1975-03-20

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the inability of the Canadian Post Office to solve its constant labour problems, decrease its huge annual deficit, or to even provide satisfactory service to the Canadian people, and in light of the fact that private parcel delivery services in both Canada and the United States show healthy profits while guaranteeing their service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House set up an all-party committee to study the feasibility of selling the entire post office equipment and operation to private business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion, being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the generalized use of credit cards has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of frauds, and since also in the final analysis, consumers have to foot the bill for this new type of fraud, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House instruct without debate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to carry out an investigation in order to determine the extent to which this practice increases inflation, and also the extent to which the exorbitant interest rates of banks contribute to inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who objected to a motion a while ago by identifying himself. He said no, and rose in his place, as required by the Standing Orders. I hope that other hon. members will follow this practice in the future.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-385, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).
He said: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that there are very deep and sincerely held differences of opinion on this matter, this bill would remove the subject of abortion

March 20, 1975
Oral Questions
from the Criminal Code thus making it a matter for those directly concerned and the medical profession and provincial health authorities. In addition, the bill gives effect to the principles outlined in recommendations 126 and 127 of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and is supportive of the views recently expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Prime Minister referred to a conference on the economy. I assume the Prime Minister was referring to the conference of first ministers to be held shortly after Easter. Could the Prime Minister give us the precise dates of that conference and indicate whether, generally, it will be a conference open to the public or generally a closed conference?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had answers to my letters from all the premiers on the subject of the dates, the agenda and the question of whether it should be an open or closed conference. Some answers are in the form of written letters and others were by telephone or telex. The general decision is to have the conference on the Wednesday and Thursday after Easter week. The dates are the ninth and tenth. The items will be, first, the oil and gas problem, pricing and so on, and the second will be the economy. The first day, by agreement of most of the first ministers concerned, likely will be an open conference. As to the second day it is likely to be closed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister requested that the subject of consensus which is being pursued by his government be on the agenda or is his government putting before the conference of first ministers a specific proposal incorporating a form of consensus to be considered by the conference of first ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the federal position will be made known at the time of the conference. It is a practice rather well respected that position papers generally are not made public in advance. If I remember the early practice, it was based on the desire not to try to encourage participants to harden their positions in advance on any one subject and to permit everyone to come to the conference with as open a mind as possible. In this sense we do not intend to publish any papers in advance, and the exact position taken by the federal government on these two items, of course, will be made known at the time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure the fact that the Prime Minister answered a slightly different question than I asked

him was purely accidental, not intentional. I did not ask the Prime Minister whether he intended to publish the position of the government before the conference met. I asked him whether the government was placing before the conference a specific proposal incorporating a form of consensus to be considered by the conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is the same and the answer would be the same. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me to say now what I will say at the conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I am not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is asking me whether I am going to put a certain position in front of the conference, and I ask him to wait and see.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the advice of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance yesterday that the rates at which the money incomes of various groups in Canadian society are now increasing are extraordinary, and his further statement that nothing would do more to improve the prospects for the Canadian economy than a rapid slackening in the tempo of this race for higher money incomes, would the minister indicate if, based on this concrete advice that highlights the urgency of the matter, he intends to take any concrete steps to ensure a decline in this race for higher money incomes through the issuing of at least interim guidelines for income increases that would apply until the consensus chats are over, as they appear to drone on and on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is this not the same abuse of the rules that we had once before when a supplementary question was asked which was not supplementary at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was watching carefully for a connection with the conference and noted that the hon. member was at least good enough to draw a tenuous connection in the last sentence of his question to the economic conference to which reference had been made. Had it not been for that, I would have made the same point that has just been raised by the hon. member.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada of course recognizes the same problem we have recognized for some time. This is the purpose of the consensus process, to try to evolve an understanding whereby various claims against the economy from various sectors can be moderated along the lines suggested by the Governor.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the further
March 20, 1975

statement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that there is in fact an open race going on among these income groups for larger increases in money incomes, and the race is occurring in a period in which no increase in average real income per capita is being achieved and none of the participants can gain except at the expense of others, and in view of the minister's continual failure to issue guidelines or to intervene officially to ensure that there will be more restraint in income demands,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the minister indicate if he has hesitated to act as he has been told by certain of these organized income groups to not interfere?


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


John Napier Turner: I have read that particular passage in the Governor's report.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him, in view of the statement last night by the minister that he is considering inviting bids from U.S. dredging companies as well as considering some form of public ownership, whether he can tell the House how far he has gone in his negotiations with U.S. firms and to what extent has the department examined the public ownership options?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no negotiations with any U.S. firms, and the advisability of the public ownership of certain operations, the pros and cons, is under continual review, not only in the dredging field but also in many others,


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary for the same minister. Has the minister calculated the loss in Canadian jobs if the dredging contract is let to United States firms as against keeping these jobs in Canada, under either a department of his ministry or under a Crown corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is one of the few things which tempts us to try to work out arrangements with certain existing Canadian firms, in spite of the difficulties in which they now find themselves.
Presence in Gallery


HOUSING
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. My question deals with the new $500 grant to purchasers of new homes.
Is the minister aware that 90 per cent of buyers of mobile homes cannot obtain the grant because they do not have five-year leases on their lots? If so, does he intend to take the necessary steps to make new owners eligible for that grant?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation with reference to mobile home owners. The basic reason we have set a five year land lease is to make certain that it is a permanent residence. I want to look at the nature of those land leases and also those people who move on a fairly regular basis due to the mobility of their jobs. This came up before the parliamentary committee, and the president of CMHC and I will be looking into this.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to study the contract specifically, because he will see that 90 per cent of owners have only one-year leases.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand that, and I will be looking at that contractual arrangement.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether he is concerned about the problems of farmers who leave their farms because they have become non-profitable for lack of income owing to our agricultural policy. Farmers who build a house for the first time are not entitled to the $500 grant because they were producers, they already had houses on their farms, and they own only one house now. Can the minister assure the House that he will look into the possibility of helping those farmers who leave their farms to settle in the cities and benefit from the $500 grant?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can look after these people in a very positive way through our Assisted Home Ownership Plan.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF GENERAL ALEXANDER M. HAIG JR., SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER IN EUROPE, AND MISS KAREN MAGNUSSEN
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the second round of questioning, may I take a moment to draw to the

March 20, 1975
Oral Questions
attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor. I refer to General Alexander M. Haig Jr. who has just recently assumed the position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If it can be taken as a good omen that the presence of the General in the gallery happens to coincide with an unofficial distinguished ambassador of good will on behalf of Canada, so be it. I refer of course to the happy presence beside the general of Miss Karen Magnussen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Here we go.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The rumbling among the rabble shows a very natural fear of my question.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The real domestic product declined in Canada at an annual rate during January of 23 per cent-a truly shocking decline- following a steady decrease during the previous nine months. In view of these figures, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has come to the realization that new industrial incentives must be introduced without further delay to restore the economy to a satisfactory pace and, if so, when will they be announced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the
usual way, at the usual time, Mr. Speaker, if they do happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I always wait until the applause dies down but I have a supplementary question. Judging by the quality of the Prime Minister's non-answer, is it not obvious that in the business of laying eggs the Minister of Agriculture has a serious competitor in the Prime Minister?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the case of Miss Debbie Dudgeon, a 21-year old Orangeville lady who

claims to have been held against her will by Ted Patrick who is also known as "Black Lightning" and who she claims attempted to deprogram her from her belief in Roman Catholicism. In view of the fact that Mr. Patrick is an American who is alleged to have been involved in four similar cases in southern Ontario, has the minister investigated this and if so, is he satisfied that Mr. Patrick's behaviour is acceptable to the government of Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing this to my attention. I will take the question as notice.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question. While the minister is investigating this would he undertake to report back to the House whether Mr. Patrick has been convicted of any crimes relating to this sort of behaviour in the United States before coming to Canada, and secondly, whether he had secured a working permit from the Canadian government which would allow him to receive money for his activity in Canada prior to his involvement in this Orangeville case?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice also.


PROPOSED PIPELINE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Canadian and United States energy officials are reported to have completed an agreement for the transportation of natural gas and oil through pipelines in each other's territories, can the minister elaborate for the House what main items have been agreed upon?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is not quite correct. No agreement has been reached. There have been two sets of negotiating meetings between representatives of the two countries with respect to a general pipeline treaty of the kind the Prime Minister referred to in his December, 1973 statement. In effect, the purpose of the treaty would be to guarantee the passage of hydrocarbons across each other's territory, moving from one country to the other.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In those discussions is consideration being given to a requirement that both countries comply to each other's standards with respect to ecology and environmental protection in these operations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, each country which is to be host to a pipeline would, of course, have to determine its own environmental standards for that particular pipeline. In other words, if there is a further expansion of the Interprovincial Pipeline through the U.S. that will be governed by the standards in the relevant states of the United States and the U.S. federal government. In that
March 20, 1975

sense, the treaty would not cover this. This is handled by domestic law. There is recognition, however, that the standards which might be imposed, whether by way of local taxation or other requirements, should on the whole, be mutual on either side. There should not be any exceptional charge disguised in any way for passage across the territory.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it is the intent of officials in both countries to include the proposed hook-ups to the Mackenzie pipeline in these agreements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the treaty would be one, if there is to be one, of general application and would not apply to any specific pipeline system. In Canadian terms, it would obviously secure our position with regard to the Interprovincial line and Lakeland pipelines, and also with regard to the Portland pipeline. In American terms, if there is to be a Mackenzie Valley pipeline which, of course, has not yet been determined, it would be governed, but there would be no specific reference in a treaty of general application.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE	.


ALLEGED DISQUALIFICATION OF RURAL RESIDENTS FROM BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since increasing numbers of Canadians every day have to use the services of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, since many areas in Canada are considered as rural, areas in which employment opportunities are limited, and since the commission seems to have adopted a policy for disqualifying people living in such areas from benefits made available by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is the minister aware of this problem; are his officials reviewing the policy; and is a degree of discretion applied in dealing with the people of the areas I mentioned.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the premise to the hon. member's question, wherein he implies that there is a policy to discriminate against people in rural areas, is wrong.


An hon. Member:: He's right on.


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member or any other hon. member has a specific case to bring to my attention, I will be glad to explore it and consider all the implications for the administration in that area. Otherwise, I do not see that the review the hon. member is calling for is required.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have brought specific problems to the minister's attention. The question is, is his department reviewing this very serious situation and will changes be made to this act, because it discriminates against a large segment of our population.
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are intended changes to the act. After the hon. member has had the opportunity to review them, perhaps he can make his case. In the meantime, I suggest that he has brought forward a genuine and I am sure honest matter of disagreement.


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the low priority accorded to housing by this government, as indicated by the capital spending budget of CMHC, and given this government's cut-back in funding to provincial governments for socially assisted housing programs, is the minister aware that this shift in federal housing policy is directly accountable for a shortfall of some 4,000 senior citizen units in Ontario alone and that this situation is duplicated in every province of Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously cannot be serious about the low priority the federal government gives housing, as there has been an increase in the noncapital budget of 92 per cent. The budget for housing has been increased, so that housing obviously has a very high priority. In addition, with the help of hon. members, Bill C-46 could pass after short debate. This would release perhaps $1 billion for housing. I would welcome the same degree of flexibility on the part of the province of Ontario as I have tried to show that government. I would certainly welcome some degree of flexibility on the part of the province of Ontario. If they are really spending as much as they say, perhaps we can combine our priorities so that we can build as many houses as are needed for senior citizens, low income Canadians and other Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I have a statement by the minister which says that the CMHC capital spending budget is to be increased 12 per cent this year. Ontario is increasing its spending by 50 per cent in this area. In the face of this major shift in federal housing policy-as indeed there has been-away from socially assisted housing to assistance for those in middle income groups, will the minister undertake to refer to committee the capital spending budget of CMHC so that there can be parliamentary investigation of this major shift in housing policy.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the question. Making available $175 million in loans for public housing is hardly a downgrading of responsibility. Certainly, the question of capital budgets will be open for discussion when estimates will be before the committee shortly. If the hon. member's representations are being made on behalf of the province of Ontario, I can only say they have a strange way of getting co-operation.

March 20, 1975
Oral Questions FINANCE


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TAX ON HYMN BOOKS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the vast majority of churches across Canada are maintained by voluntary public subscriptions of private individuals, and as the 7 per cent import duty on hymn books is creating hardship on already strained church budgets, will the minister consider withdrawing this tax, in the best interests of Canadians.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will want to look at that question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is it correct that the Snowbirds have refused an invitation to appear at the International Air Show at Hamilton. If so, can the Canadian Heritage Warplanes Association anticipate that since the forces of other countries, such as the United States, will be in attendance, that some Canadian Armed Froces participation is possible.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the Snowbirds would add greatly to any event. I will have to check their schedule to see if they will be able to attend.


MANPOWER
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As Canada Manpower will not allow farmers to hire foreign workers until after August 15, and as many farmers in southern Ontario are threatening to reduce or eliminate the production of several crops because they cannot get local help for the planting season, what new initiatives has the minister taken in order to alleviate this serious agricultural crisis?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the information conveyed to the hon. member is absolutely wrong. I have said many times that our priorities are to provide Canadians if Canadians are available and willing to take these jobs; that, failing that, and it sometimes happens, we have a formal program, which we introduced in the interest of farmers, with the West Indies and Mexico to bring in under contractual arrangements, formally arrived at, offshore seasonal workers in quantities which will not create any problems for them. Only after that are we prepared to open up individual arrangements with foreign workers. If

the farmers will co-operate with manpower offices in their areas or other areas of the country, they need not fear not having available people to work and harvest their crops.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, how possible is it for farmers in southern Ontario and other parts of Canada to import through Canada Manpower offshore workers during the short planting season-because that is what I am talking about. 1 am not talking about the harvest; I am talking about the two to four week planting season when farmers find it difficult to get local help. Even though local helpers may be registered with manpower offices, they will not work in the fields. Let me make a suggestion: why cannot such farmers bring in offshore help on a temporary basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether it is proper now to pursue a philosophical discussion about the approach which should be taken on this question. Perhaps the matter might best be settled privately between the hon. member and the minister.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he any progress to report about his discussions with the ministers of agriculture of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick concerning support for potato markets, or any diversion program, or whatever it is that he discussed with them.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we met with them yesterday evening and made four suggestions, three of which I believe they want to consider with their producers today in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and let us know if they are acceptable.


POTATOES-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF MARKETING STUDIES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continuing deterioriation in the market place of table stock potatoes from these two provinces, and in light of the minister's earlier remarks about marketing studies that have been done by his department, has he yet released these studies or made any recommendations to either of these two provinces with regard to this fundamental issue?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have had general discussions with the ministers of agriculture from both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Our findings have not been made public. We discussed the general content of what we should be doing about marketing. It appears they are both concerned about the way their product is being marketed and about whether they should be doing anything differently from
March 20, 1975

the way they are at present. They are very determined to do something now with regard to having a different kind of selling system. It would appear to be impractical to try to have anything different in force for this year. However, they are determined to have something in force for the coming crop year.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY-RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON FUTURE OF AGENCY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister in a position to advise whether at the conference that took place yesterday and today with his provincial counterparts there has been any consensus, unanimous or otherwise, regarding the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency? Also, will the minister at an early date advise the House as to the results of these discussions?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the general consensus was that the vast majority were determined to make sure that CEMA stays alive. They want the national egg marketing program to continue. A statement will be made later this day regarding the annual meeting of CEMA and the federal-provincial meeting of ministers concerning this and other problems.


ADMISSION OF FOREIGN STUDENTS TO MEDICAL SCHOOLS WHEN QUALIFIED CANADIANS DENIED ADMISSION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the urgency of this case as students are now being chosen for this fall's classes in medicine and the rising wrath of Canadians because their sons and daughters are being refused admittance to medical schools when qualified, while at the University of Toronto 26 per cent of this year's freshman class are not Canadian citizens, the cost per student being around $75,000, which is paid by the Canadian taxpayer, of which the federal government pays 50 per cent, I would like to know what the minister proposes to do about this.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly aware of the fact that universities are under provincial jurisdiction. If provincial governments disagree on that matter, it should be discussed, but as long as they consider that universities are under their jurisdiction, I do not intend to interfere in that field.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the minister that yesterday all three parties at Queen's Park agreed that something should be done about this, and the Ontario minister very definitely stated that if the federal government pays 50 per cent of the cost, it is their responsibility.
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would say this is a very nice way for the provincial government to wash its hands of the responsibility which is on its own doorstep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: If it wants the federal government to intervene in this field and take over universities, they should do it in a formal way. We can then have discussions in the constitutional field.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there is a medical manpower policy in this country and that the federal government controls it. I would further advise him that the federal government controls the taxing of the incomes of Canadians right across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member, at least as far as the first part of his statement is concerned.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that so far this year murders have increased by about 100 per cent over last year, and in view of the mass of public opinion in Canada, will the minister seriously consider bringing capital punishment back into this House for debate so that once and for all this House of Commons can decide whether or not there will be capital punishment in this country?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have had no information as yet with regard to the statistics for this year. I have no way of verifying the statistics the hon. member has given to the House. However, I should point out to him that before the end of 1977 the House will have to deal with the capital punishment issue. The hon. member will hear from the government on this matter in due course.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I phoned the Solicitor General's office this morning to ask for these statistics. His department not only does not have the statistics for this year, but for last year as well. How can we learn what the problem is if the minister's own department does not have up-to-date statistics?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If the hon. member knew anything about the criminal justice system, he would know we have to get the statistics from the provinces, police forces and municipalities across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions MANPOWER

March 20, 1975


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BECAUSE OF POSTAL STRIKE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Opportunities for Youth program. In light of the fact that many Opportunities for Youth area co-ordinators have encountered delays in receiving applications due to the postal strike, will the minister consider extending the deadline for regional approval of Opportunities for Youth projects in the affected areas?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will examine that question. I doubt very much if we could justify an extension of the deadline in view of the fact it would affect so many people. However, I will review the matter in light of the conditions about which the hon. member is concerned.


William C. Scott: In some central Ontario regions, applications postmarked before February 21 are still reaching area co-ordinators. Will the minister make some adjustment to ensure that there is sufficient time for all applications to be given full consideration?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if there is evidence of posting or some alternate way of sending in applications before the deadline date, they will not be prejudiced by late arrivals due to conditions over which the sponsors or applicants had no control.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of the Environment.
In view of the fact that the legislation pertaining to industrial and commercial buildings does not apply to mining, and that those companies are not subject to the environmental protection legislation, can the Minister tell us whether he will assume his responsibilities immediately by instructing his department's task force which is considering the matter to look immediately into the Thet-ford Mines problem and report as early as possible, at a specified date, since workers of this sector demand a real answer this time, and this is one of the points in dispute in their general strike started Tuesday?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, a task force is presently examining the problem of emanations from asbestos mines. We are presently establishing national standards or national objectives, the application of which will fall under provincial jurisdiction. As far as the Thetford Mines problem is concerned, I have had discussions on that matter with the Quebec minister of natural resources on Monday last when I met him in Montreal. I have offered him my cooperation as for the possibility of making avail-

able to him the expertise we have in the department in order to help him set standards which would be tolerable. For his part, he has ensured me that he had increased the number of inspectors which would be able to tell him whether the company complies with the provincial regulations.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Has the hon. provincial minister expressed the desire to cooperate with the federal department officials, given the fact that this problem has been pending since May 1949, following the strike in Asbestos and Thetford Mines? The same promise had been made then and, for the Minister's information, nothing more has been done since.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think that during the 1949 strike, questions of industrial health were involved. Today we are discussing effects which seem not to be tolerated by the environment and radiations which seem to have indirect effects on the health of individuals.
Both levels of government are aware of these new environmental problems, and that is why the federal government and the provinces have departments of the environment to deal with these matters.
We are now trying to use the existing legislation to grasp this problem and perhaps force the companies to change certain work conditions. However, I must say to hon. members that if the bill on substances that contaminate the environment was passed as soon as possible, some of the powers given to us by the act would help us deal with this problem more efficiently.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for immigration. In view of the need for more financial assistance in helping Vancouver school teachers teach the English language to immigrant children in order that they may have an equal opportunity for a good education, will the minister undertake to look into this matter with the minister of education of British Columbia, notwithstanding the fact that this provincial official has primary responsibility for this matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware that the number of children in primary and secondary schools whose first language is not English or French has increased as a result of immigration. My officials have met with a number of school boards, including that of Vancouver, to discuss the matter and explore ways and means of rectifying the situation. We work closely with and give financial assistance to, voluntary agencies, and this program is in the process of being enhanced and augmented. We are anxious to co-operate, but in the final analysis
March 20, 1975

education is a provincial responsibility and that primary consideration has to prevail, although I will probably be meeting with the minister of British Columbia within the next two or three weeks.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those concerning asbestos and is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister advise the House why she has not brought in regulations concerning asbestos under the Clean Air Act so we can have a national environmental standard to try to assist the problem at Thetford Mines?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the Clean Air Act does not give me the power to bring down a recommendation; this is the responsibility of the provinces. Under the Clean Air Act, I do not obtain the authority to tell a specific company to change its stack emissions. However, in co-operation with the different provinces we do consult and decide upon a certain order of priorities for looking at different sectors of industry where we think damage is greatest. We have done that consistently in about 10 or 12 cases. We are now looking into the asbestos question, and when we get together to regulate those standards the provinces, using their authority, will implement them.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House if she can confirm that the environmental protection agency of the United States has lodged a formal complaint with the government concerning ambient asbestos air that is blowing across the border into Maine, creating what appears to be a growing international incident? Secondly, if the minister would provide national standards under the Clean Air Act, we might have less of these kinds of protests from the United States.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the EPA has sent a protest to this country; however, it might be the case. Should the EPA send a protest, under our transboundary responsibilities I would indeed be able to intervene.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the few companies qualified for dredging operations are now quite busy with courts, considering
Oral Questions
also that essential works must be carried out each year and that tenders are absolutely necessary, I would like to ask the minister whether his department has decided to wait for completion of the investigation before asking those companies for new submissions or whether it has decided to use a new formula to perform those operations?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I do not
think, Mr. Speaker, that we have decided to halt all dredging operations in Canada till the investigation is over, because nobody knows how long it will last. One thing for sure, the department will undoubtedly be extremely careful before awarding a contract to one of the companies involved.



PROPOSED ERASURE OF PART OF DEBT OF CNR, AIR CANADA AND ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport involving an announcement of transport policy. It has been indicated that the government may erase $3.5 billion of debt not only of the CNR and Air Canada but also the St. Lawrence seaway, a matter I raised the other day. Can the minister advise whether the government is seriously considering cancelling these debts and when an announcement will be made in this regard?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in the over-all policy that we are trying to outline, and which does not come fast enough, this is one of the points we are looking into.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the ramifications and importance of such a decision, is it the intention of the minister to introduce legislation in the event he does approve the erasure of that debt? Is it his intention to bring in legislation relating to Air Canada and the other companies in order that the matter can be seriously delved into?


Jean Marchand: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister indicate when he intends to announce the new support price for industrial milk for the coming dairy year beginning on April 1?


Eugene Whelan: Soon, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions ENERGY

March 20, 1975
(1500)



PROPOSED TANKER ROUTE FOR ALASKAN OIL-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and goes back to the series of questions asked by the hon. member for Don Valley regarding the negotiations, conversations or whatever they were concerning a pipeline for gas and oil. I am wondering whether discussions are taking place in the context of an either/or proposition, or whether we are still faced with tanker routes and pipelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are two sets of discussions underway, one set leading to the conclusion of a general pipeline treaty and a second set on general energy questions, including the matter that is of such great interest to the hon. gentleman and other residents of Victoria and Vancouver, namely finding some alternative means of moving Alaskan oil into the northwest United States market other than by heavy tanker through Puget Sound. This question is being discussed but at the moment there is nothing fresh to report.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs perhaps my question should more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of a recent article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on March 13 to the effect that the Canadian Fertilizer Institute will not issue a detailed report justifying the rapid increases in fertilizer prices, some of which have doubled in the past two years, what action, if any, does the minister intend to take in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, some action has already been taken and has been underway for some time. Investigations are being conducted at the present time under the Combines Investigation Act in respect of fertilizer companies. We intend to table or make public the facts we have gathered through our programs concerning the state of fertilizer prices. Depending on the findings that result from our efforts concerning the prices of fertilizer we will consider what other action can be taken. If the legislation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were passed we could take some really definite action in respect of holding and rolling back prices.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his capacity as the minister responsible for national parks. In light of the fact that national parks were created for the preservation of our natural environment and for the use of people today as well as future generations, what justification does the minister's department have for increasing the fees by 500 per cent? Does this increase apply only to western parks?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the questions in reverse order, the fee changes apply to parks throughout Canada, with the exception of Prince Edward Island where we have a complicated problem in that we are in the process of acquiring additional buffer land around the park which would mean relocating the park gates. With that exception the fee changes apply to all Canada. Secondly, this is the first fee change we have had in 40 years, and it represents a very minimal part of our total park costs.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Wheat Board whether the basic principle in establishing the advisory committee that is to be elected in April is to give new thought and a firm voice to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of going through an election process in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee is to allow permit holders to have on the advisory committee the persons of their choice.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the position the hon. minister in charge of the Wheat Board has taken, but I think there is real concern in so far as names like A.M. Runciman, President of the United Grain Growers and-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he ought to put it forthwith.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people being put forward for the election to be held in two or three weeks who are not farming people but who are spending a tremendous amount of money on the election, and I am wondering if there is any regulation to make sure that the minister's stated principle is accomplished?
March 20,1975


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we carefully considered the question of eligibility before adopting the election procedure and, indeed, had Mr. George Turner examine the question. We decided that we should not at this stage try to limit the choice of those to be elected or to put limits on campaign spending because of the difficulty in controlling this. Of course, it is completely open to the hon. member or anyone else to also take part in the campaign in order to make his point to the farmers of his district.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader what interesting and useful proposals he has in respect of legislation for the House this week and next, in view of the fact that this party pushed the government into obtaining a settlement of the strike so that it will not have to legislate next week?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: What will we be doing next week?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that, as the government wished, it was not necessary for parliament to enact any legislation in view of the strike being settled by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. As for the business of the House, of course today is an allotted day. Tomorrow, it is the intention of the government to deal with a number of items that are at report stage or third reading, and I might list them.
The items include Bill C-13, the Northern Canada Power Commission bill; C-48, the amendments to the Railway Act; C-33, the export of cultural property bill, and there has also been discussion in respect of a couple of other items, particularly Bill C-25 dealing with environmental contaminants. This has been before the House on a number of occasions and I have had indications from members on the opposition side that they would like to see this approved because of the things that should be done under it immediately. Then, there is the report stage of Bill C-19 with an amendment that would have to be disposed of.
During what I would hope will be the remaining three days, depending on the progress we can make with our legislative package, I would put on the list the resumption of the debate on second reading of Bill C-8. We are hopeful that there will be a report on the housing legislation, and in view of the urgency of bringing that legislation into effect we would like to proceed to give third reading to that bill, provided by that time there has been a report. I understand that the Senate may also recommend some amendments to Bill C-29, and it may be possible that we can deal with that bill in order to bring that act before the Governor General for Royal Assent.
That is the account we would like to place before the House, and because it may be necessary to juggle the agenda a little bit in the remaining days I hope this will give some general guidance in respect of legislative items. It is also my intention on Monday to call for concurrence
Inflation
in the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in respect of House business between now and Wednesday, would the government House leader say on what day the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be making his statement on veterans' housing, and if that statement involves legislation when will we be dealing with it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with my colleague.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Privy Council regarding the business of the House.
The Minister of Environment has stated earlier that she was waiting for the House to pass Bill C-25 relating to substances that contaminate the environment. Our party agrees that it be given priority. However, it is the government, not the opposition, which decides the order of business. To elucidate this, would the President of the Privy Council agree to suggest an understanding so that Bill C-25 be given priority as early as tomorrow and so that Parliament settle this matter and pass the bill to protect workers in the Eastern Townships who are now suffering from asbestosis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I believe it is the general desire that this bill de disposed of, and I hope it can at least be put through second reading before we break for Easter.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this summer the cadet services of Canada will again have to deny females qualification for pay and allowances, and Bill C-16 could correct this very easily, I wonder whether the minister would indicate when that bill is coming before the House again and can it be treated as an emergency, or at least given higher priority?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is International Women's Year and we do not lack zeal in promoting this particular bill, but we thought it was of such importance it should have plenty of time for discussion. It would be my intention after Easter to provide an ample opportunity for all members of the House to express their views.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain) moved:: That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem and blames the government for ignoring the concrete pro-

March 20,1975
Inflation
posals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadian consumers, a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I have the privilege to move a non confidence motion the importance and acuteness of which could not be more timely. The present situation has become so critical that it is high time we woke up if we want to prove equal to the Canadian people's aspirations. Therefore, it is most appropriate to ask the House to deplore-
-the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem and that this House-
-ought to blame-
-the government for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadian consumers a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
Mr. Speaker, why is this motion being moved? Merely because one has to be blind not to see that all Canadians, and more particularly the underprivileged, are suffering from the ill effects of what is shockingly called inflation. For the average Canadian, rising prices are disastrous. We never had it so bad since the great depression of the thirties. The dollar is worth less than half its value barely 20 years ago. Basic items like bread, butter, milk and clothing, not to speak of housing, reached unbelievable levels compared to what they cost a few years ago.
We are going through a critical period; we are on the verge of a depression that could reach catastrophic proportions and challenge the stability of our Canadian society. Faced with that imminent danger, the government does nothing. Every minister, even the Prime Minister himself, looks paralyzed. They do not know what to do. Worse still, they admit it. They do not or will not understand inflation's real causes, and apparently they are not overly worried by its unescapable consequences. Creditistes put forward specific solutions to offset the disastrous impact of skyrocketing prices. These solutions may be our only hope of avoiding a resounding bankruptcy of our society and economy. In the last few years, inflation has been the number one economic problem facing the developed countries of the world. Inflation has been the subject of endless discussions, but few, if any, positive steps were taken to control it.
Certainly inflation should be controlled. Historically, periods of rapidly increasing prices have always brought about a growing political instability, often resulting in violent revolutions and other social upheavals. Inflation undermines personal security. Whenever people come to the point where they have to live by the year, by the month, by the day and even by the hour, fantastic repercussions ensue in any society.
But the government believes and would have us believe that nothing can be done to control inflation. They say this is an integral part of our economic system. It may be true, but in that case, we feel it is even more urgent to reform that system if it is an integral part of it. It is indeed too easy to hide constantly behind the fallacious pretext that inflation is an international or a world-wide problem and that nothing can be done about it. The government has so convincingly put forward that pretext that

even the man in the street explains all those problems by saying: "What do you want, nothing can be done, it is a world-wide phenomenon."
Already, Mr. Speaker, throughout the last electoral campaign, we heard the party now in power merely say: "Well, we are not to blame if all those things go wrong, it is a world-wide phenomenon."
Mr. Speaker, I will again repeat what I said on several occasions in this House: Nothing that goes on in the United States or elsewhere can prevent the cows from giving milk in Canada or the corrots and the trees from growing.
To avoid facing the real problems in this fashion, to mislead the people, to remain inactive in the face of the possibilities for finding real solutions, is totally unacceptable, and the House owes it to itself to prove it tonight when the vote is taken.
Mr. Speaker, we should go back to certain basic notions, which, while being elementary, constitute the very essence of a policy that could contain inflation and its disastrous effects.
Indeed, the government is sinking into scandal if not sacrilege when it tells the citizens that they must tighten their belts, do without essentials goods, pay outrageous prices for consumer goods, when we live in a country of abundance, where almost everything can be produced. I shall say it again: except for some tropical fruit, like oranges and bananas, what do we lack in Canada? We even have lemons sitting across the way from us! In order to obtain the products and all the consumer goods we need, we just have to ask ourselves the following question: have we got the potential and the physical ability to produce such and such a thing? If so, why not simply do it? This is the question. I say again, under which right can the United States, and the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa prevent our soil from producing all the food we need? Why, Mr. Speaker, do we see not Canadian consumers buy butter from Australia or from New Zealand? Under which right can all the other countries object to our developing our primary resources for the benefit of all Canadians? Why does the government hide behind fallacious pretexts? Once again, inflation is an international problem, it is a world problem.
Mr. Speaker, the longer the problem of inflation lasts, the more complex the underlying factors are becoming. What has been called the psychology of inflation is developing: the fatalist belief that the improvement of such a situation is beyond man's capacities and that the individual cannot do anything except learn to live with the ever increasing cost of living. Adjustments along that line, as we know them, such as interest rates, salaries and pensions indexing, are only contributing to fuel inflation. The very few measures taken by the government to deal with it have proved so inefficient that it is discouraging.
Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that any action is of no use, but it rather suggests that it is not tackling the core of the problem inflation is connected with prices and these represent a monetary measure. It therefore seems to me logical to say that to understand inflation, we must first of all understand the nature of prices and money. A great
March 20, 1975

many people and the government entertain funny ideas about this; their conception of money is very vague. For instance, they often feel that money is automatically created by economic activity. This is far from being true. For example, the owner of a cattle herd is not in fact creating its financial value. We are convinced that a great many of them would be willing to testify in this connection. In fact, the production of goods and that of money are the results of two quite different processes.
Money is a banker's creation. In Canada, the Bank of Canada exerts total control over the money supply. It controls the reserves held in chartered banks. Because of these reserves, chartered banks can issue financial credits which are used by the people in the community. Considering that they put in circulation as financial credits something like 16 times the amount of money they hold in reserve, these institutions play a determinant part in deciding the conditions under which the community will obtain its purchasing power.
If the community can obtain financial credits, it is in part because it will eventually reimburse these credits with interests. Because they must reimburse both capital and interests, people end up paying for products a lot more than the original price. Just as a family may have to pay in interests as much as three times its purchasing price before it can call it its own, likewise governments generally pay for public works three or four times what they are worth, not to mention certain dredging of navigable waters.
So, high interest rates are a direct cause of high prices. If interest rates were reduced to reflect the administrative cost of a loan, it is evident that the current tendency towards higher prices would be considerably curtailed. Moreover, if the chartered banks refuse to issue credits at reasonable interest rates, nothing prevents the Bank of Canada from taking their place. Its main responsibility is to administer the money supply in the best interests of the Canadian population. Inflation is directly opposed to these interests. It can therefore be said that the Bank of Canada has the responsibility to remove this obvious cause of price increases.
We can therefore see, Mr. Speaker, how the present monetary system is responsible for inflation, at least as concerns interest rates. However, it is also responsible for inflation at a level which does not necessarily concern the question of interest rates. When we realize this, when we think about the real causes of the present economic situation, we are already on the way to finding a solution. In other words, we come back to the true logic, which is only common sense, of organizing an economic policy based on something which, even though it is elementary, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is still most logical. When Canadians are told that they cannot get such or such a product because of inflation, that they cannot buy even food products because the prices are too high, it is a scandal and a sacrilege in a country as large as ours, as wealthy and as full of all kinds of riches, to have to tighten our belts and put up with inflation. If the suggestions of the Social Credit party were accepted, this phenomenon simply could not exist since, if all our activities and the whole economic administration were concentrated on this common sense equation between production and
Inflation
consumption, prices would never be too high since all consumers would have sufficient purchasing power to buy the products. When these products become too expensive for one reason or another, you simply have to use-and this is one part of the motion that we are studying today- compensated prices so that the consumer may still obtain essential consumer goods.
When we analyze the costs of production which go into present prices, we see how the system is upside down and how it could be put right side up.
Let us suppose, for instance, that a company decides to build a new plant, what happens? To finance the project, it gets a bank loan to buy building materials and hire workers. When the workers start receiving wages, the loan money, which at first represented an increase in the money supply when it was given to the company by the bank, is now being transferred to the employees.
Now, let us suppose that there was a balance between the prices of available products and the money held by consumers before the plant was started. This balance is now being destroyed. The wages of the workers who are building the plant, wages which are generally spent on receipt, form a surplus of money in relation to the commodities and products available. In conformity with the principle of supply and demand, merchants realize that they can get more for their products and raise their prices to take advantage of the situation. Workers had more money in their hands, but they do not get any profit from it, since that money is immediately taken from them because of the higher prices of products they could have got anyway. This explains why inflation accompanies the expansion of industry and public works in the present economic system. This also shows the uselessness of government measures to fight inflation by increasing production.
Mr. Speaker, a choice must be made. The problem is not caused so much by excessive profits by employees or employers. In fact, that is only the present operation of the monetary system currently in use.
Consequently, the choice that must be made by such industrialized countries as Canada is the following: they can simply continue to use the present system going in turn from economic crisis, recessions, to overgrowth, while extreme situations become increasingly tragic with time, or they can change their monetary system to issue new credits that will go directly into the hands of consumers without also being registered in prices. This will also have the effect of avoiding those credits being prematurely snatched from the population at arbitrarily inflated prices.
It is indeed strange to see that no country has yet turned to the other alternative though it contains obvious and impressive advantages. Not only would it eliminate obvious defects in the monetary system and the price system currently in use but it would also have the effect of promoting increased independence and security for all members of society.
Why, Mr. Speaker, could Canada not be the one to show leadership in the world? It so happens there is another scandal in Canada. In a country whose resources have barely begun to be tapped, a rate of unemployment of 5, 10,

March 20, 1975
Inflation
15, or 20 per cent is maintained in some areas. Is that not a scandal, Mr. Speaker?
Why tolerate such things when the solutions are there? If we have the raw materials, the technology, the manpower needed, what is stopping us from accomplishing anything? If it is only a financing matter, what is stopping us from issuing our own credits which would be required for the developments which would prove adequate?
Mr. Speaker, when the motion stipulates that we blame the government, I do not think that it can be said that we are doing petty politics, that we are once again putting forward the Social Credit remedies, that we are always putting forward the same solution, that is the Bank of Canada, the "money press". Mr. Speaker, we have collected evidence that this government, owing foremost to its stability secured by its recent majority, is playing politics.
Recently we had occasion to find out how our good friends opposite, specially those from Quebec, are inconsistent with themselves and how in their parliamentary work they only play politics. Mr. Speaker, I saw-


An hon. Member:: We are here.


An hon. Member:: We are here regularly.


René Matte: Wait a minute, you will soon know what it is all about. An article published today in Le Devoir was entitled:
Quebec caucus convince Whelan to restore milk subsidy.
Here is the first paragraph:
The Quebec federal Liberal caucus decided yesterday to support the milk processors' demands that the Trudeau government increase the support price from $10.02 to $11.60 per hundredweight of milk delivered to the plant.
Mr. Speaker, last Monday in the House I moved the following motion under Standing Order 43, and I quote:
Considering the precarious situation of Quebec industrial milk producers and the absolute necessity of that industry, and in view of the decreasing number of producers and the present difficulty to have adequate relief, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House unanimously recommend to the Minister of Agriculture to seriously consider the request of Quebec milk producers to get a minimum price of $11.60 per hundredweight of industrial milk.
It is the same thing, Mr. Speaker. What happened? Of course, I was there, and I presented the motion. A great many "nos" were heard from Quebec Liberal members not to have the motion presented. The same day, those hon. members met a FPU delegation and told them they would ask the minister to apply that measure. Mr. Speaker, if that is not playing politics, it is childish indecency. I think it is time-


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


René Matte: I think it is time people realize that a majority government abuses its powers and makes fun of people. When you tell farmers that you are going to ask the minister to grant you this or that, and when in the House instead of saying yes when it is time you say no, you are just making fun of people. I think it is a totally illogical attitude.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Drummond on a question of privilege.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member opposite blaming Quebec Liberal members for objecting last Monday to a motion put forward under Standing Order 43 about dairy producers and their claims.
I agree that his remarks respecting the needs of dairy producers are justified, but what I cannot accept is the unfair way in which he blames Quebec Liberal members, since that very day we were meeting with representatives of the APU. As far as I am concerned, I was having discussions with 400 dairy producers in my constituency, and in the evening I met with provincial representatives of the APU. Considering the circumstances, I think it is unfair to blame Quebec Liberal members for their lack of interest-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member for Drummond that although the point he is making may be interesting, according to the proceedings of the House, he raised a question of debate, so he just should take part in the debate later and possibly controvert the arguments of the hon. member.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we have other examples. A few weeks ago, my colleague the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) put forward a motion to provide for a compensated discount, precisely with respect to milk. At that time, for some reason, probably through an oversight of our good friends opposite, the motion was allowed by Your Honour, and the vote was called for. Then at last we could see those who did not want a real discount to be passed on to the consumers.
Milk producers should be here in this house. They should have been here last Monday. I presented a motion and I heard again some "non". They were not "nos". Thus, the "non" were from Quebec members. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without wishing to make any political criticism, it seems obvious that members do not unfortunately take their responsibility seriously. How can one say "oui" outside the House and "non" inside? I hope the Minister of Agriculture will finally show some logic in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the time allotted to me has almost expired. I should like to conclude by saying that the motion we presented is important and that it deserves the attention of the House. Our party may not be composed of many members but we do not have any reserved rights either on our solutions and we are ready to cooperate with this government to enable it to apply them. One wishes that one would not hear any more during election campaigns, as I heard in my constituency, the following words: "We take everything that is good in the Social Credit Party and apply it." We know that whenever we make proposals in this House, members seem to disregard them, make them look ridiculous and fail to realize that we are serious and want to contribute to the well-being of all Canadians.
March 20, 1975


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) would enter this debate on behalf of the government, but infortunately he had a prior engagement that he could not break so he asked me to make a contribution.
The motion put forward by the Social Credit Party seems to me to be a rather strange one. Let me elaborate on what I think are certain peculiar characteristics of the motion. The motion condemns the government for inaction in the fight against inflation. There may be some in the House who would take this point of view, and I am sure that from the other side of the House those particular sentiments will be echoed a number of times before the end of the day.
I should like to recall to the House that when the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) spoke in the debate on the motion of the New Democratic Party on March 13, he contended that the more the government fought against inflation, the worse it became. As reported at page 4077 of Hansard he said:
I could almost ask the Minister of Finance to cease fighting, since the more he fights, the worse things turn out.
In today's motion the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) deplores what he considers to be the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation. That is one of the least peculiar aspects of the motion. It is far more notable for the manner in which it dismisses reality through its denial of inflation as an international problem. I would point out to the House the terms of the motion which reads:
That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem-
Virtually every developing and developed country in the world is suffering from the effects of sharply increased costs and prices. Surely there would be general agreement on this fact even from my hon. friends in the Social Credit Party. As of January the average year-over-year increase in consumer prices in all 24 member countries of the OECD-which comprises the most developed countries of the world-amounted to 13'/i per cent. For the OECD countries in Europe-that is, excluding Canada, the United States and Japan-the percentage average was 14.3 per cent. Over the same period the increase in Canada was 12.1 per cent. I think it should be admitted in any discussion of the problem of inflation that it has at least some international aspects.
The International Monetary Fund, which is a considerable authority in this field, declared in its 1974 report that in mid-1974 the world economy was in the throes of virulent and widespread inflation. In its Economic Outlook of December, 1974, the OECD pointed out that member countries were suffering from the after-effects of the excessive demand that they allowed to build up in 1973 and from the external shock of the sudden and sharp rise of oil prices. This is some external evidence that it is not a fallacious pretext by the government that inflation is an international problem.
Inflation
Let me quote from the annual report for 1974 of the governor of the Bank of Canada which was tabled in the House only yesterday. This is the latest report of the Bank of Canada. The governor pointed out that common forces have been making their impact felt on the economies of all countries around the world. He said:
The origin of these common forces was the recent worldwide inflationary boom, a boom generated by the highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies followed in virtually all of the major industrial countries in an effort to restore high levels of output and employment following the economic slowdown in 1970.
So we have evidence that this is not a fallacious pretext; there is in fact an international inflationary situation. We can talk about the extent to which it has influenced events in Canada, but it exists as a fact and it is not fallacious. The governor pointed out that this upsurge in economic growth caused global demand to outrun the global supply of primary commodities. He said:
At the same time it created all sorts of other shortages and extremely tight labour markets ... In these circumstances price increases grew larger, more frequent and more general... The inflationary process was substantially reinforced by shortfalls in supplies of food grains and animal feeds, and later by a fourfold rise in the world price of oil.
These are facts, not fallacious arguments. This is not drawing particular facts out of the situation. What exists is a worldwide inflationary situation, and to dismiss it as a fallacious pretext is to deny the obvious. As one of the world's major trading nations and one of the important participants in world capital markets, there is simply no way that Canada could totally insulate itself from adverse developments abroad, certainly not from a worldwide inflationary movement. Our economy has in the past benefited substantially from these trade and financial ties with the rest of the world, but we have no other choice than to face the consequences that flow from these ties when the whole world is in trouble. To suggest that somehow we can at such times withdraw, untouched, behind the walls of a fortress Canada is absurd, even ludicrous.
It is true, as the Minister of Finance pointed out in a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on January 27, 1975, that the nature of the inflationary problem is changing in a fundamental way. I do not think anybody, particularly on this side of the House, would deny that the nature of the inflationary forces at work in Canada have changed, but it is one thing to say that and another to deny that international inflationary forces have had an effect upon Canada. The Minister of Finance said then, as I have also had the opportunity of saying from time to time, that initially the forces of inflation were set in motion internationally by the worldwide boom that caused demand for many commodities to outrun available supply, compounded by the quadrupling of world oil prices.
In his speech on January 27 the minister said that the major driving force is coming from the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs as those who work in every country press for increased incomes to at least keep pace with the rising cost of living. In its Economic Outlook for December, 1974, to which I referred earlier, the OECD came to a similar conclusion. The report states that earlier in the year the rise in oil and other commodity prices played the main part in generating inflation but now it is the rise in

March 20, 1975
Inflation
wages which is maintaining the inflation at much the same high rate.
The substantial increase in wage and salary costs in virtually every country is clearly a response to the sharp increase in the cost of living that began to develop because of international inflationary pressures. This development is neither surprising nor exceptional; we have seen it before and we are seeing it now. No one wants to see his standard of living eroded by inflation-not even members of parliament, let me add. It is fully to be expected that all Canadians, including members of parliament, will want to obtain a sufficient increase in income to at least keep pace with rising costs. As a government, we understand and support that ambition; we have done it with deeds, not just with words. We have done more than virtually any other country in the world in attempting to get to the root of the inflation problem while at the same time attempting to maintain reasonable economic growth and helping to offset the adverse effects of inflation on Canadians, particularly those on low and moderate incomes.
Let me give some examples. We have done this by adopting a deliberate policy of encouraging increases in productive capacity and output to combat inflation and expand employment; through tax cuts and other incentives to encourage expansion in business capital investment in manufacturing and processing; through measures to maintain and expand housing constructions, stabilize farm income and encourage expanded agricultural production.
We have tried to maintain a reasonably accommodating monetary policy that has tried to avoid the kind of credit crunch experienced in the United States. We have tried to avoid crippling wage and price controls, and in that had the support of the Canadian people. We adopted a strongly expansionary budget in November to offset economic drag caused by continuing stagnation abroad, by providing stimulus through tax cuts rather than through increased expenditures in order to avoid the adverse impact of inflation. We have adopted in the past few years more wide-ranging measures than virtually any other country to offset the adverse effect of inflation on Canadians, particularly those on low and moderate incomes.
We have adopted policies to maintain incomes, particularly the incomes of those hardest hit. We have indexed fully family allowances and old age pensions. We have indexed personal income tax and adopted policies to offset the erosion in the value of savings and measures to encourage additional savings. I cite as examples the $1,000 reduction for dividend and interest income as provided in the last budget, plus similar deductions for income from private pension plans and the $1,000 tax-free deduction for certain forms of contributions.
Let me repeat what I said earlier. I do not think any country in the world has been as effective as we have in introducing wide-ranging measures to deal with inflation in such a way as to minimize the effect on employment. This government was absolutely determined that it would not try to fight inflation by creating unemployment. We have taken whatever measures we can to assist employment. I think the test as to how much better we have

handled these problems than our great neighbour to the south lies in this fact: whereas in former years we always reckoned that our rate of unemployment would be slightly higher than that of the United States, today it is substantially less in percentage terms.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are not through it yet.


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says, we are not through it yet. That is why this government has never attempted to create false hopes: we have been realistic. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the other day when answering a question that he was cautiously optimistic. That is the right attitude in these circumstances. Our attitude should not be one of doom and gloom but one of cautious optimism, because I think there are grounds for optimism. But we do not want to give the impression there are no problems; there are serious problems.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us about the consensus.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will. Before I finish my remarks I may have an opportunity to say something about it.


George Harris Hees: We will give you extra time if you want to talk about the consensus.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you. The measures I have outlined, which were reinforced in the November budget, not only help to offset the impact of inflation but provide a strong underpinning of the economy and help to offset the impact of slow growth abroad. That slow growth is a fact; it cannot be overlooked. There is a recession in the United States, and the rate of growth in Europe is practically nil; it has flattened. We cannot change that fact but must do everything we can to offset what is happening in our markets abroad.
The success of the measures I mentioned just now is reflected in the fact that real disposable income per capita, after direct taxes and discounting inflation, was up 3.3 per cent in Canada in 1974. That compares to a decline in the United States of 3.4 per cent. In other words, personal disposable income per capita in Canada, after discounting inflation, rose 3.3 per cent but in the United States it declined by 3.4 per cent. That is a measure of the success of what we have done in our far-ranging attack on inflation.


George Harris Hees: Don't break your wrist trying to pat yourself on the back.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is concerned about the danger that arises from the possibility that some groups in our economy may attempt to do very much better than keep pace with the cost of living by pressing, by way of insurance, for increases in income from whatever source that go far beyond any reasonable expectation about prospective inflation rates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You mean people like dredgers.


Mitchell William Sharp: We believe that if such efforts are made on a large scale and are successful, they will have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is the nature of the problem with which we are trying to cope. The consultations
March 20,1975

which have taken place with various economic groups in the country were for the purpose of trying to avoid this very danger. We embarked on a series of discussions with various groups in our country in order to seek accord on national goals for steadily reducing the rate of inflation. We wanted to discuss with them practical and acceptable means for achieving these objectives. This particular effort, I believe, is going through the concluding phases of the first stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The twilight of the gods!


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope that in the near future there will be an announcement about the beginning of the second stage, which I think will do much to bring about the co-operation without which the problems I alluded to cannot be successfully attacked. Some, like the official opposition, think we should impose wage and price controls. Cithers take the view that somehow the government will come forward with a scheme of guidelines without the co-operation of unions or employees. This view has been discredited by the government and, fortunately, by the people as well.


George Harris Hees: Think of John Young.


Mitchell William Sharp: Let me turn, now, to another aspect of the motion. It calls on the House to blame the government-
-for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadians consumers a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
We on this side of the House will be waiting with considerable interest to learn-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but he will require an extension in order to complete his point. The problem is in the hands of hon. members. Is there consent to allow the minister to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We will give the minister any amount of time if he will tell us about the consensus.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been endeavouring to explain a concept that the opposition finds impossible to comprehend, probably because they have a one-track mind. They say the only way to control inflation in this country is to proceed by way of wage and price controls, notwithstanding the fact that this was rejected in the last election. They do not understand any other approach. They believe this is the panacea. We reject it, and we do not intend to follow it. We are looking for much more constructive ways to deal with the problem. I am sure the result will be a continuation of the successful efforts that have been made in this country to deal with this problem. As I have said, it is a record that compares favourably with any other country, and it is certainly very much better than that of the United States, Europe or Japan.
I shall conclude these remarks by dealing with the second part of this motion.
Inflation


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the end
of the beginning.


Mitchell William Sharp: When we listen to the speech of the spokesman for the official opposition I hope we will learn whether the official opposition is going to support the proposition that there should be extensive subsidies to the consumer, at great public expense.
I listened to the spokesman for the official opposition when dealing with the question of inflation. At one time he talked about the necessity of restraining public expenditures, and another time about reducing taxes. On February 16, the Leader of the Opposition talked about these problems. He said that even talk about injecting further stimulus into the economy scares the life out of him. I wonder whether, when he said that, he was thinking about the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who talks about a big tax cut as a means of stimulating the economy. This is why I will be very interested in hearing the official opposition deal with these contradictions in their position.
As far as the government is concerned, we do not think that the direction proposed in the motion of the Social Credit Party, of paying massive consumer subsidies, is the way to deal with the problem. From time to time we have used subsidies and we may again in the future. However, in our view, to inject massive subsidies of this kind would simply stimulate inflation and would not be a protection against it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the words of the motion, "That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem ..." I listened with interest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). I expected a little more elaboration from the government as to what, in fact, they intend to do to correct the two most severe problems in the country-inflation on the one hand and rising unemployment on the other.
The government has tended to give no guidance to the country to help individual Canadians respond properly in today's confused economic climate. They simply rely on a touch and feel type of approach to the economy. I can only gather that they themselves do not know what to do at the present time. The President of the Privy Council tended to take great credit for the past and indicated the government had taken constructive measures to relieve inflation and, presumably, create employment. He was non-committal as to what, if anything, the government feels should be done in the future in order to counteract the two problems to which I have referred.
It is time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) clarified, for the people of Canada, whether he believes his November 18 budget is all that is required to offset unemployment on one hand and relieve inflation on the other. So far we have had no indication from the Minister of Finance as to his final conclusion. He tells us he is looking at the international scene-the situation in the United States, Europe and Japan. He wants to see how his budget will react in Canada. In the meantime, he will not give any commitment as to where he believes the economy is going to turn and, generally speaking, whether any new meas-

March 20, 1975
Inflation
ures are required on the part of the government to counteract the two problems to which I have referred.
This government have lost their way so badly that today they are unwilling to give any indication of what they anticipate will be the unemployment rate during 1975. They will not indicate what the real growth in the country is going to be, nor will they even forecast the inflation rate. We cannot get any type of evidence as to how many housing starts there will be. Why should they feel they can govern in such a vacuum when the governments of every other western industrialized country come clean with their people, tell them what they forecast for the economy in the ensuing year and what their fiscal and monetary stances are to ensure that those forecasts will be met? I point this out because it is particularly significant that the banks and other credible advisory services have predicted what will transpire in Canada. Because of this government's habit of keeping things secret-presumably because they do not want to disclose their ignorance- these economists are required to make their forecasts without the benefit of a federal government forecast as to what will transpire in this country.
I refer to the fact that Wood Gundy made a 1975 forecast. Canadian Pacific Limited, Du Pont of Canada, the Royal Bank of Canada, W. A. Beckett Associates, Burns Brothers and Denton, Royal Trust, Brault, Guy, O'Brien, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, MacMillan Bloe-del, Richardson Securities of Canada, and McLeod, Young, Weir and Company all made forecasts as to what they anticipate will be the economic facts of life in 1975. But not our leaders, the federal government. The Conference Board of Canada made forecasts, as did a University of Toronto group headed by Messrs. Jump and Wilson. Could it be that the reason the federal government has not made forecasts is that they feel the forecasts they would make would be so alarming to the Canadian public that they would cause undue pessimism?
I ask that question because it is interesting to note that in the forecasts I have referred to, the best real growth increase forecast by anyone to date is 2.5 per cent in 1975. There are economists who predict a real growth rate this year of zero per cent. Those who have been willing to put their names on the line are forecasting that Canada's real growth rate in the current year will be between zero per cent and 2.5 per cent. Bear in mind that 2.5 per cent, with our population increase, means that on a per capita basis there is really zero growth in this country. If in fact we do have zero growth in aggregate terms, then with our population increase we will have negative real growth on a per capita basis.
Some economists predict that inflation this year will be no lower than 8.5 per cent and it could go as high as 10.5 per cent. These economists point out that the average unemployment rate in the country will be a minimum 6.6 per cent, though some predict it could go as high as 7.7 per cent. Surely the government owes it to the Canadian people to tell them what it sees in the current economic climate for Canada.
The University of Toronto Economic Outlook for 1975 to which I have referred makes a very interesting forecast

both before the effects of the November 18 budget and after. For the President of the Privy Council to mislead the House in the way he has concerning the economic effect of the government's budget is unforgiveable. This forecast of the University of Toronto was supplied to the government. In fact, the forecast is run off on the very computer used by the Department of Finance.
The University of Toronto makes it clear that inflation, for example, is estimated to be 10.67 per cent in 1975, that the net change in the inflation rate from what it would have been without the November budget is 0.18 per cent. In other words, less than one-fifth of 1 per cent is the net effect on inflation of the government's current budget. This is why we support that part of the resolution of the Social Credit Party deploring the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem. The University of Toronto forecast shows that this government, through its budgetary measures to date, has done virtually nothing to lessen inflation in this country.
Yesterday the governor of the Bank of Canada made it clear that the suggestion that somehow or other international forces are causing inflation in Canada is not correct. At page 5 of the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance, for 1974, the following is stated:
Up to the present the rapid pace of increase in the price level in Canada has continued largely unabated, although the forces propelling it have changed substantially. Prices in Canada are no longer subject to the influence of sharply rising international commodity prices nor, apart from a few exceptions, to the upward pull of excessive foreign and domestic demand on industries already producing to the limits of their capacity.
Unless the government wishes to disagree with the governor of the Bank of Canada, surely it should accept that this old, lame excuse that it can do nothing about inflation in Canada because it is an international phenomenon is not valid today. The truth is that some hard economic situations face us in the future. We have an unemployment rate that is unacceptable; we have an inflation rate that is unacceptable. We believe it is time the government stopped its consensus chats which seem to be droning on and on. It is encouraging to hear the President of the Privy Council say that he thinks the phase they are in now is going to stop and they will shift into a new phase. But judging from past experience we may find that the government is systematically using rhetoric instead of action to get itself through a difficult period.
I should like to put on the record certain other facts to be found in the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada. At page 7 the following appears:
From early 1973 to the late summer of 1974 the monetary policy followed in Canada was directed at offering increasingly strong resistance to the excessively rapid growth of aggregate spending that was then occurring. Although the total quantity of goods and services that the Canadian economy is physically capable of producing cannot be expected to increase by much more than about 5 per cent annually, the rate of increase of national expenditure in money terms reached a peak of about 20 per cent a year as recently as late 1973 and early 1974. The longer such a high rate of growth of aggregate spending continued, the longer a high rate of inflation of the general price level would have been inevitable.
In plain, everyday language, Mr. Speaker, what the governor is pointing out is that the monetary and fiscal
March 20, 1975

stance adopted in Canada to date has been excessive. He points out that this country cannot realistically grow in real terms by more than about 5 per cent per year. The simple fact is that if you expand the system through your fiscal and monetary policy to, say, 20 per cent a year, the excess over the 5 per cent level ends up as inflation. If the President of the Privy Council had been completely forthright today, he would have admitted that, for whatever reason the government saw fit-political expediency, I suggest-it simply overheated the economy in order to get re-elected on July 8, 1974, thus causing much of the inflation hangover we are now experiencing in 1975.
I note that the President of the Privy Council is shifting the blame, if you like, for the current inflationary pressures on the economy to those who are asking for higher income settlements. Surely this is a strange twist. The government does virtually nothing to counteract inflation, then when those who wish to re-establish their income levels to compensate for inflation take action, the government condemns them. We suggest, as we did today in a question to the Minister of Finance, that it would be in order for the government to bring some light into the arena by issuing some interim guidelines while these very long and dull consensus chats are taking place. This would allow all sectors of our economy to understand what the government feels are suitable income levels as far as increases are concerned in today's economic context. Surely the government owes that to those who are negotiating at the present time.
The governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated the urgency of this matter, the dire consequences that will occur and how self-defeating this process will be if it is allowed to continue. However, we get nothing from the government but double-talk in the form of suggestions that talks are going on at the consensus conferences and decisions will be made at the appropriate time. The appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, is today.
Rather than having the President of the Privy Council here, we should have the Minister of Finance using this day to present a new budget that would deal with the problems now facing this country. If the Minister of Finance is not available, then perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should have been here to explain exactly where he feels the economy is going and what measures he intends to take, through his Minister of Finance, to ensure that inflation in Canada will be brought down to an acceptable level, with the unemployment picture dramatically improved from its present and forecast levels.
In dealing with this particular subject I should also touch on the remainder of the motion put forward by the Social Credit Party. It states that they not only deplore the inaction of the government in respect of inflation, putting the blame in effect on the international problem, but they also blame the government for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating unjustified increases in the cost of living, and particularly the proposition of according all Canadian consumers a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
The Social Credit members, certainly those who moved and seconded this motion, owe it to members of the House
Inflation
to clarify what concrete proposals are referred to. They should also make it clear, before we vote on this motion at 9.45 this evening, what they have in mind when they refer to a proposition that would accord all Canadian consumers a compensated price on all Canadian food produce. Surely before we vote on this motion it would be in order to have a clear explanation as to what is Social Credit doctrine. Frankly, I do not know what it is and I hope between now and 9.45 we will have an in-depth explanation of what the mover and the seconder of the motion, and in fact the Social Credit party itself, have in mind in respect of the latter part of their motion. Is it what the President of the Privy Council indicates-some type of subsidization program for farmers or food producers?
Let me reiterate our belief that there is room for a tax cut at the present time in the Canadian fiscal position. We have made it clear that we believe there should be a tax cut of some $500 million. This would mean a cut of between $60 and $150 for most Canadian taxpayers. We also believe the sales tax that now exists on building products should be completely eliminated, and that the interest paid by homeowners above 8 per cent on their mortgages should be a chargeable item against income before taxes. We believe these would be worth-while measures that would tend to stimulate the economy while at the same time not being inflationary in their net effect.
I reiterate that this government has allowed expenditures to rise excessively. We are most disturbed when the Minister of Finance is so candid as to state at a committee hearing that he believes political expediency must dominate economic responsibility. The fact is that we are facing inflationary and unemployment problems today because this government has been irresponsible in its fiscal and monetary stance over the last few years.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, one of the joys I look forward to is the possibility of the Conservative Party forming the government in Canada and watching them bring in a budget that will simultaneously fight inflation and stimulate the economy. There are some able people in the Conservative Party but it seems to me, given the idea of a Conservative government, it would take something just short of a miracle to accomplish this. I am not suggesting that it cannot be done. The way to do this-I hope my hon. friends to the right will note this and perhaps do it if they form a government-is to have a massive redistribution of income from those at the top to those at the bottom. Then you could deal with unemployment, stimulate the economy and control inflation. What is called for is a sharply graduated income tax. As I say, that is a joy I look forward to some day-seeing how my friends to the right will work that out.


An hon. Member:: Stick around.


Max Saltsman: I have at least three more years to stick around. It seems to me that on the subject of inflation there is a total absence of frankness by people who raise the issue. My original notes contained the word "ignorance", but I decided against using that word as I do not think the people who talk about inflation are ignorant. However, I do think they are being less than frank with the public when discussing the problem.

March 20, 1975
Inflation
When listening to discussions on the subject of inflation one would think all people are suffering equally, when in fact we know that some people have benefited substantially from inflation while others have suffered very badly. What we are really looking at is a massive redistribution of income from one group of people to another group. Any government that seriously wants to deal with this problem must do one of two things: it either has to find a way of preventing these shifts in income from taking place in the first place, or compensate for the shifts in income to help those who are being disadvantaged by inflation.
In looking at the motion before us I find there is only one thing I can agree with, and then only partially; that is that inflation is not an international problem. There is a lot of truth to that claim, particularly as it relates to Canada. If we are talking about other parts of the world, I think inflation is almost totally an international problem and I think of countries like Britain and Japan. When we are talking about Canada, the international aspect is only a minor part of the cause of inflation here. I should like to discuss my particular reasons for saying that, but let me first deal with a couple of arguments that are inevitably put forward.
Some people like to describe inflation as the excessive printing of money. Many talk about inflation as though it is caused by having too much money in circulation and if we only stopped the printing presses inflation would go away. That is not so. What these people are doing is confusing the cause with the effect. When you have inflation, the people responsible for monetary policy are forced to issue more money in order to enable the normal transactions to take place.
If you have a 12 per cent rate of inflation, it is obvious that your money supply must increase by at least 12 per cent; that is, if you do not have any growth at all. You must have that kind of increase in the money supply. I see that in today's newspaper there is a statement by a very distinguished Canadian academic, Mr. John Crispo, who contends that the problem is runaway government and not runaway inflation; in other words, all the fault lies with the government. I think the government has to answer for much of this problem, but it really is not correct to be simplistic and say that it is all the fault of the government. I presume Mr. Crispo raises no objection when his salary at the university is increased. When he is compensated for the cost of inflation, he probably receives more than the old age pensioner receives over the period of a year. So it is quite easy for him to make that charge against the government.
It seems to me that the causes of inflation over the last number of years are quite clear. Half of the inflation with which we are dealing has been caused by increases in the price of food. I say this very bluntly because it seems everybody beats around the bush whenever they talk about the cause of inflation. Somehow or other one particular group-I refer to the farmers-is never involved in the cause of inflation. They want to ignore the facts. It is the price of food which always starts the spiral, and it always has been that way. We could go back to the corn law. Why did the enlightened British government of that day want cheap corn? It was so that wages could be

lowered. When the price of corn went up, wages had to go up in order to compensate.
When the price of food goes up, everything else must go up with it. People say that is an international problem. Even with the fact that Canada is a major exporter of food, it is still an international problem because the price of food goes up internationally and we have to follow suit. So to that extent it is an international problem. But if in fact we had wanted-I am not suggesting we should have done this-to control the price of food, it could have been done. Some people might say, let us compensate for it; let us make payments to the consumers as a way of keeping the price of food down. What difference does it make whether it comes out in the price one pays at the store or in the form of taxes to pay the subsidy; the net effect is still inflationary.
There may be very good reasons why the price of food has increased. My own view is that the price of food over the years has been too low to provide a decent return to the farmer and in fact an adjustment was necessary. However, I am afraid it did not stop at that adjustment. We know the reason the price of food has gone up internationally: the world population is exploding; there are more mouths to feed and there is finite land on which to grow food to feed them. Also, there has been a drought. These are all understandable reasons, but let us state them. Let us be blunt and straightforward about what is causing inflation, because before we can deal with the problem we must make a complete analysis of it to understand what it is. So I suppose the government and the farmers might argue that this is an international phenomenon, that food prices went up internationally and this is why we are paying more for food. The fact is that prices did not have to go up in this country had we wanted it otherwise. They did not go up in this country as much as they did internationally, because of the two-price system on wheat.
Let us take another main cause of inflation, the price of energy. One could say that is an international phenomenon. The Arab countries formed a cartel and raised the price of oil 400 per cent. The cost of production did not go up in Canada, but the province of Alberta wanted the price to go up by 400 per cent. I do not see my friends to the right, who are so concerned about inflation, criticizing the province of Alberta for being such a major contributor to inflation. Admittedly, arrangements were made so that Alberta did not take the full price, and we are very grateful for that. I am not saying this to point the finger at Alberta or at the farmer; I am saying it merely to point out that everyone is guilty and everyone contributes to inflation.
Everybody takes a holier than thou attitude. Everybody pokes the finger at the other guy and says the worker is responsible for this situation, the farmer is responsible for it and Alberta is responsible for it, when in fact everybody is playing the same game. Until we all stop playing that game we must compensate those who are hurt because of the consequences of inflation. This is really the only point I am attempting to make. In fact, Canada has done better than other countries in the fight against inflation-for two main reasons. The first is that the farmers have been prepared to take lower than world prices for some commodities, and the oil producing provinces of Canada have
March 20, 1975

agreed to take less than they could have received on the international market.
In fact, there has been more than a gesture from both those areas of our economy as a contribution in the fight against inflation. However, it is not the case that the farmer and Alberta wanted to do this voluntarily, because the minute the international price went up they said they wanted that price. But I am sure they would both disown their contribution to inflation.
There is another factor over which I do not think we have much control. I refer to the rising price of services generally, not government services alone but every kind of service being performed in our society. These are areas, essentially, in which productivity cannot be increased. These are areas in which the people look around and see vast increases in other sectors of the economy, and their efforts to catch up have an inflationary effect. This is something we will have to live with. Of course, the imports which come into Canada represent something else we must live with. But to say that inflation is caused internationally is only to say that because you have the power in the country, you want whatever you can get under whatever circumstances you can get it.
Now let us look at some of the winners and losers. It is true that some farmers have done well in the last number of years, but other have done very badly. Many beef producers are on the verge of bankruptcy. Why? Because the price of grain has risen and their other prices have gone up. Beef is still higher than it has been for a long time, but the price of grain is going up even higher. So even within one group, whether it is the farmers or a province, you have the winners and the losers and you have disproportionate benefits going to one as against the other. Alberta is a very fortunate province. It is still the only province in Canada that does not have a sales tax.


An hon. Member:: It has a good government.


Max Saltsman: Yes, it has a very good government. It created its own oil: you know, it waved a magic wand over land which did not have oil, and all of a sudden there was oil. Maybe the Social Credit Party could do that, but I do not know whether the Conservative Party is capable of such miracles. A government can be very good if it is lucky. There are other Conservative governments that are not doing as well. The point I am trying to make is that Alberta is a fortunate province, and I am glad about that.
If you have a period in which the price of oil is rising very sharply and the price of natural gas is rising very sharply, while the province is siphoning off the bulk of the revenue for itself, the people in that province will benefit and the people in the other provinces will not benefit to quite the same extent. So you have a massive redistribution and shift of income just as you have a shift of income between the western world and the OPEC countries-a tremendous shift of income: the kind of moneys flowing into the OPEC countries are almost beyond counting. We have this kind of a transfer going on. Of course, the OPEC countries will say this is only just, and that it is long overdue because the western nations have been exploiting them and they are just getting back what they are really entitled to. I do not want to deal with that argument
Inflation
today, except to ask hon. members to recognize the kind of shifts that are taking place.
Right now labour is being pointed to as contributing to inflation. What we quickly forget is that over the last three or four years business profits have increased at a phenomenal rate at a time when labour has not been keeping up with its share of inflation. If labour now tries to recoup for the increase in the price of food, the increase in the price of energy and for the fact that the firms for which they work are more profitable, should it come as any great surprise? Some sectors of labour are guilty just as the other elements of our economy are guilty. Some sectors of labour which have strong bargaining power are also taking advantage of the situation. Therefore I will not exonerate any one group.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) suggested that we should incorporate in our tax system a provision for the deducting of interest payments on mortgages-this in a tax system that already favours home owners as against those who pay rent. This suggestion comes from an hon. member who is concerned about fairness. How fair is that? In many cities of Canada, 50 per cent of the population do not own homes; they pay rent. Is he going to provide that advantage to those fortunate enough to own a home, and will he compound the advantage they already have by giving them advantages under the tax system? I do not see how he is going to fight inflation in that way, as in many ways the person who owns property benefits during a period of inflation because the property is appreciating continuously. Why should further benefits from the tax system be added to that benefit?
Let us consider the people who are disadvantaged. These are the people who are living on government transfer payments. It is not enough simply to say we will give them an increment to compensate for increases in the cost of living. If the cost of living has gone up by 12 per cent, should we give an old age pensioner only 12 per cent? What are we talking about? It amounts to only about $150 or $160 a year: that is all a 12 per cent increase means. What does it mean to a member of parliament, at the existing salary? It amounts to over $2,000. So if you apply a 12 per cent cost of living increase across the hoard, the cost of living increase for a member of parliament is more than all the income a pensioner has with his pension and the increment. What kind of fairness is that?
I think what we should be doing is finding a more suitable index that we can use to assist those who are on fixed incomes or transfer payments from the government. There are two ways of doing that. One way is to make a determination of what increases accrue to the average family during a period of inflation; it might be $300 or $400 a year, in which case-if you are going to give a cost of living increase-it means a $300 or $400 demogrant for everyone, for those at the bottom and those at the top. That would be more just then a percentage increase.
Another way is to apply an industrial index because the real standard of living in the industrial sector is rising faster than the actual cost of living. If you are living in a society where that is happening, that society has an obli-
4336

March 20, 1975
Inflation
gation to its old people and to those on transfer payments to ensure that at least they keep up with what is happening in other sectors of the economy. The third thing that we could do is increase taxes steeply beyond a certain point so that those who get substantial benefits from their bargaining power will at least pay some of it back to provide transfer payments for those who do not have the bargaining power.
Those are some of the things we can do. However, we can only do them if we face the situation realistically instead of pointing the finger and saying that the government is guilty or one or another sector of the population is guilty, when in fact the whole of society has become grossly unfair, particularly to those living on fixed incomes and transfer payments.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion proposed today in this House by my hon. friend and colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem and blames the government for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadian Consumers, a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
This is, Mr. Speaker, a motion that we have long been wishing to propose in this House.
I wish to thank particularly my colleague for having proposed this motion in this House. It was proposed mostly because Canada continues to suffer from a noticeably higher inflation rate and also because of the many inefficient measures that the government continues to introduce to check that terrible plague called inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I seriously think that, the situation requiring immediate action from the government, the only position possible for a member of parliament must be to look for solutions openly, without any spites or partisanship in the shortest time possible. And the problem we have to resolve is very important and not easy to deal with. The problem is now more acute as a result of the constant increase in the cost of living. This government does not offer any valid solution to fight price increases. The measures proposed by this government are absolutely inadequate if we consider the present state of our economy. Everybody knows that inflation consists of an economic situation where prices are rising and that the situation has never been so dramatic in Canada since the big economic crisis of the 30's. Besides, a look at statistics reveals that since 1933 the consumer price index decreased only twice, in 1939 and 1953. We learn that consumer prices have been climbing steadily for the last 20 years and that our dollar is now worth only half what it was merely 20 years ago. What is even more significant and disquieting, prices are increasing ever more rapidly, since the prices of the necessities of life have skyrocketed. Furthermore statistics show that in 1974 the price of bread increased by 28 cents, sugar increased by more than 123 per cent and finally the price of potatoes also went up. It is easily seen that necessities of life reached unbelievable levels, compared to what they cost a few years ago.

It can be seen how much small-wage earners are burdened by inflation, because price increases are especially felt at the consumer level. Nobody escapes it, but unfortunately people in lower income groups are hardest hit. Most of their income is used for buying food, because they must eat every day as we do.
We all know that inflation has been the most urgent economic problem facing developed countries of the world during these last few years. Indeed, no nation escapes it. It is a well known fact that inflation has been the subject of endless talks. But in the final analysis, no real measure was taken to control it. Governments are looking for and trying all sorts of ways to cure their economies. But after a while, every measure proves less and less effective, and inflation is always there. Governments and government economists realize full well their efforts and their austerity measures will not abate it.
Canada is not the only country hit by inflation, but we feel the crunch nonetheless. Since 1972, the rate of inflation has been on the increase. Sales prices in the manufacturing industry rose nearly 35 per cent during the last two years, as compared to 27.4 per cent in the 11-year period from 1961 to 1972. Wholesale price statistics indicate the corresponding increases were 33 per cent and 49 per cent respectively. So inflation is not abating, far from that, it underwent rapid acceleration, considering that since World War II, the cost of living has never soared that fast during a 12-month period. As a matter of fact, the rise in the cost of living was the highest since 1948, namely 12 per cent. The aggregate index of the cost of living increased by
1.1	per cent last November, to a level 12 per cent higher than that of November 1973. If I am not mistaken, the last time the cost of living increased more rapidly was between October 1947 and October 1948. During this period, after the removal of price controls imposed during the war, a rise of 12.2 per cent had been recorded.
According to Statistics Canada, during the last 12 months, grocery bills have increased by 15.7 per cent and the price of meals in restaurants, by 18 per cent.
We are living through very difficult and critical times. We are even on the threshold of an economic depression which could reach catastrophic proportions and challenge the very stability of the society in which we live. In the face of that, what does the government do? Not a thing. The ministers are quite content with saying that the disease is an international phenomenon, that we must bear with it patiently. In truth, they do not know what to do, they do not understand the real causes of inflation and, in any event, they do not seem to be any more concerned about its inevitable consequences.
The inflation we are cursed with is, to a large extent, the result of past errors of Canadian monetary and fiscal authorities. Those errors will be repeated again if we do not put a stop to it all. The government will not be able to destroy the healthy virus of soaring prices until such time as it takes the trouble of pulling out of a financial system that does not truly correspond to the facts of production and consumption.
March 20,1975

To meet increasing prices, the purchasing power must also be increased without, however, lowering prices. More money must first be distributed to the consumers.
Now, it is realized that the system only distributes money for participation in production, such as the payment of salaries to employees or dividends to shareholders. So all this money is included in prices.
The accounting of the current monetary system is actually wrong. Only an honest accounting would bring inflation under control without interfering with the legitimate interests of the people. Madam Speaker, an honest and realistic monetary accounting would allow the implementation of the financial theories which economics engineer C. H. Douglas put forward half a century ago and which are known today as Social Credit. If such accounting methods had been adopted, I am sure that the resulting reform would have spared the Canadian people quite a number of changes.
The very price increases show how faulty the present system is. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, if the financial system was truly realistic, there would be no inflationary trends, but on the contrary, prices would drop steadily, while technological advance and updated methods would both increase and facilitate production.
No doubt we all know that the essential function of a healthy economic system is above all to supply and deliver goods to meet the normal needs, either private or public, of its people.
May I call it five o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is no private members' hour today.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: If the system fulfils this function, then, where does inflation enter the scene? Where is inflation when facts govern the financial situation? In fact, the objective of the Social Credit is precisely to create a financial system supple enough to adjust itself to reality, a system which could be geared to every development within the economy to any degree of mechanization or automation, a financial system of service rather than of hindrance or domination. The relations between inflation and unemployment have been for several years one of the most controversial issues of the financial analysis. Besides, we now have in Canada a rate of unemployment that is much too high as well as a shortage of consumer goods. In addition, we find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was right when he predicted last fall that there would be a higher rate of unemployment in the coming months as well as a drop in production before the end of the year. As time goes by, it is realized that the more the government fights unemployment, poverty and inflation, the more serious those problems become. I really think it is time the government found other solutions and sought the causes of the excessive rate of unemployment, of the fast increasing rate of inflation and of all resulting problems. That situation has become unbearable, since with the current inflation rate, it has become almost impossible to save today, because inflation deprives us of any revenue that might accrue from our savings.
Inflation
It is apparent that we are heading for disaster. It is time, Madam Speaker, for the federal government to take the necessary steps to provide every Canadian with the required purchasing power to honour Canadian production, which would result in increased demand. The present government have a simple and well known way of avoiding their responsibilities and duties, and forgetting present problems. Judging from the way they act, one realizes that they are unable to consider the present objectively, they just live in the past or a dream. Government members talk, discuss future problems without worrying about those which need to be solved now. Meanwhile, problems keep piling up and becoming worse, since those responsible for their solutions are more and more caught up in the machine of habit or conditioning. And yet, the present cannot be managed just as it used to be by our predecessors.
We, in the Social Credit Party of Canada, have been urging for years precise solutions to counteract the disastrous impact of inflation. We are convinced that those solutions are our only hope of avoiding a dramatic bankruptcy of our economy. In fact, one of those solutions would be the implementation of a minimum guaranteed income enabling every Canadian to live decently within the capacities of Canadian production. We from the Social Credit Party will gladly implement such measures, because families need proper revenues. In fact, we have had the answer for many years. We seriously believed that the government had understood on February 18 last, when the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) announced, in a press release read at the welfare ministers' federal-provincial conference, his plans to introduce a guaranteed income system, as well as employment incentive measures.
Finally, the main objective of this program is to offer to the workers higher incomes than those of the unemployed, with public support. This program, which applies only if people have no job, has really nothing in common with the Social Credit program which advocates paying a guaranteed annual income to everyone, whatever their employment and salary.
In the final analysis, this government's program makes a real mockery of what should be a guaranteed income paid to everyone without discrimination. This system, which is more complex than current social welfare programs, will be more expensive that the present system and will simply be adapted to the old social assistance and welfare programs. It is undeniable that inflation should be controlled. But when we see the positions taken by the federal political parties on this matter, we have to wonder if they do not want the opposite. Indeed, in my opinion, the position of the Progressive Conservatives, who simply request a freeze of prices and wages, is unacceptable. Because of all this, and because they were frightened by the results of the price and wage freeze in the United States, the New Democrats decided to change their policy-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member, but his time has
expired.
28996-69l/2

March 20, 1975
Inflation


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this important motion. I am sorry that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is not in the House, and I am particularly sorry that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) is not here. Members of the New Democratic Party are normally in the House, but I gather the exhaustion that was caused last night has laid them low and they are not able to last the day.
It is also evident that members of the Conservative Party, exhausted from their efforts in debating an emergency measure on an issue that was settled before they began, find their ranks depleted. They are apparently less interested in current matters than they were in a matter that had already been settled before they returned after supper last night and which they debated into the early hours of this morning.
Unfortunately, I arrived too late to hear the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe today, but they seem to have been a warmed-over version of the speech he delivered to this House the other day on the motion of the New Democratic Party. He was followed by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge who admonished him, I think properly, for a "head in the sand" attitude toward the problems of the economy. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge is a very respected member of the House who has the benefit not only of being a socialist but an entrepreneur and a representative of free enterprise and can look at the economy, as he does, from both ends.
I once spoke to a highly-placed official of the Liberal Party who told me that only two things had not gone up in price since the war-shoe-laces and the membership fee of the Waterloo South Liberal Association. I am sure that the high value of membership in that association has caused the price to rise; I am not so sure about shoe-laces.
The remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe recall to my mind the kind of negative and wholly cynical speech he made the other day. I believe that is the sort of attitude that over the last few years has denied the Tory Party a mandate from the Canadian people. The kind of issues we face today were the subject of a policy put forward by the Tories during the last election campaign, and rightly or wrongly-we on this side believe it was rightly-that policy was not accepted by the Canadian people. This policy is now cynically put forward by the current financial critic of the opposition to advance his own particular notions on how the economy should be managed. By making such statements to this House he completely distorts the efforts of this government to deal with the very serious issues which affect the economy. As reported at page 4075 of Hansard for March 13, the hon. member said:
We all know the speeches which the Minister of Finance has delivered to labour union leaders, in which he has chastised them and said, "Hold your wage demands down." Surely it would have been much more fair for the Minister of Finance to have gone to those labour leaders, laid his cards on the table and said, "Sorry, fellows. In order to keep power and win re-election we tampered with the economy. We overinflated money. We spent too much. We caused inflation and we hope you will understand."
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
Later in the speech the hon. member said, as recorded on page 4076 of Hansard:
Perhaps the most important thing I could say is, why doesn't the government resign and let us get another government? It is time for the minister to act. We believe he should act by lowering the tax rate in Canada in three important areas, namely, a reduction in personal income tax, elimination of the sales tax on building materials, and the allowing of interest on mortgages over 8 per cent to be a deductible expense before paying income tax.
That tirade about government inadequacy represented the limits of the hon. member's formula for dealing with the problems we face today. Earlier the minister had told us what the government had done in the November 18 budget.


James McPhail Gillies: We have the highest unemployment and inflation rates in the world.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member says we have the highest unemployment and inflation rates in the world. That statement-


James McPhail Gillies: Is true.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: *-like many other remarks, is perhaps half true.


James McPhail Gillies: We have the highest inflation rate in Canada's history.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The minister said, as recorded on page 4071
of Hansard:
I want to point out to him and to our colleagues in the House that we have done a great deal in an effort to protect those who are least able to defend themselves against economic cycles, against the erosion of inflation. We raised the old age pension and adjusted it against cost of living. We adjusted the guaranteed income supplement and increased it. We tripled family allowances and adjusted those against the rise in the cost of living to protect those families with small children, particularly those below the poverty line. We came up with the largest tax reduction in Canadian history, and 70 per cent of those reductions affect people with incomes of $10,000 or less. We eliminated what the hon. gentleman considered to be a regressive sales tax for all clothing, all food and all drink except alcohol. We do represent, after all, the party which brought in medicare and hospitalization programs and we are committed to a guaranteed annual income.
I ask hon. members to contrast the remarks of the minister and the policies reflected in the November 18 budget-policies from which all Canadians benefit today-with the kind of policies brought forward at the end of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe against the government for its alleged inadequacies. Even the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, thought a member of the opposition, saw fit to dress down the official opposition for its willingness to assume that all inflation problems in this country are domestic in nature and have been created here rather than being worldwide. Inflation is rampant throughout the world.


James McPhail Gillies: You know better than that.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The forces of inflation were set in motion around the globe by a worldwide economic boom that caused demand for many commodities to outrun the available supply.
March 20, 1975


James McPhail Gillies: What about Germany? Has the hon. member considered conditions in that country?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The problem was compounded by the quadrupling of oil prices-that fact is well known-and the government acted accordingly. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has frequently pointed out, now the major driving force of inflation is coming from the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs as those who work in every country press for increased incomes to at least keep pace with the rising cost of living.


James McPhail Gillies: Wage settlements in Canada have been 100 per cent higher than similar settlements in the United States.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: This was not an attempt to place the blame for current inflationary pressures on wage and salary earners in Canada in an effort to impose on them the main burden for reducing the pace of inflation in Canada. It was nothing of the kind. It was simply a statement of fact. In its Economic Outlook for December, 1974, the OECD voiced the same conclusion by asserting that earlier in the year the rise in oil and other commodity prices played the main part in generating inflation, but that now it is the rise in wages which is maintaining inflation at much the same high rate.
Joe Morris, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, pointed out in an interview in the Financial Times not long ago that there is nothing very new about the fact that rising wages and salaries should provide the main source of inflationary pressure at this stage of the economic cycle; he said it is just the way the economy could be expected to act. No one wants to see his standard of living eroded by inflation, not even members of parliament. It is fully to be expected that all Canadians will want to obtain a sufficient increase in their incomes to at least keep pace with rising costs. The government understands and supports that ambition, not just with words but with deeds. Through a wide variety of measures-subsidization of some basic commodities, reduction and elimination of sales taxes, a degree of protection for savings, and much increased social assistance benefits such as family allowances and old age pensions-the government has made a concerted effort to help maintain the standard of living of Canadians.
This government strongly supports provisions for periodic adjustments, to ensure that wages and salaries keep pace with the rising cost of living under the inflationary circumstances we face today. The real danger arises from the possibility that some groups in our economy may attempt to do very much better than to keep pace with the cost of living by pressing, by way of insurance, for increases in income from whatever source that go far beyond any reasonable expectation about prospective inflation rates. Undertaken on any large scale, such efforts would have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This view has been expressed by many members on this side of the House, including the Minister of Finance, and in other forums. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, in a New Year's message, warned that in Canada individual groups may tend to look out for their own interests alone in order to protect themselves from
Inflation
the dangers of inflation; often they may be unconcerned or simply unaware that by doing so they are hurting other groups, thereby ultimately hurting themselves. It is for the very purpose of avoiding this danger that the federal government embarked on a series of discussions with various groups in the economy-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To achieve the so-called consensus.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -discussions which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) derides, in order to seek accord on national goals for steadily reducing the rate of inflation and on practical and acceptable means of achieving those objectives.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What are they?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The Conservative's financial critic has voiced his dogmas, yet it can be said that the government has taken positive steps.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What are they? What can we expect?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Reaching such an accord will not be easy. It has never been easy. It was not easy settling the strike which ended last night; it took a great deal of patience. The speeches made last night by members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition did nothing to settle the strike. It was settled by this government through negotiation and consultation. This process of consultation and discussion which is derided by the Leader of the Opposition and his party supporters is the only process by which we can bring about accord and the kind of stability so badly needed in this country and in the world.


An hon. Member:: You don't believe that.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I believe that we should consider such a course. The fact is that circumstances are very different from those we have ever confronted in the past. The world economy faces a far more critical situation than it has at any time since the last war. The classical method of halting inflation, the drastic slowing of economic growth, has become increasingly less effective in achieving its purpose. Furthermore, its cost in terms of unemployment is particularly unacceptable in this country, given the fact that we have by far the fastest growing labour force in the world.


James McPhail Gillies: What trash.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I hear groans of disappointment from hon. members opposite, but facts are facts; we cannot ignore them. These unacceptable costs have become evident in other countries, particularly in the United States and Britain. Experience indicates that comprehensive wage and price controls do not offer a viable alternative either, because they tend to retard economic growth and over the longer term may serve only to aggravate inflation rather than reduce it.


James McPhail Gillies: We have inflation and unemployment.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: This method of dealing with the economy has won the acceptance of the Leader of the Opposition and especially of his financial critic.

March 20, 1975
Inflation


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: We do not hear too much these days about wage and price controls.


An hon. Member:: Who is the Conservative financial critic this week?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I don't know; they come and go so quickly. The only alternative left is that being pursued by Britain and the United States, namely, a voluntary national effort to gear down the rate of inflation. In contrast to the big problem facing other countries, we have the potential to maintain and even improve our standard of living over the next two or three years. Whether we realize that potential depends on whether we can collectively muster the will to reach a mutual understanding among the various groups in our economy. I quote the following recent words of the Minister of Finance:
No one is being asked to accept a self-imposed hardship. What I am saying is that collectively we will be a lot better off, not worse off, if we co-operate together to moderate our demands on the economy.
Those sensible words were delivered in the city of Toronto not long ago. It is even more likely to be the case if a national accord contributes to moderating all industrial strife and enables us to grow out of the inflationary cycle. There is no simple or quick answer to the problem of inflation. It does no good to criticize the government for attempting to negotiate and discuss these issues with the various sectors of the economy. It does no good to heap scorn and abuse on the Minister of Finance for carrying out the responsible policies in his budget which were only later acknowledged by other countries. Inflation will only be eradicated for all time with persistence and efficiency. There is no way in which governments acting alone can overcome inflation. Everyone has to play a part. It is this consensus the government is seeking. I hope it commends itself to the opposition as our other policies have since the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, that was a delightful speech. I can appreciate members opposite applauding it; however, it is too bad the author did not deliver it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Raymond Ellis: I am delighted to join in this debate. I have no difficulty in supporting the first 14 words of the Social Credit motion, namely:
That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation-
I think that statement is probably accepted by most people in this country. In fact, I would go a step further. Not only is this government lacking in action in its fight against inflation, but it is becoming its architect and designer. One department that I watch every once in a while is the Department of Public Works which does the architectural and design work for the government. That department is one of the worst offenders. When going through the estimates recently I looked at the figures for

some of the buildings the Department of Public Works is either building or planning to build. I am not sure, and I intend to find out, whether the government really believes we are going to accept the excuse that inflation caused these figures. Let me quote three or four examples.
A Government of Canada building on Sparks Street, Ottawa, close to this building, increased in cost by over $18 million, 37 per cent more than originally estimated. The cost of a Government of Canada building in Ottawa known only as No. 8 increased by $15 million, an increase of 57 per cent. The cost of a parking garage in Hull, Quebec, has increased by 71 per cent. Finally, Government of Canada building No. 3 has increased by $58.7 million, an increase of 147 per cent. We know that inflation is rampant, we know the cost of construction has increased considerably, but surely we cannot be asked to believe that inflation caused those excesses. Somewhere along the line this government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.
The next ten words of this motion are not hard to live with, either. They have to do with the fallacious pretext that inflation is an international problem. Is it an international problem that the increase in the gross national product is as low as the figures related by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)? I do not think so. There is a definite need for increased production in this country. My party has been stressing this for some time. Some of my constituents would like to enlarge their businesses; they would like to increase production and try to stimulate the economy by hiring more people. When they go to the Industrial Development Bank they find they are still charging 13 per cent interest. They still charge that usurious rate even though the bank rate has been coming down. How a small business can be expected to grow when we have a 13 per cent bank rate, I will never know.
Is it the international pressures that are forcing this government passively to condone illegal strikes and actively to support inflationary increases? I do not think so. I do not want my friends to the left, who are conspicuous by their absence this afternoon, to think I am blaming labour for the increases in the Department of Public Works' budget. The total budget is up 23 per cent. The majority of the increases are due to the size of the bureaucracy and settlements for executive positions. The increase in the workingman's pay is not very great.
The government has cut a number of accommodation programs but it has still boosted the budget by twice the rate of inflation. In their forecast they speak of re-using some older buildings. Frankly, I am not prepared to accept the fact that this is a particularly good idea. As a matter of fact, I have been carefully watching one building in Ottawa. I have watched it since they began to gut the building and up to this point. The building, which is being prepared for the new urban affairs department, was not sound to begin with. So far it has cost $8.5 million to repair the building-70 per cent over what was originally estimated.
The Minister of Finance has asked us to show restraint in our personal spending. With costs the way they are today, we have to show restraint. I wonder whether anyone has told the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to
March 20, 1975

restrain spending. In the estimates I notice that repairs to the East Block, where the Prime Minister's offices are located, cost $7,950,000. You can build a good office building from scratch for something like $8 million. I doubt whether these remodelled offices will cause the work done in them to be one bit more efficient or satisfactory than in the past.
I know a lot of accommodation is needed for the extra million dollars, staff and lackeys that we have found in this department recently, but surely that is an excessive amount. The tax cut which we had asked for during the debate on Bill C-49 would have helped cut the government's income considerably and perhaps cut off some of the major spending programs that are being put before us in the estimates today.
The House leader went on at some length to talk of the wide ranging measures that are being undertaken by the government. I think the worst example yet is the Post Office. The level of service of this department has never been worse, and no one really knows what the costs of the post office department are going to be. Let me quote some of the costs that I have been watching in the estimates, again of the public works department. The postal terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, was originally estimated at $5 million; now it is up to $8.6 million, an increase of 72 per cent. Another one in St. John's, Newfoundland, has climbed from $3.7 million to $7.7 million, an increase of 110 per cent. The Halifax, Nova Scotia, mail processing plant cost has climbed by 186 per cent. The best example of all is that the Montreal map program cost has climbed by some 300 per cent.
The impact of these figures is absolutely phenomenal. How can anyone possibly claim that the department is seriously fighting inflation when costs are allowed in one year to escalate by 300 per cent? We have heard a lot of talk about consensus. We have had the promises in the Speech from the Throne. I suggest to the House that perhaps consensus is not necessary any more, that it is too late. Perhaps it is time for leadership and firm action.
I am absolutely opposed to the last part of the motion before the House today.
I should like to comment briefly for a moment on some food items, including one item that is of particular importance in my part of the country. I refer to milk and the industrial milk program. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) promised the farmers of this country an answer on the support price for milk well ahead of the April 1 deadline. I asked the minister this afternoon when he was going to bring out this new price level, and he very flippantly answered "soon". That just will not do.
There is only one week left for the minister to make an announcement. Surely someone in his department, in the dairy commission, or in treasury board has some idea what the farmers are going to receive for milk this coming year. If they have, why cannot we be told? If they have no idea-and this may be the case-it is some indication of the type of leadership we have been getting.
My guess is that we will probably find out what the support price for milk is during the recess, when the minister will be able to get away with not tabling the
Inflation
document in an open House but will be able to slip it in quietly with the press releases for which he is so famous, hoping that it will be forgotten before we return. Let me tell him that this is one member who will be watching very carefully for the announcement, and there are a lot of farmers in my riding who will also be looking forward to it.
We are all faced with shortages of food. The cost of food is very high, but no problem is as bad as the one the farmers will face if they cannot get a decent price for their food and, as a result, no food is put on the market. I am not preaching doom and gloom, as has been suggested, but in my riding there are still many young men and women who want to get into the business of farming and who are capable of becoming good farmers, and because of the high cost they require some assistance.
There is supposed to be a federal farm program to help young people who want to become farmers. The ARDA program is designed with that in mind, as well as the farm credit program. Yet this program is operating on the basis of land values that are ten years old. The program has never been updated, and there is no way it can ever help a young farmer in view of the cost levels that we have today. The Department of Agriculture refuses to upgrade the stipulated costs, and I have a very strong suspicion that this is the sort of measure it would like to hold off on until the Ontario government has held its election, simply because the government feels it can embarrass a few people in this way. The federal government is stonewalling young farmers who want to get into farming.
I would love to support the first half of my hon. friend's motion, Madam Speaker, but because of the incredulous nonsense in the last few lines I find I cannot support it, and tonight at 9.45 I, together with many of my colleagues, will have an opportunity of voting it down.


James McPhail Gillies: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate this afternoon, and I congratulate the members of the Creditiste party for bringing the motion forward. I, too, agree with the remarks just made by my colleague. We are pleased to support the first half of the motion, but unfortunately do not agree with the last half and so therefore will vote against it.
It is very important that parliament concern itself with inflation on a continuing and constant basis because of what has happened in this country. I blame the government very much for the situation. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) by his remarks shows that we have become a nation that is willing to rationalize about the problems we face. We are pretending that they are not here, that they are going away, and so we do not have to do anything about them.
The fact of the matter is that during the last two or three years major mistakes have been made in economic policymaking. The last three budgets in this country were supposed to solve inflation by increasing supply. It is impossible to increase supply and consumption at the same time, and yet this is what the government tried. The situation is analagous to the period when Lyndon Johnson of the United States said his country could have guns and butter at the same time. You cannot take more from the

March 20, 1975
Inflation
economy than the economy itself can produce in the short-run. If the country needs some steel, then you build a new steel mill; but while you are building the mill and waiting for the steel to be produced you have to give up something else. The government has not understood that, and the net result is that we now have continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
The failure of the policy is self-evident. By trying to fight inflation through conventional methods-high interest rates and so forth-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has actually stopped any increase in supply, something which the government really wanted. One of the major reasons for inflation is the rapid increase in the price of housing and the decline in construction starts. We now find ourselves, after three years of mismanagement confronted with the terrible problems of continuing high levels of inflation and rising unemployment. The way the government has attempted to fight inflation is in fact the cause of most of our problems.
There is a decline in the rate of growth in the GNP. Probably in the next quarter it will be down more than it is in this quarter, and this is a clearcut demonstration of the policy failure that we have seen over the last two or three years. However, I do not particularly want to deal with these failures this afternoon; rather I just want to mention a couple of other things that I think are really more important.
First, one consequence of the way in which the government is approaching inflation is that we are developing a sort of fatalism about economic policy making in Canada. There has never been a time in Canadian history when the Canadian people had so little confidence in the ability of the government to make economic policy work. As one goes around the country talking with people one finds more and more of them saying, "You cannot do anything about inflation." As a consequence they are not willing to support programs and policies that attempt to fight inflation. As long as the government continues to rationalize and pretend that nothing can be done at all, and tells people that nothing can be done, nothing will be done. The price we may have to pay for this attitude on the part of the government could be very high indeed.
The second thing that is always said, because people want some type of explanation for the situation, is that nothing can be done because inflation is really an international problem. It is true to say it is an international problem, but it is wrong to say that nothing can be done. It is amazing to find secretaries of the treasury and ministers of finance in other countries beginning to pick up the language of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in the sense that they too are saying that nothing can be done because it is an international problem. George Mitchell, a member of the board of governors of a U.S. federal research group, speaking in Iowa a few days ago, said that the United States could not do too much to stop inflation as it was an international problem.
The only place people have not been saying too much about it being an international problem is in West Germany where the inflation rate is half the rate of inflation in Canada and the United States. It is a tremendous
[Mr. Gillies.)
disservice to the people of Canada to suggest that because inflation is an international problem there are no domestic actions that can be taken to deal with it.
The hon. member for Mississauga said that probably the major cause for inflation was the increase in oil prices. I would ask him to take a look at a chart of the rate of inflation around the world, without any dates on it, and pick out the point in time when the increases in oil prices took place. You just cannot tell. It was a modest item, but not an important one in contributing to the present high rate of inflation.
The point I want to emphasize is that it is not sufficient to say inflation is a world-wide problem, and hope therefore that you can dismiss the problem and not have to do anything about it. The fact is that while inflation is taking place in all countries, it is only when each country decides to do something about it that the problem will be solved. The fatalism and escapism the government is perpetrating on the Canadian people are serious things, in fact some of the most irresponsible things any Canadian government has ever done.
The other thing that is happening in relation to the inflation we have is that some of the traditional views about proper economic policy are being challenged. It is an interesting question as to whether there is still a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. The government has always said it will not fight inflation on the backs of the poor, but in fact that is precisely what it is trying to do by allowing an increase in unemployment. The government hopes that there will be enough unemployment so that the rate of inflation will slow down. This probably will not work out as expected. Aside from the immoral aspects of this approach, it is probably wrong economics.
What we are really going to find is that unemployment will continue to rise, inflation will not drop very much. The old trade-off the government has always counted on is not going to work for us. Similarly it seems possible now that increasing taxes, which used to be thought of as a positive way of fighting inflation, will not work. Taxes now are simply passed on in the economy in the form of higher prices.
It also seems probable that the move toward higher interest rates will not fight inflation. Again high interest rates have been looked at as a means of slowing down levels of investment, but as they rise they are simply passed on in terms of higher prices to the Canadian people. The net result is that the traditional policies we have counted on simply are not working any longer, and the government has given way, passed over, or decided not to use what have always been the traditional policies in relation to economic activity.
In the first report of the Economic Council of Canada it was stated that the goals of economic policy making in this country ought to be the maintenance of reasonably full employment, relative price stability, diminution of regional income disparity and income disparity among people. What has happened to these goals? We now have the Economic Council saying, and the government of Canada accepting the proposition, that the real goal of Canadian economic policy should be to have less inflation than other countries with which we trade. What a cop-out that is. If we adopt that position what we are really saying
March 20, 1975

is that no matter how badly other countries, particularly the United States, manage their economies, as long as we manage ours slightly better that is all that counts. Surely that is not a satisfactory situation.
It seems to me of vital importance that we recognize that we cannot keep telling the Canadian people we can do nothing about inflation, that it is a world-wide problem, and that as long as there is inflation in other countries we are helpless. We cannot continue to do that sort of thing, because if we say that over and over again pretty soon people will begin to believe it. Once the Canadian people begin to believe such nonsense then they will not co-operate in any policy trying to solve the inflation problem.
I suggest that speeches such as the one made by the hon. member for Mississauga this afternoon do great harm because they reinforce the idea among Canadian people that we really cannot cope with the economic problems we are facing. I am sorry I did not hear the speech of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), but if he said the same thing as the hon. member for Mississauga I would suggest that he, too, is doing a great disservice to the Canadian people.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. member deny that there is international inflation?


James McPhail Gillies: Not at all. No one ever suggested that there is not international inflation, but it is a great mistake to jump from that to the suggestion that no country can do anything about it. It is a great mistake on the part of this government to say, over and over again, that we cannot do anything about it because inflation exists all around the world.
The point is that the government will not take strong action if it perceives that the people of the country do not want it to take strong action, and the people will not want the government to take strong action as long as the government keeps telling them nothing can be done. In this way you get into a hopeless circle.
One wonders why people keep asking why the government does not take stronger action against inflation, but I think the answer is very simple. The government does not take stronger action because it does not believe at the moment that people want stronger action taken against inflation. I repeat that people do not want that stronger action taken because the government has told them over and over again that we cannot do anything about inflation. This is a very dangerous direction in which to move. What is going to be the upshot of this situation? People talk and worry about inflation and rising unemployment.
Let us consider the situation in the United States, which is deteriorating very rapidly. In that country the inflation rate may go down to 8 per cent by the fourth quarter. The government is talking about stimulating recovery through deficits that could range up to perhaps $52 billion. The important thing about it is that this recovery will start from an 8 per cent inflation rate. If we have anything like the same sort of inflationary forces during the next recovery period as we had in the last, this means that in a couple of years we could witness about a 30 per cent rate of inflation in that country. The same conditions apply in Canada.
Inflation
The big question is whether our social system can survive this sort of an inflationary level. What this will really mean is that the recovery will be short, the recession will be longer, and we will be back in the inflationary cycle all over again. If we cannot get inflation under control, and cannot convince the people of Canada that the government can do something about it, then we will be in such a cycle. I think we have to take this message very seriously. Under such conditions it is really an open question as to whether our social system, as we know it, can survive.
There is enormous tension in our country today. Normally one does not expect to see the Post Office not operating, to see the airlines not operating, or to see children not in school. Also people do not expect that, if their house catches fire, the firemen will not arrive. It is the essence of our society that the government provide an infrastructure in which people can live with a feeling of security and confidence. To the extent that this infrastructure falls apart, the fabric of our society is weakened and tension is increased.
A few weeks ago in Montreal the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about tension in society. He was absolutely right; there is tension and it is growing all the time. The fundamental reason for the tension in our society is the fact that we have had so much inflation. The fact is that people do not believe they can count on staying even, and work and retain their real standard of living. Now, when we find that with rapidly rising inflation we have an accompanying slowing of economic growth, there is an infinitely greater increase in tension because we are not dividing a larger pie put are arguing how the same size pie is to be split. As a result the function of government more and more will not be to manage growth but to manage conflict.
We must be prepared to take the first step in defusing these conditions. The first step is to get our present degree of inflation under control. The tension in our country today, the labour disputes in our country today and the problems around the world are caused because we have not been prepared to deal with inflation. To say we have no responsibility to do this because it is happening everywhere is outrageous. I might say I have great sympathy for some of the views expressed from time to time about the need for consensus and leadership.
I do not think in a democracy we can have leadership that is very far removed from the feelings of the people in society. Leadership cannot be too far in front, nor can it be too far behind. We need leadership to try to get groups together to solve these particular problems. The real test of leadership, however, is to pick the strategic moment when it is no longer possible to operate with consensus but rather to take positive, strong action which the people really want. At some time if democracy is to survive, political leadership must be strong enough to take the chance of seeing whether or not this can be done. I believe that time has now arrived.
The real question in the world as we go into the latter part of the 1970's is whether democracy will survive. This is a very good question. If we look at history we see that the capability of democracy to deal with impending crises
4344

March 20, 1975
Inflation
is not very good. Churchill was wandering around England in the 1930's pointing out what was happening in Europe, while Stanley Baldwin was getting elected. I am convinced that Franklin Roosevelt could never have taken the United States into World War II without Pearl Harbour.
Anyone who believes that we do not have an impending crisis of enormous proportions in our society, or ignores the fact that we have not been able to find a way to deal with inflation, or the fact that we now have a combination of increasing inflation and declining growth is not reading history or the situation properly. I say to the government that we should get off this kick of saying inflation is a problem around the world and we cannot do anything about it. It must go to the Canadian people, and tell them the realities. I have great confidence they will face what must be done when they are asked to do so.
One must make one's own assumption about this, but surely the time has come when the Canadian people really do want inflation tackled, and really want leadership on the part of the government to deal with it. It seems to me-and this is the reason I congratulate the Creditiste party for bringing forward the motion today-that there is a great need on the part of the government to reverse the proposition it has been putting forward for such a long time that we cannot do anything about inflation. We must do something about inflation if we want our society to survive. We must take a strong line in dealing with these particular problems primarily to create the public support which is necessary to take the type of actions which I think must be taken.
I see that my time has expired, Madam Speaker. However, I wish to emphasize once again how critical is the very foundation of the institutions which we think are so significant. We really must face up to our problems. We have seen and see today the collapse of political systems. We have seen this in Portugal and Italy. It is comforting to say it cannot happen here, but when your infrastructure starts to collapse it is necessary for government to take action.
I strongly suggest that we should hear no more about our inability to do anything about inflation, and about it being a world-wide problem. Rather, we should have a government which says we have a terrible problem which will be solved only by all of us really understanding what it is and playing our part in an effort to solve it. If we do not do this, the costs we may pay are incalculable.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne). I must hear the hon. member for Hull who is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Isabelle:: No, Madam Speaker, I am only seeking unanimous consent to revert to motions so I may table a committee report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Matte:
That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem and blames the government for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadian consumers a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
Mr. Dionne:: Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate have passed Bill C-29, an act respecting Canadian business corporations, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Matte:
That this House deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international
March 20,1975
[Stage Direction]
problem and blames the government for ignoring the concrete proposals of the Social Credit Party for eliminating the unjustified increase in the cost of living; in particular the proposition according all Canadian consumers, a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.
Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, our administrators, as we have noted today, are really suffering from the inflationary fever which they have contributed to induce and maintain without making any serious effort to improve the situation. Our experts or those who believe they are try to create the impression that they hope to find remedies to the ailments gnawing at society. The facts are so obvious that they cannot deny the existence of an economic discomfort. However, the results of their research prove that there are too many physicians attending the patient. Already a great number of them admit that they are unable to find solutions. They try to convince the people that it is an international malaise. It is easy to say so, but it is far from being a solution.
It will be easily recalled that we have known depression and regression periods, expressions already used by the representatives of the various governments either during or after the 1929-1939 economic crisis. At that time all kinds of goods were available in great quantity. What they lacked was money. The producing system works generally fairly well. The proof is that there are always a good number of unemployed who represent production that is not taking place, yet there is no shortage of goods to guarantee food, clothing and housing to Canadians. It is the distribution system which is not working or which is working in reverse.
To try to explain the cause of this bad situation, our politicians use inflation as a screen for their administrative blunders. We seem to be completely in the dark. Are wage hikes a cause or an effect of inflation? Are stiffer interest rates a consequence of inflation or not? I believe that the unions are justified in requesting salary adjustments because of the continuing increase in the cost of living, but we must admit that if we consider future prices, salary increases will bring about higher production costs and accelerate the inflationary process in the present system.
Higher interest rates have exactly the same effects. They breed price increases and contribute to inflation. The present financial system has left us obnoxious twins: inflation and unemployment.
When we speak of inflation in political econonics, there are two things which expand and build-up: first, prices, second, wages. This reduces the value of savings. Prices increase when products are rare and there is too much purchasing power.
However, when wages increase, prices also increase. This is a vicious circle which, under the present administration, approaches perpetual motion, and it is called inflation.
I believe that in general, Canadians do their duty, but unfortunately, those in control do not always do theirs. They must produce the purchasing power required to allow Canadians to buy what they produce.
Inflation
The financial system should relate to the realities of production and needs. Money should originate in wealth and go where it is needed. This is clear enough. Finance should be submitted to production, and production should be submitted to man. I believe that we will find the answer to the problems of inflation if we take the trouble to look for them.
I know that this answer, or that which can be suggested, is not always in accordance with the theories of certain economists who recommend restrictions, while we recommend an increase in the purchasing power. Still, we believe our solution is more realistic.
Newspapers now talk about inflation. Most economists threaten us with inflation, financiers speak of inflation as if it were a contagious disease, it now haunts our economic life.
That is why the time has come for the people to head towards solutions. By observing its causes, we will find the remedy; instead of speaking incessantly of inflation, we should start getting used to speaking of distribution.
Let us have a look at what happens when the consumer sees prices go up by 10 per cent and sometimes more in a year. Concerned, he turns to his storekeeper who, shrugging his shoulders, turns to his supplier, who points to the producer, who shows empty warehouses which proclaim a shortage. All those agents having seemingly justified themselves, the consumer, in despair, turns to the one who is responsible for the commonweal, the regulating agent of all social mechanisms, the political authority.
Municipal authorities being already too absorbed in facilitating the inflationary activities of real estate speculators and developers to be concerned about the ravages of inflation, the consumer wastes no time and turns instead to his provincial government which throws up its arms in a gesture of helplessness but, still nods in the directing of the federal government which in turn claims to be unable to cure a disease it considers international in origin. 'Tis easy to say' but, as I said before, 'tis no solution'.
In the face of what he believes to be a natural cataclysm over which no one has any control, the consumer then decides it's every man for himself.
Let us see what happens. He urges his union to request wages to be geared to the increase in the cost of living. Then every businessman, supplier and producer, even those who have few employees or whose employees do not belong to a union and are constantly underpaid, will make a pretext of those salary claims to further boost the cost of their products and services, but at a rate which is often higher than salary claims.
This hard pressed consumer, feeling that any way his purchasing power just evaporates like maple water, frantically invests his depreciated dollar in consumer goods, thinking to himself that they will be out of the reach of inflation once he owns them.
And the circle becomes more and more vicious: the higher prices go, the more people buy. And since the more you get the more you want, those who derive excessive profits from inflation will put the finishing touch to its spiral by saying from time to time with a heartbroken face: "Food products, services, and real estate costs might
4346

March 20, 1975
Inflation
increase in the next few months". Then the media, always anxious to serve the public, will widely spread the unfortunate news. And what at first had been nothing more than probability rapidly mushrooms into certainty in the minds of the people who will not say anything when the facts are accomplished a little later. The media therefore pave the way for inflation when they want to oppose and fight it.
This explanation may look simple, but it is worth a lot of others, since nobody can explain and solve the present crisis. They try to prove that inflation today is the most difficult economic phenomenon to master, because everyone in his own way contributes to fanning it, even those who claim they have got the solution.
All experts admit they are unable to find an efficient remedy. But in this darkness one thing at least is clear: in front of a handful of people who pull the strings and become excessively rich, and a majority which is being bled white, the helplessness of governments is less than reassuring.
Here is another remarkable thing: economic life is concentrated today within the hands of multinational monopolies which by their worldwide, concerted action create a situation whereby political institutions suddenly appear totally obsolete. Since politicians, through lack of vision, failed to organize the world beyond frontiers, economic forces are doing it in their way. And we know what the results are.
Prices are higher and higher each day, inflation terrorizes everyone, the dollar is losing its strength and the future of our economy no longer inspires the confidence it used to inspire.
The main factor of the spiralling inflation we know is the increase in taxes, direct or indirect, and at every step of the production of an article when it is offered to consumers. Today, not only the prices of tobacco and spirits are swollen mostly by taxes. We must open our eyes. Through taxes governments gradually confiscate an ever larger part of the returns of human work while at the same time subsidizing artificial employment projects and often non-indispensable social welfare. That destroys in individuals the sense of responsibility, initiative and interested enterprise, those very virtues on which is based any free and sound society. That is undoubtedly another factor which contributes to the sickness that is inflation.
Heavier debts and the cost to finance them both in the public and private sectors also play a vital role in the inflationary thrust. If our current policy regarding credit, interest and taxation is not changed in a near future it is not impossible that our system and economy will collapse, crushed by the debt and tax pyramid, undermined by the devaluation-not to say the debauchery-of our currency.
But some minds inclined to smug optimism, as others are to melancholy, contend that there is no reason to be alarmed, and that inflation will go away as it came. For that matter, they say, inflation is preferable to recession. One could go on and say that inflation generates less misery than the economic crisis in the 1930s, and that in spite of the oil crisis a private citizen is better heated than the sun king was. But with that kind of rationale we would still be trucking.

Furthermore, inflation that has been lasting for over a decade with periods of fever and abatement will not disappear as it came because its causes are not momentary.
When one turns to economists to know the solution to that persistent inflation one is surprises to realize that their explanations-often contradictory-almost always leave the conclusion that it is impossible to eliminate that cancer from the economy. So if one is not fatalistic, one must look for a solution-perhaps not definitive but at least efficient-to that economic problem the social effects of which are increasingly costly strikes.
Political parties when they are in power have no solution to inflation. More precisely, they resort to such quackery formulas as credit restriction and interest rate increase. As experience has shown, not only do those measures fail to stop inflation but in addition they give rise to much more unemployment that costs taxpayers billions of dollars in benefits to the unemployed.
Before resuming my seat, I think fit to point out that in such a situation where all governments and ours especially cannot find solutions, it is about time we examined the remedies or at least the suggestions offered by those who have been observing the situation for quite a while, and made the effort of considering the Social Credit alternative. Perhaps there lies the answer that will be of considerable help in working out today's problems.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, any motion that deals with the problem of inflation is a serious one whatever the solution proposed, because the problem of inflation is a serious one-indeed most Canadians would consider it the most serious.
One constantly hears a plea when inflation is discussed and solutions are discussed that "there must be a better way". The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), for example, said that before the supper hour as often as one could in a 20 minutes period-there must be a better way. He did not say what it might be, however. He did not offer a price freeze solution because, whatever he thought before the last election, events and international experience since then have surely taught him that that is not the way, and that a freeze would have damaged Canada.
I want to take that plea, "There must be a better way", and deal with it in one narrow but critical hot spot of inflation, namely, the area of industrial relations. I have just returned from two days on the west coast. While I was there some irate Vancouverites drove me out to English Bay. I had the opportunity to look out over that bay and see more than 30 ships waiting for the strike to end. It was a long strike, and it crippled shipments. Not only that, it crippled the whole regional economy. Standing at English Bay it was easy to say, "There must be a better way".
I had a full sample of public opinion a few hours later in Vancouver on Pat Burns' hot line program. It is an excellent forum. A variety of feelings are expressed and, if I may make an observation about western feelings, they seem to be stronger even than those in my own constituency. Perhaps it is the depressing climate in Vancouver, Mr. March 20, 1975

Speaker, compared to the ideal climate we enjoy in Toronto. But, my object is not to talk about the climate.
A number of themes came across from the public during the course of that program. Some people felt that all strikes should be illegal, that they were a throwback to feudal times, that they were wasteful, and that nobody benefited from them.
Another group felt that all public service strikes should be illegal. They argue that the treasury of Canada is a bottomless pit and there is no end to the payments the federal government can make in order to settle a dispute.
The third group felt that strikes in essential public services should be illegal-a narrower group than the total public service, but an important and sizeable one.
The fourth and final group felt that even if strikes are legal parliament should act at once, as soon as things begin to warm up, to end the strikes and send people back to work.
I want to talk tonight about the institution of collective bargaining. This is an institution to which the government and the Liberal party of Canada are very much attached and for which we have a great deal of respect, while many others in the country and in this House want to see it rejected. I will concede that collective bargaining is in trouble right now. Forgetting for the moment about the illegal strikes that are taking place to which collective bargaining does not fully apply, even when you look at legal strikes there are too many going on right now.
It is true that collective bargaining is in trouble, Mr. Speaker, but these days a lot of our economic institutions are in trouble. In fact, which ones are not? The stock market is in trouble, the International Monetary Fund is in trouble, the international private banking system is in trouble, and so are our foreign exchange markets. Why are all these things happening? Is the IMF in trouble, as the Social Credit Party wants to imply, because of the management of the Canadian economy-an economy which represents 6 per cent of the whole of the International Monetary Fund countries?
These institutions are in trouble not because they themselves are not working but because of unprecedented inflation which is undermining so many of our institutions. It is not the other way around. It is inflation that is the cause of these things.
When you listen to what the strikers have to say, Mr. Speaker, you can understand very well why they go on strike. Inflation is hard on wage earners. Men and women who have been on contracts for two or three years, and whose contracts are coming up for renewal, just want to make sure that they will not come out at the end of the next two or three year period with the short end of the stick. They want to be protected, and it is clear that inflation is the threat from which they want to be protected.
In this connection one of the new ideas that is compatible with collective bargaining and that I support is the cost of living adjustment. I think the government should be very receptive to the idea of accepting COLA in a contract. COLA may take wages up if the cost of living goes up, but it is the only way I know of that can also moderate wages if the cost of living tends to go down.
Inflation
Most experts seem to think that is going to happen, that inflation is going to recede.
I do not think there is anything wrong with collective bargaining as an institution, Mr. Speaker. It is just that, like all the others, it is suffering from inflation. I would assert that collective bargaining needs to be supported now by this House, by the public and opposition parties, instead of being undermined. This is not the time to tell the labour force, or any part of it, that this parliament wants to take away their right to strike, which is the main tool they have to protect themselves with when they feel their interests are at stake.
I have been speaking about legal strikes, Mr. Speaker, but there is another side to the coin. I mentioned before that there had been too many illegal strikes. Collective bargaining is undermined by illegal strikes as much as it is undermined by other forms of opposition. I want to deal with some examples.
There is a category of designated jobs in which employees of the public service are not allowed to strike. One example of such an essential service is shovelling the airport runways clear of snow. Those employees cannot legally go on strike. I have talked to men on those jobs and I know it it is very hard to go to work when your fellow employees are striking. It is difficult to cross a picket line to shovel a runway in a snow storm. They feel like scabs even though they are doing something the law compels them to do. But it is extremely important that unions recognize that essential service maintenance is a very important safeguard in the collective bargaining process.
While I was in Vancouver there was another example when air traffic controllers in the east threatened to call a nation-wide walkout because several members of their union had been laid off-wrongfully in the opinion of the union leadership. That was no ground for a strike. There is a grievance clause in the collective agreement which tells the union what its rights are in cases when it considers it has been wronged by management. If there is a grievance, the union can grieve and get the wrong examined. All kinds of rights are available to the union, but it cannot go on strike while the collective agreement is in force.
If we want to preserve the idea of the collective agreement it will be in everybody's best interests to make sure that the type of violation I just mentioned is not allowed to take place. When it does take place, management, in this case the Treasury Board, should exercise all rights available to it. These should be strong rights and the government should not be afraid to invoke them for the sake of any collective agreement. The government should not sit on those rights.
I now want to deal with parliament's involvement in strikes when strikes are in progress. It is easy for people to run to parliament and say, "We want you to settle the strike." I agree that parliament has a role to play in settling strikes, but parliament should not act while the collective agreement has a chance of working.
A small unit in the Toronto post office has made what many consider outrageous demands. It has demanded that the Post Office be turned into a Crown corporation before negotiations take place. That is a totally unrealistic kind

March 20, 1975
Inflation
of demand. If the major unions of the country, including the public service union, representing the great majority of workers were to make that kind of demand, I could understand people saying to parliament that, obviously, collective bargaining will not work and it is time for parliament to step in. While some people in Vancouver were arguing that parliament should send the Vancouver based public servants back to their jobs, in fact they were successfully bargaining.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having listened attentively to the hon. member's speech I say to him, with the greatest respect, that it is just a shade late. We debated the issue he is raising fully and frankly last evening.


An hon. Member:: Until almost a quarter to four in the morning.


Walter David Baker: We are prepared to concede that the inflation gripping this country has made the collective bargaining process difficult, but I think the hon. member should relate his remarks to the motion advanced in good faith by a member of the Creditiste party. I look forward to hearing the hon. member's comments on inflation.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Are you tired from staying up so late last night?


Walter David Baker: I am as fresh as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Then you are tired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member's point of order relates to the relevancy of the speech of the hon. member who has the floor. That hon. member has said clearly that he is speaking about inflation. Therefore I think his remarks come well within the scope of the motion being debated.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious to the country for a long time that the Conservative party does not know what inflation is all about. The hon. member's intervention showed that he has no conception of the relationship between wages and inflation.


Mr. Dick:: You are talking about strikes, not wages.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member was not talking; I think he was reading.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the role which parliament ought to take in dealing with strikes when other outrageous demands are included with outrageous wage demands. I think too many Canadians, too many members of this House, were calling on parliament to act when the collective bargaining process still had a good chance of working. In the end, within hours of hon. members expressing their frustration with the collective bargaining process, that process worked.
When parliament intervenes in the collective bargaining process the spirit of compromise is lost, that spirit which is the most important ingredient in the collective bargaining process. Why should any party to a dispute agree to a

compromise if parliament is to resolve the dispute? Why should any party agree to reasonable demands if he can make all his demands by grandstanding before his constituents? In the case of the union, leaders grandstand before union membership, and in the case of the government the President of the Treasury (Mr. Chretien) can grandstand before this House. Why should the parties not do that, if parliament is to be called to blow the whistle after some ritual period of fake negotiation?
True collective bargaining requires an honest effort by both parties, by the leaders of both parties, to achieve compromise. For that reason parliament should not intervene lightly. Many people have been losing confidence in the collective bargaining process. That is why I was pleased to see that the strike was settled, and that the collective bargaining process will work. If both parties approach each other in a spirit of compromise and good faith, it can work.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, under the Standing Orders of the House, the Social Credit Party of Canada introduced a motion on the problem of inflation in Canada as it relates to consumer problems. For some hon. members, that motion seems neither important nor a priority, because it deals with a problem which some claim has always existed or because it is insoluble. This afternoon, we heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) explain that inflation was a product imported from other countries, that Canada cannot rule its own economy. In fact, by using that argument this afternoon, the President of the Privy Council or the Liberals admit they are unable to administer Canada; they blame the effects of their own indolence on other countries, admitting they can do nothing about inflation since it does not depend on them. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these people have been elected, this parliament is democratic and supreme, and it is up to this parliament to determine the future of our economic system. It is not up to foreigners. If it were, why would there have to be a Canadian parliament? If we depend totally on foreigners in the vital areas of our economy, Mr. Speaker, there is no need for a President of the Privy Council or a parliament or a Prime Minister. Our work here is nonsense if parliament does not control the fate of the country and cannot orient it one way or another.
If the New Democratic Party were in power, its orientation of this country and its economy would probably consist in abolishing private enterprise, in attacking it straightforwardly and in treating everyone equally. This shows that if the New Democratic Party were in power, there would be radical change in the economy of this country. I do not share this view of the orientation of our economy. We believe in private enterprise. We believe in respecting individuals. We believe that each man, each human being must have equal opportunity in our country. Mr. Speaker, if the Social Credit party were given power tomorrow morning, by using either the Bank of Canada or compensated discount, not to control producers or consumers, but to control the economic life of our country, we would take action so that the production would reach the consumers. This is what compensated discount is all
March 20, 1975

about. Mr. Speaker, with a Social Credit government, there would be an immediate change in the course of our economy since the money would serve the population.
Why is it that a change from blue to red does not change our economy? This is simply because the members of the old parties are financed by the same sources, and encourage and protect the same gimmicked combines with banks, if I may use that expression. This is why, after 100 years, we are no longer able to distinguish who is in control of what in our country.
Mr. Speaker, someone mentioned parasols a while ago. I shall try to speak about the heart of the problem. What is the cause of inflation? Producers say that it is the consumers. Consumers say that it is the producers. The financiers say: "It is because we buy too much." Others say that it is because we do not buy enough. Unions suggest it is because salaries are not high enough and that some are making too much profits. Still others claim that profits reach sky high and add that, due to inflation, extravagant salary raises are demanded. In such circumstances, those who should be members of a strong government fall in with those who are crushing the humble people and say to them through the soft and caressing voice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner): "Tighten your belts, be reasonable in your demands". He said so a week ago.
Mr. Speaker, we are discussing today the food problem. Who is controlling food? This government, through its Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let), stated Monday last on radio that the government could not directly intervene to alter prices or intervene indirectly to protect the consumer since the rise in prices was due on one hand to underproduction in Canada as a result of the weather and on the other to a world-wide drought. Anyone aware of the situation realizes that it is a matter of overproduction. But who influences and controls prices then? Who governs this country if the President of the Privy Council himself admits that he can do nothing because inflation comes from outside Canada? Yet, Mr. Speaker, I know that he does not suffer from inflation, because his salary is high enough. That is why he is trying to bring this bill before the House. The small taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, they know the problem of inflation. If it is not the government since he admits it, then who is it? Give some names!
First of all, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows all about Dominion Stores Ltd. and how they feed us so well. Let us go tonight to the heart of the matter. I am not trying to put the blame for inflation on anybody, I am seeking to find the roots of that problem, those who are responsible for our economy and who control this powerless government. That store chain, Dominion Stores Ltd., the most important in Canada, is controlled by Argus Corporation, whose Chairman of the Board is Mr. John A. MacDougall. This means that he has direct control over Dominion Stores Ltd., General Bakeries, the second largest bakery in Canada, Massey-Ferguson Industries, the leading manufacturers of farm machinery in the country, Hollinger Mines Ltd., which owns our iron mines, Iron Ore Ltd., in Schefferville, which sends our minerals to the United States for processing so that they can sell them back to us with a profit, companies which also control Domtar Ltd., the largest paper and building material company in
Inflation
Canada, and finally Standard Broadcasting, which controls CJAD in Montreal and CFRB in Toronto.
The same gentleman, although he may not be responsible for inflation, is one of those using inflation, with the help of this government, against and to the expense of small people. That gentleman is also senior director of AVCO Corporation, a 16-company conglomerate ranging all the way from a finance company to military contracts with the United States.
More important still, the same gentleman is a director and a member of the executive committee of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. To support him, three other Argus Corporation directors are also on the board of that bank, namely A. A. Thornbrough, financial adviser and A. L. Firley, junior chairman of Domtar's executive committee. It is amazing how those families gather together, and we always find one of our private, chartered banks behind that gimmick. Very amazing indeed.
If we are to believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), chartered banks are holy institutions, they are sanctuaries. Those sanctuaries control and overburden small-income people. They move producers against consumers, promoting struggles between these two groups. Owing to their actions, low-income people are affected by this inflationary situation, by the depreciation of money, as my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) indicated, and those people go on profiting by inflation.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce vice-chairman John Leitch is chairman of the corporation controlling Maple Leaf Mills, of which he is also a director. And he is also a director of Massey-Ferguson. Those two large Canadian industries play a part in food production.
My fellow citizen working with Drummond or Utex earns $5,000 or $6,000 a year. In fact, according to Revenue Canada, the average annual income in my constituency is $6,700, or $129 a week. Workers follow the sales advertised by Dominion Stores and Steinberg's, to make both ends meet and give bread to their families.
These workers are victims of the financial system, controlled by the financial establishment that controls this government.
Another vice-chairman and director of the Canadian Industrial Bank of Commerce, Mr. W. F. McLean is also vice-chairman and director of Canada Packers, a company holding 500,000 equity shares of Dominion Stores Ltd., an investment worth around $9 million.
It is surprising, Mr. Speaker, to see how all those families keep together: the world of farm machinery, the world which controls production input, the world which controls banking, which controls the marketing for Dominion Stores Limited. All this belongs to the same group of financiers, as said my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska. Mr. Speaker, only a handful of men are running the country.
In short, Argus Corporation owns directly 23 per cent of the shares in Dominion Stores Limited, and an additional 6 per cent indirectly through Canada Packers.
Mr. Speaker, how can small producers, small farmers, small tradesmen in Canada face this tremendous increase in prices if their income is frozen?

March 20, 1975
Inflation
Mr. Speaker, that does not make sense. Such is the situation with Dominion Stores Ltd. One could go much further, but I must be brief.
Let us now talk about Steinberg Ltd. Perhaps things are better on that side since "Steinberg is on your side" as they say in their ad. Steinberg interests that are now close to a billion dollars employ 23,000 workers and own the largest chain of grocery stores in Quebec, excluding Miracle Marts. Steinberg is 40 per cent controlled by Rockview Corporation which is 100 per cent controlled by Hernns Investments Ltd. Rockview and Hernns are two holding companies comparable to family trusts. Indeed, Rockview and Hernns have the same directors. Sam Steinberg has four daughters, including Rita Goldfarb. Let us see how interesting this is, Mr. Speaker. It is fortunate that this government speculates on people's ignorance. Mrs. Goldfarb died in 1970 but her husband replaces her. He now happens to be senior vice-president of TRIZEC Corporation which is one of the most powerful realtors in Canada with a turnover of about $800 million. Needless to say they manage among other things Place Ville-Marie, Place Bona-venture, 2020 University street, and about twenty shopping centres in Quebec.
Mr. Lazarus Philipps, a lawyer for the interests of Steinberg Limited-and that is where things become interesting-is both a director of TRIZEC Corporation and Steinberg Limited. Needless to add that TRIZEC is 66 per cent controlled by English Property Corporation Ltd. of England, probably the largest realtor in the world. However, English Property Corporation Ltd. is controlled by Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. of London and its president is- and that is the icing-Sir Brian Monurtain who is also a director of the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, that is how ignorant and blind are the government members who protect those banks and say to the small consumer: "Tighten your belt." It is this same government financed by those same financial interests that controls and exploits Canadians.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, it is not the Bank of Nova Scotia, in spite of its interests and its relationship that finances them with Steinberg Limited, but rather the Royal Bank of Canada- and I will prove it-whose president is Mr. Earle McLaughlin and sits on the board of directors of about twenty big companies; he was one of the most determined opponents of Bill 22 in the English-speaking Quebec community. This Mr. McLaughlin is a director of Power Corporation which supports the Liberal government in Quebec that holds 10 per cent of the shares. Mr. McLaughlin is a director of the bank which finances Steinberg Ltd. and holds 10 per cent of the shares of Argus Corporation which controls Dominion Stores Ltd. These big corporations, Mr. Speaker, control Massey-Fergusson, Domtar, the Bank of Nova Scotia, shopping centres and other things.
If we dig deeper, since they are big financiers and they make profits, we realize that their profits are very small. What do they do with those profits? They reinvest them, build shopping centres and go on exploiting low-income people, against the interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will spare the House the rest of the story. I have on hand fantastic data which actually show what is this conglomerate of banks. Mr. Speaker, those large companies that take an unfair advantage of the situation will lead us directly to socialism if we not take care.
The purpose of the motion under discussion is precisely to help the small business, the processor, and especially the consumer, the corner store to obtain fair marketing at a fair price consistent with the consumer's income.
Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite find the compensated price a funny idea. Liberals were content with saying to the Conservatives during the last election: "It is not good to freeze prices and wages". But what did they have to propose? The Plumptre Commission whose chairman earns $40,000 a year, but nothing more. With this government we study studies without any results.
Mr. Speaker, is there overproduction or underconsumption in Canada? According to the Creditistes, there is underconsumption and not overproduction. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, our shelves are filled to capacity. Money is short and it is worthless. A worker today, after going on strike to fight for his legitimate and sacred rights, that is the right to earn a decent living for himself and his family, finds that with his wage increase he has less money to spend than he had five years ago, while his workload has increased. That does not make sense in a country such as ours.
Madam Speaker, we have seen in the past year in Canada, not in Japan or in Germany, mentioned by the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), potatoes destroyed in the fields, and today a New Brunswick company is importing ten million pounds of potatoes in Quebec and is putting them on the market to compete with our people. Who is controlling what? Go and see who is running this New Brunswick firm. Are we short of eggs in Canada? Have the Canadian hens stopped laying eggs? No, Madam Speaker. Have the workers stopped working in that industry? No, Madam Speaker. Yet, we destroy thousands of dozens of eggs. It is a scandal, the scandal of affluence in this country, Madam Speaker. Some may find that funny, but let us not repeat this shocking wastefulness in third world countries, because in 10, 15 or 20 years from now, the balance of power among the countries may have changed. Such wastefulness is sacrilegious. Do we have too much milk or too much butter in Canada? Madam Speaker, this government is lying, this government is exploiting the consumer in cahoots with the banks that control the marketing of our food stocks. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who is here now, directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture, which was answered on February 19, 1975, as reported on page 3359 of Hansard. The member asked whether the government had granted a subsidy or a discount on the price of a quart of fluid milk and, if so, how much?
Madam Speaker, those in the House who find the Social Credit motion silly and those who, like the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), say that it is nonsensical, should know that the government of which they are members granted last year milk subsidies amounting to $109 million as a discount on the price of a quart of milk. I am sure the hon. member for Compton does not understand what we are proposing here, that he merely toes the line.
March 20, 1975

When the Minister of Agriculture announced that subsidy, the hon. member for Compton applauded and did not understand. Tonight, the same thing is proposed with respect to the whole of food production in Canada and the same hon. Member who found that all right when it came from the Liberals finds it ridiculous when it comes from the Social Crediters.
Madam Speaker, people from that constituency were losers in that. A $109 million consumption subsidy was granted by the Liberals. It sounded fine; the government were said to be generous. But not to worry, Madam Speaker, this government are bright and intelligent. They went and fetched the money, it did not take them long. On February 24, 1975, we learned from a tabled document-let us refer to Question No. 519 on the order paper, raised again by my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-that 24,949,700 pounds of butter were imported from various countries. That butter is for sale, the government buys it from other countries at an average cost of 54 cents a pound. But the same pound of butter imported by the Canadian government is sold for 94 cents to the consumer.
Madam Speaker, the government themselves act in the same way as Dominion Stores, Steinberg's, Argus or Power Corporation. They import butter from foreign countries, bring it onto the Canadian market, fiddle, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said, with the ticketing, launch the product on the market, buy it for 54 cents and sell it back for 95 cents, and again it is the consumer who pays for the subsidy he was to benefit from.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired.


Some hon. members:: Proceed!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House agreed for the hon. Member to proceed with his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank my colleagues, Madam Speaker.
Let us note that this subsidy relating to the price of milk, this consumption subsidy was granted by the minority government. We then got a lot more with respect to the problem of Canadian consumption that we do now. We now have a strong government, and farmers in my constituency who are asking $11.60 per hundredweight today, Madam Speaker, are the victims of this situation because they do not manage to make both ends meet. This government makes promises to them, but does not consult them, and a little later they will play politics and say: We are the ones who did that.
Madam Speaker, are Canadians actually partners of this government with regard to the economy of this country or are they always to be considered as poor relations in our economy, as marginal people? That is the question.
The President of the Privy Council also said this afternoon that if a financial help to consumers creates inflation. So, in his great wisdom, the president of the Privy Council suggests that financial assistance to the consum-
Inflation
er, the journeyman, the labourer, would create inflation. However, the president of the Privy Council, in the same government, is launching numerous programs to create employment, to increase production. On the one hand, they say that it is a lack of production and on the other, hand, they say: Restrain yourself, your income is too high.
Madam Speaker, there is something wrong in this Parliament. Do members visit their riding? Do they listen to the people to learn about their situation? When an unemployed comes to our office and has been waiting for two months for his first unemployment cheque, and that man has three children, Madam Speaker, here is a Canadian who deserves our attention. He deserves to be heard, to be welcomed, and to be helped. Then he goes back home and hears on television that night the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) say: "Old chap, if you don't mind tighten your belt". Then he switches to another station and hears, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) say: "If you want to save energy, tighten your belt, turn off the lights when not needed". Sometimes the ministry uses Mrs. Lise Payette for that kind of advertising, and I would be interested to know how much she gets for that.


An hon. Member:: It must be "heavy".


André-Gilles Fortin: It really is "heavy", Madam Speaker.
We ask the working poor to make the sacrifices that the big shots cannot and do not want to make.
Madam Speaker, in my last remarks, I will simply say this: the Social Credit Party is not a socialist party. We believe in the free enterprise system, everybody knows it. We believe that the only aim of production is to meet consumption, because production as such makes no sense, and to build a tractor for the sake of it or to cut out a dress for the sake of it does not make any sense. When you cut out a dress, it is to meet a need. Now, Madam Speaker, money in a country is exactly no more than a means of exchange so that production meets needs, that is consumption. Now, over the years, governments have given chartered banks the power to issue our currency and our credit. They have given them the power to extend loans based on absolutely nothing. How can you reimburse $150, when you have been lent only $100?
Members on the other side may solve this mathematic quizz, but you cannot return $150 when you have received only $100. Even if you work, because of the depreciation of money and the lack of balance between total income in Canada and total production, it is mathematically impossible to buy this production.
Madam Speaker, this is the tragedy we are in. Money, which is already insufficient, is being depreciated by almost 50 per cent. Some will probably still refuse to accept that money is being depreciated.


An hon. Member:: With the Social Credit, it cannot be devaluated!


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, with the Social Credit it cannot be devaluated since money is based on production. I see that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) finds it funny. Madam Speaker, I would like to see the

March 20,1975
Inflation
hon. member for St. Boniface explain inflation to labour and tell them: "Tighten your belts".
Madam Speaker, we have come to a point in this country when we must look for positive solutions.
In this House it should not be said that the Progressist Conservatives are no good because they are conservatives, the Liberals are no good because they are liberals or the social credit this does not make sense because it has never been implemented. Acting that way, Madam Speaker, would generate in this Parliament a partisan and political spirit rejecting solutions that would really solve the problem.
Madam Speaker, I might be convinced that Liberals are not financed by financial conglomerates such as banks, Dominion Stores Limited, Steinberg Limited, Argus Corporation and Power Corporation only if they were honest in their attitude and their search for solutions and if they accepted to listen and study the creditist proposals even to reject them later. But, Madam Speaker, when they reject it before discussions and explanations are started, it shows that those people have interests to protect. This is why I hope that the Progressive Conservatives will understand the meaning of our motion.
The object of our motion is not to implement the social credit theory as of tomorrow morning; it is rather to make this government understand that the only solution to our inflation problem is to help the human being workers, unemployed, farmers, deprived, and consumers alike. If the Liberals find it funny, it is their problem, they will be judged in due course, but tonight I ask my colleagues of the Opposition to explain and prove to this government that it is strong, it is really on the people's side on the side of the weak on the side of financial conglomerates such as banks, Dominion Stores Limited and Steinberg Limited. And then, Madam Speaker, the opposition will have raised an important debate thanks to the Social Credit Party of Canada. We shall have made a step forward by showing our solidarity on behalf of the Canadian people to this government which defends the wealthy corporations. We shall have shown the government that it is time to protect the average citizen, the builders of our country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the Social Crediters for having proposed this motion on inflation. I cannot support their motion, but I appreciate their sincere concern about the inflationary threat and their determination to fight it effectively.

I am speaking tonight during this debate, although I took part in a debate a week or so ago on a similar motion put forward by the NDP, because I regard this subject of such great importance, and because I welcome the opportunity to speak particularly to those members of the government party who are present and to impress upon them, since they have the responsibility at this time, the grave importance of the menace that confronts us, and the importance of a real assault on the problems of inflation, consistent of course with methods that enable our economy to continue to grow, expand and provide employment.

We are in all probability three and a half years away from the next general election. Surely we can discuss this matter with a view to reaching some positive and constructive approaches. We are some months beyond the last election, and surely we do not have to refight it again in discussing these issues. Surely in most parts of this House there is an agreement now that there is no simplistic solution to this problem we are confronting.
I do not know whether the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is making an interjection or conducting a private conversation, but if he does not mind I will pay no attention to him tonight and just present the views I wish to present seriously to his colleagues who are prepared to sit and listen. I think he will listen too, knowing he is a man of-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If you say something that makes sense I will listen.


An hon. Member:: You don't have sense enough to know what makes sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government is fond of saying that every party in the House has simplistic solutions to this problem. It keeps hurling at us, for example, that the only solution we have is prices and wages control, as they call it, or prices and incomes control. We never put that forward as a comprehensive solution to this problem. I want to say that, in advancing that appropriate fiscal and monetary policy, in all probability there would never have been a time in which such a policy would have had a better chance of succeeding than following the election on July 8, 1974.
I do not rise tonight to argue about the last election or the next. I rise tonight to try to persuade supporters of the government to face up to their responsibilities and present, to the House and the country, an attack against inflation.
I think what the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) had to say before the dinner hour was very appropriate and just. The pre-election policy of the government, concentrating on shortages, was surely too simplistic to be regarded as satisfactory. Inflation in Canada could not be solved by increasing supply in Canada if it were true, as the government said, that the problem really was international. This is obviously contradictory. When the hon. member for Don Valley said that the government had a tendency to give the impression-I want to be fair to the government House leader-to the country that these problems are really international and that there is not too much that we can do about them, I think he has a real point which he expressed eloquently.
The truth of the matter is that many Canadians today feel helpless in the face of inflation. They have been persuaded by various forces that there is really not very much that can be done within Canada, and that the government cannot do very much to deal with inflation. As the hon. member for Don Valley expressed it, this is an exceedingly serious state of affairs when the people of the
March 20, 1975

country feel they really cannot tackle this problem. I hope the government House leader will not misunderstand me and I hope his friends behind him will not misunderstand me when, standing here as I do with no intention to contest the next general election, I say I am horrified by what strikes me as the enormous complacency of my hon. friends opposite in the fact of this problem which confronts us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want my friends opposite to get upset. I want them to listen to me and hear what I have to say on this subject. They give me the impression that they have an election behind them, that the next election is three and one half years away, and that they are prepared to wait out whatever difficulties there may be in the meantime with confidence that things will correct themselves before the next general election.


William Warren Allmand: That is not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope it is not true, but I say in all sincerity that that is the impression they give me, and I suspect it is the same impression they give many people in this country. I want to say to them that if there is one thing that would tempt me to continue in politics in this country in some minor role it would be to fight that complacency which seems to exist. The way in which these gentlemen discuss inflation and the effect it has on the country strikes me as really extraordinary.
The government House leader today spoke about the government having taken measures to offset the erosion of savings in this country. I know my hon. friend pretty well and I know he cannot possibly believe that. He must be well aware of what is happening to the savings of the ordinary person in this country. Actually the savings of the ordinary person in this country are being destroyed today.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) spoke about the effect of inflation upon the redistribution of income in this country. It is enormous. The hon. member for Don Valley was perfectly correct when he referred to these problems, the effect of inflation of 10 per cent or 12 per cent over a period of years and the effect of all this on the ordinary Canadian. I am not talking about the big shot who has a lot of expert advice and perhaps somehow can protect himself. I do not know what is going on over there, Madam Speaker, but I should like them to listen to me for a moment.


An hon. Member:: How can you say we are complacent?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say members of the government are complacent. I said that is the impression they give me, and give a lot of other people. When I consider the effect of inflation and what is going on in this country in respect of those who try to save and are unable to save, I find it impossible to accept or understand the lackadaisical approach of the government to this problem today. I find it difficult to understand how member after member on the government side of the House can be satisfied to stand up in this House and talk about this being an international problem, seem to be satisfied about this, and denounce and
Inflation
attack me and my party for having supported price and income controls.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was addressing myself to the motion before the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not referring only to my hon. friend.
I do not want him to be too sensitive. I think my hon. friend has a fairly profound understanding of the problem. He is a pretty good servant of the government he serves, and puts forward the best case he can for the government when he speaks. I really am more concerned about some of his colleagues, and I say that very sincerely.
I am impressed by their complacency, and also by what I take to be the degree of common ground in the House about how inflation can be attacked in Canada today; the degree of common understanding and agreement that it really has to be attacked by dissuading Canadians as a whole from trying to demand too much from the economy. When I ask questions from day to day about the approach of the government it is not because I am attacking its policy but because I want to know what the government is seeking a consensus about, how earnest and serious it is about this approach, and what progress it is making.
What I am unable to accept, in view of the common recognition in the House about the importance of achieving consensus in this country of ours, whether in the form of compulsory short-term controls which we suggested during the campaign, or by some other approach the government has, is that the government is sincere when, having announced this program in the Speech from the Throne, now many, many months afterwards the leader of the government in the House rises today and says that he thinks we are getting near the first phase of the examination.


Mitchell William Sharp: The end of the first phase.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I said before, I am fully prepared to support the consensus approach. But I do not think it is asking too much that I be given some indication, some tangible evidence, that the government is sincere, is pursuing some definite approach, and that it is making some progress in this regard. I have to say to my hon. friends opposite that on the basis of anything that has been said so far this appears to be a put-on. I hope this is not the case. Quite apart from what impression I may have I would like to think that at this stage at which we find ourselves, with an election behind us, with the government with a majority behind it, with another three years until the next election, that this House of Commons could work toward some real attack on the economic problems of this country, some attack that recognizes what inflation is doing to the ordinary Canadian, an attack also that recognizes the need for employment.
I thought that was really one of the main purposes of the consensus program, namely, to provide the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with a framework which would give him more room to manoeuvre in terms of expanding employment opportunities in the country. We in this party are prepared to co-operate with the government in supporting that kind of program. What we ask for is not

March 20, 1975
Inflation
gimmicks, not any expression of views that there is a simple solution to the problem of inflation, because even a program of consensus will not provide a complete solution. Are we asking too much in asking the government to give the leadership that was promised to the people of Canada, and to tell us what it means by consensus?
There seems to be agreement in the House generally about the need for restraint. The hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge said that this was not only the government's fault, it was everybody's fault. I take it that this is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance, and the government House leader have in mind when they speak about such a program.
With such a wide area of agreement in the House on the general nature of the problem and the appropriate approach, why can the government not tell us and the people of Canada what its program is? Why can we not move forward with this program? Why do we find ourselves in the absurd position, many, many months after this program of consensus was announced, with the House leader rising in the House and saying we are getting near the end of the first stage of the program? I say to the government House leader that we agree that there is no simple solution to this problem, we agree about the importance of maintaining employment, we agree about the importance of restraint, including restraint on behalf of the government, and we agree about the importance of consensus of enabling the various elements in our economy to achieve a consensus.
What we ask for is leadership on the part of the government to indicate to the Canadian people what restraint really means for them, what is really asked for from the various people of this country in the way of restraint. We want some indication as to what is appropriate patriotic behaviour on the part of individual Canadians in their various walks of life in this situation. That is what we ask for, and that is what we are prepared to support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, before getting into the detail of my comments in this debate I would just like to say how honoured I have been two weeks in a row, on two opposition days, to have made my remarks immediately following the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I do not know what omen that portends, but I certainly find it to be a rare distinction for a new member of parliament.
Another comment I would like to make results from some private derogatory comments that did not find their way into Hansard but were directed my way by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) last week, during a similar debate. He might be pleased to note that tonight I am not reading my speech. For the first time I rely only on a few notes. Whether that proves to be an advantage for those who are in this chamber and who will be listening to me, or who will read my comments later in Hansard, remains to be seen.
Third, I would like to say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that I intend to address my remarks directly to the motion that is before us tonight. I hope that that will keep him happy for the next few minutes.

I would like to speak on the motion in two parts, as I have divided it. In the first part the Creditiste party deplores the inaction of the government in its fight against inflation. In the second part it further deplores the fact that the government has failed to support the Creditiste party in its proposal to give all Canadian consumers some form of compensated price on food products they may require.
Speaking on the first part of the motion let me say that, in my mind, it is not unlike the motion that was put forward in the House last week by the NDP in which they were also deploring the inaction of the government in its fight against inflation, and were indeed proposing that a new budget be brought to the House immediately, this at a time when the budget had received royal assent just two hours earlier.
The arguments that I made that evening are equally applicable tonight in the sense that a major new budgetary direction is being proposed. I do not think there is much point in repeating the same old points. It takes considerable time for the budgetary process to work its way into the economy, and I think we are only beginning to see the effects of the November 18 budget as they start to make an impact on the Canadian economy.
It is far easier for a party in opposition to say to the government that there has been inaction on a particular matter than to say there has been lack of action or too much action in a particular direction. Personally I do not fault members of the opposition for disagreeing with the economic policies that may be put forward by the party which forms a government. Indeed, one could argue that that is part of their responsibility, and I think it is fair for them to say that there is too little here or too much there. But I think it is rather unfair-and I submit in this case completely unjustified-to say that there has been no action.
Indeed, actions have been taken. I refer once again to the red booklet which is a summary of the November 18 budget, and I refer to some of the titles within that budget booklet where reference is made to actions to stimulate housing construction, actions to sustain capital investment, actions to reduce substantially personal income taxes, and actions to protect savings. I suggest that if those are not collective actions that tend to work against the problems of inflation, then I am not clear in my own mind what actions might so work. It is quite clear that they are actions designed for that particular purpose. So the implication that no action has been taken by the government in connection with the inflation problem is simply incorrect.
The other point that I think is worth making is that the actions that have been taken by the government in a number of instances were taken before actions undertaken by other governments of some major countries in the western world. I think this was where we showed leadership. Again I say that the question is not one of action versus inaction, but I suppose one could argue whether one form of action is more appropriate than another. To date the kinds of alternatives given to us by the opposition have really not amounted to very much in the form of substantial action.
March 20,1975

I would also like to speak about the first part of this motion pertaining to the inference that we are wrong in connecting our problem with the world problem, and I quote:
. . . deplores the inaction of the government in the fight against inflation on the fallacious pretext that it is an international problem ...
I repeat what I said last week; whether we like it or not, this is an international problem. The price of oil quadrupling is not only a Canadian problem but it is an international problem. The price of sugar having increased as substantially as it has over the past year, and now receding somewhat, is not a Canadian problem but an international problem. The cost of fertilizer to the Canadian farmer is not a Canadian problem but an international problem. The cost of binder twine, a very basic commodity which farmers use in great quantities to bind bales of hay and which is an imported commodity-it is not a Canadian problem that the price has tripled over a short period, but an international problem.
I think we have to realize that there have been international shortages of key commodities. There has also been a desire, and a proper desire, in my view, on the part of people in some of the underdeveloped countries to improve somewhat their way of life. I find it difficult for us to criticize that particular feeling on their part, and this invariably will reflect itself in their costs and the end prices at which they will sell their products to us.
I repeat that the problem is an international one. There are other examples. In the United States of America it took 80 years, from 1860 to 1940, for basic prices to double. From 1940 to 1975 they quadrupled. The point is that we cannot sit back and expect prices in this country not to move substantially when it happens to our important neighbour to the south.
There is one area where we do have some vulnerability. I think we are all concerned about the problem in relation to our own labour costs. There is no question that these costs are growing substantially, and we read that we are perhaps even leading the pack in this area. Yet it is very difficult to convince a labourer doing the same kind of work in the city of Windsor that he should earn less money than his counterpart living across the river in Detroit. It is very difficult to convince a street cleaner in Toronto or Montreal that he should work for less money than his counterpart in a city of equal size in the United States.
We do have problems in terms of total population and what we can afford. We must come to grips with these problems, but they are not easy problems, and it will take a combined effort by government, business and labour. I suggest that it has to be undertaken by virtue of a consensus. I think that we are trying to reach that kind of consensus and, until we do, the problem will remain with us.
With regard to inflation in the future I would like to emphasize again that the budgetary measures taken by our government in November will work their way through the economy over the coming months. I would like also to suggest that there are already signs on the horizon that the inflation period may be coming to an end. We may
Inflation
indeed be moving to the point where the back of this particular problem will be broken.
Before we get too contented and happy about that situation we must realize that we could be facing a more serious problem, or a problem equally as serious but with different complexities, and I refer to the potential problems of recession. Certainly our economy is not growing, nor are the economies of the western world, at the percentage rate one had envisaged a year or so ago. I think that this is an important point because this could be one of the last occasions on which we in this House will debate the problem of inflation in isolation from some of these other complexities. In connection with that I would like to quote a comment made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States this past Monday morning, when he was appearing before the Senate budget committee in the United States. He said:
There has been an obvious softening, for instance, in the price structure. Consumer prices are now climbing much more slowly than they were, and wholesale prices have fallen for three months in a row-the first such decline in eight years.
I would like now to move to the second part of the motion before us tonight where there is again criticism levelled at the government for failing to support the idea of putting a compensated price on all Canadian food produce.

Madam Speaker, ever since I have been sitting in the House, I have always had much respect for the views expressed by members from that side of the House and in my opinion they often deserve much consideration.

I say this because I am not prepared to say that this particular part of the motion in my view is wrong. I am simply saying that I see certain dangers in it which have not been addressed. For one thing, every time we accord a government outlay to support prices for a certain segment of the community, there is another segment of the community which must pay the bill. This means that we must look very carefully at any support we may give from time to time. I think that must be looked at in considerable depth, and analysed extremely carefully.
In this particular case we could be getting ourselves into something we are really unable to measure in terms of potential cost, potential involvement, how it would be handled, etc. I think, for this reason, that that suggestion would require very carefully measurement and consideration, particularly at a time when we are saying that it is probably unwise to aggravate the inflation disease. At this point, any massive government outlay of that kind would obviously have that kind of effect.
I think that the protection of the consumer is a very important matter at this time. It is a concept I am able to support. I think the manner in which we protect consumers and what kind of protection we are giving them, however, are things which must be carefully considered, not just for the sake of the person paying the bill but also for the person who is ostensibly receiving the benefit.
If we were to pump more tax money into any kind of support program to ensure reasonable food prices-whatever is deemed to be reasonable-we must carefully con-

March 20, 1975
Inflation
sider what we are getting ourselves involved with, Madam Speaker.
To summarize, I have all due respect for the motion put forward by the Creditiste party-for whom, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I do have the greatest respect-and for the ideas I have heard them express, but I find myself unable to agree that my government has done nothing about the inflation problem confronting Canadians. Rather, it has taken some very positive measures in this regard which have been acknowledged by members of the western world community. There is some evidence of this in that our own Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has been elected chairman of the interim committee of the World Monetary Fund. There is also such evidence in the provisions of the November 18 budget.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I want to suggest once again that, in my view, the inflationary ogre may well be moving to a lesser position on our list of economic priorities.
I am unable to support the tenuous suggestion that the government should further shore up the economy by artificially supporting high food prices at a time when we are really looking at means by which we can keep prices and costs as low as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Epp:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), who just concluded his remarks, said that I had mentioned on previous occasions that he read his material. I should like to commend him tonight for not doing that. If the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) were to make the same contribution this would be a better place.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the same point of order. Here we had an example of a Liberal backbencher making a very constructive speech. If you were to compare that with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) then I think the Leader of the Opposition should be complimenting this backbencher on a job well done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Matte) which was negatived.	1


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That supplementary estimates (D) 1974-75, laid upon the Table, Monday, March 3, 1975, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-55, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, 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. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-54, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1975, be read a 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. Laniel in the chair.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill takes the same form as those passed in previous years and does not provide for any additional borrowing power.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I know the bill is not debatable and I will not attempt to debate it, but I want to point out that on a survey of the Schedule it appears to contain a larger percentage of $1 items in relation to the main items than any other bill I have ever seen.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Interim Supply
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That this House do concur in interim supply, as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $4,603,596,900.59 being the aggregate of:
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, laid before the House of Commons on February 19, 1975, $3,919,682,567.25.
(b)	An additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Agriculture Item L30, Energy, Mines and Resources Item L50, Finance Item 20 and Transport Items L75 and L100 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $120,982,666.67.
(c)	An additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board Item 19 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates $20,000,000.00.
(d)	An additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Items 30 and 65, Environment Item 15, Privy Council Item 5, Transport Item 40, 50 and L70 and Urban Affairs Item 10 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $449,223,250.00.
(e)	An additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Finance Item 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item L80, National Health and Welfare Item 40, Secretary of State Item 10, Treasury Board Item 5 and Urban Affairs Item 15 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $61,699,666.67.
(/) An additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Item 30, Labour Item 1, Manpower and Immigration Item 10, Secretary of State Item 15, Supply and Services Items 1 and 15 and Veterans Affairs Item 1 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $32,008,750.00.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that there are no schedules, A, B, C, D and E, to the estimates to which you have referred.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion which has just been put is in reference to the supply bill just passed and the schedules therein contained.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a point of order.

March 20, 1975
Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize one must not quarrel with a statement of the Chair but the supply bill we passed was for 1974-75 and these are interim estimates for 1975-76. There is an explanation, but it is a better one than this.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the said motion adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-55, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-55, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to know, without getting into debate, whether the minister will give the usual and traditional guarantee with regard to the moneys to be covered by the interim supply bill and if, in doing so, he will explain to us the provisions of clause 5.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will give the explanation when we are in committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-$4,603,596,900.59 granted for 1975-76.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the appropriations
requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to June 30, 1975. In no instances is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I would like to say that item 5 constitutes the not unprecedented power to borrow up to

$4 billions. We can trace back in similar bills passed in previous years a borrowing power and if my information is right, this power to borrow $4 billions is completely in accordance with the Standing Orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. May I just point out that the schedules referred to in the resolution are the schedules that are attached to this bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member is right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course he is right, he is always right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the House should have a further explanation as to why the items covered in clause 2(b) are in fact being carried to the extent of eleven twelfths of the total estimate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Which one does the hon. member refer to?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to clause 2(b), the eight twelfths of the total of the amounts of the several items in the said estimates set forth in schedule A, $120 million. This is an additional eight twelfths on top of the three twelfths which are passed in clause 2(a), so with respect to the estimates set out in schedule A we are passing tonight, eleven twelfths of the total estimate. I think that is virtually replacing any meaningful committee review of these estimates, and a further explanation should be given.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that the hon. member referred to Clause 2(a) and (b), and I think he referred to eleven twelfths. That is really in reference to annex (a), and the first one is agriculture. For his information the program is production and marketing, loans to finance the construction of an exhibition building. This additional eight twelfths is requested to meet substantial progress payments for projects in western Canada and eastern Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: You've gone to the metric system.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman-


Mr.   Chairman@: Order, please. I hope that we can keep to the point of order because it is my duty, according to the rules which we operate under at this stage of committee of the whole on this bill, to see that there is no debate. The hon. member can ask questions for procedural information, but I would not want to have a debate carried on from one side of the House to the other.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are a few items like that. I cannot enumerate all of them. They are in the Schedule. They are advance payments which we need right away because on those few programs we have to advance the money right away. We need the authority of the House to make those payments. The payments will be in the fiscal year 1975-76, but the payments here will be made in the first quarter of the year. That is why we are asking for the authority to spend nearly all the money, not three twelfths but eleven twelfths of it.
March 20, 1975


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order-and I have raised this on other occasions-it would seem that tonight we are asked to approve things which have not been approved by the committee. We may be operating under the rules of the House, but I do not think half or three quarters of hon. members on all sides of the House really know what this bill is about. I would call it the biggest financial abortion ever to hit parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: An illegal abortion.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order. If the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) rising on the same point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: I am rising on another point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: In reply to the hon. member I must say that I hope he is not reflecting on the Chair. This is a procedure which has been established by hon. members in the House of Commons, and it has to be followed by the Chair in the Committee of the Whole.


André-Gilles Fortin: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has explained very briefly Section 5(1) which pertains to the power to borrow $4 billions for public works or general purposes. Does the Minister mean that he is empowered to borrow $4 billion at an interest rate he cannot divulge for works that have not been approved by the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, this is an authority to borrow in the usual ways of the government. I said in my preliminary remarks on this bill that each committee will have the opportunity to make a detailed examination of those supplies and that the passing of this bill not prejudice in any way the members' right to ask questions about those expenditures when the ministers appear before the committees.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my point of order deals with clause 2(b). Could the President of the Treasury Board explain the urgency in having to pass eleven twelfths of this amount tonight, bearing in mind that there has been absolutely no committee review of this item whatsoever?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, under the guise of a point of order, is trying to ask questions of the minister. Surely our procedure is that when we proceed with the bill members can put their questions. It is the practice, under the Standing Orders, when the main estimates are before committee-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Shall clause 2 carry?
Interim Supply


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question for the President of the Treasury Board. On page 10 of the bill there appears item No. 10 under the Department of the Secretary of State, "Bilingualism Development-$106,845,000." May I ask if this sum is for expenditure in the public service only?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the rule is that these questions will be asked in committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: After you have spent the money. How ridiculous can you get?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I am just following what has been the tradition of this House for years. I have guaranteed the right of the hon. member to ask those questions in committee. He just wants to put on a show tonight, and he wants to be president of the committee when-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. They can laugh and shout over there but they are spending $4 billion or $5 billion of Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If they think I was elected to put a rubber stamp on that kind of procedure, they are wrong. If the President of the Treasury Board thinks I am going to endorse that nonsense he is wrong.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The members of the government know it is a farce.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think if hon. members would take their seats for a few seconds it might be worth while to read the Standing Order. We do not sit in committee of the whole on supply and interim supply very often so maybe hon. members should be reminded of Standing Order 58(10), which reads as follows:
On the last allotted day in each period, but, in any case, not later than the last sitting day in each period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and, if those proceedings are not in relation to a no-confidence motion, he shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply,-
I have no choice but to invite hon. members to abide by the rule and not raise questions in the guise of points of order. Hon. members may have disputes and may disagree with the way we have to operate, but I have no alternative than to apply the rules. If hon. members have good and valid points I am ready to accept them, but if points of order are raised to seek information and ask questions, I have to consider them out of order. The hon. member for Moncton.

March 20, 1975
Interim Supply


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I have something really serious that I want to bring up at this stage. It is a question of privilege and a point of order too. You have ruled, and I suggest we follow your ruling, but I do not belong to the committees and I do not have the right to vote in this committee.


An hon. Member:: You are a member of this committee.


Leonard C. Jones: You will have an opportunity to speak when I am through. I do not have the right to speak in debate at this particular committee yet the President of the Treasury Board suggests I go to a committee on which I will not have an opportunity to vote. I do not think that is fair. If that is the procedure which has been adopted by this House, that procedure is incorrect and should be changed.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think the hon. member might have had a valid point of order if he had raised it when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. At present we are in the Committee of the Whole House. I am chairman of the committee. The hon. member's grievance is not related to the workings of this committee. The hon. member has always received the attention and help of the Chair and I am sure, if he were to raise his point of order when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, that he would receive the full co-operation of Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, earlier I raised a point of order. I wanted the President of the Treasury Board to indicate the urgency for passing the eleven twelfths item to which I referred, bearing in mind that $150 million is at stake. I think the President of the Treasury Board was willing to answer.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. If I allow the question and allow the answer we shall be engaging in debate, which I do not have the authority to allow at this stage. It is my duty to put all questions necessary to the committee. The committee is to decide on them forthwith, so that the bill can be reported in the House.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I am rising, not on a point of order, but simply to ask the President of the Treasury Board a straight question. I ask, is that sum for the public service only?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the rules do not allow me to answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are Liberal rules, forced on us by closure.


Mr. Breau:: You accepted them in December, 1968.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not accept them.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Bellechasse rising on a point of order?
[The Chairman.]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Since most hon. members are dissatisfied with this procedure, and nevertheless-


An hon. Member:: Come to the committee.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Let me speak first, you can speak after me. My dear friend will speak after me. The Chair has just explained that according to the rules, no debate or amendment are to be allowed. But, we are certainly not a bunch of morons. We are being requested to vote estimates amounting to $4 billion. We are being told: "Vote now, and ask for explanations later". That is, in short, what it amounts to.
Therefore, since just about everybody seems to be satisfied with this procedure, could we not agree-


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: The hon. member should do like us and attend the sittings of the committee.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Dear me, the members are so displeasing this evening. It is not because the government members have obtained the consent of the official opposition on a sensible motion which we introduced that they should be so displeasing, for God's sake.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: If you do not attend the sittings-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I would invite the hon. member to complete his point of order as soon as possible. I also ask for the co-operation of the other members who want to help the Chair, but who are not doing anything to help us progress quickly. The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your assistance. My point of order was quite serious and still is. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Laurier is teasing us when he says: "Come to the committee, if you want to know what is going on."
Mr. Chairman, we are united and we know what is going on, but they want to make us believe that we do not. We know what goes on. In all seriousness, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) whether, with regard to Annex E, we might have some information concerning the Food Prices Review Board: does the amount provided cover operating expenditures of the board or does it also provide for the extended mandate it will be given?


Gérald Laniel: Order. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member. Still, the hon. member must understand that his inquiry to the President of the Treasury Board is not in order. He must address it to the committee of the whole. If he wants this information, and to break the rule imposed to the committee by the House itself, he will have to get the unanimous consent of the committee. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 20, 1975


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member can see that there is no unanimous consent. I shall therefore proceed immediately with the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5

Power to raise loan of $4,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Can the President of the Treasury Board indicate what sums are now remaining unborrowed and negotiated in loans authorized by parliament?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Again the rules do not permit debate. Asking questions is debate. If the hon. member wants to seek the unanimous consent of the committee, he should do so.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: From the answer I am getting from the other side, I would be surprised if the hon. member could get unanimous consent. The hon. member may have a procedural point of order concerning clause 5, but he cannot ask for information as far as the bill is concerned.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman I rise on a point of order about a very technical matter. I did not understand quite well when you stated the title and the number of this bill. Did you say Bill C-44 or Bill C-55?


Gérald Laniel: I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that this is Bill C-55, not Bill C-44. [English]


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On Schedule A.
Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. When was notice given with respect to this bill? Was it when it came before the House?


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Leonard C. Jones: I have been here. Where have you been?


Gérald Laniel: I did not get the point raised by the hon. member. Is he asking when notice was given?


Leonard C. Jones: When was the motion made to concur in an item of this nature? When was the notice given in writing?


Gérald Laniel: Notice was given in Tuesday's notice paper.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedules B to E inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Interim Supply
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to my hon. friend from Calgary North raise his point of order, and I do not know how we got into this mess, but it seems to me very unrealistic that we have just spent $4 billion. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) said that I have the opportunity to question these estimates. I respectfully state that we must look into this matter because I think it is wrong that we spend $4 billion in this way. I do not know what has happened, and no one on that side seems to care.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am on a point of order and until the Speaker tells me to sit down I am going to keep talking. I think this whole procedure has to be reviewed. It is a farce, a sham. It is just ridiculous that we spend $4 billion and no one can ask any questions. If this procedure does not call for review, then I do not know what is going on around here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others have raised points of order. The fact of the matter is that under the procedures now used by the House the question of the supply of money to the government, which is the subject matter of both bills before the House tonight, is predicated upon a previous procedure of examination of the spending estimates. Under that procedure the estimates, whether they be main or supplementary estimates, such as is the case with respect to these two bills, are examined in the standing committees.
There have been discussions in the procedure committee which have resulted in the presentation of a report which, according to remarks made earlier this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), would repatriate some of the examination of these estimates from standing committees to the floor of the House of Commons on supply or allotted days. This process of examination of the spending estimates which are in the schedules to the bills, and therefore the subject matter of the supply bills, is the continuing subject of discussion by that committee. The passage of these bills this evening must be predicated upon the previous opportunity of examining the spending estimates, which after all are the substance of debate either in standing committees or on the floor of the House.
Whether this is a satisfactory way of examining the spending estimates which lead into this supply process is a question that has been actively considered by the standing committee on procedure, and it is hoped that the experiment suggested in the report which will come before the House may be a satisfactory improvement. If it be not a wholly satisfactory improvement, other experiments may be attempted which, it may be hoped, will meet with the satisfaction of all members.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, having heard the wording of your ruling I would ask your comments on Item 5-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 20, 1975
Interim Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, Item 5 was not covered-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Item No. 5 was not covered in the estimates which were referred, and I am wondering-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret very much having to rise at this particular time on the point of order I intend to raise. My point of order is explicit. A debate has taken place for a full day in the House of Commons. A vote has taken place. If hon. members of this House of Commons want to get up and plead ignorance, or ask for the deletion of a particular debate or a part of the vote in which they participated, that may or may not be their prerogative. The rules of the House of commons specifically state that there is no excuse to be made in respect of how a person shall vote or how he has voted. All that reasoning should have taken place during the debate on the particular issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: For you to entertain this discussion or this exercise in respect of what really has taken place today is
completely out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that you rule it out of order and adjourn the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), what has happened here tonight is unacceptable and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just listen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), if he is again raising the same point of order which he was discussing earlier, I suggest we have disposed of it. If he has a fresh point of order I will be glad to hear it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
At 10.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME IV