to a particular example-the construction industry in Toronto where I understand there is substantial unemployment despite the fact that there was recently a costly settlement of a wage dispute. In other words, there is no evidence that the policy of running the economy way below potential has had an anti-inflationary effect.
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies
I say furthermore that the government has produced no evidence, nor have I seen any evidence, to suggest that a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of 6 per cent or more is necessary as part of an anti-inflationary fight. I say, too, that there has not been the slightest evidence produced by anyone, and by the government most of all, to indicate that an increase in employment to an acceptable figure would in fact create additional inflationary pressure.
There is no excessive demand in this country except in certain special areas such as housing. Nobody can claim that the economy is overheated. Indeed, it is practically turning cold. It is certainly running way below its potential and the forecasts as to the future are very depressing, based not only on the expectations published for businessmen but upon the forecasts made by the OECD.
Housing is an area in which the restraints imposed by the government have added to the inflationary pressures. The poor record of the government in housing in the first five months of the year, its failure to produce nearly enough houses, has imposed further upward pressures on rents and house prices. If more housing units had been built or were being built now, this would not only add to employment but it would become an important part of the anti-inflation fight because it would tend to prevent the escalation of rents and house prices which unfortunately are reflected in the demands put forward for increased wages and salaries. Here is an area in which government policy has not only added to unemployment but has added to the inflationary pressure. The construction of a larger number of housing units would not only provide more employment but decrease inflationary pressures arising from the housing shortage.
The government should remove the 11 per cent sales tax from housing. It should take positive measures to see that more funds are available for housing. I say, also, that with an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent the government ought to loosen up the screws, because the policy of deliberately creating unemployment is not defeating inflation but only adding to the amount of misery in the country. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should give up the fight against inflation. I recognize that this has to be a long struggle. In some ways, this is an international phenomenon. We have to be both patient and determined. But the government will not necessarily help the country as a whole by

doing serious damage to half a million Canadians. The fight against inflation has to be pursued not only with tenacity but with humanity. We have no excuse for the way in which we are treating old age pensioners. We have no excuse for the amount of unemployment which has been created. I think also, in passing, that the minister ought to meet with representatives of industry and labour, as labour has suggested. I believe it is the government's responsibility to act directly in this area and not to try to foist it off on the shoulders of some commission which has been set up.
I apologize to the minister. Because of a previous commitment I shall not be able to hear what he says in reply to me, if he does reply directly after I have spoken. I assure him I shall read what he has to say with great care. The Prime Minister has told us that the fight against inflation is Canada's first priority. I say that when the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, reaches 6.2 per cent, it becomes a matter of the first priority and something must be done about it.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I say to the minister again there is no evidence that a reduction in this figure would add to inflationary pressure. There is every evidence, certainly in certain areas such as housing, that further employment would reduce the inflationary pressure. I say to the minister and to the government that, without abandoning the high priority of the fight against inflation, the first priority of the minister and the government today is to reduce the rate of unemployment in this country. That, I suggest, has become the first priority. I say in all sincerity that that need not involve in any way an abandonment of the fight against inflation. If the government is to get the people of Canada behind it in the fight against inflation, it must not only convince them that its measures are fair as between labour and business as well as others, and that its package is fair, but it must also convince the people of Canada that its methods are humane. The government must convince the people of Canada that the fight is worth maintaining.
In order to maintain the will of the people of Canada to fight inflation, the government must modify its policies and must bring down the rate of unemployment in this country to a level that the people of the country are prepared to accept. I am not really suggesting that any level of unemployment is acceptable,
June 18, 1970

but I say to the minister that if this rate is maintained it will be very difficult to maintain the will of the people of Canada to fight inflation. If the minister is to conduct an effective battle against inflation, then he better move to do something about unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mr. Orlikow:: Some restriction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: First of all, of course, there is no provision for restricting the banks' profits. The minister's statement is completely misleading. The provision that was agreed to at the price stability conference of last February merely had the agreement of the banks that the ratio between the interest they paid to depositors and the interest rate which they charged on consumer loans would remain constant. But the best proof that the crite-
June 18, 1970
8290	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies rion was completely ineffective is the figures that I just read indicating the tremendous increase in the banks' profits.
It is significant that the government's idea of restriction is for the Minister of Finance to say that if corporations are making more profits than they should, the Prices and Incomes Commission will bring this to the public's attention. What the public wants to know is whether the government knows about it and what will be done about it. The fact is, of course, that other forms of income have not been restricted. But the government and their front man, the Prices and Incomes Commission, have been seeking to get the wage earners and salary earners of this country to accept restraints which they are not imposing on anyone else.
When I asked the Minister of Finance yesterday about the proposal of the Canadian Labour Congress to have a conference called by the government to which business and labour would be invited to devise "a more realistic and co-operative approach to our present economic problems", what was the minister's reply? It was that labour is somewhat late in asking for a conference. He said that the Prices and Incomes Commission had already invited them to a conference and they would not come. Why would the trade unions attend a conference called by a commission that has no power and no teeth to agree to a voluntary restraint for other sectors of the economy but to accept a binding restraint for itself? What the Minister of Finance forgets is that when the industrialists, the manufacturers, the financial institutions and the banks give a verbal assurance that they will not increase their incomes, there is nothing binding about it. As the minister himself said, if they violate it, all the Prices and Incomes Commission can do is to draw that to the public's attention.
But when organized workers agree to a wage restraint, they sign a collective bargaining agreement. That is not a verbal agreement, that is not something that can be violated, it is something which is binding for two and three years. The organized workers of this country have very properly taken the position that if they are going to be asked to sign collective bargaining agreements restricting the amounts of increased income they can get, then the other segments of the Canadian economy must equally be bound by restrictive measures that will have some teeth rather than mere verbal assurances and pious expressions of hope that cannot be enforced.


What is the use of going to a conference with the Prices and Incomes Commission? They cannot guarantee anything. They cannot guarantee that the 6 per cent will be applicable across the board, will be applicable to executive salaries, to professional fees, to corporation profits, to dividends, to interest rates, and to taxes.
The government has used the Prices and Incomes Commission as a patsy, as a front man to do the dirty work which the government has not had the courage to do itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: The minister is hiding behind the curtain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Only the government has the power and the authority to sit down with business and labour and say: If you will do this to restrict your income, we will guarantee that other forms of income will be restricted in the same manner and for the same duration of time. The Prices and Incomes Commission cannot do that; only the government can do it. Because the government does not have the courage to do it, they use the Prices and Incomes Commission, which they call an independent body, to carry on a public relations effort for them in an attempt to convince the people that the government is doing something about inflation when, as a matter of fact, they are doing nothing except to make it worse.
I have given notice that I will put forward a motion, when we vote on the various items tonight, on the item which pays the cost of the Prices and Incomes Commission. We in this party propose to vote against that item because the Prices and Incomes Commission has proven to be absolutely useless. We do not think the government ever intended it to be useful. If the government wanted merely a statistic and data collecting agency, it has plenty of agencies in the government to gather this kind of information. But a commission that has no power other than to gather statistical material and no authority other than to make suggestions to which no one until now has paid much attention is a waste of time and a waste of money. We shall vote to abolish the Prices and Incomes Commission in the hope that the government will then step forward and accept its own responsibilities, because the government and nobody else has the responsibility to lay down the policies to deal with the problem of inflation.
June 18, 1970	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): It is time that fagade was torn down and the government stood on its own feet. It is time we took off the gloves to see whose hands are dirty, and there is no doubt that in this case the government's hands are soiled. They have not only failed to grapple with the problem of inflation, but in the process of their ineffective and inept handling of the situation they have brought this country to a very serious state of economic affairs. Far from stopping the rising cost of living, the increased rents or rescuing people on fixed incomes from their plight, the government has made the situation worse because they have now slowed down the economy. The OECD report shows that our production and our economic growth are being steadily reduced. We are now getting what the Minister of Finance and his predecessor used to call "economic slack in the economy". We are getting a good deal of slack.
The federal officials themselves now admit, as outlined in an article of the Globe and Mail of June 17, that, because of the high unemployment figure in this country we are losing in terms of production over $5 billion a year, and that is not the full cost of the unemployment. It does not take into consideration the welfare payments that are made by the provinces and municipalities. It takes no cognizance of the heartaches, the homes that are broken, and the misery that is caused. Just in cold, calculating economic terms, the Canadian economy is losing over $5,000 million a year. If our economy were operating at an unemployment figure of 3 per cent to 3i per cent, if our increasing production were back to the normal figure where it ought to be, between 5 per cent and 6 per cent, we would be producing over $5 billion worth of wealth, a third of which would find its way into the coffers of either the federal, provincial or municipal governments.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When you talk about not having the money to do the things that need to be done, the solution does not lie in curtailing public expenditures. The solution lies in stimulating the economy and increasing our production so that from our increasing wealth we could give our people the standard of living to which they are entitled in a great, wealthy, country like Canada. Not only has the government succeeded in slowing down the economy to a walk, but it has succeeded in doing what the
DEBATES	8291
Government Administrative Policies Prime Minister said he was prepared to do if he had to, that is to get unemployment up over 6 per cent. That is one accomplishment upon which the government can pride itself. No other country in the western world has been able to get an unemployment figure like that. So, the Prime Minister should be able to go to the United Nations and point out, if he does not deserve any other accolades, that he can claim to have the highest unemployment rate of the industrialized nations of the world.


Mr. Aiken:: It is the only promise he has kept.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The figure for the month of May is 6.1 per cent for actual unemployment as compared with 4.7 per cent last year, 4.6 per cent in 1968 and 3.9 per cent in 1967. We have this year a seasonally adjusted unemployment figure of 6.2 per cent compared with 4.8 per cent last year, 4.9 per cent in 1968 and 4.2 per cent in 1967. That is a ghastly record, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately it is not all the story.
The fact that we have at the present time, or at least to the end of May, 513,000 unemployed does not give us the whole picture. We have over 600,000 students, a very large percentage of whom have not been able to get work this summer. In addition to that, there are 350,000 persons taking manpower training programs. Incidentally, I notice a report in the Globe and Mail that federal officials are predicting that 80 per cent of those trainees will not be able to secure employment when they finish their courses. So, we are not talking about just 513,000 unemployed. Taking people who are out of work and those who are not likely to get work, the figure is around 750,000.
In a country which has potential wealth, in a country which has all the materials within its own borders to build homes, and communities, and socially needed projects, the best that the government can do to resolve our economic problems is to keep tightening the screws, slowing down the economy and throwing more and more people out of work, creating artificial scarcity. Could anything be more callous? Could anything be less humanitarian, in this scientific and technological age of plenty, than for a government deliberately to create artificial scarcity?
We in this party have been pressing the government for a long time to adopt some more realistic measures to grapple with this problem.
June 18, 1970
8292	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the House for its kindness, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you I will not trespass too long on its indulgence. I wish to mention three things that we have been urging the government to do, and which we again urge it to implement.
The first is to call a conference of the business interests and of organized labour, and sit down with them man-to-man-not through some third party-to work out a policy by which we can get maximum production in Canada without the ravages of inflation.
I am convinced that if the government approaches this with firmness, with some sound policies to place before business and labour, it can get their co-operation. I am not suggesting that you can make everybody happy, but I am sure that a consensus can be worked out. I am equally certain that the members of this House on all sides would support the government if we could see clearly where the government wants to go, if we knew it had a goal, and if we knew it had the policies that would enable it to attain that goal.
The second thing we urge upon the government is that it should adapt an expansionist policy to relieve unemployment. There can be no excuse for unemployment in this day and age. Keynesian economics have demonstrated that when you have the raw material and when you have the manpower, it is quite possible to keep people fully employed producing the things they need for themselves, and trading the things they don't need for themselves for commodities which they can import from abroad.
The government could start by a massive injection of funds into the housing programs. The drop in housing starts is a scandal. It is inexcusable at this time to have over half a million people unemployed and housing starts going down. The government could help the situation by dropping the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. That sales tax was put on at a time when the government
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1

claimed there was a shortage of trained manpower and a shortage of building materials.
The government said at that time that the 11 per cent sales tax was not nearly so much for the purpose of securing more revenue as it was to slow down the accelerated rate of construction. There is no need to slow down the construction rate now, Mr. Speaker. We want to speed it up. We want to put people to work not only in the construction industry but in transportation, in the logging camps, in the factories that make light fixtures and plumbing fixtures, so as to give our whole economy a shot in the arm. The government can do this by a massive injection of funds into the housing programs, and by removing the 11 per cent sales tax.
The government could also help by putting more money into urban renewal projects. One has only to read the discussions that took place at Halifax, at the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities Conference, to see there is hardly a city in the country that is not anxious to rebuild and clear up its slums. The government would have no difficulty at all finding projects all across Canada that would put unemployed people to work.
Money could be used for socially essential programs such as building hospitals, nursing homes, and housing for the aged. The government could re-institute the winter works program so that next fall and winter municipalities could absorb many of the unemployed in municipal projects. This could be done. Such policies have been useful in the past and could be useful again. The government could lower interest rates on a selective basis, mainly for two categories; first, for money going into expanding industry which would create more jobs; and second, for socially useful projects such as housing, urban renewal, hospital and school construction, etc.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The third thing I suggest is that the government consider the advisability of selective control on prices, profits, rents and all forms of income. I know the government will argue that the expansionist program I have been talking about will speed up inflation. But surely, Mr. Speaker, no intelligent person is going to accept the Hobson's choice that we must either have painful unemployment and an economic slowdown or inflation. Surely, it is possible in the modern economy to have relatively full employment, a rising standard of living and at the same time to retain a measure of price stability. If it is not, then
June 18, 1970

the government has the responsibility to consider mandatory selective restraints but with two provisos: those restraints must be on all forms of income, not just wage and salary earners, and the government must examine some of the prices which have been artificially inflated against the possibility that controls would be imposed. Any attempt to impose restraints on income should be flexible with respect to those on very low incomes and cost of living increases should be built into public and private pension plans so that those on fixed incomes would continue to get the return to which they are entitled from their retirement plans.
I suggest these things to the government, Mr. Speaker: the calling of a conference of business and labour, an expansionist program to relieve unemployment and, if the government is frightened of inflation or finds that it is getting out of hand, the government should consider the feasibility of a comprehensive selective system of restraints on all forms of income.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Canadian people have always responded to dynamic leadership that knows where it is going, whether in wartime or peacetime. The Canadian people are a patriotic people, and I use the term "patriotic" in the proper sense of the word. The Canadian people would respond to these things if the government said, "We are going to stimulate the economy; we are going to put every able-bodied person to work but we need your co-operation to see that inflation does not become rampant". They could get that kind of co-operation, but to get it the government itself must give courageous and effective leadership. To date, they have not given it and for that reason I think they no longer deserve the confidence of this House.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, without being happy about it, however, to participate in the debate on this most important motion that deals with matters in which we encounter problems daily.
The federal Department of Agriculture was set up to meet a need and play several roles which interest not only the farmers themselves but also the consumers, for, on page 15 of the estimates for 1970-71, the objectives of the Department of Agriculture are given as follows:
To improve the performance of Canadian agriculture as a strong, competitive, primary industry.
Government Administrative Policies
I feel that, strictly in the field of production, the federal Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with the provincial departments of agriculture and the farmers themselves, really achieved that objective years ago, but this creates marketing problems not only for the farmers themselves, but also for the government which cannot sell that production.
And so, the federal Department of Agriculture, has really achieved one objective but if it wants to continue to be efficient and play an even greater role, it must, with the help of other departments, see to it that that production reaches the consumer in order to meet human needs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we see that, unfortunately, that last objective has not been achieved. In fact, warehouses are packed with goods and the federal government is requesting the farmers to slow down this production which is breeding trouble for the administration. However, we would be far from having surpluses were this production to reach the consumers, so as to meet their needs not only in Canada but in the United States and in the other countries of the world.
We may share an idea, which is not a discovery made by the hon. member for Bellechasse, but one we may trace down to the Fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada which was tabled in the House in September 1968, and which has a chapter on the problem of poverty. While saying the word "poverty" I know that some people think that there should not be too much talk about that, or better even, that the subject should be avoided.
If I now talk about it, it is not just for the sake of doing so. The word is not a pleasant one, specially for those who are the victims.
The Economic Council of Canada has made some suggestions inviting the governments to take the necessary steps in order to ensure economic relief in the country as a whole so that the greatest possible number of people may benefit from consuming Canadian products, thus enjoying a minimum of security.
On page 17 of the summary of this report, one reads the following:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands, but the millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate more than our economy can afford, and far more than existing measures and effort can cope with. Its persistence, at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, is a disgrace.
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies
Thus, in the agricultural field-and everyone will admit it-there is an increase in production and in the total gross income. However, the fact remains that the net income which every farmer can receive decreases year after year, because of the rise in the cost of production. We are caught in a vice and we do not seem willing to take the necessary means to loosen it so that the farmers could share further in the fruit of their labour.
In the past year we have noticed a rise in interest rates which is one of the main causes of the decrease in the net income of farmers and of the rise in the cost of living. It is said generally that inflation is with us and that to fight against it drastic action is required. Everyone is affected by it even those who are not responsible for this situation. The farmers at the present time are actually the victims of that fight against inflation while they have not contributed to the price increase because with a yearly income of $2,000 or $2,500 reasonable people cannot afford to buy anything at any price by whim or simply for the pleasure of saying that they are spending their money.
The same phenomenon applies in the labour field where a great number of workers receive a yearly salary of less than $3,000. Last week, I think it was June 8, in a reply to a question that I had directed to him, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) gave, for the year 1968, the number of people who paid taxes with an income of less than $3,000. I was surprised to note that over 1,600,000 people pay income tax while their income is less than $3,000 a year.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These people are not responsible for inflation either and I think it is unfair to penalize workers by saddling them with more responsibilities and freezing their wages.
The flaw lies in the distribution system and the government categorically refuses to help farmers and industrial milk producers through advertising.
Now, everybody knows that advertising is the most effective way of promoting the sale of a product. We hear evidence of it every day. If industrial milk producers could get 50 or 60 cents more per hundredweight for their product, they could afford the luxury of having pretty singers make television commercials such as the one we hear 25 times a day: "It's the real thing". This is the advertis-

ing for Coke and God knows how much Coke is sold in Canada. Why? Because it is constantly advertized.
If millions of dollars could be spent on songs such as "It's the real thing" for dairy products, we could perhaps get people to consume more dairy products.
The government is not solely responsible. The producers themselves can take the necessary steps to ensure that advertising. But to that end, it is necessary to have an income, and to have an income entails securing reasonable prices. But at the present time, prices are inadequate, as a result of higher production costs.
To top it all, unusual things are happening to us. The Canadian Dairy Commission, which has rather broad powers to direct Canadian production, to control imports and exports, is being cheated because the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce issues permits to import dairy products and dairy substitutes which enter this country at a disconcerting rate.
I have here copy of the reply to a question which was placed on the order paper on May 21, 1969. It contains astonishing statistics. The question read in part as follows:
1.	Does the government know how many pounds of "coloured spread" were sold in Canada from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968 and from April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969?
The answer was the following:
April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968, 188,151,000 lbs; April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, 195,142,000 lbs.
The second part of the question read as follows:
2.	Of that amount, what proportion was sold illegally?
The answer was the following:
2.	No information available.
I do not blame the minister for such an answer. At least, it is recognized that some goods are sold illegally, even if the government has no information on the matter.
The third part of the question read as follows:
3.	What were for the same periods the amounts of other imitation milk product sold in Canada?
The answer was the following:
3.	There are no statistics available on imitation fluid milk sales in Canada.
The last part of the question read as follows:
4.	What were the amounts of milk products of all kinds which were imported from other countries during the above-mentioned years?
June 18, 1970

And the answer was the following:
April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968, 488,189 cwt.; April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, 478,504 cwt.
Butter has even been imported, while it is said that we do not even know what to do with domestic supplies, which prompts the government to levy taxes on producers of manufacturing milk.
As far as imports are concerned, according to a table at page 29 of a bulletin published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1969, 67,200 hundredweights of butter were imported while we had surpluses in Canada. As for cheese, I admit that certain special kinds must be imported, because we have not yet succeeded in manufacturing them in Canada and if the consumer wants them, I could not blame him. However, it is unthinkable that in a single year we import 222,233 hundredweights of that product from the United States, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Rumania and Hungary.
I feel that the necessary studies should be conducted-and this is the suggestion I take the liberty of addressing to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson)-in order to find new ways of processing industrial milk to increase consumption considerably and even sell it on international markets. It is not any more wrong for us to try and secure international outlets than it is for the countries I have just mentioned to sell their products in Canada.
It is only very recently that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to New Zealand where it is reported he stated that the control of dairy production in Canada was intentional and was designed to reduce production, which would allow New Zealanders to export butter to Canada. This is astounding when our people have to grapple with a very difficult situation and are putting up a strong fight to survive in order to make our parishes more prosperous and better able to fight poverty and, as pointed out in the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada, develop small industries so as to give employment and increase purchasing power.
Apparently, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has some responsibility in the field of imports and exports and I would ask him today to kindly look into the following situation. It seems that some products from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, including a great many dairy products for the feeding of calves, are coming into Canada.
Government Administrative Policies
In the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we studied for months the question of the dairy industry and the use of dairy products. Some government members sitting on the committee suggested that a larger quantity of milk be used to feed calves in order to make this milk into meat instead of butter, cheese or powdered milk.
Even though the farmers take care to obey the authorities and, in particular, the minister as well as the Canadian Dairy Commission, when another department lets in a foreign product, this is likely to counteract the efforts of the manufacturing milk producers and of the Canadian Dairy Commission. Then, we are going around in a circle, efforts are not co-ordinated and the desired results are not achieved, because of a lack of co-operation among departments.
I shall now deal with Vote 1 of the Department of Agriculture.
When the Standing Committee on Agriculture was considering a special matter referred to it by Parliament, namely, the dairy policy of the government for the year 1970-71, we were handed the blue book, that is the 197071 estimates which showed some cutbacks. These were said to amount to some $10 million. However, on close examination, the amount of the cutback applying to agriculture, as shown on page 147 of the main estimates is $28 million. This can be harmful to agriculture, spread over a period of 12 months. Of course, according to some officials and even to replies to questions, it might have been possible to transfer this amount to some other section of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, when I go into a shop to buy a pair of shoes and am offered a hat, that does not suit me. As for the millions of dollars that are being requested by the 25,000 farmers who signed a petition, yesterday I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) when the emergency debate would take place, and his answer was as follows:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it will depend on the progress made. If all the legislation discussed with the House leaders is passed, it might be possible to hold, before June 26, the debate mentioned by the member.
The member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) asked whether it would be possible to meet this request a little earlier. He got the following answer:
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to discuss the matter with the representatives of the other parties, but I emphasize that we should conclude first the business of the House.
8296	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies
It is always the same thing. The farmers always come after the others. If time is available, the question will be considered, if not, it will be postponed until next year. It will be postponed until October. In the field of agriculture, things are getting worse from day to day, from week to week, from month to month. Then the farmers are told: You are never satisfied. You always want something else. The more you get, the less you are happy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as my colleagues. I shall not take too much of the time of the House. Before concluding my remarks, I should like, once again, to urge the government, and in particular the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to reconsider the daily policy so as to meet the legitimate requests of those who claim that this policy might be harmful, not only to the persons who are its immediate victims, but also to the economy of the whole province of Quebec.
The subsidies of the government of Canada are an important part of the net farming income' in Quebec, that is approximately $50 million or 25 per cent. Because of the budgetary restraints required by its fight against inflation, the government is seeking to reduce its subsidies. They have been reduced this year and a further reduction is contemplated for next year.
Mr. Speaker, farmers do not want subsidies but a fair and reasonable return for their work. If the government thinks that consumers should pay for part of the product and the government for the other part, it is his business.
What is important is that the product has some value and that the producer is entitled to a fair share of the revenue. In 1949, base year on which the value of the Canadian dollar is estimated, butter cost 63 cents a pound. Considering the progressive increase in prices since then, we realize that in 1970,

DEBATES	June 18, 1970
the price of butter in proportion to that of other products should be $1.07 a pound. What does that mean?
It means that the farmer who has worked and bought machinery was forced to pay more and more each year. In order to be fair to him, prices should be set so that he would be able to earn an income based on the quantity of products he sells. It seems to me that it is easy to understand. Nobody is asking for the moon. All we want is acknowledgement of this essential right of the farmer to the fruits of his labour.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that by reducing subsidies, credits for industrial milk production and the subsidies of the Canadian Dairy Commission for the coming year, the government of Canada will speed up the disappearance of marginal agricultural operations in Quebec.
If such is the aim of the government, it will attain it. But if it is trying to establish a fair and reasonable balance between consumption possibilities and total production, it should take the necessary steps to be fair by controlling imports, so that those products will not directly compete with those of farmers who have definitely chosen agriculture as an occupation. Surely they cannot be made into lawyers; they are farmers of 35, 40 or 50 years of age. Farming is their trade. They cannot become tradesmen or labourers overnight, since in all industrial fields, there is a surplus of labour.
I consider for my part that it would be advisable for the state to subsidize for a certain time those small producers, even if it cost $1,200 or $1,500 per year to do so. It would still be less costly than to give them $250 per month as welfare payments and tell them to remain idle. They come to a point where they lose all faith in themselves, where they feel they are useless and a burden to society. However, if they were given $1,000 or $1,500 per year, the cost would be less and they would be allowed to do their share. They are proud if they can consider themselves as selfsufficient and contributing to the well-being of society, and not as entirely dependent on it.
Mr. Speaker, would that be the proper means to implement an anti-inflationary policy, so that the Maritimes and Quebec *might assume the major share of the costs, even if their unemployment rate is very high? Indeed, in Quebec, God knows that the unemployment rate is high, and the same is true of
June 18, 1970

the Maritimes. And steps have to be taken within the framework of the "just society".
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am satisfied that all hon. members are willing to work toward the establishment of a just society. But after all, what is a just society? Is it a society in which big companies and large institutions can make for themselves more and more profits, as some press reports pointed out recently? There are witnesses who can vouch that some banks have made 27 per cent more profits in 1969, and they are not asked to reduce them. But the little fellow is asked to restrain himself, to do his part to curb inflation. I do not think that is the just society.
A just society is a society within which all people who can produce something or sell services are able to support themselves and discharge their own obligations without being forever dependent on the state for health insurance, hospital insurance, subsidies here, subsidies there, ever soliciting and begging. To my mind, the way things are going now, we are not heading towards a just society but towards a more and more unjust society, because the gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening all the time, with the former being fewer and fewer and the latter more and more numerous.
In the present economic slump when the necessary agricultural adjustments are overlooked, does the cutback in subsidies to agriculture not threaten to bring about, very unfavourable social consequences? Yes. And the effects are still being felt!
I will be told: A farmer might buy the neighouring farm in order to enlarge his property. But some rather large farms of this type do not turn out so well.
There are also cases where a relatively well off farmer cannot buy his neighbour's farm because he is unable to obtain credit at a suitable rate of interest. Unable to see his way clear to make enough profits to honour his commitments, he is compelled to give up his farm. That is why in certain parishes there are whole concessions where 25, 30 or 40 farmers used to live and now only three or four are to be found.
As regards public expenditures for road maintenance in summer and in winter as well as for all municipal services, they must be maintained. However, since the number of farmers in rural parishes is gradually decreasing, the fiscal burden of those citizens
Government Administrative Policies is getting increasingly heavier, which tends to reduce even more their net income and to delay the advent of a just society.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to give the government the assurance that we, of the Ralliement Creditiste,-and I am certain that all other opposition members have the same objective-want to offer our full cooperation, as well as to all intermediate bodies, in order to take the appropriate steps, to make the sacrifices required, to put order where necessary. If it is ever necessary to change tack, we will have to act firmly, in order to keep on developing agriculture, because the world's population is increasing. Tomorrow, we will need more food products.
If we do not take the necessary steps to ensure the survival of agriculture, there will be difficult days ahead and we shall then witness an increase in prices as well as the establishment of the black market. We shall have to use coupons, and then there will be a scramble for goods on the black market just like during the war. Such a state of things should not happen. It could happen in two, three or twenty years from now. To govern is to foresee. We should make sure that conditions will improve by taking right now the necessary steps to achieve a just society and meet the needs of all Canadians.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I hope hon. gentlemen on this side will applaud after I have finished.


Thomas Miller Bell: Look where the applause came from.


An hon. Member:: You won't get much after your speech.


Steven Otto: I have listened with interest to the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). Like them, I wish to review the economic situation, having returned from a visit to my constituency during which I found business almost at a standstill. Unemployment has increased to about 530,000, and there are another 500,000 or 600,000 people unemployed but getting paid, notwithstanding the fact that they have nothing to do in the plants in which they are engaged. Everyone is apprehensive. Everyone is afraid. I wondered what in the world could have happened. Is this our government? Is this the same government that introduced the white paper on taxation, a reform paper, and which had the audacity to change the Criminal Code, the
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies divorce law, and introduce the white paper on unemployment insurance, a forward-looking document? I ask, could this be the same government? What in the world has happened? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a habit of speaking on the issue of guidelines on the basis that if one is not for the Prices and Incomes Commission then one is for inflation. I fail to succumb to that point of view.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
All of us, and I particularly, are concerned about inflation, but I believe the great tragedy in this connection has been Dr. Young and his commission. I cannot imagine how in the world Dr. Young was able to inveigle the position except that possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was busy with the white paper, the government was busy with other things and there was a vacuum into which the Prices and Incomes commission moved. This was a disastrous decision which will reflect on this government and on this nation for some time to come.
The terms of reference of the commission were quite wide. The commission could have assessed the situation-inflation is obvious- and tried to find out what was causing it. Having done that, it could have recommended either restrictive or expansive policies. I do not mean the same type of expansive policies mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). The commission quite possibly could have decided to be conventional. I have a feeling that even Dr. Young was not in command. I have a feeling it was Rasminsky and Bryce. Thirty years ago these two young clerks had all sorts of ideas, but they have not caught up with the changes and theories which have been introduced. What did the commission and the banks do? First, they tightened the money supply. They blamed our inflation on the United States inflation. Everyone in Canada knows there is an inflationary demand pull in the United States because $20 billion worth of their total production goes into the space program. More than $20 billion or $30 billion goes into the war in Viet Nam. They are fighting two wars, both of which are very expensive.
The money spent for the production of these goods has to produce approximately 75 per cent of the remaining goods. That is the demand pull. We agree. Had we been in the same position and had the Price and Incomes commission recommended restrictions, I would have said that possibly they would work. But we were not in this position.
fMr. Otto.]
Obviously according to the balance of trade figures, we would have been able to out-sell the United States in its own market had our production capacity been anything like comparable to that of the United States. In that case, we would have been out-selling them at 50 per cent of their price, but this was not so. The government decided to go on in this conventional way without thinking of the new ideas mentioned by able economists such as Weldon, Miss Cohen and others. They decided to keep the old way of doing things. The government could not possibly have reviewed this policy and asked itself what is happening today in this country.
So, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we do have an unemployment figure of 6.2 per cent. It will become worse. Of that figure, 118,000 are new people in the labour force. Another 27,000 or so are in Quebec and, of course, there were the British Columbia strikes which did not help the situation. The time will come very shortly when the companies which now are paying men for not doing very much will place these men on the unemployment lists, because the reserves in Canada are limited and we are eating into these reserves at a fantastic rate, what will happen if the government should decide to slow up a bit? There will be a tendency for inflation to shoot up. I venture to say that by spring next year we will not have a 6 per cent annual inflation cycle but rather a 10 per cent annual inflation cycle, and then we will be completely out of the market. The real fact in respect of Canadian inflation is that Canadians are poor producers. The DBS figures point this out. We stand ninth. We have the second highest standard of living but on a per man productivity basis we are ninth in the world. We are behind Greece, France and Italy. This is a fact. It is not all labour's fault. Indeed it is not labour's fault. I think it is ridiculous to keep blaming labour for something which really is the responsibility of management and governments.
It has been said, for example, that if the major items of equipment in our factories were modernized we could increase our production by almost 28 per cent. Is it conceivable that we could do this all at once? We could certainly increase it by 14 per cent, because we do have poor equipment in Canada which should be replaced. Does anyone dare tell me that the restriction on the money supply will help industries put in new equipment? Where would they get the money? Can Dr. Young explain how the restriction on wages to 6 per cent will ensure
June 18, 1970	COMMONS
productivity? In a report quite recently he said that Canadian per man-hour productivity is approximately 2 per cent gross and of course an 8 per cent increase in wages leaves a gap of 6 per cent which is our inflation. How can we guarantee that the productivity will increase 2 per cent all told? If we have a 4 per cent, 6 per cent or 10 per cent inflation cycle, what is the difference? Dr. Young, in a speech, looks at the figure and says that indeed there is a relationship between productivity and wages, but he does not delve into the real situation as he should and come up with ways and means to gear wage increases to production increases either industry by industry, plant by plant, or nation-wide.
This is the type of commission we still have. I am afraid to believe that this commission will still have an influence on the government. The reason I have taken part in this debate is to advise the government not to act when the commission recommends wage and price controls because that would be a disastrous stroke; it will not work and we will suffer from it for years to come. There is a presumption that somehow we can duplicate the war years when patriotism was involved, when production was not the issue, and when the depression years were still in our memories. All of these things have to be considered when wage and price controls are proposed. The machinery will be cumbersome and the controls will not work. Even though price and wage controls may be limited to 4 per cent or 6 per cent, the chances are that production will drop by 10 per cent because the Canadian public will not willingly accept such controls. There is a supposed willingness. You hear Canadians saying all the time: "I think we should have wage or price controls as long as they do not affect me. We should have wage controls for everyone else but I do not want to be included in them". This is the natural feeling of people when such a control program is started; they will not like it if they are involved. They will not tolerate it, and the program will be a disaster.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I hope that the government can see its way clear to telling Dr. Young to wind up his books and go home. Indeed, I say right now that when the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) comes up, I shall vote for it because I think there can be no greater contribution to Canada's economy than to have Dr. Young pack up his equipment, pay off his bills, and go home.
DEBATES	8299
Government Administrative Policies He is not doing much good; in fact, he is doing a lot of harm. I suggest to the government that it does not have much time left to look into our real problem, that is our productive capacity, and do something about it.
Much has been said about banks, and we know that a lot of it is true. But on the other hand, banks and businesses are making money. The easiest way to make it, of course, is through consumer lending. I say to the minister the first thing that should be done is to encourage our industries to replace their worn out and antiquated equipment. For this, they will need money. I would even suggest we should induce them to do this by allowing quick write offs. Any industrialist who puts in new equipment to increase his production should be able to write off his debt in a year. Where is he going to get the money? He cannot pay 18 per cent interest to the banks, and the banks are not too keen to lend money to commerce or to industry. They are very busy with the consumer loan market from which they get about 32 per cent, and that is not peanuts.
But we do have a weapon we can use without applying the restrictions that are called for by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands. I refer to the reserve. At present, banks are required to set aside a certain reserve with the Bank of Canada. I see no reason why this reserve cannot be divided. Let us say to the banks that if they lend to industry we will lower the reserve required for industrial and commercial loans. Let us double or triple the reserve required for consumer credit. It is time the government told our banks that if they want to enjoy the privileges of branch banking they have to provide a service to our industry and to our economy rather than just line the shareholders pockets. If they continue on the same road-and I do not think they should be nationalized-then we should immediately amend the Bank Act to allow competitive banking.
Branch banking has a purpose. The banks always cry on our shoulders, asking us not to open up the whole field of banking to anyone who wants to start a bank. They tell us they are giving a wonderful service and that branch banking serves a purpose. But they are not living up to their responsibilities. The government should put it to the banks now that if they do not provide the service and live up to their responsibilities, we shall open up the banking field to a competitive group of people. These competitors will then be able
8300	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies to obtain a licence through the corporations branch. I think competition will do the banks a lot of good.
There are one or two more points that I would like to make. I have spoken now about the management side. Something should be done about labour, and we have to face that immediately. The minister pointed out that some of the unemployment and a great deal of inflation results from work stoppages. We still have a 100-year old system of negotiating so-called labour-management disputes. Everybody quits. This compounds the problems because production stops, but people still have to be fed and housed so they dig into their savings. Companies have to keep their plants open, so money has to come from an increase in the price of the product. The government has to find a new and acceptable method of dealing with labour-management disputes as an alternative to work stoppage.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in a speech he made in Montreal about two years ago, said he would welcome any workable plan, and that probably the unions would welcome such a plan. I placed a private bill on the Order Paper which provided that, where there is no contract, the plant should keep operating but the profits made during the duration of the so-called strike would go to the government as a 100 per cent tax. Possibly union dues could go to the government as well. In other words, we could at least keep on producing and the nation would get the benefit of production. Work stoppage is one of the great obstacles to good production. The work stoppage may only last 14 days, but its effects go on for a great deal longer. After the strike is settled-and I have seen this time and time again-no one is happy. The strike is often settled because of a sense of compulsion.
Following the settlement, productivity drops for the first three or four months to less than 50 per cent because of a lack of incentive to produce. The workers are still angry after the strike is over. They have to keep on producing but the animosity created during the strike continues, and there is a complete lack of communication between management and labour. This is not conducive to good production. However, we have to increase our production. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we in Canada increase our production by 10 per cent, then a 10 per cent increase in wages will not cause inflation. If we can increase our production by 20 per cent, then a 20 per cent wage increase will not be inflationary.

DEBATES	June 18, 1970
There is a relationship between the two, and if our productivity increases we will be able to compete with the whole world. But the fault lies in the failure to gear these two together. So long as we continue to have a 2 per cent gross national product increase and an 8 per cent or 10 per cent price and wage increase, there is bound to be inflation and there is no way of stopping it. That is, in essence, what the Prices and Incomes Commission should have been dealing with, but it has not and it has no intention of doing so. During the committee's examination of Dr. Young, he flatly stated that the commission has that option but it will not take it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven Otto: I will only take another minute, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to outline not only the cause of the trouble we now have, but what can be done about it. I would like to define what the government should do in what I would call expansive programs. Some of my suggestions may include some of the proposals made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Housing has dropped 50 per cent. This will cause a reaction within a very short time because, even with rent controls, you cannot create more houses by lowering rents. The houses will just not be there. Industry is growing so apprehensive that even now it will need more than six months to get up courage to expand. But inflation will keep on growing, and industry will be using its reserves to meet its losses. Therefore, I urge the government to forget about restriction, bank restriction, money restriction, and go all out to increase production.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I want to remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he was not given the mandate of leadership by advocating a policy of restriction by saying he was going to tell farmers not to grow crops, that he was going to tell businessmen not to take profits, and industry not to produce more. His mandate was based on advocating opportunity, hope, and a forward-looking program. That is his mandate, and that is the mandate we have. We do not have a negative mandate. Had the people wanted a negative, restrictive mandate they would have given their confidence to someone else.
June 18, 1970


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I believe the economy of the country is drifting into a very serious state of affairs and I do not think the government is taking that state of affairs nearly seriously enough. To realize how serious it is, we only have to look at the unemployment figures which, in my view, give the most accurate picture of where the economy is, and where it is going.
Let us look back just two months and see what the unemployment figures were then. In March, unemployment was 5.1 per cent seasonally adjusted; in April 5.6 per cent, seasonally adjusted; and in May, 6.2 per cent seasonally adjusted. That is a very sharp rise month after month. It is not just those three months that have been affected. This rise has been going on ever since January. The indication is that it is going to continue to rise in the same steep fashion if something is not done about it very soon. In the last year there have developed 127,000 more unemployed than there were a year ago. This has brought us to the highest unemployment figure in eight years.
I think that two things should happen. I think that we in the opposition must present serious, well-thought-out proposals for grappling with this situation, to the government, and on their part I believe that the government must accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are given. The suggestions should receive consideration, and if the government believes there is some good in them they should not be too proud to accept them, use them and help the economy in that way.
The most alarming part of this whole situation so far as I am concerned is that the opposition has been putting forward ideas and suggestions to the government over many months and the government have laughed at them, sneered at them, paid no attention to them, made wisecracks about them. I just do not think that is good enough. I think the time has come when we in this Parliament must emphasize the situation that I have described, by producing the unemployment figures. I have used the seasonally adjusted figures because on many occasions the government have stressed that the seasonally adjusted figures are the only ones that give the true picture of unemployment.
Obviously, if we are going to overcome this unemployment problem we are facing, and the serious situation the economy finds itself
Government Administrative Policies in, we must create new jobs. In order to create new jobs we have to lower costs so that prices can come down, so that our products can be more competitive, so that they will sell more readily both in Canada against foreign competition here, and in the export market against foreign goods that compete against them. The question is, what can we do to bring down costs and prices?
I am going to present six points to the government that I think are worthy of consideration, six things that I think they should do, many of which I have presented in the past and which have been ignored. The government have never taken the trouble to state why they believe these ideas will not work. Mr. Speaker, I have found that these suggestions do work in practice, because I have used them and seen them work, both while working for 20 years in industry and while a member of government with economic responsibilities over a period of six years. So, in all seriousness, I say to the government that these are put forward seriously, as practical suggestions, and I am convinced that if the government will adopt them they will greatly help the economy.
The first deals with tax incentives. Mr. Speaker, in a democracy such as Canada you cannot put a gun at the head of producers, like dictatorships can do, and force them to do the kinds of things you want them to do. You have to make it so attractive for them to follow a certain line of action that they literally cannot afford to ignore that line of action. The most effective form of inducement is by way of tax incentives. Under this plan, you do not give a producer something and say, "Here is an inducement. Go ahead and see what you can do with it." Rather, you say to him, "If you do what I suggest you should, we will make it worth while for you at the end of the year by giving you a rebate on your taxes." That is a very simple, practical way to reward a producer for doing the kinds of things you believe he must do for the national economy. The first step is offer tax incentives to induce greater productivity.
We hear a great deal of talk about productivity. Everybody agrees productivity should be increased. The government agrees it should be increased but do absolutely nothing to make it attractive for producers to increase their productivity and thereby lower costs and prices, make their goods more competitive and more capable of producing jobs. In order to become more productive and increase your productivity you must make a
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies sizeable outlay of money in the form of new plant, new machinery, new production systems. This is what our competitors all over the world are doing, particularly the eastern countries such as Japan. There is also West Germany and certain other countries which have set great marks in productivity and are doing so well as competitors against our goods. My first suggestion is that we offer tax incentives based on increases in productivity during the year, whereby a plant would be rewarded in the form of tax rebates at the end of the year, based upon a specific increase in productivity during the preceding 12 months.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The second suggestion is a tax incentive to induce those who produce and sell goods to keep price rises during the year within the 2J per cent guideline which the government has set as an acceptable level. They have based the 2J per cent figure on the fact that over the past 70 years since the Dominion Bureau of Statistics started keeping track of inflation from year to year, the average increase in prices has been 2J per cent each year. The government has taken that figure and said that in its view, if it is not exceeded the economy will not be in jeopardy.
I have proposed to the government that if a producer keeps the price increase on all his products during the year within 2| per cent, he should receive a rebate of 2J per cent of his corporation taxes at the end of the year, and an additional 1 per cent rebate for each percentage point of price increase which he holds down steadily, going down to zero. In this case a company which did not increase prices at all during the year would be eligible for a 5 per cent rebate on its corporation taxes. That is a practical incentive and one that businessmen understand. It is the kind of incentive they will react to and it will make it worth their while not to exceed the government's 2J per cent guideline. Businessmen will go a long way to obtain that tax incentive. Their goods would be more competitive and easier to sell if they kept prices rises within 2-J per cent.
The third measure which I suggest the government should adopt is the introduction of penalties against companies which do not keep price rises within the 2J per cent per year guideline. A few months ago the government called the leaders of industry together and asked them to keep price rises within reasonable limits. All the industries concerned
[Mr. Hees.l
said they would not increase prices more than their increase in costs. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to induce them to limit those increases in costs. There is no penalty which can be applied against them if they do not keep their price rises within that range.
Businessmen across the country are literally laughing at this government for believing they will react as the government expects. They just will not do it unless they are rewarded for doing so or penalized for not doing so. Members who have been in business or have had experience of businessmen know that these are facts of economic life. I suggest that in order to induce our producers to keep within the 2 J per cent guideline, penalties must be set by the government and imposed against producers who do not comply.
My fourth suggestion is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) immediately call together the presidents of the chartered banks and of the main lending institutions of this country and point out to them the need for keeping interest rates well below the level they are at today. I believe the present levels are far too high and are adding unnecessarily to the costs of production, making our products uncompetitive and thus making it more difficult to provide jobs. The disclosure a couple of days ago that the profit achieved by the chartered banks of Canada in the first six months of their fiscal year was an increase of 27.7 per cent over 1969, when the increase was 26.6 per cent, shows that the banks and other lending institutions could well afford to lower interest rates and still make a reasonable profit. It is up to the government to call together the heads of these lending institutions and point out, in the national interest, the absolute need for reducing interest rates. The government should indicate clearly that if they are not willing to do this, it will step in and impose some kind of control on interest rates in order that costs can be kept within reasonable bounds and prices at reasonable levels. This action is necessary if products are to be sold competitively and jobs made available for our people.
The fifth suggestion is one that I last made about a week ago and have made on various occasions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In order to persuade the leaders of organized labour that it is vitally important for labour to play its part in keeping costs within reasonable bounds, thus making it possible for our products to remain competitive and thereby creating jobs for members of their unions, the Prime Minister should call
June 18, 1970	COMMONS
together the leaders of our major labour unions. A private meeting could be held well away from the press, radio, television and all publicity. He could talk to them at his home in a quiet, restrained manner and outline the tremendous need for their co-operation in the drive to keep prices within reasonable bounds. He should point out that this is necessary if products are to be sold in Canada and abroad in the face of foreign competition, and that it is necessary if we are to create more jobs for Canadians.
My sixth suggestion is that the government, without further delay, make up its mind about what kind of help it will give our export industries to enable them to maintain the present level of sales. This level may be satisfactory today, but because Canada has had to go on a floating exchange rate our export industries face very serious competition in world markets. Their products have been made much more expensive because the Canadian dollar has been put on a floating exchange rate. If they are to maintain their markets they will have to reduce prices, and in order to do that they must have help from the government. If help is not forthcoming, many orders which would have been obtained for Canada will be lost, and it follows that jobs will be lost: foreigners will be given employment that should be given to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, these are very simple, straightforward economic proposals which from experience I am convinced will work. I should like the economic ministers of the Crown, starting with the Minister of Finance, to take these suggestions and either use them, modify them or have the courtesy to explain to the opposition side of the House why they are unworkable, if they believe them to be so, in present circumstances.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think the time has come for the government to stop laughing, sneering and joking about the economic plight this country is in today. They should stop making fun of suggestions which come from the opposition. Above all, we want the government either to accept our suggestions or put forward plans of its own that will work, reduce costs, enable prices to be kept down, make our products more competitive so that Canadians can sell more readily against foreign competition in Canada and abroad, and so produce more jobs for our people.
DEBATES	8303
Government Administrative Policies
These are the kinds of plans we want to hear about. We take no pride in their authorship. I do not wish to hear the government say that a proposal like that was brought forward by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings or anybody else. All I want is this government to come forward with a plan that will meet the tremendous problem of our very rapidly rising unemployment. I outlined the figures at the beginning of my remarks. Our unemployment is going up at a startling rate. This is not just a statistics, as the Prime Minister would like us to believe; it represents human misery, privation and desperation which affects a great many Canadians. The trouble is that it is growing worse every hour of every day.
I earnestly ask the government to accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are put forward. If they are wrong, let the government have the decency and courtesy to tell us why. If they are any good at all and can be used, let the government use them. If they can be used in their entirety, let it use them. If the government can produce something better, let it produce it. But for heaven's sake let it stop pretending that the problem does not exist. Let it stop living in an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere in which people always expect something to turn up tomorrow in some miraculous fashion. Speaking from a practical businessman's point of view, I say these things do not happen miraculously. They happen only if plans are well thought out and put into operation in a serious, conscientious and practical manner.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, before we recess at six o'clock I wish to speak for a few minutes about some of the remarks which have been made. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), will be speaking later and may be dealing in a more substantive form with other points which have been raised this afternoon. I am curious to know why the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) has given us the benefit of his experience on the basis of six years in government, because in those six years the economy of Canada was probably operated in a worse way than at any other time in our history. We are indebted to him for the advice he has given today.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly what we hear day after day. That is why the economy of this country is going straight to hell.
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I mention some of the contradictions inherent in the hon. member's remarks. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) say that we ought to have guidelines. The minute we bring them in and try to impose a guidelines policy, the hon. member says that is not what we ought to be doing. The hon. member seems totally unaware of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission is currently-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am allowed to speak for only 15 minutes.


George Harris Hees: I said that we ought to have guidelines. The minister knows that perfectly well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I ask the minister to stop talking trash.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member seems unaware of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission is currently examining and investigating the recent fantastic figures relating to bank profits. It is inquiring into that situation. There are to be meetings with the bankers to see if the situation cannot be corrected. I noted with interest the remarks- this is really the matter I want to deal with- of the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). He, with his usual great rhetoric, as well as the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), suggested that the Prices and Incomes Commission should pack its bags and go. I would make it clear, as the minister who recommended to cabinet the establishment of this commission and the appointment of Dr. Young, that we have no intention of asking the commission to do that. Nothing has happened during the last year to make me regret either recommendating the establishment of the commission or the appointment of Dr. Young as its chairman.
I think the old people of this country, those living on fixed incomes, the weaker people who are hit by inflation and hurt by its effects, would be incensed if they knew that for the past 18 months the leader of the NDP has done nothing in this House or outside it except try to destroy, discredit and negate the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission

to restrain inflation. I put on record, Mr. Speaker, that this has been the history of the NDP for the past 18 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We have endeavoured, as a government, to find new techniques for dealing with inflation and the NDP has done everything possible to put roadblocks in the government's way, to discredit its efforts and to prevent any sort of proper cost restraints being introduced into our economy. This is a matter of record and one can see it happening in the House every day during the question period. We recognize that for some years we have had in this country a very unsatisfactory prices situation. This is true of Canada, of the United States and of all other western industrialized nations. We have been endeavouring to bring the current inflation under control and have actively and vigorously been applying measures of monetary and fiscal restraint designed to curb the growth of inflation in our country.
It was recognized that the pervasiveness of inflationary pressures was so great that we had to find methods in addition to the traditional ones of monetary and taxation policies. We recognized that it would be very difficult to apply traditional methods for a protracted period because there would be adverse side-effects which no one, including members of this government, wanted to see, namely, an interruption of the growth of production in the economy and a temporary rise in unemployment. It seemed to the government that a smoother, and therefore less painful transition back to reasonable price stability could be achieved if a way could be found to cut directly into the spiralling process of prices and incomes increases, with the object of slowing them down more rapidly than seemed possible by using traditional methods.
If we could cut directly into prices and incomes increases it might be possible to moderate government policies of budgetary and credit restraints earlier, and soften some of their more painful side-effects. That is why the government has supported and is supporting the Prices and Incomes Commission's efforts to work out, in consultation with representatives of all major groups in the community, a specific undertaking to be asked of business, labour, other private groups and governments, designed to achieve a substantial across-the-board scaling down of price increases in 1970, and to devise methods
June 18, 1970	COMMONS
and procedures for ensuring that the spirit of these undertakings is observed in practice.
Although the economic environment has changed considerably since the commission was established, the approach which it has been following, with the full support of this government, is just as relevant today as it was one year ago. The business community and governments, provincial and federal, are co-operating with the commission in seeking to hold price increases below cost increases. But more effective steps to contain cost pressures in the economy are essential if substantial expansionary moves are not to set prices rising faster than ever before.
It has been alleged in this House that the approach of the Prices and Incomes Commission has no support. It may interest hon. members to know that I had occasion to lead the Canadian delegation at the meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris on May 22, and the policies that we have developed in Canada through the Bank of Canada, the Department of Finance and the Prices and Incomes Commission received very substantial support at that ministerial meeting involving 18 industrialized nations of the world.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There has been mention in the House that the OECD is critical of our policies. I wish to read from a communique issued by that conference on May 22. I quote from the first page:
Ministers agreed on the need to persevere in most countries with the restrictive demand management policies already adopted. To achieve stability it will also be desirable to combine these policies with other measures of a structural and more selective nature. According to circumstances, such measures may include manpower policies,-
We are in this fiscal year spending more money on manpower policies than ever before.
-regional and sectoral policies-
We are also spending more money in this area than ever before.
-incomes policies and efforts to increase competition, nationally and internationally.
As I made clear to the House, we are in the process of revising our competitive policy through the Combines Investigation Act. At the OECD conference, speaker after speaker emphasized that a prices and incomes approach and a guidelines approach, in spite of all the difficulties, frustrations and sometimes the disillusions, are worth pursuing.
DEBATES	8305
Government Administrative Policies They stated that if countries are to control the unacceptable rate of price increases which we have experienced in the western world over the last few years, we must, in spite of all the difficulties of a prices and incomes approach, follow that approach and persist in those policies. I wish the members of the New Democratic Party could have heard the representative of their more successful counterpart in Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jenkins. I wish he would come to Canada. He can certainly teach the New Democratic Party something. If the members of that party spoke with him, they might make more intelligent speeches than they made today and have made over the last 18 months.
The efforts of the government in its antiinflationary program as a whole, including its support for the commission's price restraint program, have clearly achieved a measure of success in slowing the rate of price increases in Canada. The most recent consumer price index is for May, 1970. We have all listened to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings asking questions every time DBS releases a report. When the price index declined by 0.1 per cent between April and May, we did not hear from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. This was the first decrease recorded since 1962. Between May, 1969, and May, 1970, the rise in the over-all index was 3.8 per cent, which is still unsatisfactory. However, this was the first year-over-year rise of less than 4 per cent recorded since March, 1969.
We are beginning to see hopeful signs that the fiscal and monetary policies of the government, and the Prices and Incomes Commission, are having an effect on the unsatisfactory rate of price increases that we have had. I thought the members of the NDP, who are always moaning about one thing and another, would have welcomed this sort of development and would have supported the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Instead, they have spent the last 18 months trying to destroy and discredit it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: So far, the reduction in the rate of price increases has been made possible by the squeeze on profits that has occurred with fewer increases in direct taxes rather than a reduction in labour cost increases. Corporate profits in the first quarter of 1970, as pointed out in this House, were 3.9 per cent below the level of the first quarter of 1969,

June 18, 1970
Adjournment of House
while annual wage and salary increases granted under major collective agreements were in the order of 9 per cent. I know that members of the NDP will say that does not include increases in the profits of chartered banks. That, of course, is true. That is why the Prices and Incomes Commission is examining and investigating the recent profit figures of the chartered banks of Canada. It should be obvious that unless there is an early and marked reversal of the recent upward trend of labour costs, executive salary and income costs, there can be no possibility of consolidating recent progress in containing price increases, let alone continuing to move in the direction of reasonable price stability.
I now turn to the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission to work out, with Canadian labour leaders, a co-operative program to put reasonable limits on wage and salary increases away above productivity levels. The commission was appointed last spring. During the summer it met with Canadian labour and business leaders. It hoped to be able to put together a national consensus on restraint that would have contained inflation more than it has today. It is a matter of regret that on October 17 the leaders of organized labour rejected any approach to the problem which incorporated an explicit formula limiting wage and salary increases. After consultation with business and government the commission decided to explore a narrower approach in which firms alone would take the first step in a commitment even though a corresponding degree of restraint on the cost side could not be guaranteed. Had the commission been successful at that time in working out the kind of agreement it was endeavouring to work out, and had the leaders of organized labour in Canada gone along with that arrangement, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be suffering less from inflation and there would be less unemployment.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, further to the suggestion of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) there have been discussions. It appears there may be consent to the following order, that notwithstanding the special order made earlier this day, the ordinary time of daily adjournment for this

day's sitting shall be 10 p.m. If I am right in that assumption, perhaps that could be made an order of the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Speaking on behalf of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, we agree to this order being made, without in any way withdrawing the fundamental objections expressed earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). In fact, had we been able to have this debate on a more suitable occasion, it might not have been necessary to make this order. In any case, we do agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this order. It puts us back where we were this afternoon before the kerfuffle which we thought was quite unnecessary. At any rate, we do agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is so
ordered.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House express its disapproval of the administrative policies of the government by opposing items in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1971; and in particular vote 1 of the Department of Agriculture, vote 10, Communications and Post Office, vote 5 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, vote 1 of the Privy Council and votes 1 and 5 of the Treasury Board.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was reciting the history of the Prices and Incomes Commission in endeavouring to enter into co-operative arrangements with the leaders of organized labour. I expressed the disappointment of the government and of the commission at the announcement that those representatives
June 18, 1970

would take no part in such arrangements. The commission followed up this effort byholding on February 9 and 10 a national conference on price stability.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Canadian Labour Congress, which now has called for a conference, of course could have been at that conference had they acted differently in the fall. Following the conference of February, the Prices and Incomes Commission held further discussions with leaders of organized labour in which it was pointed out that wage and salary earners as a group could not disclaim responsibility for playing a part in the general restraint program. On March 23, in their annual submissions to the government both the CLC and the CNTU rejected again the principle of restraint on incomes. At the May conference of the CLC this position was restated.
As the House knows, on June 5 at the federal-provincial ministers of finance meeting the commission sought the support of governments in applying wage and salary criteria of 6 per cent including fringe benefits. The objective is to assure progress in reducing cost and price increases, permitting the federal government to relax further fiscal and monetary restraint. This proposal was fully supported by the federal government and is presently being considered by provincial governments.
As the House knows again, on June 16, this week, the commission met with the executive council of the CLC to discuss this proposal. No progress in modifying the CLC's attitude can be reported to date. The Canadian Labour Congress has now made a most intriguing suggestion following the meeting of June 16 although it was not discussed at the meeting, that the government convene a national meeting of government, industry and labour representatives with the assistance of the best technical personnel available to work toward effective and equitable solutions. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the government is a little puzzled by such a suggestion at this time. This is the reason I am placing on the record the record of the negotiations. We as a government have great confidence in the Prices and Incomes Commission which has demonstrated, surely, by word, deed and goodwill its desire to find effective and equitable solutions.
If there is to be a conference, the Prices and Incomes Commission is the instrument for organizing such a conference. Having put
8307
Government Administrative Policies 18 months of effort into establishing the Prices and Incomes Commission and its machinery, we are not at this point going to junk it and start out with some other kind of machinery. This latest suggestion by the Canadian Labour Congress was not discussed with the commission on June 16, nor has it been discussed with any member of the government despite the very many opportunities that have been presented to do so. Therefore, it is a little difficult for me to know precisely the intention of the Canadian Labour Congress. What is it that the Canadian Labour Congress would hope to see emerge from such a conference? Within the same statement calling for the conference the president of the CLC said:
We are involved not In a national inflation but in a universal inflation over which our internal policies have little if any control.
It would seem to me to be of little use for the government to call an organized conference simply to be told that all our problems are beyond our control and are because of the effect of the Viet Nam war or something else. It is the view of this government that there are things we can do with the Canadian economy. While we are subject to international forces, there are things we can do in Canada to improve our price performance and price stability. If such a conference were useful, the Prices and Incomes Commission is the body to organize it, but surely we should have some indication that there will be something meaningful forthcoming from such a confei ence. Surely, before calling or organizing such a conference we should have some indication that it will be successful and will make progress toward better price stability in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I am afraid his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the House for allowing me this time, and I shall shorten my remarks as much as possible. As I say, surely we are entitled to some indication that such a conference to be organized by the commission will be successful. We will wait with interest to see whether any such indication is forthcoming.
Because of the remarks made in this House today and on previous occasions I should like to mention briefly some of the work the com-
8303	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies mission is now doing in an effort to show that it is having an effect on inflation in Canada and is improving our price stability picture. As the House knows, the commission held a national conference on price stability in February from which certain criteria emerged in respect of price increases under which price increases had to be clearly less than cost increases. The commission set in motion the whole machinery of price review panels to ensure that business leaders in Canada were observing the pricing criteria agreed to. At the present time 40 reviews are being carried out by the Prices and Incomes Commission. These cover a whole range of items such as bread, milk, processed foods, edible oils, rubber tires, cement, tin containers, air fares, freight rates, copper, construction costs, coffee, razor blades, fine papers and others.
One result of this work is in respect of, for example, a very basic commodity such as copper. As a result of the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission, with the support the government has given, the price of Canadian copper-a very basic commodity in our economy-is now 59 cents a pound. As a result of that action alone, and that small part of the program, the Canadian fabricator has saved at least $30 million a year. This is a saving to the Canadian economy, and ultimately to the Canadian consumer, of $30 million. In the case of aluminum, while our export price has been increasing the commission has persuaded the company to keep its Canadian price down. This has meant a savings to the Canadian consumer of $1,500,000 per annum. Another matter of concern and interest to housewives is the work done in respect of glass containers. One company announced an increase for 1970, and as a result of the commission's work some of this increase was rolled back, at a saving to the Canadian consumer of $400,000 a year.
Those are just three rather small instances of the work of the prices review panels and of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I could discuss other aspects of its work which have been agreed to and supported by provincial governments. There was a document released only yesterday with regard to its retail price surveillance program. It states that the Prices and Incomes Commission now is operating a system of regular checks which effectively monitor the largest stores in the retail trade in Canada. The retail monitoring system used has already resulted in the rollback of some price increases. But, most important, it has resulted in manufacturers,
[Mr. Basford.l
DEBATES	June 18, 1970
processors, supermarkets, department and variety stores being much more aware that any price increase which is to be passed along to the consumer must clearly be within the guidelines. We had an encouraging price index for the month of May. While, obviously, the Prices and Incomes Commission cannot claim all the credit for that, I submit its activities are making an important contribution in restraining price and profit levels.
The commission is aware that many Canadian firms are absorbing at least part of the cost increases in order to meet the commission's criteria and restrain price increases. The commission is aware of such instances in the food processing industry and in a variety of other fields such as milk, luggage, dyestuffs, stoves, washing machines, glass containers, certain chemicals, steel products, copper and aluminum-which I have mentioned- and others. So the program is having an effect. The impact of the program, as with any sort of prices and incomes program, cannot be measured by statistics alone, reviews, studies or price increases. The real success of the program should be evaluated in terms of price increases which have not taken place or which have been smaller than they would have been without the criteria. Its success is that Canadian industry appears to be accepting and applying the price restraint criteria to their pricing policies for 1970, and this should in turn be reflected in a slowdown in the rate of price increases. There has been a slowdown on profits in the first quarter, resulting partly from the work of the commission.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I could detail the work of the commission with regard to professional fees, which are always debated in the House, and the commitment it has received from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the legal profession, professional engineers, architects and chartered accountants. I have here a document relating to what the provinces have done as a result of the federal-provincial conference, following the conference on price stability, with regard to revising their rents under the landlord and tenant acts. Some provinces have indicated, as a result of the meeting in Winnipeg the other day, that they will review what they have already done.
However, in spite of what the commission does on the price side, no matter what commitments it gets from business to restrain
June 18, 1970

prices, no matter what the provinces do with regard to rents, or what professional bodies do in restricting increases, it is perfectly clear to me that there is no way in which we can completely solve this problem unless there is some restraint on the wages and salaries side. There is no way in which such an important component of total production costs as wages and salaries can continue to rise as rapidly as they have in recent months without resulting sooner or later in substantial price increases to consumers.
Difficult market conditions, in combination with the existing price restraint program, are requiring many firms to absorb part of these cost increases, thus lowering profits. But there are limits to how far large increases in labour costs can be absorbed through declining prof-[its before firms begin to cut back on their hiring and expansion plans. Nor would it be realistic to count on the continued co-operation of the business community in limiting price increases, or professional groups in limiting fee increases, if there were no limit on wage and salary increases. For that reason the government is lending its full support to the extension of the existing restraint program to include limits on wage and salary increases including-and I make this clear- executive salaries, monthly salaries and nonunionized salaries, as well as on increases in prices and other forms of income.
It is a matter of regret that in this kind of program, which is beginning to have an effect and which has been put in place with a great 'deal of effort, we seem to be able to expect absolutely no co-operation and no help from the New Democratic Party. By broadening the fight against inflation we can not only save existing jobs in our economy but act responsibly to create new job opportunities. Surely that is what this country needs. By maintaining and, where possible, strengthening our price restraint program-I emphasize that all our options are open-and by having an effective 6 per cent ceiling on salary and wage costs we can turn the economy around much faster than we could by simply using the traditional instruments available to a government in these situations. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will discuss this question in more detail later.
The job of the Prices and Incomes Commission is not a very easy one. In fact, it is a very difficult one, often a very frustrating one. But I submit that it is having an effect on our economy and is contributing to a better price performance in Canada. It is
Government Administrative Policies encouraging price stability in Canada. For all these reasons it is worth while persisting with these policies no matter how difficult it may be. As I said this afternoon, the whole program would have been more successful if we could have counted on a greater degree of co-operation from all those in the private sector who are making price and wage decisions. Inflation would not be running at the rate it is today, nor would the rate of unemployment be as high had the commission received more co-operation than it has.
I hope that all the people of this country who are suffering from inflation, and those who are unemployed as well as the workers themselves and the housewives of Canada, will realize that the work of the commission would have been more successful had the NDP and its leader not deliberately set out 18 months ago to sabotage its efforts; and surely this is what they have done in the House and across the country every day for the last 18 months. I hope that those who are suffering most from inflation will recognize, as we do, that the people from whom we have received the least help and co-operation are the members of the NDP.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this debate because I have had to give notice of our opposition to certain items as a mechanism to the consideration by this House of some of the problems that were raised during debate of the estimates. I want to preface my remarks with regard to the particular items I have posted with some remarks on the work of committees in so far as the study of estimates is concerned. I have been very disappointed in the actual results. It is not that we cannot talk to ministers or to officials during the study of estimates. I know of no case where they have not made themselves available to the degree possible in their very busy lives, at least those with whom I have come into contact, and I think I speak generally for my colleagues, in saying that about officials from most if not all of the branches of government. I do not think they have been in any way reticent in discussing the estimates. The only difficulty is in getting the information out into the open.
There is a mad rush, when the study of estimates is being undertaken, to have all possible committees sitting at one time so that even the government side, which has large numbers of members available, has to put on platoons or squads running from one committee to another merely to sit there and peri-
8310	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies odically provide quorums if there is to be a vote. Those members in most cases have not heard one iota of the evidence, nor have they been able to read one word of the evidence because no transcript has been available. Therefore, it has been merely an exercise of political muscle. The press is not in a position to cover all these meetings. The resources are not there and it would be unreasonable to believe they could be there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They were covering the
Quebec election.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1 recognize the mammoth difficulty in trying to get the transcripts of evidence before members so that the meetings become meaningful. We know that in the past when estimates were discussed in the House and a real problem arose, we could refer to the daily Hansard and to comments of all kinds by the press regarding major points of issue that were raised in the committees' studies of the estimates. Now that is all gone. It is almost government by default, government by snuffing out.
I say that the responsibility is that of the government in that the system that was set up was established before there were adequate facilities to deal with the estimates. The net result is that practically nothing, or very little that has been discussed in the estimates has reached the public's ear. Therefore we have to use these few opposition days during the month of June because the estimates are rushed in for completion by the end of May and we do not receive the transcripts until nearly the end of June.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is the most frustrating type of operation to be able to discuss the estimates. After all, the job of Parliament is the passing of estimates, the consideration of supply and the granting of supply. Its main job is not to line up and say yea or nay to scores of government bills, many of which are mere housekeeping, albeit important. And as to the legislation, we have the same problems there with the committee system. So I do not apologize for hosting the items I have, in order to draw to the attention of the House the particulars with respect to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Manpower and Immigration that I want to touch on briefly this evening.
I am particularly concerned with the parks branch of the Department of Indian Affairs

DEBATES	June 18, 1970
and Northern Development. This has been a longstanding war, and I say "war" quite advisedly, although it has been rather quiescent of late. I suppose the government was waiting for the Supreme Court decision in the case of the permanent leases, and of course ever since the Supreme Court decided in favour of the leaseholders and not the government, the government has been very quiet about the national parks. We have not heard any more about Bill C-152 and I presume that bill will die where it is. It certainly should.
There has been a long history, going back over many years, of absolute frustration on the part of the people in the two principal national parks, those which have the largest number of residents. For some reason or another there is a conception in the parks branch that people should not be living in the parks and that those already there should be eliminated. This is trying to turn back the calendar, to eliminate thousands of people who reside there. Banff and Jasper are two very particular types of parks. They are the two main parks in this country, and they are mountain parks. But the people in them are regarded as second-class citizens. They cannot have any local organization that is meaningful. They cannot qualify for many of the benefits and the facilities allowed to townspeople in other communities in Alberta. They are not allowed an elective council. There is no local government at all. It is all handled on a long-range basis through Ottawa. There are various layers of officials stretching from here to the parks. There are town managers. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, if you ask the men at the park level what authority they have, you find it almost limited to acting as postmen, passing citizens' requests on to Ottawa. They cannot make meaningful decisions at the local level. It is as frustrating for them as it is for the park residents. This is a situation that has continued for many years.
First there is the question of the parks branch trying to eliminate the bona fide leases held by the park residents. If you are a resident and want to carry out an improvement on your property, because there is a renewal clause in your lease, a permit is required. That is all right; development must be controlled; it is not a Topsy-like operation in the parks. The people accept this. But it should not be used as a blackjack. To get a permit a person now has to turn in his lease and take out a terminable lease. This is what the officials now insist upon. The list of difficulties is long. A committee of this House
June 18, 1970

went out to the parks a few years ago and held public hearings, Whatever recommendations it may have made, they have been ignored. Whatever representations were made by the townspeople in the parks, they were ignored. As a matter of fact, life got tougher for them.
More and more tourists are travelling through the parks. Now that the Yellowhead Highway has been built through Jasper there is no way of rubbing it out. Scores of thousands more tourists travel that route. If members visited the area during the next two months they would see the difficulties tourists have to face because there has been a reluctance to keep up with progress in providing them with decent facilities. The government spends thousands of dollars on tourist promotion with regard to the two principal national parks; but when people arrive there, what do they get? Unless they have made reservations months in advance, they find it almost impossible to get accommodation. They have to bring their own trailers and tents, but there are not enough facilities for these. The facilities that are there are of good quality- I will not dispute that-but they are not sufficient to cope with the situation.
With regard to public health and welfare services that are provided in the province of Alberta, and considering the availability of senior citizens' homes and all that sort of thing, I believe there should be some form of local self-government so that an appropriate authority could be established to handle these matters, for instance in the townsite of Banff. It is no answer to say that such an organization could be established outside the limits of the park. What would this mean in Jasper, which is 25 miles from the park gate? They wanted laundry facilities in Jasper. What were they told? They were told to establish new laundry facilities at Hinton, 50 miles away. That is incomprehensible. There are many difficulties which require a far more intelligent, humane and human approach.
No one wants a Coney Island, unrestricted type of development in the parks. But it should be pointed out that these are huge parks. Only a very small portion of them is required for development to handle the millions of tourists who go through the parks. I do not have faith in the administration of the parks, at least so far as those two particular parks are concerned. I do not speak about those in the Atlantic provinces or about what may be developed in Quebec-and I hope we will see some more national parks in Ontario.
Government Administrative Policies My concern at the moment is with regard to the national parks in Alberta, which comprise the great majority of the area of national parks in Canada. They are of tremendous size. The government simply cannot tell the people of that province that they must develop other parks, because practically all the eastern slope of the Rockies from Edmonton south to below the international boundary is taken up with national parks. All the best areas have been pre-empted. We want to develop them for winter skiing; we do not want them to remain just as game conservation areas.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Over 90 per cent of these parks will never be touched and can be kept as wildlife reserves. On the other hand, let us have a little bit of reason. I have heard people say we should erect a ten-foot fence around the national parks, put a great chain and a padlock on the gates, lock it and throw away the key. This is an extreme view, of course, but one held by some people who have something to say about the administration of our parks.
Now I want to say something about immigration, Mr. Speaker, and I put forward two items. First of all, I think our present immigration program is based on the wrong conception, the conception that Canada will go scouring the world for the better educated, better trained individuals of other countries. In other words, Canada says to the world, "Give us your best people; we will take them". In this day and age, Mr. Speaker, that just is not possible. In this country we have absorbed scores of thousands of people who came here without any discernible skills, though some of them picked up skills here. But they all possess the desire to work. We should check today to see how many of their children are going to university. They are property holders and in the main they live a good life and are happy. Of course, there are exceptions but most of them have proved to be good citizens.
We say now, Mr. Speaker, that this category of potential immigrant must be kept away; that we do not want them. There is a complete disregard of regional requirement in the policy. We have very narrow selection criteria and a selection system that is difficult for the officials to interpret. I am sure they go through all sorts of agonizing periods before making judgments, but I think they are getting the wrong people and placing them in the wrong areas. I am objecting to govern-
8312	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies ment policy. The transcript of the hearing of April 28 shows that I discussed this matter with the Deputy Minister and his officials. I have no quarrel personally with individuals in the department, but I think their policies are wrong and in some cases I think the interpretation of them is far too restrictive. One example is national standards for certain categories. Mr. Speaker, we have no national standards. We cannot fit people from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland, in the same slot, though that seems to be the practical result.
Then we have the heartbreaking situation, which I think should be reviewed, of people' allowed to come into the country on a visa and then having them apply for landed immigrant status. They may have already landed a job, or in some cases may be working surreptitiously and doing quite well, but they do not qualify for the 50 points. Surely they should be entitled to an appeal. A sponsor of an immigrant who is still abroad cannot appeal an assessment. It seems to me that if a man is here and has a bona fide disagreement with the assessing officer, he should have a right to appeal without having to go through the procedure of a special inquiry making a deportation order and then going before the appeal board, with the deportation order being reissued. I know the Deputy Minister has indicated that there may be a study made with a view to altering this procedure, and I hope the department comes up with a fast answer. The officials indicated that there were almost 2,000 appeals pending before the immigration appeal board and that despite its Trojan efforts it is falling behind in this respect.
The mere fact that there are almost 2,000 appeals against the points assessment indicates that something is wrong. We get the situation of an individual who is already here, appealing to the immigration appeal board and having to wait 18 months or two years for a decision. On the information that has been disclosed, there does not seem to be any hope of improvement at the present time unless there is a wholesale reassessment of the system. I do not think the answer lies in doubling or trebling the size of the board. I suggest that the answer lies in having a simpler appeal procedure without the indignity of going through deportation proceedings. It is for that reason that I withhold my consent to these items.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words

DEBATES	June 18, 1970
about questions which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party this afternoon concerning unemployment and the economic situation in Canada. We as Liberals are very unhappy that the rate of unemployment is high in Canada at the present time. In fact, it is almost up to the lowest level that was attained during the period of the former 'Tory government, and it is at the highest level since we formed a Liberal government in 1963. I should like to say a few words about the unemployment situation-


An hon. Member:: You didn't inherit it, as we did.


Edgar John Benson: The number of workers with jobs increased sharply during May. The seasonally adjusted increase of 63,000 jobs represented a rise of 10 per cent at annual rates over the previous month. This compares with an average increase in employment during the 1960's of just under 4 per cent. It was, therefore, more than twice the average rate of employment growth during the last decade. This growth might have been even larger if it had not been for the effect of strikes in British Columbia and Quebec which I will mention later.
Seasonally adjusted, the labour force increased at a still faster pace. It rose by 1.4 per cent-118,000 persons-in May over April. This is a considerably larger increase than has taken place in any month since 1953. This increase of 1.4 per cent in the size of the labour force, seasonally adjusted, compares with an average increase in May between 1953 and 1969 of .2 per cent and the previous increase in the labour force last month is seven times larger than the average 1953-1969 increase of May.
Despite the substantial increase in employment in May, the even more extraordinary increase in the labour force resulted in an increase in unemployment of 55,000 persons on a seasonally adjusted basis. This, of course, includes students coming into the labour force. Almost half of the increase in the labour force, 58,000, involved those in the 29 to 24-year age group. In this age group, 27,000 of the increase remained unemployed, accounting for half the total increase in unemployment of 55,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. It may well be that a number of these persons were students unable to find work. The increase of 58,000 in this age group is exceptionally large; it is nearly three times
June 18, 1970

as great as the 21,000 increase recorded in the same month last year, which was far above any May since 1965.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
A significant increase in labour force participation rates under way since last November for women and for men in the 14-24 age group has also contributed to the sharp growth of the labour force in May. The reasons for this increase are not yet clear. During May, 67,320 workers were involved in work stoppages due to industrial disputes. While this was considerably below the total in the same period last year, these stoppages appear to have had a major affect in causing lay-offs of workers in other industries. This was particularly true of British Columbia, where the strike of a relatively small number of towboat operators, 1,630, virtually crippled pulp, newsprint and lumber operations in the province and reflected a sharp increase in unemployment in British Columbia.
In Quebec, work stoppages involving 26,545 workers, particularly in the Montreal construction trades, contributed to a lesser extent to the deterioration of the unemployment picture in that province. More than half the 55,000 increase in total unemployment on a seasonal basis took place in Quebec-29,000, with the bulk of the remainder, 23,000, occurring in British Columbia. This may reflect the relatively slow growth of capital investment in the province compared with other areas of Canada, which in turn may be related to political circumstances.
The government is concerned about the level of unemployment, and in fact a number of steps have been taken both in the budget and since to relax the restraints of fiscal and monetary policies. While some impetus has been given to the economy, the problem of inflation remains a serious one, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition. Although some initial and tentative progress has been made in slowing down the rate of price increases, the continued upward spiral of costs, particularly of wages and prices, threatens to undermine this progress.
The government has taken the position that it is anxious to promote a greater rate of economic growth and increased employment. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to obtain assurances that cost pressures are beginning to ease. In the absence of such assurance, policies aimed at promoting a faster rate of economic growth run the danger of renewing inflationary pressures in
Government Administrative Policies the economy. This emphasizes the importance of obtaining co-operation from labour in the national restraint program launched by the Prices and Incomes Commission.
As indicated in my March 12 budget, the essential problem is that of maintaining a sound economic balance in the conditions confronting the country. As repeatedly pointed out, the fundamental objective of the government is to halt the inflationary spiral of costs and prices in order to pave the way for a return to the path of strong but stable economic growth. The budget emphasized that we would face a hard task in bringing about a significant reduction in the rate of price and cost increases. The budget speech warned that the economy would probably grow at a slower rate than in 1969, as would also the increase in employment. The result would be some increase in unemployment.
In my budget speech I fully anticipated that difficult wage negotiations lay ahead. I said, "Some of these negotiations may issue in strikes-perhaps prolonged ones-before settlements are reached." The budget provided for some easing of the restraints imposed by the fiscal position of the federal government, which was matched at the time by some easing of monetary restraint. As anticipated, the economy has continued to grow at a moderate rate. There has, nevertheless, been some increase in unemployment during the course of the year. This is a direct consequence of the fight we must continue to wage against the inflationary pressures that pose such a serious threat to our future prosperity.
Since the budget was introduced last March there has been a further easing of both fiscal and monetary restraints. The government has decided against proceeding with the budget proposal to establish consumer credit controls. During the recent federal-provincial conference of finance ministers and provincial treasurers, further measures were announced that would have the effect of further easing the fiscal restraint of the federal government through increased payments of $300 million in the current year to provincial governments. On the monetary side, the lending rate of the Bank of Canada has been reduced from 8J to 7). per cent since the budget and there has been a decline in the level of interest rates generally, particularly for short-term securities.
In addition to providing a further moderate degree of stimulus to the economy as a whole, the government has formulated specific plans aimed at increasing student employment
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies during the summer months. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that most of the problem of increased unemployment in May arose from strikes in British Columbia and Quebec and from students entering the labour force.
On Thursday, June 11, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) reported to the House of Commons on the total government effort to provide summer jobs for students, a program which aims at providing 36,000 openings for students this summer at an estimated cost of $27.9 million. He announced a program aimed at employing 17,200 students this summer at a possible salary cost of $18.5 million. He also said that within two weeks his department would open 33 additional special offices to serve students. These, and the 40 already operating, will be manned by students.
The defence department is launching four job-creating projects: ground maintenance at bases across Canada, range clearance at Gagetown and Valcartier bases, opportunity to serve in the militia, and increased cadet training. This should employ about 10,500 students. Another 300 students could enrol in leadership courses, for which Canadian Red Cross Youth has been approached about assuming responsibility. These five projects will cost about $7.9 million.
The Secretary of State's department expects that about 1,800 additional applications wil be received for the student travel program. This department is also launching a project to teach French or English to some 1,000 students. With the help of the defence department, an effort will be made to establish drop-in centres in major cities to provide beds for students travelling throughout the country. The manpower department has also approached the Canadian Red Cross Youth to allow the department to provide funds to extend its educational projects to all provinces. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration also noted that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is providing leadership in encouraging its membership to provide additional openings for students.
Since the beginning of the year some tentative progress has been made in slowing down the rate of price increases. In May, the consumer price index declined by .1 per cent from the previous month, which is the first such decrease recorded for this month-to-month period since 1962. The two-year increase in the index of 3.8 per cent was the lowest in the past 15 months. Contrary to the contention of many critics both inside and

outside the House, Canada has made some significant strides in dealing with the problem of inflation. It may be noted that the decline in the rate of price increases in this country comes at a time when the rate of price increases appears to be accelerating or at least maintaining a high rate in a number of other countries, including the United States. This appears to challenge the often-heard argument that there is little Canada can do on its own to combat an inflationary problem that is world-wide.
This initial progress in reducing the inflationary rise in prices has to date not been matched by a comparable decline in cost pressures. The continuing sharp rise of wages and salaries, in particular, seriously threatens to undermine the progress we have made on the price side unless it is brought under control. Because of the existence of more moderate economic conditions, many employers are less able to absorb high wage and salary settlements through the process of increasing prices. They are being forced to become more resistant to continuing high union demands, which in turn have led to increasing industrial strife.
In its brief to the cabinet last March, the Canadian Labour Congress suggested that existing economic conditions would soon have "an appreciable dampening effect on the rate of wage increases" this year. Up to now, however, there has been no significant evidence of any slowdown in the rate of wage increases. As the House is aware, representatives of organized labour in Canada have repeatedly refused to play any part in the national effort to bring about cost and price restraint on a voluntary basis. This position was reiterated by Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, at its convention in Edmonton last month. "We shall not accept guidelines, not only because they are unfair and unworkable, but because they pose a threat to the very system of collective bargaining itself," Mr. MacDonald said. "So far as the Canadian Labour Congress is concerned, the trade unions will continue to bargain for wage increases which, in their opinion, represent the legitimate demands of their members."
e (9:00 p.m.)
Earlier this week the Congress again put itself on record as being flatly opposed to supporting the kind of wage and salary guidelines proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission to the federal-provincial
June 18, 1970	COMMONS
conference of finance ministers and treasurers, in Winnipeg. While Mr. MacDonald suggested that the government convene a national conference to discuss the general problem of inflation, the Canadian Labour Congress president once again did not suggest any alternative form of approach that might be considered in an effort to end the spiral of costs and prices. At a press conference he declined even to acknowledge that the recent rate of wage and salary increases contributed in any way to the inflationary pressures that continue to exist in the economy. Given that stance on the part of the CLC, it is difficult to conceive what constructive purpose would be served by a national conference which is now proposed, after having refused to join in a similar gathering proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission last fall.


David Orlikow: Tell us about the banks.


Edgar John Benson: As my colleague-


David Orlikow: Tell us about the 27 per cent increase in the profits of the banks.


Edgar John Benson: The banks made an agreement with the Prices and Incomes Commission. The Prices and Incomes Commission is now examining the activities of the banks in this regard, to see whether they have lived up to this agreement. At least it will be made public. We have some power in this Parliament to look at what the banks are doing.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question? Assuming that the Prices and Incomes Commission finds that the bank statements are correct, and that they had an increase in profits of 27.5 per cent over last year, can that be rolled back in order to stay within the guidelines?


Edgar John Benson: The banks have made an agreement with the Prices and Incomes Commission, which the hon. member could read if he so wanted. If the banks have not lived up to this agreement, I believe they deserve the censure of us all. The hon. member talks about a 27.5 per cent profit increase, without considering the assets involved, the shareholders' investment and the return to the shareholders. It is always easy to say that because business is making more money, labour should have more money. I agree that labour should have a fair return for its efforts and should share fairly in the profits or the net returns of a business. Hon. members of the NDP from time to time argue and pick 22478-361
DEBATES	8315
Government Administrative Policies out a figure without ever considering the return of investment to the ordinary person in Canada investing in that institution.
As my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), indicated to the House earlier this week, the government is more than anxious to see the development of conditions that will permit an expansion of the Canadian economy. I do not agree with the leader of the NDP that the government can spend its way out of inflation. It does not work that way, and the hon. member knows it. He is afraid to admit it. He advocated this afternoon that the government of Canada can get out of inflation by spending hundreds of millions of dollars. That will do nothing more than increase inflation. The leader of the NDP knows as well as I that the only source of those funds is an expansion of the banking system, which will create inflation in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister permit a question? Does the minister say the only way it is possible for the government to control inflation is to create artificial scarcity and unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. That is not what I said. I do not agree with that. I believe that when a country is fighting inflation, two steps must first be taken. These are the restrictions of fiscal and monetary controls. No country in the world, democratic, socialist or communist, has ever fought its way out of inflation through the use of price and wage controls alone. It is necessary to use fiscal and monetary measures first; then it is necessary to move to some sort of policy of trying to control cost increases.
We have continuously appealed to Canadian governments, business and the labour movement to be modest in their demands and not demand more from the economy than is coming to them from increased productivity. We got a reaction from the business side. The reaction from the labour side is in effect telling the government to go to blazes. They want all they can get out of the economy. They are not worried about the problems of the people who are unemployed or hurt by inflation, such as the poor and those on fixed incomes.
As my colleague the Minister of National Revenue indicated to the House earlier this week, the government is more than anxious to see the development of conditions that will permit an expansion of economic growth in
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies Canada. As he noted, it is at present giving a further significant stimulus to the economy. Before such measures can be implemented, however, it is essential to obtain concrete evidence of a slowdown in the rate of wage and salary increases, which is a prerequisite for a return to relative price stability. Were the government to take major steps to spur economic growth in the absence of such evidence, it would run the very real risk of adding more fuel to the inflationary fires, eventually making it necessary to resume the battle against inflation all over again.
The leader of the NDP suggested this afternoon that we could solve this problem by building indices into pensions and a great many other things in Canada, in order to offset inflation. I refer him to the experience in Brazil when they tried to do such things. The minister of finance of that country has become a hero because he has cut down inflation from 100 per cent a year to 20 per cent a year. We cannot stand that in Canada.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): May I ask the minister a question?


Edgar John Benson: Just a minute.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) rising on a point of order? The minister has the floor and should not be interrupted except on a point of order.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister is either deliberately or unconsciously trying to distort what I said this afternoon. I did not suggest the government should keep on issuing money to carry on a program against inflation. The minister is aware that I said that if a program of expansion to relieve unemployment was likely to cause inflation, the government should implement a comprehensive program of selective control in respect of all forms of income. The minister knows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The Standing Order makes it possible for the hon. member to speak a second time to correct a statement made by the minister, if he thinks he has been misquoted. The minister has the floor.


Edgar John Benson: If I did misinterpret the statement of the hon. member this afternoon, I sincerely apologize. I simply repeat that the

government cannot spend its way out of inflation; nor can price and wage controls, which the hon. member was really talking about this afternoon, control inflation per se. Price and wage restraint can be of help, whether it be done through controls or voluntary methods. It can be a help in the control of inflation. I challenge the hon. member to point out any country in the world where price and wage controls, without using fiscal and monetary policies as well, have ever controlled inflation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have to be selective and directive.


Edgar John Benson: Even if they are selective and directive they do not do the job if the other measures are not used as well. I challenge the hon. member to indicate any democratic country in the world where this has worked.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): The minister misunderstood me. I stated that the monetary and fiscal measures must be selective. We are not denying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that our monetary and fiscal measures have been selective.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, they have not.


Edgar John Benson: I think if the hon. member looks at the unemployment figures that have been produced he will see that the programs we have evolved aid areas which have not developed as fast as the rest of Canada, such as the Maritimes. The rate of increase in unemployment has not been as high in that area as in other areas. The exception is Quebec, where there were particular circumstances last month with regard to a great many strikes. Over 29,000 people were on strike which, as the hon. member knows, caused other people to be unemployed at the same time.
<* (9:10 p.m.)
I should like to stress that until organized labour is prepared to join with other sectors of the economy in the national effort now under way to bring inflation under control, it must accept a major share of responsibility for the economic conditions which now prevail and for the resulting increase in unemployment this year. As I emphasized in the
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies House on June 8, the federal government people who are supposedly working under remains determined to break the back of them. I would be glad to give the hon. mem-inflation.	ber evidence of this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: We are hopeful that the guidelines policy proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission, together with other policies, will enable us to achieve that goal. How quickly we achieve it and at what cost to the economy in terms of slow growth, of loss of income and of unemployment, in no small measure lies in the hands of organized labour to determine. In conclusion, I should like to add that we have used fiscal and monetary measures as much as I should like to see us use them. We should like to ease up fiscal and monetary measures, but we can only do so if we have co-operation and if people not only in labour but in government and business do not try to take more out of the economy than they are putting into it by way of increased productivity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a question if the minister is prepared to reply.


David Orlikow: The minister has been talking about guidelines and restraint on the part of the workers. I ask whether he has devised policies which would impose some restraint on salary increases of senior professional people, including government officials. I would point out that the salary of the minister's own deputy has increased by about 30 per cent in the last three years.


Edgar John Benson: As the hon. member knows very well, executive salaries follow the salaries granted to employees after collective bargaining. He knows this as well as I do. As those salaries increase, executive salaries increase proportionately. Until organized labour accepts reasonable settlements, we shall not find reasonable increases in executive and similar salaries. I would add that in the public service the salaries of executives, except at the highest level, are determined by collective bargaining and in very few cases has this question gone to arbitration. The fixing of salaries through collective bargaining agreements has determined the raises necessary for the top public servants who would otherwise be getting less than the


David Orlikow: Is it not true that the salaries of Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers have gone up by an average of 10 per cent or more in each of the last two or three years, which is more than the ordinary-


Edgar John Benson: I should be glad to talk to the hon. member and show him the evidence. The increases were the result of collective bargaining on behalf of senior officials directly below the Deputy Minister level. Their salaries have been squeezed much closer to the salaries of Deputy Ministers. I would be glad to illustrate this for the hon. member.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, if Canadians have any obsession, it appears to be over a national identity. The latest episode of this self-indulgence is in the CRTC ruling that more Canadian content is required in both the CBC and private networks. All the cliches since confederation have been dusted off and our new jingoistic nationalism about Canadian culture is once again to the fore. No one would deny that intelligent appraisal of Canadian culture and policies is wrong and much good may come out of a scrutiny of our entertainment. But any thinking person would question the wisdom of engineering Canadian culture by decree as a matter of national policy. The present CRTC ruling is an infringement of our right to see, read and hear what we choose, and thereby does more to damage than promote the development of the arts in Canada.
The CRTC has proposed that the CBC and private broadcasters serve the purpose of moulding national character. But surely the assertion that a distinct and excellent culture can be manufactured by reducing foreign competition on private national networks is wrong. If Canadian culture is to transcend mediocrity, it can only do so by meeting the challenge of free and open competition. There must be a free market of creativity; artists cannot flourish in servitude to a national policy. One of the most dangerous indications, as far as the survival of democracy is concerned, is the extent to which the CRTC is now dominating the industry and the extent to which the broadcasters are grovelling before its power. No one dares to speak up against this commission which has taken on all the trappings of a cultural bloody assizes.
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies
Currently, the CRTC is standing behind two sets of rulings which if implemented will shut Canadian viewers up in a tower of isolation. The CRTC has taken upon itself to regulate not only Canadian broadcasting as to Canadian content but to tell Canadians what they may and may not see and hear in broadcasting from abroad. The ruling shutting off cablevision from the United States is one which Dr. Goebbels in his most totalitarian frenzy could not have bettered. In Russia you are not allowed to watch or listen to foreign programs. In other countries behind the iron curtain you are not allowed to watch or listen to foreign programs. In Red China you are not allowed to watch or listen to foreign programs. In Canada, if this ruling goes through, you will not be allowed to watch or listen to foreign programs except those chosen for you and declared harmless by the CRTC and Dr. Juneau.
No one in Canada has the right to regulate what Canadians shall see or hear. I maintain any such ruling by the CRTC is unconstitutional and invalid, and is certainly an infringement on the Bill of Rights. If they can shut out foreign television programs via cablevision, they can shut out foreign newspapers and magazines and we will have taken a long step toward totalitarian thought-control in this country. I maintain the CRTC does not have this power. Parliament never intended it to have this power. Nowhere in the act are they given the power to prevent access by Canadians to broadcasting originating in other countries. If this is permitted, they can prohibit shortwave radio and even records produced in the United States. I am not a lawyer, but this kind of intellectual and cultural separatism is so much against our traditions and the spirit of our laws and constitution that I say with confidence it goes far beyond any power ever confided by Parliament to this board.
Telling people what they can view and what they can hear is in the same category as telling them what they can read and what they can say. We are dealing with the field of communications. If this board has the power to do this, then Parliament must immediately clip its wings. I am prepared to move a motion to the effect that the production of cablevision programs from the United States, while subject to the ordinary rules governing broadcasting, shall not be prohibited by order of the board. The board, in other words, shall not have the power to prevent cablevision transmission. If that is not enough, we can go further. I feel that cablevision should be sub-

ject to our rules, but surely the board cannot cut it off completely without reducing this country to a totalitarian state.
I come now to the closely allied question of Canadian content. I charge that the board's position is purely one of strategy. The board has no intention of enforcing a 40 per cent Canadian content ruling because they know, first of all, they cannot define Canadian content. Secondly, they could not enforce it if they could define it. Some 70 per cent of CBC television now is from the United States. If you take out the news and a few afternoon shows, most of which feature United States personalities stopping over in Toronto, and the deadly CBC panel shows, what is left is produced in the United States. If it were not, the CBC would be one vast expanse of dead air-and that might be an improvement. On the CBC during prime time on Sunday nights we have that great Canadian show "Ed Sullivan"; we have "I Love Lucy" in old re-runs; we have "Mission Impossible", "Disneyland" and dozens of others, each and every one an American production. Thank God for them!
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The board knows it cannot define Canadian content and that, I submit, is just a stick with which to beat the broadcasters. They are going to be pretty tame if they know at any time the board can step in and say, "Your Canadian content is down; we are going to close you up." How can they prove differently? Is "Bonanza" Canadian content? It has an hour of Lome Greene, who is a Canadian. Is the "Rich Little" show Canadian content? If not, why not? When Bob Goulet does a guest shot on the "Carol Burnett" show, is it Canadian content? Is "Tom Jones" Canadian content? He is a Welshman. If not, what about the "Pig 'n Whistle"? Do British entertainers count as Canadian in Toronto, and foreign in New York? What about Rene Levesque; is he Canadian content? These are some of the problems which make it impossible to define Canadian content.
When you have a show written by Peppiatt and Aylesworth, with Percy Faith's music, starring Rich Little and Bob Goulet with Lome Greene as guest star, produced in New York, how do you count that? Mr. Juneau used to have a prominent position in the National Film Board. That organization recently obtained large sums of money from Parliament on the pretext of making Canadian feature films. They went down to the United States and got Abbie Hoffman, one of
June 18. 1970	COMMONS
those charged with conspiracy to cause a riot in Chicago, and starred him in a film. Is that the idea of Canadian culture that the people of Canada are paying for? Is that what the CRTC has in mind? The utterly disgraceful situation is that money voted by this chamber to the National Film Board and the CBC has been squandered. Rather than producing Canadian culture, they have produced hydraheaded monstrosities, neither Canadian nor American and certainly not recognizable as culture of any description.
The best show on Canadian television today is on the French network, called "Moi et l'Autre". It is a very amusing comedy and a very Canadian production of which any Canadian can be proud. I say, then, that the Canadian content provision is simply a device whereby the CRTC hopes to tighten the screws on already grovelling Canadian broadcasters. If they do not toe the line, they will simply be told their culture content does not measure up. This is a purely totalitarian approach. It is the same approach used by Dr. Goebbels when he threatened people with the awful charge of non-Aryanism. Here we have non-Canadianism. Broadcasters will be threatened with an undefined, undefinable crime as a result of which their licence to broadcast can be arbitrarily removed. If necessary, this Parliament should take action completely to remove the power of the CRTC to ban cablevision in Canada and, secondly, to reduce the Canadian content requirement to the point where it becomes a useful and practical expression of nationalism and not a club to keep the broadcasters in line.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of May 28, 1970. It reads in part:
There is a danger of contrived Canadianism in the new climate of nationalism in which the CRTC, in common with some other government agencies and with half of the federal cabinet itself, is working. In broadcasting, this takes the form of images and impressions designed to suggest that the homely social and cultural realities of Canada are more different from those of the United States than they actually are.
It goes on:
The fact is that the CRTC is engaged in the business of trying to create something that broadcasting cannot create, namely a genuine sense of Canadian identity. Broadcasting can only reflect this sense to the degree that it freely exists in society.
And further:
The CRTC's obsession is summed up by the chairman, Pierre Juneau, who says the commission wants to "allow Canadians to see the world through the eyes of Canadians, not through someone else's
DEBATES	8319
Government Administrative Policies
eyes." What really matters, whether you are looking at social situations, international problems or Expo 70, is that you be given a clear and honest view, unmodified by nationality.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not think there has been such an antilabour bias in a government since the Winnipeg general strike of 50 years ago. It is a sad night to hear in this House of Commons the Minister of Consumer and Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who have always prided themselves on and paraded themselves as being friends of labour, make such a biased attack on labour in Canada. When the Minister of Finance says he is determined to break the back of inflation in this country, this should really be translated, in terms of its practical effect, into saying that he is determined to break the back of the working man in this country.
I listened with interest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his flight of fancy and his attack on the New Democratic Party in which he said it has frustrated the will of the government. For years the Liberal Party has been in large part living off the ideas generated in this party. At no time did they ever have the courtesy to give some credit to the work done and the advice offered by this party. Now they try to justify the failure of their policy by saying that our small group has frustrated that mighty Liberal party, with its majority, in trying to do something for the country. It was not this party that called for increased unemployment in this country; on the contrary, this party has consistently pointed out that the policies of the government would not work and that unemployment was not an answer. Now, belatedly, there is some faint hope that they also see it this way. Perhaps we should be flattered by the attention paid us tonight, but I am not flattered when it comes from the ignorance that exists on that side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come now.


Max Saltsman: Well, I would hardly call your views enlightened. The great Liberal Party, the defender of the marketplace, over and over again has turned to us on this side of the House and said we are interfering with that sacred unit called the marketplace and that we must not play around with it or interfere with it. This government says that prices have to settle themselves and that the struggle in the marketplace for the allocation
June 18, 1970

Government Administrative Policies
awards in our society is sacrosanct. They tell us they are not going to interfere in the marketplace or with the allocation of capital. That is not where they are going to interfere. They are going to interfere with labour. Labour is to be kept down. They decided not to interfere with the sacred marketplace. What is to be interfered with? None other than labour.
These are the people who parade themselves in this country as friends of the layman and labour. When the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs vents his ire against us for not being co-operative and for not accepting his policy of restraint, he displays a fairly short memory. After all, we sat as members of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place which was set up to study consumer prices. That committee was set up because of our insistence. We insisted on having such a committee, and reluctantly the suggestion was finally accepted by the government. Who has been calling for a prices review board so long as I have been here? Not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but the New Democratic Party. Who has been calling for disclosure? Not the Liberal party, but this party. Who has been calling for an office of consumer affairs? It was this party which called for it some time ago.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are trying to steal it from the CLC.


Max Saltsman: It certainly was not the Liberals. As a matter of fact, some day perhaps we will tell the story about how it was foisted on the Liberal party. Perhaps it was foisted on the minister as well, who was not very enchanted with the idea at the time.


Mr. Cafik:: Your halo is slipping. Pick it up.


Max Saltsman: I do not have a halo. I am far more interested in having the House examine the truth of these ideas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is just stripping off the masks of hypocrisy.


Max Saltsman: Both the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Finance criticized the NDP for being friends of labour. We are proud of that label. We are proud to be the friends of labour in this country, and at this time labour needs friends. Its only friends are to be found in this

corner. As I have said, this government has deliberately embarked on an anti-labour policy. The entire charade of the Prices and Incomes Commission has been to back labour into a corner until they could eventually point the finger at the organized workers in the country.
When we say we are the friends of labour, it is not to say that we do not recognize that there are things within the labour movement with which we do not always agree. It would be impossible to say that there is any group of people in this country with whom one can agree completely. But on the whole we think people will recall that the trade labour movement in this country has done a magnificent job of raising the sights and increasing the opportunities of our working men.
Where would we be without the labour movement in this country? I am glad to note that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marehand) has applauded this course. He is a man who has long been familiar with labour. I know all about cabinet solidarity and that you have to put a bold face forward with regard to any decisions taken by the government, but I wonder how he can sit there and see the kind of things that this government is doing to the country. It must be very painful for a man with his background and with his knowledge of the labour movement in this country.
I want to make it very clear that this party has consistently supported the idea of restraint in times of national need. We are not recent converts to this idea. But what we have said is that it must be based on at least three principles. First of all, it must be enforceable and it must be applicable to all. It is no good saying that business has made pledges, as if it had stood up at a rally and said, "I will give so much." That does not mean a thing. When the labour movement signs something, they put their name to a document and they are held to it for three years. What will business be kept to? Business may say, three months or six months from now," we are sorry, but we have decided we are not going along with this policy." Why should labour listen to this kind of policy? In what way has business given any kind of support to the idea of restraint that is legally enforceable? How can we have any confidence that this government, which has always been business oriented, will do anything to hurt its traditional friends? I do not think you can ask labour to accept that kind of pledge when they have to sign their name to a contract to which they are held.
June 18, 1970	COMMONS
Second, any policy of restraint must apply to every form of income. Despite the speeches we have heard tonight, there is no evidence that anything more than vague statements and vague hopes in the fields of rent, interest, dividends or the return of capital in general. The only real restraint that is being suggested is a restraint on labour. The other important principle is that the policy must leave room for correcting the imbalance in incomes. Six per cent for everyone is not the same for everyone. Six per cent to a man who is earning $4,000 a year is not very much, but 6 per cent to a man who is earning $40,000 or $75,000 a year is a great deal. Unlike the Liberal party, we are not prepared to freeze this country to the status quo. We say the present system is unfair to the working man. We are not prepared to apply the 6 per cent limit across the board for everyone, because to do that would be to perpetuate the inequity and rottenness against which we have fought all these years. It may be fine for those who have already made it, who have their privileges; it may be all right for them to say, "Freeze everything; nobody gets more than 6 per cent." But there will be no reform and no change, and the unfairness that has always existed will exist forever. We cannot accept that, and you cannot ask those who are now depressed and who are not now receiving their fair share to accept this kind of policy.
The other principle is that the policy has to be on a long-term basis. Inflation will not go away. It is something with which western society will have to live forever. Therefore, the kind of policies that are introduced must commend themselves to development and to fairness in the future, because if you bring in restraint that is not fair, that is not workable and that is not acceptable, the minute you take that restraint off you might as well not have put it on to begin with because we will be right back to where we started.
The trade union movement has clearly indicated to the government that it wants to sit down and talk with them, not to the Prices and Incomes Commission. We did not elect the Prices and Incomes Commission. The people of this country elected the government and they have the right to speak to that government. The government should not use a stalking horse like the Prices and Incomes Commission to do the unpleasant things for which they do not want to be held responsible, and then accept the credit when there is credit to be given. So far there has been no credit of that kind.
DEBATES	8321
Government Administrative Policies
The government has waffled and has backed off whenever they have been asked whether the Prices and Incomes Commission is speaking for the government. "Oh, no, "they say," the commission is independent." It is like the old song and dance they went through with the Bank of Canada. The trade union movement has a right to say they want to speak to the government that was elected by the people of Canada. If the government and the trade union movement sat down, a formula could be worked out, and co-operative methods, which would make a tremendous contribution to solving the problem of inflation. Furthermore, we have called for a committee of the House of Commons to look into this matter. Our request has not been granted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Max Saltsman: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Has the
hon. member for Matane a question for the member for Waterloo?


Pierre De Bané: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since time is flying, I wanted to ask the hon. member if he would be kind enough to make a shorter speech in order to allow other members to speak.


Max Saltsman: The hon. member has asked if I would leave some time for him. I will conclude my remarks, to give him an opportunity to make his comments before the vote is called. The government has to stop bleating like goats, or sheep, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) described them. They have to get down to being realistic and honest instead of this phoney show which they are putting on, this anti-labour approach that they have taken. Perhaps they think that labour is unpopular today and this is why they can take that position. It will turn out that labour is far stronger and that the public's sympathy for labour is far greater than they anticipate. This may be their Achilles heel: this sad policy may be the very thing that will bring them doton.
June 18, 1970
8322	COMMONS
Government Administrative Policies [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Pierre De Bané: First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who spoke before me for cutting short his remarks so as to enable me to say a few words.
In my opinion, the policy of the government is good because it is impossible to let inflation continue its pressure on the Canadian economy. But, however good it may be, I feel that it is still not enough.
Indeed, if inflation is defined as the increase of prices in time and if inflationary pressure must be stopped long before all resources are developed and full employment achieved, it is none the less true that when governments cut back their expenditures as early as 1968 and 1969, private investments were then running at near-record levels.
In my opinion, the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission is suggesting nothing but restrictions on wages and prices is a self-accommodating solution and consequently inadequate. The Prices and Incomes Commission must recommend price and wage control.
Indeed, as the great economist Kenneth Galbraith said, modern economy is characterized by multinational companies which control prices themselves, because competition is almost non-existent and financial independence almost complete. Moreover, the interest of those companies for investors depends more on their performance and their financial reserves than on the dividends they pay to their shareholders.
In an economy where the investments of a company come more from its reserves than from the savings of the people, the price asked includes not only production costs and dividends paid to shareholders, but also reserves for development and research, a decision reached by the companies alone. I think that in such circumstances, corporate autonomy in Canada is much too great.
I would therefore propose that the Prices and Incomes Commission put more emphasis in the future on efficient price control. I feel it is the only realistic solution to the problem of the erosion of the dollar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but pursuant to the order adopted by the House earlier today,
I have to put the question.

Pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings on the motion now before the House and forth-


with put every question necessary to dispose of the motions to concur in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, and the supply bill to be based thereon.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That vote 1, Department of Agriculture, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could now have from the Government House Leader the total amount of money that we are approving.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot ask this question now. The Standing Orders provide that the question has to be put and there can be no further debate. All those in favour-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether the question is put or not, surely when we are dealing with $13 billion or $14 billion we are entitled to know, when you put the question, the total amount of money involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 10, Communications and Post Office, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
June 18, 1970

Division


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -I would like to know the amount of money that this institution is approving, because the government has lost control of the purse strings of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I still think we should know the amount of money we are now approving.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to enter into debate with the hon. member. The rules are there. I did not make them. The rules provide that the motions have to be put. There is nothing I can do but put the motion. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 65, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.

Cantin
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corbin
Cote (Richelieu) Cote (Longueuil) Crossman Davis Deachman Deakon De Bane Dionne Douglas (Assiniboia) Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Drury
Ethier
Forest
Forget
Fortin
Francis
Gauthier
Gendron
Gibson
Gilbert
Gleave
Godin
Goode
Goyer
Groos
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guilbault
Honey
Hopkins
Howard (Skeena)
Isabelle
Jamieson
Kaplan
Kierans
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lachance
Laing (Vancouver South)
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Mahoney
Major
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-
Cariboo)
Mongrain
Noel
N.ystrom
Olson
Orlikow
Otto
Ouellet
Penner
Perrault
Peters
Pilon
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Rodrigue
Rose
Rowland
Roy (Laval)
Saltsman
Sharp
Skoberg
Smerchanski
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve)
Thomson
(Battleford-
Kindersley)
June 18. 1970

Tolmie
Trudel
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Wahn
Walker Watson Weatherhead Whelan Whiting-128.
Division


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
Aiken Alkenbrack Bell Bigg Coates Danforth Fairweather Forrestall Grills Hees Horner Howe
Knowles (Norfolk-
Haldimand)
Korchinski Lambert
(Edmonton West)
MacEwan Maclnnis (Cape
Breton-East
Richmond)
MacLean MacRae McCutcheon


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 15, Department of Manpower and Immigration, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, Department of Manpower and Immigration, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, Parliament, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, Privy Council, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, Treasury Board, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, Treasury Board, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, except those votes concurred in this day, and less amounts voted in interim; supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

June 18. 1970
Motion for Concurrence


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-224, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-224, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could we have a copy of the bill? I know a few have been distributed, but we are all Members of Parliament representing various constituencies. I cannot believe that I am the only one who is now being given a copy of the bill as a gift from the Minister of Finance, perhaps thereby putting this country into bankruptcy.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 3 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 4 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 5 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 6 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.
Clause 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, before the bill carries, would the spokesman for the government give the usual undertaking that the bill is in the standard form and that the schedule is exactly what has already been considered in committee?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I can give the usual assurance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I realize that I cannot debate a bill I have never read and that nobody else has read until now. I want to mention how superfluous these rules are because the purse strings have been taken out of Parliament. I hope the press will say how ridiculous this is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on one more point of order.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would wait until the bill is reported. I understood there was agreement to report the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say what I have to say before $13 million is frittered away.


An hon. Member:: It is more like $13 billion that is ultimately involved.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At 10.40 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Friday, June 19, 1970