1975-12-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pertaining to the apparent serious mistreatment of the chief steward, a government employee for ten years under two Prime Ministers, at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette:
That the Prime Minister make a statement as to why the position held by Mr. Tom MacDonald, Chief Steward at 24 Sussex Drive for ten years, has been suddenly declared bilingual when all those in the household speak English; whether Mr. MacDonald is being forced to terminate his employment in the spring and what specific part, if any, was played by the Prime Minister's wife in this regrettable and unnecessary designation of a bilingual position.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Given the important strike now affecting the pulp and paper industry across the country, which may cause prejudice to all parties involved, and since the general policy of the federal government for this industry urgently needs to be revamped and updated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House of Commons proceed forthwith to a review of the general situation of the pulp and paper industry in the country in order
to take specific measures which would facilitate the settlement of conflicts, like for example the control of imports and exports.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, having to do with the very expensive de-icing system at Mirabel constructed with public funds. In view of the reluctance of the Ministry of Transport to proceed with tenders to determine the most efficient and economical way to operate this expensive system, evidenced by their abrupt cancellation of the tenders which were scheduled to be opened on November 21 at eleven o'clock, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar:
That the Minister of Transport proceed forthwith to settle the question of who, or which company or organization, shall operate the de-icing facilities at Mirabel, and provide this House and the international airlines as well with cost data so that we may be aware of the efficiency and overhead factors together with the additional charges to the airlines which use Mirabel.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 2, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General perhaps I could address my question to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Postmaster General. In a statement this morning the postal union executive said that there are profound and continuing problems in postal labour relations, and that the union will be fighting every day during this contract for the things that are missing. In order to moderate the bitter relations that this long strike has done nothing to resolve, would the government tell the House whether it intends to take any initiative, possibly early initiation of negotiations for the new contract, to improve industrial relations in the post office?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Postmaster General will be in the House a little later on and I am sure that he can deal with any questions, but I cannot take seriously the suggestion of the hon. member opposite that we start now to talk about a new contract.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-SUBMISSION OF SETTLEMENT TO ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to refer the settlement reached in the postal strike to the Anti-Inflation Board for approval and, if so, will it have to take its place in the long line of cases waiting to be heard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the long line of cases, I do not know to what extent the hon. member is informed, but this, like every other contract, will be subject to the judgment of the Anti-Inflation Board.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since the white paper on inflation maintains that exceptions to the 10 per cent wage and salary increase guidelines will be permitted where an historical relationship has been established, and since the Anti-Inflation Board acknowledges that such relationship does in fact exist between metro Toronto high school teachers and metro Toronto elementary school teachers, would the minister explain how the

board can possibly reach a decision that would leave the secondary school teachers in a position inferior to that of the elementary school teachers?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board now has, and will have after the bill is passed, responsibility for making judgments on the facts of each particular case. I do not think it is particularly useful for me, as Minister of Finance, to try to give an explanation of every judgment reached by the Anti-Inflation Board. Those decisions speak for themselves.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because they do that a lot of people, including negotiators on both sides, are much concerned. Since on page 23 of the white paper brought in by the government it is categorically asserted that where an exception is acknowledged, as it has been by the Anti-Inflation Board in this case, the purpose will be, to quote the white paper, "to maintain along established historical relationships", and since the two teacher groups in question have had salary parity for the past 21 years, does the decision by the board not flatly contradict what is categorically stated in the white paper?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the board gave a decision clarifying both this case and the Hamilton teachers case, and I think the two of them are to be read together in order to get a full understanding of their thinking on these matters. It seems to me, as I say, that nothing useful is accomplished by my trying to add my own interpretation of what the Anti-Inflation Board is saying.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister and indeed the Prime Minister have said that the collective bargaining process is not being interfered with in any way by these guidelines, may I ask the minister, following this decision by the AntiInflation Board, whether the decision does not mean that the phrase "historical relationships" in the white paper now no longer has any meaning, and that instead of bargaining with employers, employee groups should submit proposals directly to the Anti-Inflation Board, which would mean, in effect, acknowledging that the collective bargaining process in Canada is dead under this legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes some sweeping allegations, but I think the general response is no.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
We have just learned that 53 per cent of the postal workers voted to return to work, accepting the employer's
December 2, 1975

offers, while we were told last night that 70 per cent of the union members in Montreal voted to continue the strike. Does the minister see in that situation a play on the part of people like Parrot and company and the union, in that they would have the people believe that the postal workers are forced back to work by the Ontario vote as opposed to the Quebec vote in Montreal; and does the minister intend to unmask those hypocrites, once and for all, who try to mislead the people and save face by saying: Montreal did not want to put an end to the strike, while Toronto imposed a settlement; does the minister intend to make a statement to dot the "i"s with regard to those people?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I believe not. I feel the hon. member has done so much better than I could.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Solicitor General's statement yesterday that the Department of Justice is preparing legislation to be used instead of the War Measures Act for security purposes at the 1976 Olympics, would the Minister of Justice indicate to this House whether this legislation is in fact being prepared, when the government intends to introduce it, and will it, indeed, be drafted for the purpose of giving the government the opportunity to revert to the War Measures Act using another name?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of seeing my colleague's statement, and I should like to see it and discuss it with him first.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my supplementary question on the same subject, the Olympics, to the Postmaster General, and I want to take this opportunity to compliment him for having taken a firm stand with the CUPW union, albeit it has taken the longest time in history to get the mails moving in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact that Mr. Norton Cooper's involvement surrounding the prosecution of two DREE officials sometime ago in connection with substantial federal grants to his company, Silver Shield Mines of Toronto, could the Postmaster General advise this House what criteria led the post office to award this Olympic stamp medallion contract to Mr. Cooper's other company, Jacques Cartier Mint?
Oral Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into the question and report back to the hon. gentleman. Frankly, I am not aware of the circumstances at the time the contracts were awarded.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as more than seven weeks have now passed since the fatal parachute drop into Hochelaga, will the Prime Minister advise the House what is causing the latest paralysis in the government's decision making process, and when may we expect an announcement of the name of the new minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am testing new chutes to make sure this doesn't happen again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: That is good news, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the real reason for this very long delay is not the fact that what has now become known as the "Sky Shops test" for all candidates is taking a little longer than expected?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member means the "sky drop test," Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who last week indicated that, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan, the provinces are only undecided on the administrative formula under which provincial jurisdiction will be covered by this program. Would the minister tell the House whether the other nine provinces specifically accept in principle the economic guidelines outlined in the white paper and their application to provincial jurisdictions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the very broadest sense I think one could say yes. In more specific terms, in reference particularly to the pricing for provincial goods and services, at the meeting last week there was what I think can be said to be rather diverse but general dissent to the notion of applying the guidelines to all elements of pricing, for example to the pricing of liquor in Ontario liquor stores and to Ontario Hydro. In that sense, as I indicated after the meeting, there

December 2, 1975
Oral Questions
will have to be further discussions to determine if the province is to go under section 4(4) or section 4(3) and the extent to which it will apply the guidelines to the services and goods which it is responsible for making available to the market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister having said, and I shall quote briefly from a press interview of last Wednesday, "Our preference in that regard would be to try and get as much national uniformity as we can, but we have set out in the bill the option for the provinces and we have to accept the fact that some may choose that option", do I take it that it is the minister's position that this option permits a province to administer guidelines that may differ from those administered by the Anti-Inflation Board, that is that it may bring in further different guidelines within the spirit of provincial jurisdiction being maintained by the province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the matters that will be the subject of agreements to be entered into between the provinces and the federal government in respect of which there will be a further meeting at the official level this week. In general terms our preference would be that even in relation to the 4(4) option the national guidelines be applied. Naturally, when they are being applied by different bodies there is some scope for difference in application.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To be precise about it, Mr. Speaker, then the minister has not yet received an assurance that any province which wishes to retain administration within its own jurisdiction will in fact follow the federal guidelines and a province could comply with the Act we are being asked to pass and yet follow different guidelines from those pursued by the Anti-Inflation Board.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, of course the matter has not been concluded. The effort the officials will be making at the meeting on Thursday will be to try to get a commitment to achieve as broad uniformity as possible. The agreement itself will be the subject matter of negotiations, so I cannot be firm for the hon. member in that regard.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman advise if the relationship, if any, between Senator Giguere and Kebec Restaurants, and any subsidiaries or associates of this company, is part of the area being investigated by the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information in the House of Commons.
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).]


AIRPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I want to thank him for tabling the data in respect of the establishing of duty-free shops and ask him whether he is prepared to table the documents outlining the considerations on which all catering, restaurant and bar facilities were awarded at Mirabel.


Hon.   Otto. E. Lang@Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that.


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY
Mr. Yves Caron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is also the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Two weeks before closing the seaway, it is obvious that feed grain supplies in the ports along the St. Lawrence are insufficient and that cattle producers are concerned about this situation; they will also have to pay higher prices for feed grains and additional premiums in winter to feed their cattle. Can the minister assure this House and the producers of eastern Canada that enough feed grain will be stored for the current year at prices which will not reflect the present difference between the prices on the open market and the prices of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course prices do depend upon a variety of market conditions and can change. The supply situation is one in which the various buyers must look to the need and see that supplies are available. I can give the House this assurance, that a recent examination of supplies has indicated that there is in fact as much or more western grain in position in eastern Canada at this time, and that some significant movement of grain is continuing down the seaway before the closing of navigation. There is, of course, this year also a larger supply of Ontario corn, as well I believe, as additional corn in the province of Quebec, so the supply situation is basically a sound one.


REQUEST THAT FEED GRAINS SUBSIDY REMAIN UNCHANGED
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister, as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Can the minister assure the cattle producers of eastern Canada that the assistance for the transportation of feed grains will not be removed nor changed, unless it is incorporated in the new freight policy?
December 2, 1975


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the very specific question of certain modifications in feed grain assistance was included in the feed grain policy announcement some time ago steps will be taken in relation to that. The over-all policy on transportation of course will evolve with time. I do not know that this particular part of it can be separated from all of these developments.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has his department made a decision as yet on the appointment of two new Canadian Wheat Board commissioners?


Otto Emil Lang: No decision has been made as yet, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it has to do with press reports that the minister wrote a letter dated September 23 to the premier of British Columbia which is reported as having said that in the matter of negotiations regarding Indian land claims Indians should not be involved. He said ". . . would not be appropriate and some other way of carrying out negotiations would have to be explored". I want to ask the minister what possible reason there could be for excluding the Indian people's representatives from these negotiations unless, as one Indian chief has suggested, it is because the federal government wanted to work out a sweetheart deal with the province before sitting down at the table with the Indian representatives?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: It would be a very strange day when we could work out a sweetheart deal with the government of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Judd Buchanan: The quotation very carefully left out the preceding part of the letter which expressed my concern that the two levels of government might be accused of ganging up on the Indian people, and I suggested that we should sit down, discuss the matter, and reach a common ground. We have not moved from the position that it is the federal government's responsibility to deal with and extinguish the claim. The point with which we have had no success until now is to bring the provincial government to
Oral Questions
accept that they have a responsibility so far as land and resources are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister acknowledges that it would not be possible to work out this sweetheart deal but I want to ask the minister this question: In view of the fact that the government of B.C. has already acknowledged and conceded that it has responsibilities in this field, may I ask him now why the federal government is not prepared to sit down with the Indian people's representatives and the provincial government since the Indian people have a vital interest in the matter? Will the minister assure the House now that in the preliminary negotiations which take place the representatives of the Indian people will be present along with the representatives of the two senior governments?


J. Judd Buchanan: I should point out that the acceptance of the responsibility to which the hon. member makes reference is a very recent conversion just embodied in a telegram which I received a couple of days ago from Mr. Norman Levi. I have replied to that telegram suggesting a date, a place and a time for the meeting with Nishga Indian representatives on January 12 in the Nass valley, and I just hope he will accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Considering that Canada ought to play an important role in the international field, while we seem to lose some credibility on account of our hazy and occasionally inconsistent foreign policy, would the Minister tell the House if he intends, in the near future, to propose guidelines for a Canadian policy on matters of external affairs as his predecessor seemed willing to do a few years ago?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence this evening, and whatever I present will be firm.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view

December 2, 1975
Oral Questions
of the very ample precedents which already exist in Canada's labour laws respecting government supervised secret ballots, I wonder if the minister would inform us if the government would endorse the bill already before the House in respect of a government supervised secret strike ballot. If not, would the government consider substituting one of its own?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think, as a general principle, the government enunciating whether it would be advisable in all circumstances to require an amendment to the Labour Code in matters of this kind should at least first be discussed with the tripartite body which we have set up, or the Canada Labour Relations Council, because as the hon. member knows, that has been heartily endorsed by his own party as a means of trying to have management, labour and government come together on a better technique to resolve labour disputes and to encourage a greater degree of industrial peace in this country. Having set up the body, and everyone wanting it to have a reasonable chance to attain this objective, it seems that to preempt it and to move without prior discussion would not be advisable.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder then, if the minister would indicate if at this initiative he is going to put this before the tripartite body.


John Carr Munro: Certainly, the terms of reference of the tripartite body are to go into any and all techniques which would reduce the adversary element within labour relations, and I think that would include discussion on this particular point. I am certainly prepared to ask the labour body at what time it wishes to get around to discussing this. It is discussing consolidated bargaining units and other matters at the present time, as the hon. member knows.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In his statement covering the rate of increase for international postal rates the minister stated:
Excluded from the increase, however, are the rates and fees to the United States, its territories and possessions, with the exception of certain publishers' rates.
Four weekly newspapers in my constituency have contended that the cost of mailing their newspapers to the United States after January 1 will increase by some $3,000 or more. Therefore, my question to the Postmaster General is, will this stated increase be applicable to the shipment of weekly newspapers to the United States, or are they excluded?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice a few minutes ago. The press release is definitely ambiguous. We have special rates for the United States which are not considered part of the international rate, and I would want

to check that information this afternoon and get it to the hon. gentleman.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that Bill C-73 seems to be on its last legs in this House-


An hon. Member:: You want to bet?


Gerald William Baldwin: -can the minister advise if he now has a suitable candidate for the position of administrator under the legislation?


Mr. Chretien:: Are you looking for the job?


Gerald William Baldwin: In addition, in light of the fact that the administrator will be both in an adversary and possibly quasi-judicial position vis-a-vis the government, will the government consider going outside the civil service for the appointment in question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that suggestion.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-NUMBER OF COMPANIES TO WHICH GUIDELINES APPLICABLE-SIZE OF STAFF NECESSARY TO MONITOR COMPANIES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify a problem which has just been brought to my attention with respect to the number of companies involved with employees over 500 and which are subject to the anti-inflation legislation? It has been stated there are something like 3,000 companies involved rather than 1,500 and that there can be up to something like 50,000 companies involved in the construction industry. Does the minister agree with that statement, and if not, what are the new figures which he has to present to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take this question as notice.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that it has been pointed out that something like 3,000 companies with over 500 employees are involved and some 50,000 involved with the construction industry, does the minister still feel that a staff of about 200 is adequate to realistically monitor the actions of these companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the first thing to do is to find out if the hon. member's figures are accurate.
December 2, 1975



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
About ten days ago, the minister received a telegram from the inspecting pilots of the airlines, Quebec section, in which they stated the use of French would not in any way jeopardize air security. Can the minister tell the House if he still intends to implement the guidelines which were proposed by Mr. McLish or if the matter is at present being discussed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the study of the question of safety in air travel and the use of languages is an ongoing matter, and I have no further indication of change at this moment. My officials are meeting with a variety of people, including the inspectors to whom the hon. member referred, to pursue the question of safety further.



BILINGUAL GROUND TO AIR COMMUNICATIONS- CONSULTATIONS WITH QUEBEC SOLICITOR GENERAL

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that the Solicitor General of the province of Quebec fully supports the view of the pilots' association, did the minister discuss with him or does he intend to do so?


Otto Emil Lang: I do intend to have such a discussion. The question of safety is one which we must leave in the hands of those who are expert in the analysis of this question.



FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Mrs. Plumptre is now in a new position, has the entire staff of the Food Prices Review Board been discharged or transferred, or are there still employees on that board's payroll?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, most of the members of the Food Prices Review Board, I would say 95 per cent, have been transferred to the new Anti-Inflation Board.
Oral Questions


Thomas Gordon Towers: Are all reports, price lists and all the material which has been available to the Food Prices Review Board going to be made available to the Anti-Inflation Board?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the new board must take over the work done under the former board.



INDUSTRY


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Has the cabinet considered the very serious economic trends which are currently plaguing the pulp and wood fibre industries in Canada, and has it considered re-instigating or re-instituting a number of agreements with the provinces which existed in the mid 1960's? These would help the industry with regard to such things as forced access, reforestation and inventory control.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly consider these, but I wonder if the hon. member has considered that he is really asking for a serious rise in government spending.



THE MINISTRY


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question. In light of the difficulties the forest industry is experiencing-which is incidentally, the second largest in Canada-I wonder if the Prime Minister is considering re-establishing a ministry directly responsible for this particular industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can consider this, too, but as I answered a member on the other side the other day when he asked me a question about multiculturalism, I have to take note that the opposition has asked for the enlargement of the ministry which, of course, would mean spending more money. But I will consider this.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Further to his earlier
9630

December 2, 1975
Oral Questions
comments, would the minister be good enough to indicate whether in his opinion the anti-inflation guidelines will apply to any increases to the consumer subsequent to October 14, 1975 in the price of natural gas in the Scarborough area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the price increases would be made up of agreed price increases at the well head between the provincial governments and the federal government, the gathering charges in Alberta, the charges for transmission by Trans-Canada PipeLines and the costs of distribution within Ontario. The TransCanada PipeLines' charges will, of course, be governed by the guidelines as applied by the National Energy Board.
The distribution costs within Ontario will be governed by the public sector agreement to be made between the province of Ontario and the federal government and made either by the Ontario Energy Board or perhaps by the Anti-Inflation Board. We feel it would be desirable in both these cases to achieve that kind of control. The basic price of natural gas itself would not be governed by the guidelines and would have to be submitted for agreement between the federal government and the provinces from time to time.



FINANCE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement today that the chartered banks have made huge increases in profits this year over last year and the fact that they put only an additional $300 million into mortgages despite the call by the minister of state for housing for one billion dollars, would the minister agree that the moral suasion is not enough and instead make it mandatory that the banks allocated a greater portion of their investment portfolio for mortgages at a fixed low interest rate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member's conclusion does not flow from his premise.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rephrase the question. In view of the fact that the chartered banks have made huge increases in profits, much larger increases than other businesses in Canada this year over last year, and in light of the fact that they have only put an additional $300 million into housing despite the call of the minister of state for housing for one billion dollars, would the minister now agree to bring in legislation amending the Bank Act, making it mandatory that they allocate a greater portion of their investment portfolio for housing at a low, fixed interest rate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be putting before the House before next summer legislation for amending the Bank Act as a result of the decennial revision. I suggest it probably makes more sense to have a

considered amendment of the Bank Act rather than try to do it on the ad hoc basis that the hon. member may decide from week to week from reading the newspapers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the former minister of finance when he brought down his budget last year to the effect that the housing sector was contributing to unemployment and not playing its full role in providing jobs for Canadians, I should like to ask the present Minister of Finance whether he can now say how much unemployment can actually be attributed to the fact that the banks are not playing their full role in helping build houses in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I cannot say that, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice arising out of the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada written by the Chief Justice and involving the former chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal. Has the minister had an opportunity to review this excellent decision? Also, in view of the harsh criticism by Chief Justice Laskin of the government's misuse of investigative powers and information obtained under the Combines Investigation Act and the Income Tax Act, and assuming that the minister has had time to review the judgment, what instructions has he given to the law officers of the Crown on the misuse of information which by statute is confidential?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I read the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada with a good deal of concern and I appreciate the hon. member raising the question. I have asked for a full report of the circumstances surrounding the case, which occurred some years ago. I have not received a report because of the absence of one of my counsel in Toronto. I want to assure the hon. member however, and the House, that I do not condone, and have so indicated to my officers, the use of either the Income Tax Act or the Combines Investigation Act except for the purposes spelled out in those acts. I want to make it very clear that I have put this position to my officials. I am determining the factors surrounding that case and I feel fairly sure that neither of my two immediate predecessors have condoned the use of material obtained under those Acts for purposes not provided for in the Acts.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE INFORMATION GIVEN STATISTICS CANADA WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As is mandatory under the statute that governs Statistics Canada and similar Acts, when people are asked to fill out certain forms with infor-
December 2, 1975

mation about their business and personal affairs, will the minister assure the House that this information will be confidential and not used by officials of the Crown or any other officials in any other department of government?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that to the best of my ability the information gained under those Acts will be used in accordance with the provisions of those Acts which contain very strict measures relating to confidentiality of information. I want to assure the hon. member of that. An incident was raised in this House some two years ago about Statistics Canada divulging information under the Income Tax Act. That was stopped and since then an interdepartmental committee has beer- examining the situation to assure that the confidentiality sections of all those Acts are protected.



ALLEGED INADEQUATE INSPECTION OF FOOD STORAGE AND MANUFACTURING PLANTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the objective of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to protect Canadians from health hazards in the food supply, which includes nutritional and microbiological quality, environmental contaminants, food additives and food standards as well as sanitary requirements, I should like to ask the minister how he ever hopes to assure the people of Canada that they are protected when more than 7,000 of the 10,500 food manufacturing and storage plants in Canada are inspected on an average of only once in every seven years for violations of the Food and Drugs Act as reported by the advisory committee on food safety assessment?

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I must appear before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs this evening where my estimates will be studied. I will then be pleased to discuss the matter further with the hon. member.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister intend to honour the commitment of his predecessor, the present minister without portfolio that two aircraft would be provided or lent to Skywest to institute the air service to Dauphin, Brandon, and other points which had been promised to the Manitoba government?
Hon. Otto E Lang (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government has been to purchase the two craft but to be sure, in the first instance, there would be a way of operating them. In that case, we are
Oral Questions
waiting for the necessary procedures to be gone through. We obviously will have to review our position at this point.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question. Has the minister indicated whether he is in favour of tendering by private and public airlines in awarding contracts for such service as this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that has only arisen incidentally since I have been Minister of Transport.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. In view of the marginal vote by the postal union to return to work, and in view of the six weeks duration of the strike, will the government be signing the normal return-to-work agreement which might allow 72 hours for the men to be on the job and provide that any disciplinary action will be taken through the courts and not on the job?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for any disciplinary action. The unions announced that they are ready to go back to work at five o'clock. As a matter of fact, many have already gone back.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON FIRE IN TORONTO OFFICE

Stan Darling: I assume that the normal Christmas mail and parcel delivery will be resumed immediately. Will the minister comment on the report that there has been a fire in the Toronto post office? Apparently some of the dissidents would rather burn the mail than sort it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am lucky that at the all-night session the ratification vote was not announced as 50.001. I do mind the fire in Toronto. I deplore the bombing of one of our depots during the night by molotov cocktails and some damage done in Quebec city. I cannot say if it is connected with the union or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It may be funny to some members, but I do not feel it should go on in this country.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. I wish to ask if there is any influence which his department or the government can
29956-57%

December 2, 1975
Oral Questions
bring to bear in order to resolve the 14 week strike at de Havilland aircraft?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. This again is a matter on which the union and management should get together to try to resolve in the context of the anti-inflation guidelines.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. Can the minister advise the House if the Amoco Cairo carrying the gift of 129,000 tons of Canadian grain to Bangladesh has discharged its cargo? If so, how many tons were discharged in sound condition? Of the discharge, how many tons were available for direct human consumption and how many tons were suitable only for animal feed?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely, that information can be obtained in another manner.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, before the Postmaster General arrived today, the Prime Minister indicated that it would not be appropriate at this time to negotiate further with the CUPW. In view of statements by the Minister of Labour that continuing negotiations should be carried on during the term of a contract, and in view of the fact that the postal agreement just reached has only 19 months to run, will the Postmaster General continue negotiations in an attempt to solve some of the profound and continuing problems in postal labour relations arising out of the reluctant acceptance by the union rank and file of the government's offer?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement contains provision for labour and management consultation on a weekly basis. I think that in the past this has solved most of the problems. In most of our post offices, which are manned by decent, law abiding Canadians, hopefully that will be the continued method. If there are some who cannot live within the post office and abide by the rules, they must get out of the post office.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the protracted controversy over rail freight rates for rape-seed as against rapeseed products shipped from western Canada to Montreal, Toronto and other areas, and in view of the commitment given by the government last summer in the policy paper on transportation that it would order the CTC to establish rates on rapeseed products at minimum compensatory levels and the increase in railway cost figures, what action has the minister taken or when will he be taking action? Also, what effect, if any, will this have on reducing the existing differential between freight rates for rapeseed and rapeseed products?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport had extensive discussions with the western ministers in particular to arrive at appropriate positions following the CTC decision. There was a general agreement reached about the approach that might be used. Unfortunately, certain steps to arrive at that result require either the consent of a variety of parties or legislation. We have been attempting to obtain that consent. We do not yet have all of it in place in order to implement the understanding about what the rates ought to be and what their relationship ought to be.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a brief but very important question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the minister stated last October that it was hoped the report of Dr. Noel Hall, the industrial inquiry commissioner, concerning all aspects of railway pensions would be available soon, when might we expect this very important report and when will it be tabled in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, contact has been had with Dr. Hall. The answer still is that it will be soon. His hearings were more protracted than he anticipated.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. On November 21 the minister received a telegram from Harold Boucher, the president of the Magrath and District Chamber of Commerce which read, and I quote:
Advise what arrangements made to move grain from Glenwood and Hill Spring elevator. Situation desperate. Grain piled on ground.
December 2, 1975

Deteriorating daily. Surely you can order CP Rail to move grain either by rail or truck.
Will the minister inform the House what has been done in this regard? Has he instructed CPR to restore service to Hill Spring and Glenwood?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, any such instructions would have to originate from the CTC. The problem with rail movement is there is difficulty with a bridge that cannot handle ordinary service. There is real doubt about the ability of anyone to order a movement by truck. However, we have been negotiating toward a specific truck movement of grain. We are attempting to put the final details of that movement in place. I hope to be able to tell these communities in short order about that plan.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. Will the future of casuals within the letter sorting operations of the post office continue as they were before? More specifically, will extra casuals now be hired to help with any backlog?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, because of the unique position of the post office, casuals will always be needed for emergency purposes, including Christmas. We have not in any way restricted their use in this context. The answer, therefore, is yes, we will be using casuals when necessary.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell us whether the Canadian ambassador to France, His Excellency Mr. Gerard Pelletier, has finally succeeded in presenting his credentials to the French government? If not, has he communicated with the French government in that connection? And finally, if those credentials are not required by the French government does the minister intend to order very shortly the return in Canada of His Excellency Mr. Gerard Pelletier?


An hon. Member:: Not in Hochelaga!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador designate has not yet presented his credentials. A date has been put forward for that event later this month. In the meantime, it is not the intention to withdraw Mr. Pelletier. We understand that the delay in the presentation of the credentials
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
was due to the heavy administrative burdens of the President of France.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa,
December 2, 1975
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the second day of December at 8 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to comment on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the CBC, CTV and myself. The opinions I expressed last Friday were based on the CTV interview of the minister of last Thursday evening.

I must say that some others got that impression from the interview, as I did. The minister indicated, in the course of the total interview, that he is somewhat sensitive regarding attitudes toward Quebec and Quebeckers. I am perhaps somewhat sensitive about attitudes attributed to my party in connection with Quebec and Quebeckers.
Following the exchange on Friday, later in the day the minister and I had a chat. He has since made available to me a full transcript of the CTV interview of which I heard an excerpt presented on Thursday evening. I am happy to say that the transcript fully supports the minister's assertion that he in no way implied any racist behaviour on the part of my party.

Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I might say, in closing, that, I do not make a practice of watching the television news at eleven o'clock, and perhaps in view of my hot blood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I should elevate that practice into an invariable rule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-

Since the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to me were based, as he put it in his own phrase, on the opinions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and on the erroneous impression that he had seen the commissioner of the RCMP without the presence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), he might wish to say he regrets using the words: "I hope this doesn't show any racist tendency on the part of the Prime Minister." Surely that was meant in fun, but it wasn't very funny in my view.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I had intended to raise this matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) privately if not publicly. I am happy to have an opportunity to clarify it. I say, in all frankness, that my reaction Friday morning was to attempt to deal lightly with the situation. There seemed to me to be a charge by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which I could not entirely ignore. I thought a reference to a meeting involving the Prime Minister, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Marchand) and the commissioner, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), would be so obviously absurd-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said it was reported to me. I thought the question would be so obviously absurd that the Prime Minister would treat it in the way I intended it to be treated-as a joke. It simply illustrated the absurd lengths to which charges of racism can be pushed. I regret that my sense of humour did not appear to be entirely appropriate to the occasion. Even the finest instrument sometimes goes out of tune.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply wish to assure the Prime Minister-I am sure he will accept my assurance-that I had no intention, on Friday morning, to insert any note of ugliness into our discussions and I regret the fact that the Prime Minister-I am not suggesting he is to blame for this- should have misunderstood. I put it this way: I regret that the light touch with which I had intended to handle a delicate situation turned out to be a trifle heavy-handed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Regional Development, in both official languages-Mr. Lumley.

[Stage Direction]
Ninth and tenth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in English and French, of a document entitled "The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe."


STATEMENT ON &quot;THE FINAL ACT OF THE CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE&quot;
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the document I have just tabled, "The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe"-called from the outset by its initials CSCE-was signed at Helsinki on August 1 by the heads of government of the states of Europe and of Canada and the United States. It is intended to establish the basis for the development of future relations between their countries and peoples. It is, therefore, an entirely forwardlooking document; it does not look back to the past.
Many Canadians have been erroneously led to believe that by signing the Final Act of the CSCE Canada and its allies did something that sanctified the status quo in Europe. It is true that the Soviet Union for the last thirty years and during the course of the CSCE itself sought to gain acceptance of the political and geographical situation in Europe. But throughout the conference the NATO allies worked to avoid a document that could be pointed to in years to come as a surrogate peace treaty for World War II. Not one word of the Final Act justifies the claim that it constitutes recognition of Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe or of the post-war de facto borders.
Canada entered the negotiations with a specific set of concerns. We wanted to play a part in the conference commensurate with our interests in Europe. In this we succeeded. We wanted to see incorporated in the Final Act measures to assist the freer movement of people and ideas. This goal has been achieved. Worthy of special note in this regard is the strong text on the reunification of families, sponsored by Canada.
December 2, 1975

We sought the development of a confidence-building measure involving advance notification of military manoeuvres, and after difficult negotiations such a measure was worked out. Finally, Canada had important economic and environmental interests to safeguard and advance, and the appropriate texts in the Final Act meet our requirements in this respect.
The Final Act provides for a meeting at senior official level in Belgrade in 1977 to review progress in implementation and possibly to organize a resumed conference. It is the policy of the government to ensure that, for its part, the Final Act is implemented as soon and as completely as possible. Copies are being sent to all federal government departments and agencies concerned, to provincial governments and to non-governmental organizations whose cooperation is essential to the carrying out of Canada's responsibilities under the Final Act. Copies are now available to the public through the outlets of Information Canada.
Domestically, we are examining what changes should be made in our present practices to meet the moral commitments we have accepted. In our bilateral relations we are using the document to provide guidance in communiques, agreements and treaties. Multilaterally, consideration is already being given to the matter of implementation in two United Nations bodies, the Economic Commission for Europe, and UNESCO.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, one would never accuse the Department of External Affairs of acting in haste. The document tabled in the House today, the Final Act signed in Helsinki on August 1, 1975, was published in the September issue of "International Legal Materials" and has been reposing since then in the Library of Parliament, where I first read it. This raises the interesting question of what other documentation the government has consigned to the library shelves rather than bringing it into the House for the inspection of parliament. One thinks immediately of the "New International Economic Order," a document that has occupied the attention of two special sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, which has yet to receive the official notice or attention of parliament.
In the case of the Final Act of Helsinki, the reason for the delay may be found in the distinct discomfiture evidenced in the minister's statement; for however much the minister may claim that the Final Act does not justify Soviet control over eastern Europe, this is precisely the effect. We are to go forward, the minister says, not dwell on the past. Are we to forget the millions of east Europeans trampled on in the Soviet Union's unprincipled expansion? Are we to forget the dead, the tortured, the prison camps, the ceaseless violations of human rights by a totalitarian regime that seeks to legitimize its actions through the floss of detente?
What in fact has happened-the Canadian people should be aware of this-is that the Final Act gives the Kremlin its long-sought symbolic hegemony over eastern Europe in trade for unenforceable, limp pledges for an increased east-west flow of information, ideas and people. Brezhnev himself claimed that Helsinki was "a necessary summing-
European Security
up of the political outcome of the Second World War". In effect, the signatures of 35 nations have recognized the status quo in eastern and central Europe established by Russian arms in the interest of Russian power. Let us not hide the fact that Helsinki was a betrayal of the victims of oppression.
The question we must now ask is; Are we betraying ourselves in putting hope in this document which has no legally binding effect? The Helsinki principles oblige the signatories to support liberty of thought, conscience and faith, the exercise of civil and political rights, a freer flow of information, ideas and people, in addition to basic principles of relations between states; non-intervention, sovereign equality, self-determination, territorial integrity, inviolability of frontiers. All of this is the stuff of security and co-operation, but not one of these principles is being honoured today by the Soviet Union.
It takes heroic willpower to read the Final Act without giving in to cynicism. What could better demonstrate the bad faith of the Soviet Union than the refusal to allow Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov to go to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: This refusal is an affront to world public opinion; and Sakharov is right when he says that this refusal confirms the continued Soviet violation of human rights which imperils the future of all mankind. Our party will begin to believe Helsinki when we see Sakharov in Oslo, when we see unrestricted movement of Soviet Jews, when we see the Polish people, the Czechoslovaks, the Ukrainians and other subjugated east Europeans living the life of their choice. Only then talk to us about reducing Canada's military commitments in Europe-not before.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, our party is pleased to see the sections on the reunification of families that Canada insisted be in the Final Act. The Act states that "participating states will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family". Why, then, are four former Rumanian citizens, David Pompiliu of Toronto, Dimitrie Moldovan of Edmonton, Julian Hirtescu of Toronto, and Alexandre Sandu of Quebec City, ignored by the government as they stand outside the parliament buildings day by day in peaceful pleading that Canada help to reunite their families detained in Rumania? I have brought these four men into the House today as my guests and we are asking for action from the government.
Helsinki could open the way to a really serious western commitment to economic and social justice for the developing nations of the Third World. That would be the greatest of all foundations for the global peace we desire. But in the meantime, let us not delude ourselves. The more we study Helsinki's Final Act, the more we understand the minister's reluctance to bring it into the House.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the purpose of the conference was to promote security in Europe through detente. The Final Act of the conference deals with some military matters, such as notification of manoeuvres, but recognizes the truth that security does not depend upon the piling up of armaments

December 2, 1975
European Security
but on the good will, the understanding and the co-operation of the peoples concerned. Indeed, the piling up of armaments to existing levels, not least by the two superpowers, is a perpetual source of insecurity.
This Final Act expresses many highly desirable aspirations in a variety of fields and throughout 132 pages. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The real question will be the implementation of all these noble words. The Act speaks of sovereignty and equality of states, of the territorial integrity of states, the inviolability of frontiers, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and refraining from the threat or use of force. In his statement, the minister was at pains to say that there is nothing in the document that sanctifies the status quo in Europe. That may be technically correct, but in reality there can be little doubt that the document clearly rejects the use of force to alter presently existing boundaries. I do not complain of that. In what he said, I do not know whether the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) was suggesting that we should not accept this treaty because we had some other alternative to changing the boundaries of eastern Europe. As far as we are concerned, we think that in the nuclear age talk of using force to alter the boundaries of eastern Europe makes no sense at all.


Mr. Fairweather:: He didn't say that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The document goes on to make promises in respect of human rights and freedom. These high-sounding sentiments have been used frequently in this era in many parts of the world, not only in eastern Europe, but the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedom in many parts of the world remains a grim reality. There are provisions for co-operation in very many fields. If these proposals for co-operation in fact are taken up and implemented, perhaps we will have a different atmosphere.
As has been pointed out, there is provision for the reunification of families and of regular meetings on the basis of family ties. Once again, it is the implementation, not the announcement of these humanitarian measures, that is required. The good intentions of the European nations on both sides of the iron curtain are clearly and, indeed, eloquently expressed in the document. I think that is to the good, but it will take a lot of hard work and good will on both sides to remove the fears and suspicions that years of hostility have built up.
Canada should be glad to be associated in this important task, even if we may be skeptical about some of the phases through which this treaty is bound to go before it is fully implemented. We can be skeptical, but let us not reject the means made available, through the treaty, to the peoples of Europe, with the co-operation of North America, of building a sounder, more stable world.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in principle everybody favours peace and co-operation between nations, but we must come to see, through the show given by heads in Helsinki, the realities and consequences. In my opinion, a treaty such as this offers no real safeguard. Mere signatures at the bottom of a formal document are not enough to guarantee peace and security. Past experiences

bearing this, the 1939 pact between Molotov and von Rib-bentrop, as well as the treaty between Hitler and Chamberlain, are bitter mementos which warn us never to forget this reality. Western countries, led by the United States, have renounced their true roles to concentrate their efforts on the search for gains and profits, even to the point of providing all components for nuclear world war.
On one hand, peace is advocated in very many speeches, as Mr. Ford was doing in China yesterday and on the other hand we make and sell as many weapons as we can while believing that they will never be used! Meanwhile, the U.S.S.R. is acting along the same line in its own way: they are advocating detente, making believe it is peace, while continuing just as before to extend their hold country by country, continent by continent. Just see what is going on in Portugal at the very moment I am speaking. Nobody has spoken about the bursting in Portugal where the "Russian detente" is becoming apparent nor about the divisions in Cyprus, nor about the arms race, nor about the West Berlin status.
The Helsinki Act, signed by more than 35 countries- including the United States with Canada "in their pocket"-represents the official recognition of the U.S.S.R. right to absolute property over the lands conquered during World War II and over the countries which, thereafter, have been maintained by force within the soviet system.
It represents the doom of the East European countries without any hope of freedom for the future. It is an alarm for China, confronted by the increasing Soviet threat, as the Chinese authorities emphasized again yesterday in Peking. The Helsinki pact gives Russia absolute liberty to do what she wants and to extend her hegemony without anybody saying a word, for fear of being called an enemy of detente.
The Helsinki agreement is an acknowledgement of the weakening of western countries and America, through the multiplication of compromises and concessions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) pointed out, at the beginning of his speech, that the countries had "not to look back to the past" to reach this agreement. If we look at what this agreement really brought to us, our countries must have really forgotten everything that has happened to reach it. I hope nonetheless that they will not awake too late or too suddenly. We also hope that the next meeting of ministers of external affairs, which is to be held, according to the minister, in 1977, will be a source of more optimism about the future of the whole world for all nations.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the minister as a result of the statement he made today. On Friday, November 28, I mentioned that Rumanian citizens who now have landed immigrant status in Canada were parading in front of the parliament buildings seeking Canadian government assistance in bringing their families to Canada. The minister promised to follow up my request in order to obtain the reunification of these families in accordance with the agreement reached at the Helsinki conference. I ask the minister what steps have been taken by him and his officials with regard to this request, and what response, if any, has been received from the Rumanian embassy?
December 2, 1975


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of course we are constantly in touch with the embassies and officials of governments such as Rumania to accelerate the process of reunification of families from eastern Europe under the terms of the Helsinki agreement. I have not at the present time a specific report on each of these cases, but I will be in touch with my hon. friend later. While I am on the subject of family reunification, may I say that Canada regards the implementation of the final act, particularly in respect of family reunification, as a measure of the true attitude of participants in the conference. Because the deputy minister of the foreign office of Hungary is in the gallery, I should mention that we are pleased to note that all the active family reunification cases which were included on the list given to Hungarian officials earlier this year appear to have been successfully resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a couple of questions to the minister. He has said, on one hand, that this is not a binding treaty and, therefore, there is no legal recognition of the boundaries that came into force following World War II-obtained, of course, by force. He has said, on the other hand, that there is a moral commitment in respect of family reunification. It seems to me the minister is trying to have it both ways in regard to this treaty. Either it has a legal and binding effect, or it does not. Either it offers real hope for family reunification, or it does not. I should like the minister to explain the effect of the treaty other than to give respectability to detente.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the first point, Mr. Speaker, I think it has to be made clear that the results of the conference do not, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has stated, endorse the territorial status quo in Europe. That was not the result of the conference and we worked very hard to avoid that outcome. The text recognizes that while existing boundaries in Europe are inviolable, and indeed they continue to be, they can be changed in accordance with international law by peaceful means or agreement. I believe the more we repeat the erroneous statement that the status quo was sanctified by this conference, the easier we will make it for certain people to draw that conclusion-a conclusion that is not supported and is contrary to the words of the text. My hon. friend ought to be conscious of that possibility which would be very damaging to the cause that he is ostensibly supporting.
The document is not a legal document. It is a statement of principle. It is not a treaty. It does not have legal effect. All the countries have come together in accepting these principles, one of which is the principle of the acceleration of family reunification. Of course, we intend to insist-as this House is insisting today-that all signatories live up to and implement these principles. When we come to the monitoring conference in Belgrade in 1977 we will know to what extent the signatories have lived up to the principles to which they put their signature at Helsinki. That is the significance of the document: it is a standard against which the performance of the signatories can be measured. That is a very important result.
European Security


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the Helsinki Final Act is a statement of principle that we wish to have clarified the whole question of the family reunification clause. I ask the minister now, how can we expect people to believe in the Helsinki Final Act if we do not see very quick action on the reunification of families?
In addition to the question of Hungary that he has volunteered, we are bringing to this country representatives of Rumania, people who have left that country and have had two or three years without their families and whose case has been brought to the attention of the Canadian government. The Canadian government granted entrance visas for their families, but it is the exit visas from Rumania which are not being issued and which the Canadian government has not yet protested.
I ask the minister now if he will assure the House this afternoon, in the presence of the four Rumanians I have mentioned that a personal protest will be carried by the Department of External Affairs to the government of Rumania on their behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect, the question bears great similarity to that put by the hon. members colleague, the member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), which was answered by the minister in a manner which would indicate that he does not have the details of those cases in front of him, but that he will deal with them later. Therefore, I do not think I can permit the second question.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister. I have to agree with my colleagues here, but there is one specific question. In order to maintain a more speedy flow of visas for the reunification of families between Russia and Canada according to the Helsinki accords, will the minister ask his department to set up consular offices in Leningrad and Kiev and ask the Russians to do the same? There are those other than Muscovites who want to be reunited with their families; for example, there are many Ukrainian families in Kiev and Leningrad.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose of the text on family reunification was to alter and to improve the existing practice. It is my view that it is too early to condemn the Helsinki document on non-performance at this stage. Maybe we must do that later on, but I believe we must now insist that all signatories live up to the principle which states that participating states will deal in a positive and humanitarian way with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family. That is the principle, and we will insist on its implementation in the course of our discussions with representatives of other countries. In my discussion with Mr. Gromyko just recently, this was one of the points I made with him.
With regard to opening up new posts in parts of the Soviet Union for purposes which are entirely commendable, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that in this period of restraint it will be possible for my department to increase its posts in any country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, all it would require would be one individual in each of these cities in order to expedite the visas. According to the Helsinki principles, would the minister advise the Russian government to stop charging excess duty-this is part and parcel of the Helsinki accord
9638

December 2, 1975
European Security
and the Helsinki principles-on parcels which are sent from Canada to families in the Soviet Union, including items such as foodstuffs and clothing. I think this is wrong according to the Helsinki principles.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this particular question is a new one for me. I must say there are other principles in the document, but one, of course, is the principle of sovereignty. All these principles have to operate together. While each country has undertaken to live up to these principles, they all have to be taken in their total context. However, I should like to examine the details of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would propose, in the circumstances, to conclude the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), and the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate, again, my thanks for the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), especially in the field of family reunification. However, on the question of peace I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is prepared this afternoon to inform the House whether any progress has been made at the conference in Geneva, at which Canada is a participant, relating to the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in central and eastern Europe.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House and my hon. friend that no progress has been made up to the present time in the discussions on the MBFR. I have made clear, I believe all hon. members will agree, that if the process of detente is to be meaningful it must be accompanied by progress in respect of the reduction of arms in Europe. That has not yet taken place. At the NATO meeting which I will be attending next week that subject will be a matter for discussion by the members of the alliance.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have great confidence in the document he tabled this afternoon, which is, after a fashion, a statement of principle.
How can he explain, for instance, with regard to the free exchange of information between the countries mentioned in the document, that at the time of the conference Mr. Brezhnev indicated that exchanges would be free provided there was an agreement on their extent, which really means, to all practical purposes, that the Russians reserve the right to do what they have always done in that regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I find no ready answer to the statement which the hon. member has made, except to repeat that now the principles have been accepted, we have to continue to insist that they be implemented and, at the time we are all together at a meeting in Belgrade, tell each other what we think of the performance or lack of performance. That will likely be the test of the words and principles which have been adopted.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

The minister tells us we must wait for the meeting to be held at Belgrade to see whether there will be good results, if any at all? Can he tell us frankly what Canada won after that statement of principle? Did we win anything, are we now better off than before the statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we are better off. I think we have made a positive gain in securing a very strong statement of principle on the question of family reunification and on the movement of peoples and ideas-a statement of principle which can be used in our bilateral and multilateral negotiations which are beginning now. That is an important gain.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will ask one brief question of the minister, keeping in mind that I support wholeheartedly the other matters which my colleagues have raised in this regard, and also keeping in mind the minister's general good faith. I should like to ask the minister whether he or his officials would be willing, for humanitarian reasons, to meet with the representatives of the Committee of the Rumanian Societies of the League of Canada who are very anxious to discuss in detail some problems relating to the reunification of their families and other families in Rumania and elsewhere.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to meet with such representatives. Certainly my officials would be prepared to meet to discuss details. We have placed a high priority on these cases: we raise them at every opportunity and we follow them up. A meeting of the kind suggested would be possible and desirable from my point of view.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I just take a brief moment to make a correction to yesterday's Hansard which conveys the wrong impression. On page 9588, while the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his inimitable fashion, was holding forth on government expenditures, which he referred to as the frolics at Mirabel, an hon. member-I do not know who it was, but perhaps it was an hon. member opposite-said, "He attended the frolic", meaning that I did. I want to point out that although perhaps I would like to have gone, I was not able to go. I understand that it was a very entertaining affair, but I did not go and I wanted that fact to be on the record.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,278, 3,284, 3,320, 3,343 and 3,346.1 ask the that other questions be allowed to stand.
December 2, 1975


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Treasury Board have received salary increases within the last month?
2.	In each category, what was the salary range of the employee (a) before the increase (b) after the increase and, in each case, what was the percentage of the increase?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
Ninety-four.
2. Administrative and foreign service:
			Increase Per cent		
(a)	$ 7,778	$14,453	9.174	(b)	8,478	15,754	(a)	14,860	17,459	9.174	(b)	16,197	19,030	(a)	17,985	21,303	9.174	(b)	19,604	23,220	(a)	21,544	24,407	9.174	(b)	23,483	26,604	Technical	(a)	6,938	8,632	9.05	(b)	7,666	9,538	Executive	(a)	$38,000	$43,000	$48,000	33,000	37,500	42,000	29,000	33,000	37,000	25,500	29,000	32,500	Increase	Increase	IncreasePer cent	Per cent	Per cent(b)	$41,000	7.9 $47,500 10.5	$54,000	12.535,500	7.6	41,500 10.6	47,500	13.031,500	8.6	36,500 10.6	41,500	12.227,500	7.8	32,000 10.3	36,500	12.3


Mr. Lachance: 1.	Does the government intend to give one of its agencies the responsibility of updating from time-to-time the index of the discretionary powers mentioned in the Revised Statutes of Canada (1970) recently published by the Law Reform Commission of Canada and, if so, which agency will be responsible for the (a) annual compiling (b) publication and distribution?
2.	Does the government intend to complement the index with an index of discretionary powers included in the statutes of the ten provincial administrations?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Justice: 1. the Department of Justice is examining the possibility of updating and distributing the index of the discretionary powers
Order Paper Questions
published by the Law Reform Commission. However, at the present time no decision in this respect has been taken. 2. No.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	With reference to the five year accelerated coverage plan announced by CBC in 1974, what are the communities, with a population of approximately 500 in the Province of Newfoundland which will receive extended service?
2.	Of the technical studies started on some 200 projects (a) what projects have been started in the Province of Newfoundland (b) what are the 75 projects completed and how many are in Newfoundland?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC Accelerated Coverage Plan is a large, complex and highly integrated five-year undertaking involving 300 locations and 600 engineering projects. Names of the locations and the nature of the service to be provided are made public step by step, as applications for licences are made to the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission.
2. The technical studies which have been started on some 200 ACP projects involve the indentification of the area or community requiring service or improvement of an existing service and the setting of broad parameters for the project, (a) In Newfoundland, studies are at various stages of development for 20 projects, (b) As of November 14, 1975, applications had been completed and submitted for 105 ACP projects across Canada, of which nine are in Newfoundland. The nine projects are: New stations-Cla-renville, English TV; New stations-Elliston, English TV; New stations-Little Hearts Ease, English TV; New stations-North West Brook, English TV; New stations-St. Jones Within, English TV; New stations-Wesleyville, English TV; Service Improvement-Labrador City/ Wabush, English and French Radio; Gander, English Radio.


Mr. Coates: How many public servants presently qualify for the bilingual bonus in the Public Service?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In reply to your question concerning the number of Public Service employees who presently qualify for the bilingual bonus, the answer is 4,464.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Public Service are presently in receipt of a salary of $30,000 per year or more?
2.	How many were in receipt of a salary of $30,000 per year or more in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. As of June 1975, 3,549 public servants were in receipt of a salary of $30,000 per year or more.
29956-58'/2

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
2. (a) In 1960, none, (b) In 1965, none, (c) In 1970, eight public servants were in receipt of a salary of $30,000 per year or more.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks yesterday in connection with this bill I indicated, as I have on other occasions, that members of this party in parliament have said from the beginning that a program of wage and price controls, as it has been recently called, would inevitably be doomed to failure because we are faced with an international problem which cannot be dealt with by one country alone.
I indicated, also, that it was obvious to us from everything that has happened since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave notice of the introduction of this policy on Thanksgiving day, from the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) publicly, from the statements made by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, and from the discussions which have been held between representatives of the provinces and the federal government, that even if we had believed, as the Premier of Manitoba believed, that an incomes policy that was fair and equitable to all people of Canada was necessary and workable to dampen the ill effects of inflation, in fact we are not going to get that.
After I have discussed some of the statements, and the failure to make statements, by the chairman of the AntiInflation Board, I want to put on the record some of the detailed questions put to the Minister of Finance and to the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board a week ago, at a meeting of the ministers of finance, by the Premier of Manitoba-questions which, I am told by senior members of the Manitoba delegation, were not answered at all by the Minister of Finance or by the chairman of the AntiInflation Board. Such was the situation that the Premier of Manitoba, who was a proponent of an incomes policy when the Prime Minister was still opposing wage and price controls, indicated pretty clearly that he has no expectation that the program proposed by the federal government has any hope of success. I will come back to that point shortly, but first I want to deal with the actions and inactions of the so called Anti-Inflation Board.
In the guidelines issued by the Minister of Finance on October 14, 1975, entitled "Attack on Inflation", on page 23-where compensation and exceptions to the 10 per cent

limit in the increase which will be permitted in wages and salaries are dealt with-the minister said:
There may also be other grounds lor exceptions, such as increases necessary to maintain long-established historical relationships between wages in closely related groups and other special cases of equity.
Today, the postal workers represented by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have agreed to go back to work after a seven weeks' strike. They have agreed to go back on the basis of an offer by the federal government which is substantially more than the 10 per cent which is supposedly the limit which any group of workers earning wages or salaries can get. Why will they be permitted to get an increase of more than 10 per cent? According to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), who certainly is no friend of the postal workers or of their union, they will get an increase of more than 10 per cent because there has been a historical relationship; there has been parity for years between the inside postal workers represented by CUPW and the outside workers represented by the Letter Carriers Union.
Let us look at what is happening to the teachers in Toronto. I have already indicated what the minister supposedly thought and meant when he issued his guidelines. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board said on November 8 that it was not the intention of the board to replace the collective bargaining process. He said it was expected that the parties would negotiate in good faith with a view to concluding agreements under the guidelines. Then he indicated that after agreement had been reached, if the agreement was for more than the 10 per cent indicated as a limit under the guidelines, the employer and the union could come to the Anti-Inflation Board and argue that they should be permitted to get more than 10 per cent. But the Anti-Inflation Board, supposedly, was not going to interfere in the regular process of free, collective bargaining.
Now what do we find? We find that under the provisions of the legislation enacted by the Ontario government, a fact-finder was appointed to look into the dispute between the Toronto secondary school teachers and their employer, the board of education. That fact-finder made a series of recommendations substantially higher than the guidelines would permit. Those recommendations were accepted by the Toronto teachers' organization. The board of education rejected them. It was willing to settle for the same amount as it had already settled for with the elementary school teachers, a settlement reached before the Prime Minister announced his policy, agreed to by both sides and implemented. The board of education wanted to settle with the secondary school teachers for the same amount and the same conditions they had reached with the elementary school teachers. That has been the pattern in the city of Toronto for 21 years.
However, we have an anti-inflation policy. We have supposed guidelines, so the Toronto board of education did what the Anti-Inflation Board had said it would not permit. It appealed to the Anti-Inflation Board, unilaterally, to look at the problem and to issue a directive. What do we find? Just a few weeks after the chairman said that the board would not disturb the traditional ways of collective bargaining and would not deal with one side of an argument, the Anti-Inflation Board issues a directive. I quote
December 2, 1975

from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, November 29, as follows:
"The latest offer of the metro Toronto school board to its secondary teachers is in excess of the amount which the Anti-Inflation Board would consider appropriate", Jean-Luc Pepin, chairman of the federal agency, told reporters. Teachers and school trustees should "return to the bargaining table in an effort to reach an agreement that more properly reflects the anti-inflation policy of restraint"-
How many times will they have to return to the bargaining table? If the offer is reduced by 5 per cent, will that be acceptable to the chairman?


Mr. Rodriguez:: We don't know.


David Orlikow: The chairman is now God; he does not have to account to anyone but himself. The school board made its offer to keep secondary school salaries in line with the increase accepted by elementary school teachers before the guidelines were brought in, but obviously the historical and traditional patterns are going to be ignored. So we have a situation where elementary school teachers are to be paid more than secondary school teachers. Metro public school teachers received a raise of 39.2 per cent, the same percentage offered to the high school teachers, but the metro school board seems now to be barred by the federal guidelines.
The minister refuses to do anything about it, although the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation has supplied to the Anti-Inflation Board and to the minister a list of 12 regions which are already paying higher salaries than the Toronto board of education has offered: these are Windsor, Ottawa, Carleton, Halton, Nipissing, York region, Simcoe, Manitoulin, Huron, North Shore, Grey and Thunder Bay. Is it any wonder that the Toronto schools teachers said the Minister of Finance had lied to them? I am not surprised. What we have is a board which has violated and ignored the guidelines laid down by the minister, and it is being aided and abetted by the minister in ignoring them.
I said that I would put on the record some of the questions the province of Manitoba asked the minister and the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board last week. I wish to begin with one set of questions which are very pertinent. Today's Globe and Mail has a story which is headed-I will go into some detail on this-"Bank balances of revenue show impressive increases." The chairman of the AntiInflation Board, who was so quick to ignore the salary guidelines and so quick to reject what he said two weeks ago namely, that he would not intervene on one side or the other and would only make a ruling after both sides in a dispute had come to an agreement, has been conspicuous by his silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: It is not as if he did not know about this until today. Here are some of the questions asked a week ago of the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board by the Premier of Manitoba who, as I indicated earlier, was and is a strong proponent of a real incomes policy:
Bank profits have continued to increase rapidly this year-the Financial Times is predicting industry-wide gains of 30 per cent for the current year-with further increases in sight. Yet the federal government seems to suggest that banks should continue operating exactly as they are. Two questions:
Anti-Inflation Act
(a)	Has the federal government given any thought to requiring banks to reduce the margin between the interest rates they charge on loans and the interest rates they pay on deposits?
(b)	Has the federal government given any consideration to requiring banks and other financial institutions to set aside more substantial funds for housing and other socially desirable activity?
The Minister of Finance is here and he can correct me if I am misrepresenting what happened, but I am told by senior members of the Manitoba delegation that they asked questions and received no answers from the minister, and just the usual, silly grin which we have seen almost every day on television from the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Orlikow: I will be surprised if within six months of ending his tenure as chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, the "honourable"-I put that in quotation marks-Jean-Luc Pepin is not a director of one of the largest banks in Canada.
Why was the government of Manitoba so concerned? Let us look at the figures released today by the banks themselves and reported in the Globe and Mail. Let us look at the operating profit, after tax, for the year 1975 over the year 1974. For the Royal Bank of Canada, 126.6 per cent; for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 58.4 per cent; for the Bank of Montreal, 148.6 per cent; for the Bank of Nova Scotia, 80.5 per cent; for the Toronto-Dominion Bank, 58.6 per cent; for the Provincial Bank, 71 per cent; for the Mercantile Bank, 149.3 per cent.
It is not my job as a Member of Parliament to defend or to criticize, for example, the postal workers, but the Postmaster General and the Government of Canada forced them into a seven-week strike because they asked for more than 29 per cent over 30 months. Yet here are the banks making a 40 per cent to 150 per cent higher profit, and not a word from the Minister of Finance.
Does this minister expect that when it is so obvious there is to be no equity in this program, workers will accept it quietly? Does he expect that there will be peace in this country? Does he expect that what has happened to productivity-that is, a lowering of productivity, which all the economists and business leaders have been bemoaning- will not continue and will not accelerate? Does he expect that workers will really work when they feel, and correctly so, that they are being hard done by and discriminated against? There is no question in my mind that some postal workers will not feel like working very hard. Teachers in Toronto have already announced that they will work to rule. That means there will be virtually no athletic programs, virtually no dramatic programs, and that exam papers will not be marked on weekends; and if people have to wait for the reports, that will just be too bad.
The railway unions are about to negotiate. If the companies, on the suggestion or the direction of the government, insist on a 10 per cent limit on wage increases, despite the sound principles laid down by Mr. Justice Hall two or three years ago on how demands for wage increases should be dealt with, there is no doubt that a large number of railway workers will decide to work to rule if they cannot

Anti-Inflation Act
have what they think they are entitled to. The resultant slowdown in the day to day operations of the railways will be brought about by the thinking of the minister and the government.
Let us look at some important questions asked by the government of Manitoba which the minister has refused to answer. Of course, he cannot answer them because he never intended to do anything about incomes, except on wages and salaries. He never intended to do anything about prices, he never intended to do anything about dividends, and he never intended to do anything about selfemployed people. Here are some of the questions put to the federal government by the government of Manitoba in the paper entitled "Manitoba questions on the federal government's 'Attack on Inflation' Program." I know some of the answers, so I will put them on the record in view of the minister's hesitancy to do so. The Premier of Manitoba asked:
In light of the difficulty of limiting income increases-particularly for professionals-is the federal government prepared
(1)	to make available information obtained through the income tax system to the Anti-Inflation Board?
There was no answer to that question. He continued:
(2)	to institute a special surtax through the income tax system to ensure that abuse of the guidelines by these higher income groups is kept to a minimum?
The answer to that was "No." Let me stray for a moment to read another question and to give the answer of the minister. The province of Manitoba said to the minister:
We know that a surtax put on professionals by one province is very difficult to collect. If we put a surtax on the incomes of doctors and the provinces of Alberta and Ontario do not, doctors may move from Saskatchewan to one of those provinces. We are prepared to think about that, but if we want to impose a surtax on doctors operating in the province of Saskatchewan, will you collect that surtax? We do not collect the income tax, as we have made an agreement under which you collect income taxes payable in Saskatchewan.
What was the answer of the Minister of Finance? It was "No," Mr. Speaker. We have said from the beginning that this minister has not the slightest intention of implementing an income tax policy which is fair and equitable; that this minister is bent to all the special interest groups and is prepared to let self-employed, professional people collect all they can. Let me read some of the other questions referring to professional fees. Here is one:
Are the increases in income allowed to professionals under the guidelines based on net professional income only or are professionals permitted to reduce their income for purposes of the guidelines by taking advantage of tax loopholes such as excessive capital cost allowances, interest costs, etc., on investments?
No answer from the minister. Here is another question:
Is the federal government prepared to recommend any action to curb income increases generated by current fee schedules? Examples include architects who often charge a percentage of the finished project, real estate agents and lawyers who often charge a percentage of the value on the consideration passing.
Let us take a hypothetical case. Suppose the architect in charge of that tremendous fiasco, the Olympic Games site, was a Canadian instead of a Frenchman from France. It has been reported that he is to receive a fee in the neighbourhood of $16 million. The minister would have no intention of charging surtax on that exorbitant fee. The next question was:

In light of the practical problems of having the Anti-Inflation Board deal with professional income increases is the federal government prepared to have this section of the guidelines administered by national revenue?
No answer-which of course means "No". The next question:
Will the federal government be prepared to respond to complaints re professionals who have allegedly violated the guidelines?
Mr. Speaker, from the questions we asked the minister in committee it is obvious the government will not be doing anything about most professions, like doctors, until some time in 1977 when they file their returns for their 1976 incomes. The next question was:
Will the guidelines apply the same maximum increases of $2,400 to professionals as applies to the normal wage earner?
Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not say so. If all the minister wants to do is put the guidelines on the fee schedule, obviously any relationship between the fee schedule and the actual income of the doctor, lawyer or architect is purely coincidental. For professionals the program is a farce.
Now let us look at pricing in the private sector. The province of Manitoba asked some cogent questions but received no answers from the government or from the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board. The Manitoba government spoke about the cost flowthrough rule in calculating price increases and asked:
Does this mean that the Anti-Inflation Board and the administrator can order a rollback in prices only if they can prove that the guidelines have been breached and that the breach was intentional-not due to the favourable cost developments or unusual productivity increases referred to above?
Another question on timing:
On timing, will the board be in a position to examine proposed price increases before they occur? To forestall increases which do not appear to be justifiable? Alternatively, will the only "effective enforcement" result from the examination of the firm's records two or three or four years after the fact as is the case under income taxation?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is going to happen because the government has not required approval of price increases before they are imposed. Some members have been sending to the Anti-Inflation Board the examples of price increases they have received in the hundreds, and to date have not received a single reply. At the rate they are going, I suggest that will take three or four years. The government of Manitoba asked:
Is there any provision in the guidelines to prevent firms currently reaping excess profits from passing on the full brunt of any cost increases in higher prices?
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. The banks have just had these tremendous profits, and next year, if their costs go up, they can increase their service costs again. Let me go back to the report of the Globe and Mail in today's issue. They indicate some of the reasons the banks' profits are so high. Let me read a couple of paragraphs from the article as follows:
Other factors that helped bank profits during the year were increases in bank service charges, most of them made in the spring, and the slowing of the rapid growth in salaries and benefits costs over the year.
December 2, 1975

Later, it continues:
Another factor that helped bank profits in the latter part of the year was the ending of the 10 per cent surcharge on profits, which had lasted from May 1, 1974, to April 30, 1975.
There is no reason why the banks will not be able to again increase their service charges. Again, the minister has given no indication that he will do anything about it. As I have only a few more minutes, I will just place one more quotation on the record:
Revenue Canada has estimated that Canada is losing about $1.6 billion per year under what is called transfer pricing. Under transfer pricing, multinational firms operating in Canada purchase commodities from foreign sister corporations at a price in excess of the "market place price". The reverse also occurs-the Canadian corporation sells to its foreign sister at a price less than the "marketplace price". In both cases, the result is that the profits are diverted from Canada to a sister corporation operating elsewhere. As mentioned earlier this practice costs the Canadian treasury about $1.6 billion per year. How will the Anti-Inflation Board with its staff of 200 deal with this problem which National Revenue and its staff of thousands have not been able to resolve?
In case members opposite think that that last quotation and the statement contained in it is an exaggeration by an irresponsible socialist NDP government, let me put on the record some comments by Mr. James Gourley, the director-general of audit for Revenue Canada, in a recent speech reported in the October 31, 1975, Globe and Mail:
Canada is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to people and companies that avoid taxes, and a lot of it is being lost to multinational corporations using their international status to shuffle their profits out of the taxman's reach ... some of the multinationals use their intricate corporate structures to minimize the taxes they pay ...
He said he had no idea how much revenue Canada is losing through tax avoidance by multinational corporations. He guessed that missing revenue from all sources-including multinationals-might be 10 per cent of total revenue.
Estimated revenue for the current fiscal year is $27.75 billion.
Mr. Gourley has estimated the loss at more than twice the figure given by the government of Manitoba. The former minister of national revenue, now Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), said at the same meeting:
It is difficult for Canadian tax officials to decide whether the costs being charged by subsidiary companies in Canada are fair or are being inflated to boost costs and lower taxes.
A subsidiary in Canada may be supplied with products or services by its parent in another country. The subsidiary would write off those costs against its profits.
One need only look at the large multinational farm implement companies which are busier and making more money than ever before. If they are forced to observe the so-called guidelines, they will find, as Mr. Gourley and the minister said in their speeches, that it is very easy to adjust the financial transactions between the Canadian and American corporations so that the profits in Canada will not breach the guidelines.
What we are dealing with today, and will be voting on in the next few days, is a bill which interfere very drastically with the right of ordinary citizens to continue to bargain freely and collectively with their employers on their own behalf.
Anti-Inflation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


David Orlikow: Could I have just one more minute, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may only continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: What is being proposed by this government are wage controls but not price controls. There will be no controls or restrictions on incomes earned through dividends, profits or any other form of income except wages and salaries. Therefore, we cannot, and will not, support such a proposal.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on second reading of Bill C-73, I already called attention to the discredit drawn by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when, on October 13 last, he announced price and income controls, the very idea of which he condemned during the 1974 election. And this he did without a word of excuse for his remarks at that time. The Prime Minister spoke as the man capable of curing Canada of that terrible illness-inflation-that ruins the economy and reduces millions of Canadians to utmost abject poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any public figure in all Canada's history discrediting himself to such a degree, without a blink, without even accepting his government's responsibility in the increasing rate of the inflationary spiral. The Prime Minister preached austerity, but taking good care to force upon others what he will not do when his own administration is involved, that is cutting right now non-essential government spending. In so doing, he could expect nothing but hostile reactions from the people he himself had warned against controls. Better still then the Leader of Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), better than anyone else in the country, the head of the government knew that a control policy was required, because he had better means and more precise instruments for economic surveying. History will never forgive him for deceiving Canadians.

The fundamental issue that this House must address itself to on third reading is an issue that runs to the very heart of our democratic system. The principle of this bill and its purpose are in line with broad public opinion at this time. Indeed, while the government is by no means providing leadership, they can at least be said to be following the leadership provided by public opinion. Just for the purpose of setting the record straight, we should note that when it came to providing leadership on the issue of price and income restraint, it was the members of this party who were prepared to level with the country a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: What the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is asking for now is a blank cheque. The duration allotted for

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
the powers in the bill is, by far, an example of over playing government, and the refusal of the government to make long-term commitments relative to the control of its own spending is an example of weakening the government's hand. What the government has said and what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has said, through refusal to allow a meaningful parliamentary review of the program within a reasonable period of time, is that they do not believe the program will stand the test of time; they do not believe it will gain sufficient support in an 18-month period. It is not surprising that such lack of confidence is contributing to hesitancy on the part of certain provinces when it comes to participating as fully as the government would like. It is, therefore, with regret and with sorrow that we shall have to vote against this bill. We do so because, clearly, it is the only option left open to this party if we are to keep faith with the principle we advanced to the nation on this issue.
There is a significant demand in the country today for sound economic leadership. It has to be leadership that is based on trust, moulded through consistency and founded upon compassion. It must be leadership which is exercised in close relation to the anxieties and economic aspirations of the people. It can be firm, but when necessary it can be flexible, too. In that respect the bill now before us, the government which drafted it, and the program which has been presented to us are a sad failure.

I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, to revive the 1974 election campaign, and God knows I have excellent recollections of it. But I cannot help pointing out that if the Prime Minister had had any decency, he would either have asked for a new mandate from the Canadian people he deliberately deceived a year ago, or he would have urged the Governor General to designate another head of government. As far as fighting inflation is concerned, the Prime Minister has fallen into total discredit, and he knows it. I will not endorse here extravagant reactions by labour leaders, nor justify them for speaking of general protest strikes.
I hope before it is too late those labour leaders will come to their senses and ask their membership to abide by the law. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that does not prevent me from sympathizing with the humble workers ruined by inflation who for purely electoral reasons were made to believe and even promised that there would be no control. If Canadian voters cannot trust the word of the Prime Minister of the country, and they can no longer do that since October 13, to whom will they turn? I wonder, Mr. Speaker.
Only one party leader in this Parliament can talk of price and income control with increased and undeniable moral authority, and that is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who was not afraid to tell the truth to Canadians. History will do him justice for not sacrificing his convictions to power and not taking advantage of the credulity of the people of this country for purely electoral reasons. The respect the Leader of the Opposition now commands shows that Canadians recognize in him the true leader of this country. The other leader-the one who exercises power or looks as if he exercises it-is nothing

but a poor puppet lost in his own contradictions. A discredited Prime Minister, a discredited government, a discredited program, that is what the country is down to at the time when Bill C-73 is about to be passed by the Parliament of Canada. But, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, the Conservative Progressive party does not want to become an accomplice to a sham legislation aimed at imposing genuine economic dictatorship over all sectors of activity for three years and putting in the hands of bureacrats without any popular mandate the administration of a legislation whose faults are so obvious.

The government is as rigid and unbending as ever. It is a government which has performed a total about-turn on the issue of controls. They scoffed at our temporary freeze proposal, yet now they bring in a three-year program which makes our temporary freeze look restrictive indeed. I do not know that it is fair to say the government is totally inconsistent. While it may be inconsistent in its economic policy, it remains consistent in its authoritarianism, rigidity and insensitivity. It is these very qualities which have weakened the economy of our nation, attacked the private sector and contributed to the alienation of organized and unorganized labour.
Only this government could take a program calling for short-term controls and turn it into a long-term emasculation of the free market and the collective bargaining process. Only this government could combine insensitivity to a problem, on one hand, with alienation and extremism on the other. Only this government could turn the private sector, labour and other jurisdictions against it so quickly and so conclusively. While some seek to build a national anti-inflation front, the government appears to be fragmenting what front there is, day by day.
I once observed, in a speech in this House, that the former minister of finance had done for economic stability what Jack the Ripper did for door-to-door canvassing. I say today that this new program may do for controls what Eddie Shack did for the gentlemanly game of hockey. There is no need to radicalize our nation's economy into warring and distrustful segments. There is no need to create new fears and new suspicions for the working man and woman. What must be done is very simple: an example of restraint, self-denial, compassion and decisiveness must serve as the values around which an embattered economy can rally. To date, this government has not given Canadians anything around which they can rally, or anything in which they can believe.
Part of tackling inflation is changing people's beliefs about how bad inflation is and how bad it will become in the future. The three-year limit on this program is a very sad commentary of the incapacity of this government to hold out real, immediate hope for the people of this country. What the three-year limit means is that a substantial element of this program might only be changed through a change in the government of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is a corner that this government should not paint itself into. If it insists on wielding the brush, then those who are opposed to economic injustice might well be prepared to open a can or two in 1978 to help finish the job. Today in this House, at this stage of the bill, the choice is the
December 2, 1975

government's, and they are laughing about it. In three years' time, the choice will be the people's.
Mr. Speaker, the first mistake of this government was to refuse, probably because of its self-sufficiency, to impose the price and wage freeze for a 60-to-80-day period. It is something that every economist recommended. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, a man highly respected in Liberal circles, this chairman, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin himself, said a few days ago before the Standing Committee on Finances, Trade and Economic Affairs that a temporary price freeze would have allowed him to see better where he was going and to organize the board with no concern other than making it as efficient as possible and without having to decide readily on more than 140 cases submitted to him without knowing formally under which regulations the board will have to function. Mr. Pepin, could not grant this government a better certificate of incompetence.
Canadians are paying a high price for the self-sufficiency of their Prime Minister a Prime Minister who neither accepts the advice of anyone nor admits that he could be wrong.
Since this bill was passed on second reading, the opposition tried without success to convince the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to limit the implementation of Bill C-73 to 18 months. This request was not aimed at harrassing this government because the Progressive Conservative Party was the first to recommend controls as a measure against inflation. It was made, as so well put by the hon. member for Joliette, in a spirit of wisdom and equity for the Canadian consumers, so that after that period their representatives might undertake a total review of conditions to determine to what extent inflation control was a failure.
In spite of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said, the opposition did not ask that inflation be checked within 18 months. With this government, we all know that it would be impossible. We are ready, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) confirmed it to extend the government mandate for another 18-month period, if necessary, but we do not wish to give the government full power, when it even denies us the smallest indication on the nature of the regulations governing the Anti-Inflation Board. Why should we be less demanding than the provinces themselves which have deferred their approval of the government plan because they do not want to make blind commitments?
If the government had the least democratic sense-but God knows it lost it a long time ago-it would have accepted the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition and would have associated all parliamentarians to a legislation which, in spite of its deficiencies, would have had the merit on being unanimously approved. Not only does the government refuse to confide in Parliament with regard to the regulations, not only does it refuse to submit its economic policy to a review after 18 months, but it creates extremely disturbing dislocations in a sector that is vital to social peace and economic security, because one thing has become obvious: free collective bargaining, working condi-
Anti-Inflation Act
tions are terribly restricted by Bill C-73. Not only are salary increases rigorously controlled, arbitration decisions subject to the approval of the Anti-Inflation Board, but even the other working conditions of collective agreements are not exempt from its control: the work week, social benefits, overtime pay; all those fall within the scope of the act. What else is there to negotiate?
A while ago, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the provinces' refusal to accept the cabinet policy without knowing what the regulations will be for Bill C-73. Last week's federal-provincial conference proved the incompetence and lack of preparation of the government in its fight against inflation. Bill C-73 has hit the Canadian people like a ton of bricks: the provinces were not consulted sufficiently, neither the leaders of industry nor those of labour unions had the opportunity of expressing their views on what policy could be accepted by all sectors of the economy.
The Prime Minister, in his wisdom, in his almightiness, deemed it sufficient to say "I want" for everyone to obey implicity. The leader of the government merely forgot that we live in a democracy, that the democracy freedoms were too dearly paid by Canadians for them to sacrifice them lightly on the order of a man who as recently as a year ago managed to mislead them about the dangers our economy was exposed to.
Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the opposition reminded us, by adopting Bill C-73 in its present form, we grant the government powers the nature and extent of which we do not even know. Overnight, the government can change the way Canadians live-


An hon. Member:: Come, now!


Claude Wagner: -give rein to inflation and, through an ill-advised policy, plunge the whole country in worse unemployment than the one we deplore. Mr. Speaker, that is something a responsible opposition cannot accept. The government wants to regulate everything all by itself. It rejects any advice or amendment. Let it then face alone the risks of its legislation failing, because there are many given the inefficiency of those who govern us.
While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) exercises his wits distorting the nature and scope of the amendments we introduced, his colleague responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) busies himself to get his views share by the provinces which are visibly not interested in his credit legislation. Mr. Speaker, the provinces had enough of one day to let the minister know that his bill did not please them and that if he wanted to get their approval, he would have to review his bill and not be satisfied with window-dressing.
I mentioned credit but what does the government do to regulate consumer credit, to prevent people from going into debt at indecent interest terms? According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, Canadians owe to consumer finance companies alone the enormous amount of $22 billion, close to $1,000 per capita. That is also part of the economic policy of a country but the government could not care less. It is no more concerned about the indebtedness of consumers than it is about its own indebtedness because otherwise it would surely have accepted the

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
reasonable conditions submitted by the Progressive Conservative party as regards government expenditures.
In short, Mr. Speaker, here we are again with a bill to which the government refused to make real amendments. The government throws us as a lure this review of the legislation after 18 months. But a review of what, I ask you, a review what if not a legislation that is confused, a legislation that is obscure, troublesome, autocratic, fashioned after the very size of this government whose incompetence has become both the laughing stock and the desolation of our country?
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish that because I care too much for the well being of my fellow citizens but it is easy to predict that the government program will be a vast and dramatic failure because in too many quarters Canadians still do not accept it and because, for electoral considerations, the government destroyed its credibility in advance. You need more than just propaganda to bring people to believe in something and especially a price and income control policy. You need more than propaganda. You need competence, and the government did not show it had any. You need a minimum of moral authority, and the government does not have any at all.
On October 14 had it not been for the well-known inertia of Liberal members this government would have blown up under the indignation of all those it had misled. Mr. Speaker, to assuage his conscience the Prime Minister is now touring the country saying he is quite prepared to give up power at the next election to save the country from inflation. What generosity on his part!
What belated generosity from a man who has plunged the country into a chaotic situation, who does not even offer an apology for it and who has discredited in advance the very means by which attempts to make us believe he will rescue the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker, let the Prime Minister spare us his rhetoric.
His defeat will come much faster than he expects. One day, even the Liberals, and I see several opposite, will be tired of such a Prime Minister and 1 can see they have difficulty restraining their applause at this thought. This government is facing the death sentence on deferment and is totally discredited. Only fear prevents it from appearing in front of the people and submitting itself to their judgment, a fear so deeply engrained that it brings a most significant grin on the faces of the few Liberal members who are present in the House.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about Bill C-73. It has been discussed at great length. As we look over this bill, we see it has some very serious defects. No one disagreees with the suggestion that we have to control inflation. We recognize that inflation is bearing more heavily on those with low incomes, such as the pensioners and others. They are the ones who are paying the price of inflation.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, we all know that inflation will end in disaster if it continues at the present rate. I am sure all members are also aware of the fact that in 1974 the Conservative party put forward the necessary requisites for a bill that would give full consideration to the wishes of the people who make up

Canada, including industry, labour, professional people, farmers and others right across the board. As a result, the representatives of those people would have reached a consensus with regard to the problem. At that time the Prime Minister said such a plan was unnecessary because he had inflation under control or was bringing it under control. I believe his exact words were that he was "wrestling it to the ground". The leader of the Conservative party travelled across the country informing people about the proposals of this party to control inflation. I am sure that plan would have brought about a consensus without forcing this type of legislation on the public, and could have been accomplished by agreement across Canada. This would have been something acceptable in that it had a time limit.
We now find the Prime Minister saying we must have controls. In September he said it was economic nonsense, but suddenly, one night in October, he said they were required. The sad point about all this is that the situation has deteriorated during this time to the point where no one in government now knows what they should do. Businessmen do not know how to plan, just as people in agriculture cannot plan ahead. Commerce and trade have been involved in serious strangleholds because they do not know what costs will be.
At a meeting of a committee the other day which was considering supplementary estimates, I was shocked to find out that the estimates have gone up over $1 billion in just a few months, and rising costs will be written in as a result of the inflation factor. In other words, fixed costs have gone up tremendously, in the order of 53 per cent. When that is considered in light of the inflation factor, it is alarming. As the Prime Minister has suggested, we will be going down the drain if we do not look out. How long did it take him to come to that conclusion?
We must find the answers to many questions. When is serious consideration to be given to this matter? What kind of an economy do we want? What kind of a bill must we have in order to avoid the obvious dangers? How is the bill going to work over a period of 12 months?
I could support such a measure, as members of this party have plainly stated, if we were to review the measure within a few months do determine how it is working out. But there is no way I can support a bill which contains the powers that will allow the establishment of a dictatorship and an indefinite loss of freedom. That is what could happen. We have seen it happen in other countries.
Let me make my position clear. In no way can I support a measure that could end up with the creation of a dictatorship. I will not support this bill. I do not take that position because I object to any measure of this kind, but such a measure should incorporate a review of the bill within a limited time as advocated by the Conservative party, and assist, in the end, freedom of the people.
December 2, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles)- Storms-Request for federal assistance to those suffering damage in Lake Erie region; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport-Federal-provincial study of another transportation link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-Government action; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-National Film Board-Proposal that open competition with board be permitted-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I know many adjectives have been used to describe Bill C-73 and the government's anti-inflation program. This afternoon I propose to use two adjectives and to concentrate on those in respect of this particular bill and the government's program. The first adjective I could think of, which I am sure will occur to many Canadians, is "confusing". It is confusing. This is the most confusing program ever announced in this House of Commons since I came here in 1972.
I say it is confusing, first because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced there would be 1,500 corporations with 500 or more employees which would be covered in terms of wages. Now we have heard that 2,500 corporations will be covered, and there is a promise of more. It started out in the construction industry with companies which employ 20 people or more. These companies were to be covered. Perhaps the government forgot that there are over 100,000 construction companies in this country which have 20 or more employees. The board estimates there are about 5,000 of these companies which will be covered by the controls. I say that with the industry-wide wage bargaining, which the government says will be included in the guidelines and regulations, there will be up to 50,000 construction companies involved. Another point of confusion is that mortgage interest rates are not to be covered. Will real estate and stockbrokers be exempt? Some will be covered, but not all. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-
Anti-Inflation Act
donald) says it depends on their size and whether they are engaged in the construction industry.
Repeatedly the government has said that its anti-inflation program is not intended to interfere with free collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, on November 7, 1975, there was a statement by the Anti-Inflation Board that it did not intend to interfere with collective bargaining. But lo and behold, last Friday, Jean-Luc Pepin, the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, made a statement about the metro school board's latest offer to its teachers. This certainly destroyed meaningful collective bargaining for those parties. We have had the case of Steinberg's hiding behind the anti-inflation guideline of 10 per cent. That has ended the collective bargaining between itself and its employees. As a matter of fact, I strongly suspect the voluntary price freeze by the supermarkets which, incidentally, was started by Steinberg's, was a deliberate move to encourage customers into Steinberg's stores after they had embarked on this kind of confrontation with their employees, all the time hiding behind the government's anti-inflation program.
We have also had the case of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport Workers Union. This union approached the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and appealed to him to investigate Voyageur Colonial Limited for hiding behind the anti-inflation guidelines and refusing to negotiate meaningfully with its employees. We have heard the Minister of Labour stand up in this House and say that the paper companies are hiding behind the guidelines and refusing to negotiate in a meaningful way with their workers. It is not surprising that the trade union movement has the impression that this government is out to interfere with free collective bargaining in this country.
In respect of prices, the confusion reigns even more supreme. Apparently there are no controls on interest rates, particularly mortgage interest rates. One of my colleagues has already mentioned in the House that we might look at the latest figures with regard to the banks, reported in today's Globe and Mail in the business section. The article reads in part;
The ten chartered banks showed an after-tax balance of revenue (the equivalent of after-tax operating profit for other companies) of $182.9 million in the latest quarter, up 87.5 per cent from the corresponding quarter a year earlier.
That is what creates a credibility problem for the workers of this country whose wages are effectively controlled by this so-called anti-inflation program. But even more surprising are the factors which apparently helped the banks enjoy such a healthy profit figure. The article points out the following:
Another factor that helped bank profits in the latter part of the year was the ending of the 10 per cent surcharge on profits, which had lasted from May 1, 1974, to April 30, 1975.
The government could have extended that surcharge. It has the power to do so because it now has a majority. No longer can the government say it is shackled by a minority parliament; because it has a majority, it has the power. The government, in effect, has condoned this kind of profittaking by a large powerful group in the Canadian economic picture. There are some other factors which contribute to this very healthy profit figure. The article states that, "other factors which helped bank profits were increases in

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
bank service charges and the slowing of the rapid growth in salaries and benefits costs over the year to its employees.
It is very obvious that the government cannot say wages have been responsible for taking some of the profits of the banks. This is obvious because the banks have been very capable of controlling any increase in benefits or wages of its employees. This is an example of the kind of thing which indeed creates confusion. It is difficult for the Canadian people to understand what the government is doing. Lo and behold, after it was discovered that certain supermarkets were indeed using loopholes to skin the public, the government belatedly announced that it will monitor food prices and that in order to do so it will set up five regional offices. So far it has been admitted that over
1,000	phone calls have been received complaining of price increases.
What is also confusing is that the government has announced it will be having 200 employees in that particular department to do all the things which this program entails. How naive do they think that not only parliamentarians, but the people of Canada are to believe that a bureaucracy of 200 will do all the things it is said the program will cover.
The other confusion which prevails in respect of this program is a very important one because it deals with the cost of operating the anti-inflation program. Just the other day we had the supplementary estimates before the committee. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was being questioned about the supplementary estimates for the Anti-Inflation Board: it is estimated that the government will require $4,863,000 up to March 31, 1976. The supplementary estimates also indicated that the number of persons employed would be 191.
I want to read into the record an excerpt from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs dealing with the supplementary estimate for the Anti-Inflation Board. The meeting was held on November 28, 1975, and the proceedings read as follows:


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A point of clarification, do you mean the number of people represented in these estimates then, in fact, do not disclose the total number of people to be employed in the Anti-Inflation Review Board process-


André Ouellet: They do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You indicated there were people on loan from your department. I take it they would be taken out of their existing jobs and would be directing their attention towards Anti-Inflation Board review activities.
MR. Ouellet: What are the numbers here-


John R. Rodriguez: One hundred and ninety-one.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, the figure 200 is always cast about as being a sufficient number to monitor this whole business but they would have to work as hard as members of parliament to keep up that pace, I will say.
MR. Ouellet: No, the figures that you have there are for people who are hired and paid by the Anti-Inflation Board.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So there are in fact, as I understand you, a number of people who are on loan from Finance, National Revenue and your own department.


André Ouellet: Yes, and they are there for a short period of time to help launch the board, establish and get on.
(Mr. Rodriguez.]
Basically the board will become bigger if people do not voluntarily follow the guidelines. The more people try to evade the guidelines, the more people the Board will need to look at it, and hopefully the people of Canada will follow the guidelines and the board will not have to be involved as much and become too big. If the board becomes too big, that would be a clearcut indication that the program is not working.
Obviously, that is what the government is preparing us for, the fact that there is going to be a very large bureaucracy which the taxpayers of this country will be asked to support in an attempt to break the back of what the government calls skyrocketing inflation. In the minutes of that meeting we find it stated that the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board is not a member of the government and his wages and expenses are not included in the supplementary estimates. That portion of the proceedings reads as follows:


John R. Rodriguez: I notice the wage of the administrator for the AntiInflation Board is not included here in the estimates.


André Ouellet: No, because the administrator is a separate entity of the Anti-Inflation Board.


John R. Rodriguez: He will come under National Revenue, I presume.


André Ouellet: I suspect, yes.


John R. Rodriguez: I was looking in National Revenue and I did not see any estimate there to cover his wages.


André Ouellet: Hopefully, he is already paid.
We certainly have a clear indication that all the amounts of money which will be required to run this program have not yet surfaced or are being hidden very well in other departments. Obviously, it will cost a lot more than $1 million a month to operate the Anti-Inflation Board. It seems to me that the government has failed to provide accurate information as to what the actual cost of running its anti-inflation policy will be. The only accurate information made public has been through the supplementary estimates regarding the costs of the Anti-Inflation Board, and I have already referred to that figure as being $4,800,000.
As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs pointed out, this figure does not cover the salary of support staffs of either the administrator of the program or the appeal tribunal. The administrator, under Bill C-73, along with one or more persons appointed as deputy administrators, will be covered under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and under the Public Service Employment Act. Provision is also made in this act for the appointment of staffs for the administrator and deputy administrators under the Public Service Employment Act. All of this will obviously cost a significant amount of money which has not yet been made public. The chairman of the appeal tribunal shall be paid such salary as is fixed by the governor in council, and each other member shall be paid such fees or other remuneration for his services as shall be fixed by the governor in council, according to clause 28(1) of this bill. The government has produced no figures as to what the whole cost will be. The staff for the tribunal will be handled in the same way as that of the administrator, making it another hidden cost which has not yet been disclosed to the Canadian people.
I said that I could describe this bill with two adjectives. The first is "confusing" and the second is "inappropriate". This party has said that the bill is inappropriate at the moment in Canada. On close analysis of the current economic situation one finds little evidence that inflation is
December 2, 1975

getting worse. As a matter of fact, there are signs that the economy is improving. This is borne out by a global economic survey done by Newsweek in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association in September. I want to quote from their survey as reported in the Citizen issue of November 24, 1975, which reads as follows:
It predicts that the United States would lead the recovery and continue in an upward movement through 1976 and into 1977... includes an over-all look at the world economy as well as individual forecasts for 14 of the world's most industrialized, non-communist countries as of the third quarter of 1975.
It says world trade, which declined probably more than 6 per cent so far this year, "should pick up more than 5 per cent in 1976 and by almost 10 per cent in 1977".
It says world production, measured by the growth of the gross domestic product-the gross national product less payments of wages, interest, rent, profits and other income items paid abroad-"should be on a 4 per cent growth path or better in 1976-and this rate ought to accelerate to 6 per cent in 1977".
Inflation, the survey says should drop to "a mere 6 per cent or less in 1977".
So why did the government bring in this grotesque piece of legislation? Because the government, at the urgings of their boardroom friends, want to protect their high profittaking, and to do this wage costs must be cut down. The percentage of the national income accounted for by wages and salaries fell from 72.8 per cent in 1970 to 67 per cent in the first half of 1974. Since the middle of last year, however, the picture has changed. Labour's share increased to 69.4 per cent by the end of 1974, and by the middle of this year rose to 70.8 per cent. Big business, on the other hand, had its profits and interest fall to 21.1 per cent by the end of 1974, and to 20.1 per cent by the middle of this year.
This shift, which has by no means yet carried labour up to the share it had achieved in 1970 and which, incidentally, is quite comparable to the U.S. experience, has taken place because of an increase in the militancy of workers expressed in high wage demands and increased strikes. It has taken place in a context, however, where due to the worldwide capitalist recession, and especially the recession in the United States, Canadian corporations have convinced the government, despite a higher rate of inflation in other countries, that they cannot raise their prices to protect their profit margins if they are to remain competitive in the international markets. They have obviously convinced the government of a squeeze in profits, which is not yet particularly marked but which the government is apparently determined to prevent occurring, hence its wage restraint policy.
If we have any illusions about Jean-Luc Pepin's desire to control profits, listen to Mr. Arthur Donner, an economist with Research Securities, speaking at a meeting of Institutional Investors on October 23, 1975.
Donner told a meeting that the controls on profits and dividends seem to be much stricter than they originally appeared.
However, he doubts they will be applied very strictly since he would be surprised to see Jean-Luc Pepin come down hard on business.
He certainly would be very surprised, and I think we all would be very surprised, if Mr. Pepin came down very hard on corporate profits. We all know where he stands in that regard.
Anti-Inflation Act
In that speech he also noted that the major influence on Canada's lower inflation rate next year will be the lower rate of inflation in the United States, not controls. It seems only logical that when the inflation rate in the United States goes up, it affects our economy; and in a similar fashion, if the rate there goes down, it will obviously go down here. If we have any doubt about the loyalties of Beryl Plumptre and where her heart lies, we ought to have no difficulty in that matter because this is what she told a group of Canadians recently:
The board will have to show restraint with the companies and their profits. After all, we need profits to provide jobs and investment for more growth and more jobs.
Obviously, the biases of the two most important people on the Anti-Inflation Board have become known before they have even started operating the program. High rates of inflation are being experienced in only very specific areas such as food, energy and shelter. In most other areas inflation is moderate. Yet we find many of these specific areas are totally, or in large measure, exempt from the controls announced by the government.
Let us consider energy for a moment. It is interesting to note a speech made by Mr. Clifford Jutlah. He is an economist who works for the Ontario ministry of treasury, economics and intergovernmental affairs. Speaking to the founding meeting of the Canadian Petroleum Association of Canada, he said:
Higher oil and gas prices cost Ontario 22,000 jobs last year, 16,000 jobs this year, and an expected 19,000 jobs next year ... higher oil and gas prices can be blamed for one-third of the inflation of the past two years, and triggered the current recession in Canada ... the increases over the past couple of years, which have seen wellhead prices for oil triple and those for natural gas more than quadruple, have increased the country's fuel bill by $3 billion a year ... rising fuel prices pushed the consumer price index up 3.5 per cent in 1974, about one-third of the year's inflation.
Yet we find that particular aspect of the Canadian way of life-energy-exempt from the provisions of the guidelines. So there we have an expert economist in the Ontario government pinpointing an area where inflation has been most rampant. But we are going to leave that alone in the guidelines; we are not going to touch it. The Minister of Finance admitted in this House that controls on food prices would be difficult. The question of being able to control the pricing activities of multinational corporations has also been concededly him. There are no possible means available to monitor those prices. The minister admitted that fact in committee when we discussed the matter of transfer pricing. As for housing, the government did not move in on land speculators, nor did it touch mortgage interest rates. I have already referred to the profits the banks have recently declared. Just imagine, we hung Dick Turpin for that kind of thing! Even though housing costs have contributed much to the level of inflation in Canada, we continue to exempt interest rates, specifically mortgage interest rates, from any kind of controls.
As a matter of fact, talking to some of the teachers who were up on the Hill today, one comment came back again and again, and that is that if the government is prepared to control escalating costs such as housing and fuel, they would be very prepared to accept controls on their wages; they would not take any increases at all if the government could assure them that there would be effective controls and no skyrocketing increases in those particular items.

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
However, the government has chosen not to interfere with that sector at all.
Where else is inflation in Canada being fuelled? No less a person than Mrs. Sylvia Ostry, deputy minister of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, pinpointed it. She was speaking to the Empire Club in Toronto on October 30, 1975. She is one of the government's own, and the government does not even listen to what she says. By the way, she was the chief statistician in Statistics Canada. This is what she said to the Empire Club in Toronto: Business concentrations in Canada have undermined efficiency and fuelled inflation.
She went on to say:
As well, there is considerable evidence that prices in concentrated industries are less responsive to changes in the general level of business activity.
She also said that there is a "disturbing level of concentration in the Canadian economy." She pointed out the following:
A 1965 government study showed that the 50 largest companies in Canada accounted for 36 per cent of total manufacturing value-added. By comparison, the 50 largest companies in the United States accounted for 25 per cent.
She also said:
Despite the highly concentrated structure of Canadian industry, production units in this country tend to be excessively diversified, are often undersized, and typically unable to exploit potential economies that are available from longer production runs.
All these remarks I have read into the record have not referred to wages fuelling inflation; they have referred to such items as housing, fuel costs and monopolies-and these are the particular areas the government has not touched at all. The government has said it will deal with monopolies in part two of the anti-combines legislation, which is off somewhere in the future, probably at the end of this so-called three year run of the program; but it is not going to touch that baby because when it starts doing that it touches its friends in the corporate boardrooms. It is easier to control little people who may or may not be organized in unions. However, we will talk about that later.
The Minister of Finance and government economists, as well as others knowledgeable in these matters, have said that higher productivity is the key to beating inflation. Now we have to work our way out of inflation. When we look at plant capacity in Canada, we see that it has been declining over the past year to the point where it is now less than 85 per cent. I think it is around 80 per cent. Obviously, people are not trying to take more from the economy than it is capable of producing. The argument is that people are greedy, but that is a common denominator: it is a common human element, and this program will not alter that. That argument is to divert attention from the real problems.
Obviously, this economy is not operating at full capacity. There are 700,000 people in this country who are unemployed. Did 700,000 people make themselves unemployed? It was the direct action of this government between 1968 and 1972 which created the present level of unemployment. The unemployed did not ask to be put on unemployment insurance benefits. The government did this, and it will do so again with this program. It is not an accident that the

government is now redefining the unemployment rate which is acceptable in Canada under the unemployment insurance bill which is before a committee at the moment.
When the government starts talking about productivity, it ought to be talking about creating employment in Canada, raising the capacity and using our productive plants to their full capacity. Imagine, if we could put
100.000	of those 700,000 people back to work, the impact that would have on the economy. It seems to me that the government has not come forward with a strategy to activate this 15 or 20 per cent of plant capacity which is idle at the moment, with the view of getting the economy moving in that area. It is clear that the government is attempting to place the blame on labour, as they have done time and again in the past. We have seen ministers running around the country saying that labour costs are fuelling inflation.
In this latest speech, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey) became the hatchetman for the Liberal party. He tried to paint the postal workers as villains for wanting a wage settlement which would at least allow them to catch up with the past several years of inflation. He has the gall to say that the 38 per cent or 42 per cent demanded by them is inflationary. When we see the kind of profits the banks have declared, going from 65 per cent to 149 per cent-


Stan Darling: They were asking for 72 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: That is collective bargaining. You sit down and bargain collectively. That is the process.


Stan Darling: It is blackmail.


John R. Rodriguez: The Postmaster General has gone so far as to accuse labour of fighting the nation to which they owe allegiance. He has called public service unions the "lead dogs of labour". He has accused them of increasing their wages while unemployment was rising, recession was developing and producticity was falling. He conveniently ignores the fact that during the last few years profits rose much faster than wages or profits to small business. We did not hear anything from the Postmaster General then about big business being at war with the country. Now he says those who oppose wage and price controls are not patriotic. He probably means Steinberg's is patriotic. W'hen Inco and Falconbridge become patriotic, then I start to worry. We recently saw how patriotic Falconbridge was in Sudbury. As soon as profits began to shrink, they laid off
1.000	workers.
It seems to me that members of this House who voted themselves a 33 per cent increase in wages have a great deal of gall to support the Postmaster General when he stands up-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That was over seven years.


John R. Rodriguez: The postal workers are asking for-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will they accept-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, you can tell when you hit something.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is a cheap shot.
December 2, 1975


John R. Rodriguez: You are so sensitive, I say to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


An hon. Member:: Then why don't you be sensible?


John R. Rodriguez: This House recently passed a nice pension plan. I do not know of anybody in the work force who gets that kind of pension. Six years in this House, and you walk away with a pension: you do not have to be any particular age to collect it.


Stan Darling: Don't say "you"; say "we".


John R. Rodriguez: I will be back after the next election; I can tell you that, Stan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not addressing the Chair, but if you would keep these yahoos in line-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: The official opposition has been most confusing and ambivalent with respect to this bill. First they voted for it on second reading and now they come beating their breasts saying they are opposed to it. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, but still they try. A control is a control is a control, whether it lasts three years, 18 months or is a 90-day freeze. It is a control system and they are for controls, so I do not see that they have any quarrel with the party on the other side.
As I was saying, the Postmaster General is the first hatchetman for the Liberal party and they are starting their programs now. In the first speech he made signalling the opening of the battle, he stated that if organized workers get decent wages it will subtract from the money available to unorganized workers. That is nonsense. The wages of organized workers serve as examples to drive up the wages of the unorganized. It can be said, in all honesty and fairness and with history on my side, that the trade union movement has done more for this country and has improved the standard of living of workers across the land more than any government that ever sat across the way.
This is what the Postmaster General wants to put across. Because the unionized workers are going after improved wages and want a bigger share of the pie they helped to create, he is saying they are taking it away from those who are not organized. The government has always been backward in bringing in labour legislation in this country. In some provinces labour legislation is archaic, and in this House we have a government which refuses to improve the federal minimum wage. They are discussing it and there are promises that an announcement will be made shortly.
The government said that this bill would break the inflation psychology. That is what its premise is. Obviously, it will not break the inflation psychology when we have so many groups who feel alienated by the legislation and are not prepared to co-operate with the program. Every day we see a different group here on the Hill demonstrating against the program which is obviously very prejudicial in its application. The time is long past when Canadians would sit passively by and accept this grossly
Anti-Inflation Act
misplaced piece of legislation. It is contrary to the Postmaster General's patriotic appeal that to support it is to be patriotic. I say to the workers of this country that it would be patriotic to oppose it. My party cannot support this bill.


Mr. Boulanger:: We have known that for two weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: We ran a campaign in 1974 opposing wage and price controls.


David Orlikow: That is how Prosper got re-elected.


John R. Rodriguez: He could not even hold on to his Deputy Speaker's position; he got lost in the shuffle. Maybe he will get lost in the next election.
This party has been on record as opposing this kind of misanthrope legislation. We have opposed it in elections. We have nothing against an incomes policy, but this is not an incomes policy from a socialist's point of view. It is fairly obvious that this government has not attempted to identify those areas where inflation is highest. Why do we need this intrusion into the lives of the people? It is a dangerous trend. This kind of power is given to an antiinflation tribunal where Jean-Luc Pepin, a Liberal party flunkie, can interfere in legislation. For example, through Bill 100 the government of Ontario set up a new program of teacher wage bargaining with school boards. Today we see governments interfering in the lives of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, a system which we spent years developing to provide freedom, justice and democracy for our people, namely, the collective bargaining process, is being eroded with this bill. Indeed, one of my constituents, a very mild person, became incensed with what was happening with supermarket prices. She said that prices are so high that she is becoming frustrated to the point where, when she goes into a supermarket, she will take a gun with her, take what she needs from the store, and if anyone tries to stop her she will shoot them. That is the way this kind of government legislation affects people: it pushes them to the point where they must take drastic action.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may only continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known to the House that I did not vote for this legislation on second reading. I think the House has a right to know why I took that position. This is the first opportunity that I have been given to express these views. First, I wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who spoke yesterday put his finger on what will eventually become the key issue in this whole discussion. The question of taking away the freedom of people must always be the number one issue before any parliamentary government.

Anti-Inflation Act
I would not suggest for a moment that there are not times when you have to take away the freedom of the people for necessary public purposes. I recall the last war, when the nation, generally speaking, enthusiastically supported the loss of our freedom so that we could better fight that war. I vividly recall that near the end of the war, when the tide was turning in our favour, it was very difficult to keep the morale of the people high and to maintain the self-imposed disciplines that they had to impose on themselves to carry out this loss of freedom. I saw a great nation like the British become demoralized at the end of the war. The black market spread all through the economy and the respect for law declined in that once great nation.
I am not going to develop the theme of freedom after what the right hon. member for Prince Albert said yesterday, but I am sure that over the years to come this will be quoted as one of the examples of where a government, without legitimate cause, moved in the direction of restricting the freedom of our people in the economic field.
I suggest you can learn a lot by watching the method of operation of a leader or a government. My mind goes back to the election of 1968. With deliberate planning, the election was called on a Tuesday, instead of the usual Monday, so that the election could be held the day after the St. Jean Baptiste celebrations in the city of Montreal. In those celebrations, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) deliberately provoked the animosity of the people and had bottles and cans thrown at him. This had the effect, on the eve of the election, of polarizing the people on an issue that was really not involved in the election. I recall with deep sadness watching that demonstration over television which I could not help believing was not accidental.
I saw that technique used in 1968. I saw it repeated in 1970. I was not a member of this chamber at that time. I joined a group of people over at St. John's cathedral to protest the War Measures Act on the grounds that there was not sufficient challenge to the safety of the state to bring on the military to control a few social drop-outs in the city of Montreal. When the evidence is brought out, it will indicate conclusively that, because of a few frightened politicians, we put the whole majesty of the forces of this nation to corralling a few lawbreakers that you would ordinarily send a junior sergeant over to settle. That method of operation used in 1970 rallied the whole nation behind the Prime Minister because the people are taught to believe that you must always respect the leader of your country. They are taught that when he says the country is in danger, you rally behind him.
There was a third occasion. When the election was called in 1974, it was the government, aided and abetted by the New Democratic Party, that went on the attack and labelled the leader of the Conservative party as the devil to be aware of because he was going to bring in wage and price controls. In nearly six weeks of that compaign, in both official languages of this country we heard the phrase "there is going to be a freeze on your wages." So successful was that indoctrination of the minds of people listening to the media that the labour vote of our big cities, particularly Vancouver and Toronto, voted Liberal to save themselves from this desperate freeze for 90 days. The leader of

the NDP who supported that type of strategy paid a heavy price for his mistake, as did our leader.
Our leader, who had taken the stand which he did, announced that stand in this House many months before the election. After the election he stood up before his party and accepted all the blame. He is retiring from public life, not honoured by success in the field of electoral victory but honoured by this nation because he tried to paint the picture of truth in the hope of getting a national decision. At this moment in Canada's history, if a general election were being held today and this man was the leader of our party, he would be the prime minister after the election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: However, such is not the case. What we are faced with here is another of the techniques of confrontation. There is no question in the minds of most of us who know what goes on here that there has been a strong movement, for many years, in a select group within our civil service which holds to the view that individuals in Canada are not competent to make decisions for themselves. They do not believe that the farmers should be allowed free decision-making. We saw that in a raft of legislation in the session of 1970. They do not believe that business knows how to make decisions. There is continual interference in that sector.
However, with this particular move at this time, knowing the pressure of the civil service for its planned system of society, the government acquiesced to them. The Prime Minister immediately reverted to his traditional method of operation, namely, confrontation. In this announcement the Prime Minister deliberately went out to confront the big labour unions of this country and to pose as the defender of the great majority against the great barons of labour. Listening to the speeches of the NDP, I can sympathize entirely with the philosophy of what they are trying to say. It is wrong in a nation like Canada to try to make any segment of the economy or any minority group the target of a government's animosity. I do not necessarily agree with all I have heard from the New Democratic Party in this debate, but on this question of the fairness of it, and what is being done to the democratic system, whether you are attacking the St Jean Baptiste Society, whether you are appealing to the fears of the nation about law and order in Montreal in 1970, whether you are frightening the labour votes in 1974 and then turning around and attacking the labour leaders in 1974, the method of operation is consistent, and that is not good for democracy. That is the number one key issue. You do not take away freedom lightly; you do not apply a system of controls lightly. It is only when a nation is in desperate straits.
I spoke in the House on this subject two years ago. We were allowed by the Chair to have an all night debate and I put forward a series of proposals I thought the government could adopt to attack inflation. There were five proposals. I am not going to quote the whole thing tonight. I would just like to quote a concluding paragraph which can be found on page 6538 of Hansard of September 13, 1973. These are my own words:
December 2, 1975

It is not an accident that the Conservative party, surely the last party that would ever go for controls, should come out and say we see no recourse but for a 90-day freeze, then one and a half or two years for controls to ensure stability so we can move forward with our long and short range policies. Whenever the Conservative party accepts that position, great is the danger to the nation because in the long run controls are inflationary. You have to get out of them as fast as you can However, you cannot put in these policies and make these changes unless there is that economic stability. That is what I am asking the House to consider.
That was the anguished conclusion I reached over two years ago at a time when we were in a demand-pull type of inflation added on top of the cost-push. We had to put in that freeze to give us time to bring in a budget attacking the fundamental causes of inflation on several fronts simultaneously.
The reason for selective controls is obvious. You might find corporations, big business, big unions not willing to follow too quickly some of the directions laid down in the budget, which had to offer tax incentives and positive inducements, not restrictive controls. We needed those selective controls with the authority of the provinces, since only the provinces have constitutional authority to interfere with property and civil rights. That view I put on the record in the House, Mr. Speaker, over two years ago.
The bill before us now makes no effort to get after the fundamental causes of inflation. In addition to being a direct attack on a group, the working people, it is also a direct attack on the constitution of this nation. I have read the speeches given in this debate from the very beginning up to last night, and I attended here today. Three or four speakers have mentioned the constitutional aspects, but I say with deep feeling that this country has not been done right by. No member on either side has made any real effort to put before the people of Canada the seriousness of the constitutional attack on the provinces this bill represents.


John Edward Broadbent: Andy did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am simply referring to the speeches I have read. I think members much better qualified than I should be the ones to lay before the people the dangers which are inherent in this bill in terms of our constitutional rights and privileges.
Forgetting party for the moment, when you restrict or control the citizen there must be a good reason, and the question I ask is this: does Bill C-73 attack inflation and is the inflation so great that the nation is in mortal peril? That is the question I put before all of us as Canadians. My first answer to that question, from my own point of view, is that the bill does not fight inflation. This bill in every one of its terms legislates inflation. For example, it legislates that the working man can get no more than 8, 10 or 12 per cent increase per year on his income. Let us call it 10 per cent. In fact we all know that this is the amount which will be forthcoming. We have, by the very nature of human nature, legislated that the increase in the cost to society of working people's wages will be 10 per cent.
Still on the question of legislating inflation, we have said in the legislation that as far as prices are concerned they will be based on cost. If costs go up 10 per cent or 20 per cent to compensate for the increased costs built into the system in the last two or three years, then the busi-
Anti-Inflation Act
nessman is allowed to take his profit on the basis of that cost. So we have a cost-plus situation. This was what hurt us so badly during the control system during and after the war.
The story is told that businessmen used to come down to the hotel here regularly and after a hard day of sitting around government offices trying to meet somebody, they would go down and have a good meal at night. They would eat well and drink well. And when a large bill would be presented by the waiter at the end of the meal they all fought for the bill. One man would say, "Let me have that bill, my company is in the 50 per cent bracket and it only costs us half the bill." Another fellow would say, "Give me that bill. I am on an individual tax rate. I will get 90 per cent back if I pay the bill." But the guy who always won the right to pay the bill was the guy who said, "I am on a cost-plus contract and I will make 10 per cent."
This is exactly what has been legislated in the bill as far as prices are concerned. You have legislated cost-plus, which means you have legislated inflation in prices, all in the hope that prices and wages will not go above the level of 10 per cent which is the objective.
A year or so from now hon. members will find my statements to be true-that inflation has maintained its level around 10 to 20 per cent. So the first thing I have to say about Bill C-73 is that it legislates inflation, it does not fight inflation.
My second point, which I have touched on already, is that I suspect that this bill in the normal sense has to be considered unconstitutional. It has been mentioned that there is no preamble appealing to the good order clause in the constitution. What has not been mentioned sufficiently, in my judgment, is that most wages and prices are completely within the field of the provinces. This bill says that it is not binding upon Her Majesty in the right of the provinces or upon Her Majesty in right of the municipalities, yet the government is systematically sitting down with one province after another and conniving together to get around the constitution of the country. As some provinces are now indicating, the legislation will not work because of its unconstitutional nature.
My third point is that the bill is pure public relations. Even before the announcement was made to the nation we discovered from reading the insider accounts, in the magazine that reports for the government to the people of Canada, that it wanted, first of all, a public relations man. Only later did it go for the other people to head up the program. When you see a government heading for the top public relations man it could find, over whom it had a hold, and it brings him back, and then later it figures out who will head up the program, then you can understand why I say this is a pure public relations operation.
We know the senior mandarins of the civil service wanted some planned controls on a permanent basis for many years. We also know there are individuals in the government who are opposed, and have been opposed, to controls, and who know that they will not work. Therefore what we have here is an effort to go out on a public relations war, using as the first target the big labour barons, so as to try to unite the country against this

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
particular group. There are lots of reasons that the government could put forward for uniting against them, and in this way they hope to get the support of the country for this unworkable program.
I think every member of the House knows that this past year the government had no intention of employing wage and price controls, but what triggered it off was the departure of the former minister of finance. With his departure panic set in, and both the caucus and cabinet joined in pressing for action that would carry out what the civil service had wanted all along. I put this point before you, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that we will know the real enemy here. There are some people in this country who want a planned, controlled system to work all of the time.
My fourth point about what I do not like in Bill C-73 is that its economics are so brutal. Many studies are available from people much more learned than I, written in very involved English, showing that when there is, say, 5 per cent inflation in prices, governments get a lot more money than the 5 per cent. One study shows that 13 per cent accumulates to government whenever prices rise by 5 per cent. Transposing that to 12 per cent inflation, about 30 per cent goes to government. If one looks at the income of the government these past three or four years, without there being any serious change in the tax level, one finds a tremendous flood of money flowing into government coffers. It is easy to see why governments have a vested interest in inflation; they like it because they get more money to bring in more programs.
Even though the government has accepted the principle of indexing and has applied it partially, some of the studies that have been published indicate that it is government that is the big winner in inflation. We should think seriously not only of the civil servant who believes sincerely in a planned economy; we should also think of the fact that governments, mortal as they are want to get all the money they can. The main reason that they do not want to fight inflation is that they are the biggest beneficiaries. That is the point I want to make.
I do not think it is right just to condemn this legislation for what it is, bad legislation, without putting forward some form of alternative that is credible and reasonable. I have done this before, but I will do it again. A real antiinflation plan can be put forward, and it is not new. I would think that the great majority of rational minded people, if they had to list the causes of modern day inflation, would put government spending or costs as number one. I have read the speeches of three or four or more speakers, and the Leader of the Opposition pointed that fact out over and over again.
When I speak of government costs I do not want to leave the impression that the only thing you can do to cut costs is to cut down on things like the Prime Minister's swimming pool. That is pure nibbling at the problem. I am talking about the fact that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the costs of the federal government are locked-in costs; I think they call them statutory costs. No one has been making any effort to find out how we are going to cope with these open-ended policies that bring increasing tax burdens on the shoulders of the people in order to fuel these funds that grow and grow.

When I speak of a real anti-inflation plan to meet rising government costs, I am not talking about the 20 per cent to 30 per cent that you nibble off here and there. I am referring to the basic problem. I am not talking about negative deterrents in these programs; I am saying that enough knowledge has been collected over the last 30 years to turn the philosophy of these programs around and, through positive, dynamic approaches, cut the programs down compared with what they are today, and without taking away one single service that the people want.
I happen to know that one of these proposals was made in 1948, which is a long time ago, but no government has acted on it. I say it is about time we began to reassess the fundamental philosophy of the statutory programs that we have and which the people want. I am prepared at any time to put these programs forward in detail, with the quantitative evidence behind them, to show that they can and will work. In other words, government costs are the number one target.
When this party put forward an amendment in committee to the effect that the government should restrict itself to some 10 per cent in the matter of increased government spending, as it is so restricting the individuals of this country, the amendment was refused by the government. That is conclusive proof that the government has no intention of applying the same kind of controls to itself as it is applying to the working man. The refusal of this amendment convinced the Conservative opposition that there was no intention on the government's part of being sincere about reducing inflation. Since the government is the chief culprit in this rising tide of inflation, unless it takes some action inflation will continue.
I should have liked the amendment to go further and limit the government's income to 10 per cent. That would be the largest guarantee that expenses would be cut down.
The second point in a real anti-inflation plan has to be the question of getting at interest rates, and this again was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in his speeches. Once more, let me assure the House that there are positive ways of getting at this. These figures are not original and they are not precise, but they are accurate. If you buy a house or a new home today, and take out a $50,000 mortgage, and that is not unusual in our big cities, at 12 per cent for 30 years, before you finish paying for that home you will have paid out over $200,000. You will have paid $150,000 interest on a $50,000 home.
I have already said in this House that in the way we are presently financing the oil sands development in Alberta, with the federal government, the Ontario government, and the Alberta government participating with private industry, it is costing $11 a barrel to produce the oil. If we adopted the old fashioned method of financing, going back thousands of years, we could reduce that cost of oil to $3 a barrel. About $8 per barrel goes in interest, adding to the cost of the consumer and forcing the workingman to go out on strike for higher wages in order to meet all these costs.
If we want lower interest rates surely there is someone on the government side who can figure out a way of speeding up the payment for a house mortgage. If a person were to pay that $50,000 mortgage in ten years his interest
December 2, 1975

would not be $150,000, but would be $27,000. Surely there must be somebody on the government benches who has the muscle and the will to talk with civil servants and say he wants a housing program that cuts these costs to the people who want to buy homes. Surely there is a way of cutting these interest costs.
If we can cut these costs down to the point where a person is given an incentive to pay off the mortgage quickly, then he will get his house for $77,000 in ten years and would be saving himself $123,000. You would have a double advantage because the money would be turning over faster and faster and the velocity of capital flow would be improved, thus in turn decreasing interest rates.
If we are short of capital for all these things we want today we can get it in two ways-one is to save more money, and the other is to speed up capital flow. If you speed up capital flow three times this is the same as tripling the money supply, and if you triple your money supply you decrease interest rates. If the government does not have anyone on its side who knows how to do this I can tell you that there are plenty on this side who do. We regret that we have to sit here in the opposition another four years waiting for those unscrupulous people, who will adopt any issue to win an election, to come up with these ideas to help the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
third point in this battle against inflation is money supply, and this has been dealt with by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I will not bother once again with decimal point accuracy, but will just give the rough figures.
During the years when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister the money supply increased from $13 billion under the previous administration to $18 billion. We had inflation rising from 11A per cent to 3 per cent. During the years of the present administration the money supply has reached $65 billion, and has been held there for the last few months. Surely with all the evidence of the co-relation between increasing money supply and rising inflation there must be some awareness on the part of the treasury benches that there must be a responsibility on those people elected by the people of Canada to give directions to the Bank of Canada.
Obviously we need a formula based on the gross national product to make sure there is no shortage of money for legitimate growth, but we also need a formula that includes a factor to cover the velocity of money flow, something which is missing from any type of formula the Bank of Canada has used in the last 30 years.
This is not the type of thing that you discuss in detail in the House of Commons, but it is the type of thing a responsible government should be directing the bank of Canada to carry out, and that is, stopping this business of flooding the country with money and raising interest rates at the same time. There has to be a positive policy in respect of money supply. It does not have as much effect as people think, but it is a requirement.
The fourth point in this positive program is the matter of land costs. I do not think the people in cities have to look
Anti-Inflation Act
any further than areas within 20 or 30 miles of those cities to see what the basic inflationary force has been. If you go back to the year 1955 you will see that the value of land around Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver was not too different from what it was 20 years before, but in the last 20 years that land value has escalated beyond all comprehension. This land value escalation has added to the cost of homes, even before inflation hit building costs.
Say that in the Toronto area the average worker's small home cost $19,000 in 1964, just at the beginning of land cost increases. In 1974 the average cost was $57,000, approximately a 300 per cent increase in a decade in the cost of purchasing a home in the Toronto area. Since then other cities have risen to challenge Toronto in this regard.
If the government wants to do anything to reduce the most oppressive costs to city people it should first take these programs which it has now under the CMHC Act, the National Housing Act, and other statutes, and hit these programs on the nose interestwise, not tomorrow but now. What has happened in the last ten or 15 years I think will continue to be the cost-push plight of our economy for many years to come. This has to be stopped and corrected, and the provinces have to be participants in this. If we are going to help city people get their basic costs down, that must be one of the main thrusts.
The fifth point in this program is a sensitive one, and one in which the NDP will be interested. At this point in time it is popular in Canada to say that the number one person who should be blamed for inflation is the labouring man. I do not accept that. With rising land costs the labouring man is forced to get more money, and has had no choice but to go to his union leaders and say, "Now, look, we do not want 30-cents an hour increase, we want $1.30 an hour to catch up". Generally speaking, the labouring man is not the primary cause of inflation. He is fifth in the line.
The labouring man in trying to catch up was doing what every other group was trying to do. What went wrong, of course, was that when the labouring man caught up on a 2-year contract he got behind again, so the smart labour leaders began to say, "Back me and I will get you ahead". So we have, in addition to the catch-up procedures by labour, the get-ahead concept, and to that degree I agree with the general public that labour leaders have to be held responsible.
These leaders were doing this because of increased government costs, higher taxes, increased land costs, rising interest rates and everything else. Labour is not the only partner to inflation. We all know that, and I object very strongly to any attempt to single out one single group as being at fault. We cannot fault any single group, big business or big labour, for trying to get ahead of the game rather than just trying to catch up. I point out also that I do not believe we will solve this problem of inflation by confrontation with any group, business or labour.
We must face the fact that our technique of collective bargaining which ends up as a confrontation technique is costing labour, management, and the consumer dearly. We all suffer.
We had a debate here in the fall of 1974 concerning strikes on the west coast. Why has there not been any noise

Anti-Inflation Act
about the west coast this year? It seemed that there had been one strike after another on the west coast, and then it was very quiet. I know the reason, and I hope the whole country knows the reason. The men who work and the men who administer business out there have become sick and tired of their both losing money because of these constant confrontations and strikes. They are trying to find a way out of it. The key way is through productivity in which labour shares the advantage with management, productivity in respect of which the consumer does not suffer. Productivity is one of the main ways to attack inflation.
If we were to chart the productivity of our country and the country to our south, the United States, we would find that our productivity has fallen off in the last two years in a steady downward curve while the Americans are fighting their way out of inflation not with controls but by an upward productivity trend in the economy. They are coming out of their situation. There is some hesitation involved in the process, but they are coming out of it. I say so far as this party is concerned we do not believe in confrontation between labour and management. We believe in the common-sense approach of finding out what the situation is in each particular case, and by using the device of productivity with security of tenure for the working man, portability of his pension so that he may move around, portability of insurance rights, and more particularly participation in the decisions, we are prepared to put forward a positive program to achieve non-confrontation in the labour field.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad even at this late stage in the debate to have an opportunity to speak against the third reading of this so-called anti-inflation bill. I do not want to repeat the reasons already advanced. My colleagues and others in this House have made very clear in their views, which I share, that the provisions of this bill are unfair and inequitable.
The government can send squads of ministers across Canada asking for consensus, but until they are able to show in detail that the control over prices is as firm and as effective as control over wages and salaries, there is no way in which they can secure support. I do not at all mean to suggest that inflation is not an extremely serious evil. Nor do I wish to imply that the government ought to have taken no action. The fact of the matter is that the action which it has taken is ineffective and unjust, and is therefore worse than useless.
I wish to concentrate on some of the questions which have not been developed very much during this debate. First, in my view this bill is a negation of parliamentary democracy. It signals the abdication of parliament. I know of course that in many modern democracies the handing over of power to the executive by the elected parliament has proceeded apace, but I venture to say that never before has this process reached such an overwhelming and absolute degree.
What does the legislation say? In effect it says that the cabinet or the governor in council has unlimited power to make, reverse, or revoke the guidelines affecting wages, salaries, incomes, profits, prices both public and private, and affecting individuals and corporate business. I say that such a power handed over to the cabinet in effect means 
that parliament will not have and does not have any effective control over the legislative process.
I have re-read the bill very carefully and it would seem that there is no attempt to limit or circumscribe in any way the content of the guidelines. Indeed machinery is set up for the Anti-Inflation Board, the administrator, and the appeal tribunal-and I shall want to speak some more about this later-including penalties of $10,000 or two years, or both on summary conviction, and not less than $10,000 or five years' imprisonment when the offence is tried as an indictable offence.
What are the offences? No one knows. Largely they are put forward in the vague form of failure to comply with the act and, presumably, the controls. What are the offences under the guidelines? Who knows? We have never been told. We are to provide penalties, but basically they are for offences which are indefinite, the content of which we have never been advised.
I appreciate that government supporters have little option but to support this legislation. I appreciate also that this amorphous piece of legislation is such that it cannot be rationally amended by parliament, although I always thought it was the duty of parliament to amend something that cannot be gotten hold of in any other way. I know the private members on the government side have no power, authority, or position other than just to go ahead and kindly support the bill. We say all the more blame falls on the government for placing these members in the position of emasculating if not destroying parliament. I say that feature alone would be enough reason to oppose this bill vigorously.
The next point I want to make has to do with the constitution. That was referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and also earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). This matter has received very little discussion. I want to protest that a bill of such importance in dealing with our fundamental law and constitution, which in effect provides for widespread invasion of provincial rights, should be brought forward here and brushed aside so far as the constitutional argument is concerned.
What are we told? I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in answer to a question said that someone in the Department of Justice gave an opinion. We do not know who the person was, or his reasons. We have one of the greatest constitutional issues ever to come before parliament and the courts which is brushed aside because some anonymous official has said it is all right and that we should not ask questions about it. I think that is a shameful failure to pay any attention to the constitution which, after all, is the very basis for our existence as a country.
Let no one say it is clear or obvious that parliament has the right to step in and regulate prices, wages, salaries, profits, and all these things without any relation whatever to those things which normally have been regarded as within provincial constitutional power. I know this House does not appreciate a lecture on the subject of the constitution. It would probably be very good for some members to have such a lecture, but I do not intend to give it at this time.
December 2, 1975

I will tell the House, and perhaps it is immodest for me to do so, that I argued two cases in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which involved constitutional issues. I argued dozens of cases in the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional issues, and many cases in the Ontario Court of Appeal, and during that process I learned a little bit about the constitution. Now I want to say that this particular issue is one that is not clear one way or the other. Many authorities dealing with this matter could argue that legislation of this sort comes under trade and commerce, section 91(2) of the British North America Act. I do believe this legislation goes far beyond any normal regulation of trade and commerce.
It is suggested that it may be justified as an emergency. I am far from saying that inflation might not reach a state of emergency which would justify emergency action, but what do we have? We have the government itself, in the preamble-which is always looked at by the courts to determine the real basis and substance of the legislation- making no reference to an emergency, either in precise terms or in its content. It is merely stated in a mild way that inflation is contrary to the interests of all Canadians, and that containment and reduction of inflation have become a matter of serious national concern. I say to the House that this sort of preamble has been treated in the courts as not justifying emergency action whereby the normal rights of the provinces are disregarded and set aside.
If the government really thought this was an emergency or anything like that, why did it not say so instead of using this language? I do not know whether it is ignorance, indifference, or contempt for the constitution-probably all three of them rolled into one.
I do not think it is a joke when parliament is invited by the government to evade the division of powers contained in sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, and then is told that some official in the Department of Justice says, "It is all right; we do not want you to bother about it." So much for the constitution, but I prophesy that this issue will rise up to smite the government eventually, probably after a long period of confusion.
Certainly if any client came to me very upset about the application of some of the powers under the act and wanted to go to the courts, I would be bound to tell him that I thought he had a real chance of winning the case and disrupting the whole administration of the act.
I want to deal with one other reason why I think this bill is most unsatisfactory and should not be accepted. I believe that it will provide for absolutely chaotic administration. What do we have? We have a whole series of boards under this bill. For example, the Anti-Inflation Board is not given the power to do anything very much except to monitor, to report, and to refer. It does not seem to want to confine itself to that. Certainly it has been issuing edicts, as it were, the authority for which is extremely dubious.
If we look at clause 12 of the bill we find little in there that gives any real power to the Anti-Inflation Board other than to make inquiries, monitor changes, and so on. After that inquiry has been gone through by the Anti-Inflation Board, we come to the administrator who is given full
Royal Assent
authority to enforce the act. However, he can only act when the Anti-Inflation Board or the governor in council advises him that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a supplier has contravened, or is likely to contravene the guidelines. Then the administrator has to make all the necessary inquiries and carry out hearings to determine what action, if any, could be taken. When he is through, there is an appeal to the Anti-Inflation Appeal Tribunal, and as if that were not enough, there is a further appeal to the federal court of appeal, a hierarchy of appeals which will lead to delay, confusion and, I prophesy, absolute chaos in the administration of this legislation.
We have heard enough about it already to know that chaos and confusion are growing. People are puzzled, to put it mildly, about the complexity of the guidelines. We do not know what legislation we are really passing, but we do know that almost absolute powers are conveyed to the governor in council, and that the government has not seen fit to refer the constitutionality of the legislation to the courts; and we know that on the face of it the administration, as I said, is likely to be chaotic.
For these reasons, as well as many others about the inequity and unfairness of this piece of legislation, I must declare myself to be against the bill. It is so framed as to invite the abdication of parliament, an invitation which of course will be accepted on the government side. No attempt has been made by the government to deal with the constitutional difficulties, and a chaotic administration is in prospect. For these reasons I think the right thing for us to do is to throw this bill out.


Some hon. Members:: Six-thirty, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It
being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, 1975, I do now leave the chair until eight this evening.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honorable House in the chamber of the honorable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
e (2020)
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-65, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, (No. 2)-Chapter No. 71.
Bill C-25, an act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment-Chapter No. 72
Bill C-23, an act to provide for the payment of superannuation benefits to Lieutenant Governors- Chapter No. 73.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of trying to get Bill C-73 through third reading. I cannot say that I wish the government well or good luck with it. As we have said before, and I repeat again tonight, the bill is unfair, inequitable, and unjust. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has heard the words so often they must haunt him at night. I hope they do.
I look at this as not only an economic War Measures Act but as a sort Of ledger. On the debit side of the ledger are those who will be hurt most by this program. That is the majority of people in Canada. They are the ones who will be affected and the ones who will be ignored.
On the debit side of the ledger will be the pensioners and others on fixed income. Several times government spokesmen have said that the escalator will look after them. It will not. Even if it did, the basic pension is still insufficient.
On the debit side there are also those on minimum wages. Already one provincial government has tried to chisel, in the name of following the government's guidelines, on how much of an increase there is going to be in the minimum wage. Then there are the unorganized workers. At least two thirds, or 70 per cent, of the work force in Canada do not belong to a union. They do not have anyone to bargain for them. The government says that they can stay within the guidelines and get an increase of 10 per cent. This could be $600. If they happen to be highly paid, unorganized workers, they could get $2,400. I have not heard the government say that the Anti-Inflation Board will order employers of unorganized workers to guarantee them the $600. What they get will be that, or somewhat less.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).)
The Anti-Inflation Board and the government's guidelines will discriminate against wage and salary earners, including unorganized workers and those who have been on a contract for the past one, two, or three years and are now negotiating a new one. These people have fallen behind. The board will only go through the motions of examining their case.
On the debit side of the ledger we find some 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the population who will be asked to carry the burden of this program on their shoulders.
On the credit side, we in our party, and I take it now those in the official opposition are waiting to hear what the government intends to do regarding profits, professional fees, and interest rates, measures which will affect those who are in the higher income brackets and represent only about 20 per cent of the population. But we have yet to hear anything from the government to illustrate that it can and will devise means to impose restraint on the people who occupy the credit side of the ledger. It has presented nothing to the House to illustrate the way in which it intends to enforce controls on the people who really cause inflation.
I listened with a feeling of nausea to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others in the government complaining about people who insist on extracting more from the economy than they put into it. I should like anyone in this chamber to tell me or anyone else that a person who is on the minimum wage is taking more out of the economy than he is putting into it. Are we really expected to believe that such people as these are causing inflation? If the government was genuine about this program it would take steps immediately to raise the minimum wage to $3.50 an hour and would be asking the provinces to do the same.
The people on minimum wages are not the ones who cause inflation; I am sure the Minister of Finance would not suggest that they are for one minute. People in receipt of pensions are not the ones who cause inflation People earning wages or salaries of less than $12,000 a year are not the ones who cause inflation.
When will the government learn that if you are going to fight inflation you must begin with the ones who cause inflation? You start at the top. You start with the high salaries, you start with dividends and professional fees which flow to the 20 per cent of the population who not only possess economic powers but seem to exercise political power altogether out of proportion to their numbers.
I would be one of the first to support a government of any political stripe in a fight against inflation if it attacked those who do in fact cause inflation. I cannot countenance a program which instead attacks only those who have no part in the cause of inflation, those who are its first victims, that is to say, people on low v/ages, pensioners, the majority of our citizens. I question the sincerity of a government which brings in a guidelines program requiring people who are on the lowest income scales to be in the forefront of the battle against inflation, to be the ones who man the barricades and go over the top in the charge against the spiral of rising prices.
What about the privileged, those w; derive the benefit of dividends, high interest rates, corporate profits and
December 2, 1975

professional fees? They are encouraging the government to do something about inflation. Of course the government brings in a program which does not particularly affect those who cause inflation.
Various voices were raised reminding the government that these are difficult times, that there was a rapid increase in the price of many products. Double-digit inflation, and so forth, led to demands that the government should do something about the situation-that it should take control over the economy, intervene in the economic field, and so on. I find this very interesting because, by and large, almost without exception those who have been most vocal and persistent in demanding that the government step in and impose controls are those who traditionally have been opposed to government intervention, namely, the business people, the free enterprisers, the capitalists.
Judging by press reports of the Prime Minister's speech in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, the controls now being introduced by the government have been well received by the farmers, people who are often said to be the most independent in the country. I shall have more to say about that aspect in a few minutes.
What I find interesting is the fact that controls should have been advocated by the Conservatives and are being imposed by the Liberals, the two free-enterprise parties which have traditionally warned Canadians not to vote for the New Democratic Party because the NDP-ers would impose socialist controls. Mr. Speaker, if these controls resembled socialist controls there would be little or no work for me or anybody else in our group. Nevertheless, they are controls, and here are the free enterprise parties imposing them after screaming about socialists threatening to do so. One of those parties came out in 1974 in favour of a price freeze and certain controls. The other party said such a program would not work, that it couldn't be done. Now, in December, 1975, we find the Liberals and Conservatives have both made a 180 degree turn. I suppose that is to avoid a collision in the middle of the road.
I have a great deal of respect and regard for the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He is one who has been consistent, honest, and straightforward. In fact I would be more comfortable living under some kind of control and restraint program if he were the prime minister. But he failed to make it. The fellow who told the Canadian people that controls would not work and couldn't be put into effect is the fellow who is now Prime Minister and pushing this bill through parliament.
As the premier of British Columbia said, these free enterprise parties get me all mixed up. These are the ones who said, "Don't vote for the NDP because they will bring in socialist controls; they will intervene in the sphere of private enterprise." Yet who are the ones who are demanding controls today-the Liberals and Conservatives!


An hon. Member:: They are in British Columbia.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When socialists do it a la British Columbia cries of outrage go up from free enterprisers and the business community. But they are the ones who are supporting the Conservative Party, whatever that means, and demanding that the Government of Canada, which is Liberal, should do something about inflation. That is how I get all mixed up.
Anti-In flat ion Act


An hon. Member:: You were born mixed up.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I can get mixed up all by myself, without any help.
While the government is instituting controls, the Liberals keep saying that they do not like controls but they see no other way out of present difficulties. I remind my hon. friends in the Liberal and Conservative parties that it is this so-called free enterprise system of theirs that got us into these difficulties.
Both of the free enterprise parties say that the controls should only be temporary, the Conservatives preferring a 90 day freeze with limited controls for 18 months, the Liberals saying that the controls should last for two or three years. This raises certain questions. In the first place, what kind of controls can you expect from a government of either party which does not believe in controls? They have both said they do not believe in them, that they do not like them, that they do not want them. How much reliance and trust can the working people of this country, the pensioners, the unorganized workers and so on, place on a government that puts in controls when it does not believe in them?
That is the main reason for skepticism among the Canadian body politic, and particularly among working people, about the so-called anti-inflation program. In my opinion this skepticism is fully warranted. The program proposed is fairly tight and restrictive on wages and salaries but very loose and undefined with respect to everyone else. The program demonstrates more than adequately that the Liberals do not believe in controlling the economy. They are willing to control salaries and wages, but little else.
In fact I have even heard of inquiries made of the Department of National Revenue and the Anti-Inflation Board by ladies of the night across Canada, who are wondering whether the wage restraints apply to them and, if they do, whether they are O.K under the productivity guidelines. If those particular ladies are free to increase their productivity but not their fees they will be very relieved, just as the business community and other professionals are relieved under the program.
The second question is: what is to happen after the controls are lifted? I have not heard anything from the Minister of Finance on that. Are we going back to a free-for-all and another round of inflation? If so, what is the purpose of the so-called temporary controls? What grounds are there for believing that the root cause of inflation will have disappeared by 1978 if the control package deals with symptoms only?
When the Prime Minister announced the program at Thanksgiving, which is when the supermarket boys ran around stamping their cans and cartons giving thanks, he said that inflation could not be licked-though he told us it was licked back in 1969 and 1970-unless and until there was a basic change in the attitude of the Canadian people. He blamed inflation on the psychology of rising expectations, among many other causes, and indicated that this psychology somehow had to be broken

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Who is responsible for these rising expectations? How can the attitude of the Canadian people be changed? The Prime Minister did not illustrate how that could be done. Some have suggested-particularly business people like to say this-that governments are to blame for rising expectations, and that government spending is to blame for inflation. I listen to my hon. friends in the official opposition raving and ranting about government expenditure, but other than list a few picayune items I have yet to hear how they would reduce government spending by any significant amount. I would be very interested to hear what government spending they would reduce, where, and by how much. I will accept their argument with a great deal more credulity if one of that party gets up as soon as I am through and gives me a list, chapter and verse, of what, where, and how much government spending they would reduce. Until I hear that from the official opposition, all their so-called talk of cutting down government expenditure is so much fluff and window dressing.
Let me make reference to one of the provinces of this country. I would be interested to hear how much the Conservatives would reduce spending in the province of Manitoba, which has a $1 billion budget. Some $600 million of that $1 billion budget is taken up with colleges, universities, education, health and social development. Another $100 million is taken care of by the property tax credit plan, and cost of living tax credits, and municipal grants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is making some notes and that his speech will follow right after mine as I said, another $100 million is taken care of by three items-the property tax credits, the cost of living tax credits, and grants to municipalities. That leaves $300 million to run all the other departments and programs in the province.
It is obvious that if the government is to effect big savings in one province, these savings have to come out of expensive services like education and health care. Are my hon. friends in the Conservative party suggesting that we cut expenditure on social services, hospitals, medical care, old age pensioners, veteran pensioners and so on? If so, I wish they would say so. Or if they want to make drastic reductions in government spending out of the remaining one quarter to one third of the total budgets of each province, I should like them to be explicit and tell me. If they are correct and if I could agree with where they will chop these savings off, I could even be persuaded to support their ideas about fighting inflation. It is equally obvious, Madam Speaker, that this cannot be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) rising to ask a question?


Mr. Epp:: If the hon. member will allow.


John Edward Broadbent: Another candidate for the leadership.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sure.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wonder whether the hon. member could indicate, with all these great things that are being given to the residents of this socialist paradise, formerly known as the province of Manitoba, why we are also fortunate in paying the highest personal income tax in Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not want to argue with my hon. friend. I have not looked at the figures lately but I thought that Saskatchewan and Newfoundland had the highest figures. If Manitoba has moved ahead of Saskatchewan, we will have to try to catch up. In order to do a civilized, decent job of redistributing income in an equitable and fair manner, which my hon. friends in the Conservative party know little or nothing about, I would invite the hon. member for Provencher to tell the House how they would reduce government expenditures by reducing that high personal income tax in Manitoba and also by reducing hospitalization, medical care, car insurance and social services.
Let us examine these rising expectations on which our whole cultural and economic system is built. The theory of competitive economics is based on the assumption that every man, if left to himself, will pursue his self-interest. Expectation of profit is supposed to be the prime motive for free enterprise. North America is supposed to be a land of unlimited opportunity, the bastion of free enterprise where man is supposed to be free to pursue his self-interest, free to pursue profits, where man is free to have the expectation of becoming a millionaire.
The pursuit of profits and the freedom of enterprise are supposed to have made us great technical, organizational, and marketing innovators, and to have given us the highest standard of living in the world. Are we now being told all this is wrong? The Prime Minister has said it is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition has talked about these rising expectations, but we are now told by the free enterprise parties that it is wrong to have rising expectations. These expectations are at the heart of our culture in North America.
If you sit down of an evening to watch television, how many commercials do you see.- 40, 50 or 60? What are you being told? I suggest these commercials are telling us that we can enjoy a sun holiday in Jamaica, the superb services of the Canadian Pacific Airlines, we can grow with the Bank of Nova Scotia, we can buy a new home in one of these high rise engineered home settlement programs, and you do not need cash because all these people will accept Chargex, Mastercharge and American Express.
When we turn on the radio what do we hear? We hear more commercials. If you buy a newspaper you will find that advertising takes up more space than anything else, certainly more space than news, and certainly more than my speech. In short, our radio and television broadcasting system is financed by advertising, just as our newspapers and our magazines depend on advertising.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I feel that the hon. member is turning away from Bill C-73. Perhaps he would relate his remarks to the subject matter.
[Mr. Benjamin.J
December 2, 1975


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I am glad you got up because I might have missed you. I am talking about the rising expectations and what the Prime Minister has said about the anti-inflation bill, and if you do not mind, Madam Speaker, I will answer him on that.


An hon. Member:: You are reading the wrong speech.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All this advertising has an overriding purpose. It is designed to instil a desire for more products that people will want in order to meet these rising expectations. Great amounts are spent for advertising in order to make these expectations rise.
What does the government do to curb these rising expectations? The government suggests to the people that they should not listen to the commercials and that they should not want those good things that are being advertised. Is that how the government curbs inflation, or does it attempt to do so by controlling wages so the people cannot afford these things? What will dampen their expectations? Will these measures dampen their expectations, or will they just make the people more rebellious?
I agree with the Prime Minister that we need a basic change in attitude in order to solve our economic problems. The whole exercise is futile in my opinion if we continue on our present course, because the inflation the Prime Minister complains about is promoted and advertised, all of which encourages these rising expectations which the Prime Minister claims ought to be dampened in order to fight inflation.
Let me say something about another aspect of this bill, and that is the so-called exemption for farmers and fishermen at the farm gate and at the dock. This is a charade and a window dressing. This is as phony as a $3 bill. It was bad enough to hear the Liberals say that the Conservative exemption for farmers at the farm gate in 1974 was phony, but to see the Liberal government proving itself to be phony is something else again. It is even worse.
I have a document here which I am sure many other members have now, although it is marked confidential. It was issued by the Department of Finance on November 17, 1975. The minister's own officials put in writing how phony this protection at the farm gate and at the dock is. In the first paragraph the minister's officials say in this confidential document, and you can imagine how confidential it is if I have one:
Farmers and fishermen are exempt from the guidelines, since, as a rule, they are unorganized and have little power in the market.
That is not what Ma Plumptre says about the egg marketing board. According to the officials of the Minister of Finance they have little power in the market. The document goes on to state:
-the federal government wants to ensure that they operate within the spirit of the anti-inflation program.
When I turn over two pages of this interesting little document from the minister's officials I find illustrated four kinds of marketing boards that are apparently to be subject to the application of the guidelines. These kinds of marketing boards, or two of them, are concerned with the handling of chicken broilers, turkeys, eggs, industrial milk, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables, as well as hogs, potatoes, soybeans, corn, tobacco, and fruits and vegetables for processing. This is what the minister's officials say about these marketing boards:
Anti-In flat ion Act
These boards will have to be reviewed before reaching firm decisions on which ones should be subject to the guidelines and which of their costs should be allowable under the cost-pass-through rule.
The first page of this document says they are exempt from the guidelines, and the third page outlines which ones "should be subject to the guidelines".
In respect of the cost-pass-through rule the Minister of Finance attempted to answer a question I asked in the House the other day, yet the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board had already eliminated three costs of production under the grain stabilization bill.
My friends in the official opposition have talked about this exemption at the farm gate for the farmers and at the docks for the fishermen. I would ask them how they feel now about this program that was to exempt the farmers and fishermen when in fact statements of those leaders of the Anti-Inflation Board, Pepin and Plumptre, and statements in writing by officials of the Minister of Finance, have proven that this is a farce. It is as phony as a $3 bill. Marketing boards will in fact be subject to the guidelines and will be treated the same as wage and salary earners.
The farmers and the fishermen, whether or not they belong to a marketing board or agency that can set or negotiate prices for them, will have to appear and prove to the Anti-Inflation Board that the increase is justified. All this talk about exempting the farmers and the fishermen has gone out the window. I suggest it was out the window the day after the Prime Minister presented this program to the people of Canada.
I am not going to support any program such as this which attacks the wage and salary earners and those people on fixed incomes. I do not intend to support a program which makes liars of the government members. I am not going to be a party to a program that helps make liars of the Liberal government, or helps the members of that government make liars of themselves. Obviously this is the case because they say the farmers and fishermen are exempt, and then in this written document outline which of these marketing boards shall be subject to the guidelines.
I hope I have unlimited time as I want to illustrate what will happen to the primary producers, be they farmers or fishermen, who belong to marketing boards under provincial or federal jurisdiction.
Most provinces have marketing boards in respect of broilers, turkeys, eggs, hogs, milk, fresh vegetables and fruit crops. Since there are import controls on eggs and turkeys the national agencies can theoretically set prices arbitrarily. In practice the egg marketing agency until very recently had great difficulty in maintaining a price that would adequately cover the cost of production. In fact the Farm Products Marketing Council wants officials of CEMA to appear monthly in order to justify the price it sets for eggs.
These agencies have always been under guidelines and controls. Ma Plumptre and Jean-Luc Pepin say that the first outfits they want to look into are the marketing boards, specifically CEMA. If as much pressure had been brought to bear on the banks, the oil companies, the supermarket chains, and the railways as has been put on CEMA
9662

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
and other marketing boards, I submit the country would be in better shape.
The price of honey is established on international markets so we do not need to worry about that one. Hogs are sold at auction in Ontario using a teletype system. The Hog Marketing Board does not use its price-setting authority, yet the officials of the Minister of Finance say these products will be subject to the guidelines. Fluid milk prices are set by the Milk Control Board after public hearings at which producers and processors have to prove their costs in respect of price increases. In the case of fluid milk this Milk Control Board has had to justify price increases. Those prices had to be justified before the milk control boards in every province. They have been under controls and guidelines for many years, but Mrs. Plumptre and Jean-Luc Pepin say that they will be subject to these new controls. Where is that price at the farm gate principle of the Liberals and the Tories now? There is a matter of industrial milk and vegetables, but I do not think I have time to go into that. I would be glad to make another speech if someone would move an amendment to this bill.
How long can any government exercise control over wages and salaries and not food prices? What is the government going to do about marketing boards? What about the price of milk; what about the price of bread? I say as a warning to my friends in the official opposition that the longer and the more strictly wages and salaries are controlled, the more insistent the demand will become for stringent controls on food prices. I cannot see any government of any political stripe ingoring those demands.
If the farmers and the businessmen think wages have gone out of sight, let us look at food prices. The prices the farmers are getting are prices they should have been getting years ago. They have been the victims of a cheap food policy in this country for decades. We have lost 300,000 family farm units in this country since the Second World War. Again I will use Manitoba as an example for the benefit of my hon. friend from Provencher.
The average industrial wage in Manitoba from 1972 to 1975 increased by 30 per cent. The price of eggs went up 50 per cent, turkeys 37 per cent, broiler chickens 80 per cent, shoulder roasts 181 per cent, pork chops 63 per cent, and bacon 158 per cent. Is my hon. friend from Provencher, or anyone else in the official opposition, going to say that wages are too high in the face of the food increases? This situation exists in every province in Canada. The price of sirloin steak and prime rib roast went up by 73 per cent and 44 per cent respectively, while industrial wages rose by 30 per cent. As a representative of several thousand farmers and people who live on farms I say it is easy to see why the consumers are becoming upset and downright angry when their wages are to be controlled and the price of food is to be left free.
What has happened? Under this legislation we have the same old dividing game. We have the farmers and workers with controlled wages and salaries and farm prices. The farmers are told they are exempt, but under the way in which they are subject to the guidelines, the marketing boards that they have fought for over decades are in jeopardy and are being investigated while those who

cause inflation, the people who benefit from the difference in price between what the farmers receive and the cost of the products to consumers, are not controlled. I refer to the processors, the transporters, the wholesalers, and the retailers. The controls are not spelled out for these people. They can take all they can get.
The primary producer and the wage and salary earners are being told, and in fact required under this legislation, to fight inflation. Those who may profit whether because of interest rates, corporate profits, dividends, or professional fees can get around the controls. I will not be a party to the support of legislation of this kind. The members of the official opposition have all caved in. I would like to know why they have chickened out.
Earlier the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) talked a good fight, but now they have all caved in. It is no wonder the voters of Canada chose not to put them in power. I hope my hon. friends to the right will get up and take a further part in this debate. However, I suppose they will just sit there. If my time has expired I hope my friends will say I can have some more time. I am very serious about this.
I want members of the official opposition to stand up and help us fight this legislation. I would be interested in hearing their explanation of how they would exempt farm products at the farm gate. I would also be interested in hearing how they would control profits, interest rates, and prices. It might be helpful if the government would reject this legislation and take it back to the drafting board. Obviously the officials wrote it out on the back of an envelope before Thanksgiving. I make no apology if some government members should accuse me of being unpatriotic, but I will encourage all the people in my area not to co-operate in respect of this legislation because it is unfair.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I waited in vain for all those who are responsible for the noise on my right to join in the debate and offer a little light to the heat they have been making. I see that none of them are prepared to participate. I find this unfortunate, just marginally more unfortunate than the fact that none of the government members want to participate in this debate on legislation which is without doubt in terms of economic policy the most important legislation that has been before this House since World War II. The Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) said something to this effect in the House not long ago.
If you look at the news over the past few days, Madam Speaker, you can see both the importance of this legislation and its inadequacies. On the one hand we have had reports from the banking industry in Canada whose profits for the third quarter of this year are up 87 lA per cent compared to last year. That simply builds upon the profits the banking industry has made in Canada each and every year for the past five years, which sets an almost all-time record in the history of this country. There is absolutely nothing in the bill introduced by the government that will affect the profit levels of the banks one iota. That news came today.

a (2U0)


An hon. Member:: That is untrue.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the hon. member: make your speech and defend it, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) neither at the report stage nor in this debate has made any attempt to deal with the criticisms that have been made, in terms of technical detail, of the failure of his legislation to cope in an adequate way with the profit levels of corporations-the point has simply been ignored. I urge the hon. member to rise and deal with that and to tell us in detail how bank profits will be dealt with by the government, and to explain why the government arbitrarily sets interest rates in Canada to be always at least lid per cent higher than in the United States so that more investment can be lured into this country.


An hon. Member:: Get off it.


John Edward Broadbent: Every economist in the country knows it.
What that means is that given that policy, on the one hand of always wanting interest rates to be set arbitrarily at a higher level in Canada-and it is known as the "dirty float" which no . r;e in this government admits-no matter what the prof:, *; of the banks are in terms of the guidelines legislation, an or. the other hand the policy of the government to lure foreign investment into the country, the effect of which is to keep the Canadian dollar up, the banks in this country under this legislation will be permitted to maintain their excessive profit levels. I should like the Minister of Finance to deal with that question. Will he allow interest rates to get to their normal market level in Canada? If, so then perhaps some of the loopholes in the legislation might be dealt with and the profit levels held down.
I know, and everyone else knows who is aware of the financial policy of this government, that it will keep the interest rates high, which means it will keep the bank profit rates abnormally high. I say that that is a scandal in Canada when year after year for the past five years we have been unable to get investment in the housing sector of the kind that we require. This cabinet which acts on behalf of the banks sits back with its hands off, and lets the banking industry go on its merry way.


An hon. Member:: Oh yeah!


John Edward Broadbent: I hear the usual "yeahs" from the Liberal backbenchers. I would like to see them get up and deal with the argument in substance. It is conceivable that my argument might be wrong, I will concede that, but let them deal with the argument.
We say that the only way you can deal with that kind of situation is to change the Bank Act, to change back to principle on which it was based less than a decade ago when certain interest rates were decided by the political process for certain sectors of the economy, and when it was decided that mortgage rates were not to be considered in principle as the means for trips to Bermuda, for investing in shopping centres or for other kinds of investment, but that housing was a social necessity and there should be a
Anti-Inflation Act
radical distinction between investment in the housing sector and investment in other sectors.
It is the Liberals who changed the Bank Act in the last decade, and they do not intend to make that kind of distinction. As long as they do not, I do not care what the wishes of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) are, and I say we will not get money into housing in this country regardless of the fact that some 20 per cent of people in our country live in substandard housing and in grotesque conditions. I refer to the particular circumstances of the people of Montreal and of the people of the province of Quebec who are involved in expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars in the Olympic village when a high percentage of the population in that city live in slums. I say that it is a national disgrace, and one of the ways of dealing with it would be to change the Bank Act and to get tough with those who control our investment in that sector to make sure that we get the money we need.
However, we do not propose to do that in this legislation, and that has a direct bearing on inflation. The major failing of the government in terms of its whole approach to inflation has been to treat the symptoms instead of the cause. It has said that these are increasing prices in the economy, that there is inflation, but what it has not done is to produce a program which will increase supply in the crucial sectors to bring down the prices. To act in that way would require government planning of significant proportions to make sure that investment in our economy goes where it should go.
A conventional stupidity argued for by the government and, if I may say so in this context, also by the opposition, is that government spending is somehow bad and inflationary. The west Germans do not agree with that, the Swedes do not agree with that, and certain American economists do not agree with that. Spending in the government sector need not be in principle any more or less inflationary than spending in the private sector. If we allow private investors, as we do now in Canada, to put up unneeded office buildings in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal, that puts an increase on the demand for labour and materials which adds inflation to the economy. The NDP says that such building at this time should be stopped. That would require some direction, some planning in the economy. We would allocate investment priorities to housing. We would say: cool off the economy and the excessive supply in office building and other unneeded investments, and direct investments to where they are needed, both in social terms and in terms of inflation.
If we increase government spending and by government legislation direct banks to put up capital in the housing sector, that would bring down inflation in the housing sector, and by circulating private spending in office buildings, pressure would be eased on the inflation level. I say that that issue is still profoundly misunderstood by the government or, if understood, at least is cynically ignored-that is the view that somehow government spending is bad and any kind of private spending is good.
We in this party say that the way to deal with inflation has not been the route taken by the Liberals in terms of this program, which is a phoney program aimed at symptoms, a program which does not deal with the real causes. The real cause of inflation in the Canadian economy is
29956-59%

December 2, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
different from inflation in other economies in the western world.
Each one has been experiencing inflation, and a good part of the reason has been common-I will concede that- namely, the world increase in prices of energy. That has been the common fact that all countries in the west experience. But other factors make Canada different, in terms of our ability to cope with that cause, because we are energy sufficient, if we plan and use that resource in a sensible way.
We say in that respect that we should keep our petroleum prices down to below world price levels. There is no reason why Canadians should pay world price levels for our own energy resource. That way we would deal significantly with inflation in our economy in that sector, in a way that Japan, Great Britain, West Germany or other countries in western Europe have not been able to deal with it because they do not have the petroleum resource we possess. There is that difference, and if the government had the guts or the determination to deal with the oil industry, then we could have had a different effect in terms of inflation in that sector in our country. The New Democratic Party says that the way to deal with the petroleum sector is to take it over.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: An hon. member opposite says oh! Well, that is too bad. Mr. Blakeney, the premier of Saskatchewan, is moving in on asbestos and saying-


Mr. Korchinski:: Since when?


John Edward Broadbent: I am sorry. I meant potash. He has recognized that this is a major natural resource which belongs to the people of this province. It has real potential in terms of increasing markets, and therefore profits for the country or the province. He has asked why this should be left to multinational corporations to reap their benefits abroad. He is serving notice that he will take over that industry.


Stanley James Korchinski: Eight of the ten companies have lost money. Look up your records.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to assure the hon. member that if he looks at the profits of the potash industry in the next decade, they are going to come to the province of Saskatchewan.


Stanley James Korchinski: Oh, in the next decade?


John Edward Broadbent: The point I want to make is that we should be doing on a national basis what Mr. Blakeney is doing in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We should be taking over the petroleum industry, but the Liberals are far behind. It can be done in Venezuela, Mexico, in the Middle East, and in every other bloody country in the world, but the Liberals will still sell out to multinational corporations. We say that it is time that even the Liberal party should recognize that so-called

private enterprise parties in others parts of the world have finally said that the natural resources of their countries belong to the people of their countries.
If we had acted in that respect in this country, not only because of the potential of getting secondary industry in the petroleum sector but in terms of dealing with prices, with which the government is ostensibly concerned in an inflation economy, it would have been a major or practical step, but the government refused to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: I have already mentioned housing. The government could deal with that, but it would have to take tough action with the banks, so we are not going to have anything but the fiddling around which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is going to be doing in the next few weeks with regard to housing. We will not get the capital we need going into housing. The government will not deal with the banks or the petroleum industry, so we have inflation in those sectors and will continue to have inflation regardless of this bill. When the vote comes, as it will come, there will be no effect on those sectors because the government has no program to increase supply.
In some speeches back in the 1974 election campaign the Prime Minister used to talk about increasing supply. That was when the Liberals at least had some kind of intellectual consistency. They recognized that the way to deal with inflation, then as now, was to take major steps to increase supply. However, perhaps they recognize that to do so would entail getting tough with their corporate friends, and they refuse to take the appropriate steps. Instead they have singled out the wage and salary earner as the person who is to bear the burden of this program, and I do not know anyone who has argued against that. There is no question that the wage and salary earner will be affected.
What the government said when it brought in the program in its white paper was that it recognized certain injustices would automatically follow if everyone were bound by the 10 per cent to 12 per cent guideline, so the government agreed to recognize historical relationships. I refer the backbenchers of the Liberal Party to page 31 of the white paper. There the exceptions are listed, and in the white paper the government says that if a historical relationship between two groups can be established and that if the group now bargaining, depending on the dates of its contract expiring, and so on, can establish a case, then the phrase used will be that the wage settlement or salary settlement proposed, and recommended by the anti-inflation board, will be to maintain the historical relationship.
The decision handed down by the Anti-Inflation Board last Friday completely contradicted the white paper. The Minister of Finance refused to answer a question on it in the House today, but that is exactly what it did. The Anti-Inflation Board said that it recognized the historical relationship which exists between elementary and secondary school teachers in Toronto. The fact is that for the past 21 years the two groups have had the same salaries. I assume the Liberals can read. To implement the white paper, which they are responsible for writing, the AntiInflation Board should at least as a minimum have said that the high school teachers in Toronto were entitled to
December 2, 1975

the benefits and the salaries the elementary school teachers received.
However, what did the board do? The board said it recognized the relationship, but that the teachers are not going to get the money. What this amounts to is a flat contradiction of the white paper, and I am glad to see that some Liberals are nodding their heads in agreement. I hope they make a speech on that point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Not only does the government bring in an unfair and unworkable program in terms of the white paper, the legislation which followed it and its implementation through the Anti-Inflation Board, but the board also makes decisions which are completely inconsistent with the framework the government itself has established.
The program is bad. I will not repeat arguments I and my colleagues have made about it being unworkable.


An hon. Member:: We are tired of it.


John Edward Broadbent: I can see the point. The hon. member says he has heard enough. I am not going to repeat those arguments. I say to the hon. member that just as long as hon. members opposite occupy the other side of the House, unfortunately we will have to continue to repeat the message, and our proposals will not be implemented as long as they are over there.


Stanley James Korchinski: He doesn't have a speech. He doesn't know what to say.


John Edward Broadbent: This program is wrong because it is unfair and unworkable for reasons I, and other members of my party, have documented since the bill was first introduced. It is wrong in terms of its own detail, but more important, in terms of the national problem of inflation. It is wrong because it does not address itself in a positive way to bringing forth programs which would deal with housing prices, energy prices, and food prices. It is in these three sectors where inflation has occurred in Canada, and there has been no debate in the House in that regard.
I find it extraordinary that for the whole period of time we have discussed Bill C-73 there has been nothing from the government side to the effect that in the last three years 65 per cent of our inflation has occurred in housing, food costs, and energy. I have not heard hon. members opposite tell us what the government would like to do with regard to those three items. Instead the government brought in a program which is primary in its effects, and every economist says that. It is going to be solely aimed at wage and salary earners. One might say that perhaps wage and salary earners are the problem.
If anything could justify the government's 180 degree about turn since July, 1974, it would be to be able to establish its case that wage and salary increases now are the main culprits in terms of inflation. The fact is that statistics have not been brought forward. The government has produced no evidence to show that wage and salary increases are the cause of inflation. I say it has not because it knows it cannot bring out the evidence. It does not exist.
Anti-Inflation Act
If you look at the OECD reports or the figures issued by Statistics Canada, wage and salary increases have been running behind the increases in the cost of living. The governor of the Bank of Canada and others have said that, but the minister does not attempt to deal with the argument.
On the other hand in terms of our trade position, that other whipping boy of the government, it says we will price ourselves out of world markets. The evidence does not support the government's case that when compared with other trading nations we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. Our major trading partners have wage and salary increases exceeding those in Canada.
The government cannot justify its program. It bears directly on wage and salary earners, but the evidence in Canada is that wage and salary earners in this country are not having increases disproportionate to those of other trading countries. In terms of domestic inflation, wage and salary earners have been following the increases in the cost of living, principally in food, housing, and energy. They have not caused the increase.
The government brought its program to the people of Canada and I suggest the reason was that just before Thanksgiving Day the former minister of finance decided to pack it all in. God knows his reasons, and I am not going to speculate on them. The people of Canada have been asking for leadership. They have said, "Where is this man who was elected in July, 1974, who said that only the Liberals would provide the leadership?" Even the Liberals, with a majority, began to sense that 99 per cent of the people of Canada were unhappy. It finally got through- from July, 1974, to September, 1975. So the Prime Minister said, "We had better do something. Turner has packed it in and the people are unhappy, so we had better come through with a symbolic act. We cannot do a War Measures Act again because the people of Quebec are not causing the trouble they were five years ago." Even though that was a grotesque injustice then, it had a symbolic flair. So he brought out a program that will not affect corporate decision-making in this country one iota.
He wants the American economy to bail us out. It will take off in the next 12 months and we will get the spin-off effects in employment and inflation. He said, "Let's hook up to a program that will not affect corporate decisionmaking but will bear directly on wage and salary earners." He made a symbolic appearance on television telling the people it is time to make sacrifices. He thought it really looked as if it had substance to it. In my judgment it is a hoax of a program; it is entirely a political gesture, and apart from the control of wages and salaries it has no economic substance at all. Once again the Liberal party is gambling on the Americans to bail us out.
I want to conclude with one further observation, Mr. Speaker. The major organized opponents of this legislation outside the House of Commons have been the trade union movement. In my view they have been absolutely right in their perspective. The program exempts corporations from any effective control of their prices, and consumers all across the country know this. The unions have been right in saying this. In my opinion they have also been right in

December 2, 1975

Anti-Inflation Act
pointing out that they were not going to be the principal people to suffer. They are going to get their 10 per cent or 12 per cent but, Mr. Speaker, they comprise only 35 per cent of the workers in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Thirty per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: Someone says 30 per cent. I am not going to quibble on statistics-30 per cent or 35 per cent are in the trade union movement. To their immense credit-and to the disgrace of the press-the trade union movement has singled out the non-trade union workers in this country as being the people who will suffer most. This is what we have been saying too.
The government knows that a report came out last week which shows that 50 per cent of Canadians on pensions live in poverty. Mr. Speaker, 50 per cent of the people in this affluent society who live on pensions live in poverty, and 22 per cent of Canadians in general live in poverty.
The government did nothing about increasing the federal minimum wage. It did nothing about encouraging the provinces to increase their minimum wage.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that Hansard cannot record a yawn from Liberal backbenchers. I got the biggest sigh from a Liberal backbencher when I mentioned that most Canadians live in poverty. He knows that the government has a cabinet which is the highest paid in the world. I do not know how many Canadians know that. The Canadian cabinet is the highest paid in the world and its members just gave themselves a very substantial increase. I have not checked this yet, but my guess is that the top 5 per cent of Canadian civil servants are probably the highest paid in the world as well. I have not checked that, but I suspect it is true.
We have a nice little contented elite running this country. It operates on the one hand through the corporate sector and on the other hand through the Liberal Party of Canada. They are so insulated from reality that they can bring in a program like this and have the audacity to say that low income earners in our country can get $600-they raised that. You can now earn $7,500 per year and they will not object. They know full well that there is absolutely no way for unorganized workers in Canada to get that increase.
The Liberals have done nothing for the vast majority of Canadian men and women not in the trade union movement, have done nothing for the pensioners half of whom live in poverty, but have done everything by means of providing loopholes for the corporations, whether they be banks, real estate speculators, food chains, you name it. This is a classic piece of legislation; it favours those who have against those who have not. It is precisely for that reason that we oppose it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation facing the Canadian people. I have listened with interest to the comments made by the official opposition during the time the bill has been before us, and I have been interested in the comments by Liberal backbenchers at second reading and report stage.


An hon. Member:: All two of them.


William Arnold Peters: The comments indicate the weaknesses and the inequities in this legislation as demonstrated by the fact that we are seeing a great deal of trouble developing in a large segment of the population. They were surprised at the difficulties the bill had created. That sums it up fairly well.
A large segment of the population is violently opposed to this bill. Very few think that it will do anything for them. Those I have talked to are either neutral or violently opposed to it. I have not found any in favour of it.
I have read the conclusions in the white paper. It may be a good idea to put two paragraphs on the record so that hon. members, particularly those on the government side, can decide whether this debate is accomplishing any of the aims stated in the conclusions in the white paper. If we have not accomplished all or a large percentage of them, we have failed the Canadian public.
It is true that almost all Canadians welcomed the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Thanksgiving Day. They did so for one reason. He had finally decided to do something about the problem. Everyone is concerned about inflation. Therefore when the Prime Minister said that something would be done about it, good, bad or indifferent, most Canadians were interested.
Since that time Canadians have been listening to radio, watching television, and reading newspaper reports. They have not heard of the Prime Minister explaining any aspects of the bill in this House. However, he has travelled across the country explaining it. He failed in almost every area, even where the audience was loaded, to convince them that he had come anywhere near reaching the aims set out in the conclusions of the White Paper on inflation. Some of those conclusions are worth considering on third reading. I quote from the conclusion in "Attack on Inflation, a Program of National Action":
As a first essential, it is imperative that we take determined action as a nation to halt and reverse the spiral of costs and prices that jeopardizes the whole fabric of our economy and of our society.
I am sure almost everyone agrees with that. Only a few were of the opinion that we should allow spiralling costs to go unchecked, something that is detrimental to our economy. The reason they were opposed is that they were on a treadmill. Everyone was looking for more income, no matter what sources, because they were having one hell of a time keeping up with the cost of living; society was affected because it had become disproportionate.
As the leader of the New Democratic Party just stated, the poor were becoming poorer. A large percentage were below the poverty line and in no position to do anything about it. I think everyone will agree that the aim in the conclusion was good. However, they will now have to be convinced that we have done something to solve the problem of spiralling prices. We have done something to curtail the ability of a large segment of the population to cope with spiralling costs. While income has been pegged at 10 per cent, the cost of living increase is estimated at 13 per cent. No matter how you look at it, everyone will be going backwards. If you carry this far enough, we will be reaching the point where everyone will be below the poverty

December 2, 1975

level except those with income other than wages or salaries.
I again refer to the conclusions in the white paper. This bothers me. Obviously it must be the aim of the Prime Minister because this is what he talked about on Thanksgiving evening. I quote:
This will require the exercise of restraint by every sector and the pursuit of fiscal and monetary policies aimed at ensuring sustained and stable economic growth. Over the longer term we must make our economic system more innovative, dynamic and efficient by reducing existing rigidities and intensifying competition.
That has not been done. Anyone with a new idea, anyone who wants competition or wants to improve their position will be curtailed. That does not apply to companies or those connected with the price structure. It only applies to those receiving wages and salaries. It goes on, and I quote:
We must deal with major structural problems so as to ensure an adequate supply of energy, food and housing to meet our needs in the years ahead. And finally we must ensure that sufficient physical and financial resources will become available to complete the massive new capital investment that is required over the next decade and more, to increase substantially our productive capacity, employment and our real standard of living.
This bill does not go anywhere near accomplishing that aim. The government is not embarking on any new programs to provide future employment. In fact it is going to curtail some necessary expenditures such as those related to health. The Conservative party, on the other hand, wants to go much further and curtail almost all government expenditures.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out that one province does not have much left after meeting the basic needs of the community. If there is to be any curtailing it will have to be of services provided to those not able to provide for themselves.
There is not one clause in this bill that gives any indication of increased productivity or increased employment. More taxes will be required, not less. Government expenditures will be greater because more people will be unemployed than ever before. If what we want is more unemployment, we are going about it the right way. Money has not been spent in the Department of Labour although four or five competent people are required to learn the art of negotiation in order that industry in this country can be provided with some assistance in connection with negotiations. Mr. Speaker, you must laugh as you look around the House to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) answering questions when he is asked what help he is providing to get a resumption of work in the pulp and paper industry.
We are not interested in the constitution as far as the bill before us is concerned. We have probably broken through every possible constitutional barrier. My hon. friend from Greenwood told us tonight he would be quite prepared to take almost any section of this legislation before the Supreme Court and challenge it on constitutional grounds. Yet the Minister of Labour stands up and says he can do nothing about the situation in the pulp and paper industry because it is a provincial matter. It makes no difference that in the bill before us we are asked to give the government power to make decisions which will create serious unemployment in provincial fields.
Anti-Inflation Act
We are going to see a great deal of unemployment in the educational field, as well as in the civil service in the Province of Ontario, despite the fact the federal government has no jurisdiction, except by permission, over matters affecting education or the public service in Ontario.
I quote again:
Governments at all levels in Canada can and must provide leadership and direction but they cannot act alone. All sectors of the economy must actively co-operate. This requires the fullest possible discussion and consultation as to how best to achieve our mutual goals.
There is no one in this country who does not agree that this is essential. Yet what co-operation do we find in this House? I am not suggesting that all the wisdom of the country is gathered in this place. Nevertheless I do say that a number of the concrete proposals made to the government in the past few weeks might have been adopted. I was not one who sat on the committee which considered this matter, but I am sure many suggestions were put forward which, had they been adopted, would have made co-operation possible and would have led to more acceptable legislation. As things stand, the bill will likely be passed only after a division; the majority of members on the government side will, no doubt, support it, and the majority of members in the opposition will likely oppose it.
What is the basis for Bill C-73? It is based on the white paper, and the conclusion reached by that white paper was in these terms:
The attack on inflation ... was designed to ensure that the recovery of our economy from its present recession leads to healthy and enduring growth in employment and real incomes. These basic objectives are shared by business, labour, governments and indeed by all Canadians. We all have a compelling interest to work together.
There is no one who will disagree with that conclusion either. If we are to be fair, if we are to be reasonable, if we are to act in the interest of the Canadian people, we must provide leadership on two fronts simultaneously: we shall have to reduce the rate at which the cost of living is rising, and, second, we shall have to curtail the rise in unemployment. The bill before us does neither, and if it fails to achieve either of these objectives it seems to me it is not worthy of support and that it will not be supported by the Canadian people.
Where does this show up? It shows up in the reaction of the organized labour movement which has always been proud of the fact that it can look after itself in a free enterprise system. The organized labour movement in Canada is built on the basis of the free enterprise system. It has always been willing to operate within that system. It has done very well, in my opinion, for its membership. Nevertheless a large section of the population is not organized. I refer to those who live on old age pensions, disability pensions, pensions under the Canada Pension Plan and so on. Their incomes must be brought up to a reasonable standard if this legislation is to succeed. Yet nothing has been done in this direction. On the contrary, we heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) proposing to cut off a portion of the assistance made available to the provinces to help these underprivileged persons.
People are asking how they are to know that prices are being curtailed. Not long ago I heard a minister being

December 2, 1975
Adjournment Debate
asked about the price of carrots, whether the price of carrots would be controlled every day. I agree it is not possible to control the price of carrots on a day-to-day basis. If the amount held in storage diminishes, or if it is necessary to import the product from abroad, the price would probably have to go up anyway. But if the price goes up, there has to be some justification for it. The government has said to the householder, "Your wages are to be controlled." But it has failed to assure the housewife that the prices of the products she needs are not going to rise. That is where the bill is defective.
I should like to show the House how little the farmer gets from the commodities the housewife uses, products which are so important to her, and, incidentally, how little the retailer gets out of them. But what a hosing the Canadian people get from the wholesaler, the packers, and the other trades in the middle-people like Kraft who have a monopoly over a large segment of the producing industry. May I call it ten o'clock?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, would the House be good enough to revert to presenting reports from standing or special committees?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank hon. members for their co-operation. I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It is my intention to move concurrence in the report tomorrow afternoon, but before doing so I shall consult with the four House leaders, so anybody with questions can find the answers from their own House leader.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this evening is to follow up a question I put to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) on November 17 as reported in Hansard at page 9106. It concerned storm damage on the north of Lake Erie. It reads as follows:
I should like to ask the minister whether the government has taken any initiative in approaching the province of Ontario, which is assessing the damage, with a view to declaring the north shore a disaster area in order that individuals, communities and small businesses which have suffered grievous losses will qualify for federal assistance.
The minister replied rather briefly as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the department has not taken the initiative because that initiative should come from the government of the province of Ontario.
In view of the extent of the damage I thought this was rather a brush-off and I wanted more information; hence my appearance here tonight.
It was early in November that a storm of hurricane proportions struck the area, the like of which has seldom been seen before. As a result of wave action, of proportions not seen before either, property damage was sustained. It is a shallow lake and huge waves were hurled against the shoreline. Erosion of farmland occurred as well as destruction of cottages, some of which were a write-off. Break-walls and breakwaters were washed away. Cemeteries along the shoreline were eroded until the graves themselves were exposed. Roads were washed out and pavement peeled off as one would peel the skin from a potato.
The high water driven up on to the shore by the force of the wind caused a rise of some four to five feet in the waterline, something never before seen. This of course caused flooding along the shoreline, cottages were flooded as well as even permanent homes. Rugs, furniture and so on were damaged, some beyond repair. Marinas were damaged, fishing tugs were lost, and one man's life was lost through this raging storm.
I later contacted the clerks and/or mayors of each municipality in my riding, which has property along the north shore of Lake Erie, to get an estimate from them of the loss sustained during the storm. This was a week or two later when they had had an opportunity to assess the damage. The town of Dunnville felt that the damage would be in excess of $75,000; the town of Haldimand $236,700; the city of Nanticoke $200,000; the township of Delhi $42,000; the township of Norfolk $100,000. This made a total of $653,000. In addition to that, and since I asked my question, there was another violent storm, though not of the same proportions, and the damage increased again. I now estimate the total damage is in the neighbourhood of $800,000.
This of course has pushed the total damage up to an amount that cannot easily be borne by the individuals concerned and/or the communities in the area. My question referred to the possibility of declaring the north shore a disaster area so that the province and the federal government would alike share the assistance provided to these people.
Since that time I do not think I would go so far as to ask that it be declared a disaster area, even though the damage
December 2, 1975

is extensive, as I have indicated. However, the losses are of such magnitude as to place an undue financial burden on individuals, municipalities, and small businesses, particularly the fishing industry in the area. I talked with the hon. Mr. Bernier, the minister of the environment for the province of Ontario, and his department conducted an aerial survey of the north shore and affirmed that the damage was not quite as extensive as at first thought. The province indicated that it is willing to give some assistance in the form of loans.
What I want to know from the Minister of the Environment or the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), who I am pleased to see in the House tonight to answer my representation, is in what specific ways the government can assist municipalities or individuals who have suffered. I know he is going to say that in such cases we share alike with the province of Ontario, or whatever is the province involved, but I want to know whether there are any other ways that the federal government can directly help these people. I wonder whether there is any means under ARDA whereby the federal government can assist in this situation. After all, there has been terrific loss of farm land due to the erosive effect of waves along the north shore of Lake Erie.
I should like to refer to one farm at Port Burwell, in one corner of my riding, owned by a Mr. Balther, where not due to this one storm but over a period of years one third of his farm land has been lost. I want to know what it is the federal government is prepared to do to assist people who find themselves in this situation. That is the question I am asking tonight.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly sympathize with the hon. gentleman, coming from a province in which we have disasters quite frequently amounting to the approximate magnitude about which the hon. member was speaking.
The Federal Disaster Assistance Program, as the House is probably aware, is administered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). While the program is not embodied in legislation, it provides for discretionary payments by the federal government to assist the provinces in the event of disasters. Such payments are made only when the provincial expenditure eligible for sharing exceeds $1 per capita and, of course, only after the province has made a request for such assistance. So it would be something like $8 million for the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, eligible costs do not include summer cottages.
In the case of the Lake Erie storm on November 10, 1975, to which the hon. gentleman referred, damages to structures according to our department were in the order of $500,000 but, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, this has risen to $653,000 and, as he suggests, perhaps goes up to $800,000. The damages were mainly to cottages, some permanent residences, and some private protective structural devices. The hon. member has already elaborated on other things that were damaged. In addition, there was considerable damage in the form of erosion.
As hon. members can appreciate, this falls below the minimum of $1 per capita for Ontario. No request has been
Adjournment Debate
received from the government of that province for assistance, obviously because of the formula that is used.
The hon. member asked about other means by which the people affected can get assistance. I obtained this information from the department today and it is something I did not know about previously, though I wish I had known.
The province of Ontario has its own policies in this regard, and there is also the Canadian Disaster Relief Fund which administers funds left over from the Winnipeg flood of the 1950's. I understand that in case of individual relief, payments can be made up to 50 per cent of the family's losses, to a maximum of $2,250 per family. Application for assistance from the fund is usually made, as I am told, by the province after assessment and consolidation of individual claims.
That appears to be the only recourse the hon. gentleman has, and I appreciate his deep concern for the people in that area.


TRANSPORT-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL STUDY OF ANOTHER TRANSPORTATION LINK BETWEEN NEW BRUNSWICK AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I again wish to raise a question I put to the then minister of transport on July 16 regarding the report of a joint federal-provincial task force concerning another transportation link between New Brunswick and the western part of Prince Edward Island.
This is one of a series of studies that has been received recently. The then minister of transport of course is now the Minister without Portfolio, and we have a new minister who I hope in his zeal to fulfil many of the needs for a transportation policy across Canada will look very seriously at this particular continuing study. Indeed, reviewing the amount of study that has taken place on this subject over the past 30 years, if all studies were laid end to end this would likely be sufficient to bridge the gap between western Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
I think it would be acknowledged by all members that there is a basic federal responsibility to ensure a most adequate and up-to-date means of transportation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
It is obvious to me as well that there are a number of benefits that would be gained from the establishment of a further ferry link to the western end of Prince Edward Island. One of those was pointed out very clearly in a study done some 12 years ago by the Maritime Transport Commission, in which it is stated:
It is therefore clear that the underlying factor supporting the proposed service is the "pioneering" or developmental effect it would have on the economy of the W. Prince area.
I think that is still true today. One of the unfortunate facts that exists at the moment is that one of the reports upon which the government may be basing some of its conclusions is a report that seemed to omit almost entirely that particular aspect which I regard as basic. This is the report of the ADI Consultant Group from Fredericton as presented to the minister in June of this year, which supports the call by the West Prince Chamber of Commerce for an independent study. It is no doubt clear that
9670

Adjournment Debate
there are some basic and fundamental studies in respect of Prince Edward Island transportation.
An official connected with provincial and federal parks in Prince Edward Island noted that those in the central part of the province are on the verge of an irreversible deterioration in their physical, asthetic, and social environments as there is need for a very basic program of tourist diversion if the whole industry is not to suffocate. Given the desire of most tourists to go the circle route or to travel end to end in the province, a new ferry on the western end of Prince Edward Island is an integral if not an essential element of the provincial government's policy of balanced tourist development across all of Prince Edward Island. I believe as well that basic industries such as farming and fishing undoubtedly would benefit from the reduced shipping time which is so vital to their interests in terms of moving perishable products during the peak seasons.
Support for a new crossing has come from a variety of sources-the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the Chambers of Commerce of Prince Edward Island, and in New Brunswick-the Atlantic Truckers Association as well as most recently the joint federal-provincial Kent County tourism study which was partially funded by the federal government, which said very clearly that the establishment of such ferry service would be extremely feasible.
I think the conclusion was also drawn that it would offer a great deal of benefit to the eastern region of the Kent County area of New Brunswick. This is an increasing development which I think indicates the degree with which we are looking at a transportation development not just for one province but ultimately for two.
Quite frankly, I said at the outset I was disturbed by the quality of one of the studies which is before us at the moment, the ADI study. I think if the federal government or the Department of Transport is relying on this study which has been released recently, which purports to do a cost-benefit analysis of a West Prince Kent County water crossing, I find this to be totally unsatisfactory as the report obviously is inadequate. It suffers from the lack of a very real consideration of the basic elements. In the first instance as much as I was able to determine there was actualy little or no consultation with people in the affected areas, those who stand most to gain or presently to lose by the absence of such a ferry service.
I think, too, the very questionable techniques used in forecasting traffic volume and in sufficiently understanding their potential indicate the superficial aspects of the ADI report. It is obvious that the establishment of new highway routes, especially those now under construction in New Brunswick, should have the effect of considerably improving the time-saving for motorists who are tourists and ultimately those who would be using the crossing to move produce to and from Prince Edward Island. There is an over-all lack of a comprehensive analysis of the effect of the new crossing on the tourist industry and on related factors of the economy.
I believe, as does the West Prince Chamber of Commerce, that there needs to be an independent assessment of this ADI study, and of course some of the previous studies. If we are to rely totally on the narrow and isolated base of

the ADI study the new crossing may well appear economically unjustified, but taken in the context of an over-all developmental strategy for Prince Edward Island, as it should, then the new crossing would probably represent a healthy net benefit. I think the same would be true in the development of Kent County.
This I believe is another example of a lack of coming to grips with some of the basic elements involved in a developmental policy. We have had many considerations and studies but much of this has been superficial. There is an obvious need for a commitment to a transportation program aimed at development. At the present time such seems to be virtually non-existent. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) can assure me there is a more comprehensive report now under way which will soon be presented which will recommend a program of action to establish this badly needed ferry link.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much indeed the comments of my hon. friend from Egmont. I appreciate the manner in which he delivered his remarks this evening on a subject which is important to the particular region of the country from which he comes.
I regret my inability this evening to offer a specific answer and to be able to tell him when precisely a more comprehensive report might be forthcoming on the situation which he described. I have before me now the report of which he was critical, that is the West Prince-Kent County ferry study which was jointly funded by the federal Ministry of Transport, the department of industry and commerce of the province of Prince Edward Island, and the department of economic growth in New Brunswick.
As the hon. member pointed out, one of the specific and unequivocal findings of that study was that there was little, if any, economic justification for the kind of ferry service which the hon. member and others no doubt are advocating in the circumstances which he described. The analysis in that report, looking at it in a quick way, is detailed, at least in appearance, but I appreciate the remarks which the hon. member addressed to the House this evening, pointing out what he, and no doubt others, regard as defects in the analysis. I am sure those comments will come to the attention of those who presently have this study under advisement, and I hope they will be guided to a reasonable extent by the remarks the hon. member made this evening.
This report is now a public document and has been made available to interested parties, and I hope others as well who have criticism of this study or any of the other studies will make them known to the minister so their views on the subject can go into the total decision making process. The findings and analysis of this specific study are presently being assessed in the context of the over-all requirements of P.E.I. and mainland transportation planning. Transport Canada is actively engaged in this comprehensive work, and I hope the hon. member will not have to wait an inordinate length of time before the Ministry of Transport will be able to give him a specific indication as to when the results of that over-all effort will be available publicly.
December 2, 1975


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-PROPOSAL THAT OPEN COMPETITION WITH BOARD BE PERMITTED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on November 25 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) whether he would consider an amendment to the National Film Board Act to delete sections 9 and 11 of that act. The National Film Board is now 30 years old, it is reaching a ripe maturity and, according to the 1974-75 annual report, has 950 employees on its staff. I must say that the statement on page 35 of that report is somewhat misleading. It reads:
In line with the board's policy to support the Canadian film industry, 50 per cent of the dollar volume of government department films and other audio visual materials was contracted out to the private sector.
That may be a very accurate statement as it stands, but the report does not say how much of that 50 per cent is given to audio visual production and how much is given to film production. My understanding is that less than 10 per cent of films for government departments are produced by firms in the private sector. The fact is that sections 9 and 11 stipulate that all contracts for film production for government departments first, must be approved by the Treasury department-that is an understandable regulation- and second, must be approved by the National Film Board. I submit that that is a blatant case of conflict of interest.
Who in the world could imagine anyone in the private sector submitting a tender for a contract if that tender had to be studied and approved by the competition? The immediate question has to be: how safe is any proposal if it can be refused by the National Film Board when it is submitted to the government department and, even more important, how may times have those ideas submitted by the private sector to the government been incorporated in the production of the National Film Board once they knew what that production was all about? The related question is: how objective can we expect the National Film Board to be with projects that are not its own responsibility? However, a corollary to that, I think, is the burden of my remarks tonight.
What is the minister afraid of? Are 30 years of monopoly of government business not enough to establish an industry in a sound competitive position? Are 950 people not enough to compete with the small producers? Is the minister afraid that a company of 10 or 12 people with three or four cameras will be unfair competition, or have an unfair advantage over the National Film Board, with capital equipment assets of over $4 million and unlimited distribution facilities? What is the minister afraid of? Is the problem that the National Film Board, after 30 years of practical monopoly of government business, is afraid to compete with the small, independent film producer?
The minister has said many times that he wants to help establish an independent film industry in Canada. I suggest that here is one great way he can help them. All these people want is the opportunity to compete fairly with the National Film Board for government filming contracts. Is that too much to ask? Ironically one such company has done more work for the United States government than for the Canadian government. Something is rotten in the state
Adjournment Debate
of Denmark, and when I asked the question originally the answer was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have had these representations made to me by a variety of sources within the industry. I have promised to look into them, but I am not sure that this is the remedy.
I ask the minister, what is the remedy? If after 30 years in a monopoly situation the Film Board is not in a position yet to compete with small, independent producers, we must seriously question the competence of the National Film Board or the seriousness of the minister when he says that he wants to help establish an independent film industry in Canada.
I should like to have a direct answer from the minister or his parliamentary secretary as to what degree we can count on the seriousness of the minister when he says that he would like to support the private film industry, and what opportunities he will take to do that.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, from its inception in 1939 the National Film Board of Canada was given a mandate to promote the production and distribution of films in the national interest. Section 9 states it is to represent the Government of Canada in its relations with persons engaged in commercial motion picture film activity in connection with motion picture films for the government or any department thereof.
This is a role which the National Film Board has carried out with such effect that it is now recognized around the world as a model which other countries emulate. Numbers of National Film Board productions, many of them made for government departments, have won national and international awards.
The board's success did not, however, prevent it from developing a program of contracting out an increasing volume of sponsored film business, from the point at which the film industry had developed its capability to handle it.
In July, 1972, the cabinet, as a part of the national film policy, recommended the establishment of a special committee on sponsored films. The committee, chaired by the Treasury Board, is looking specifically at the National Film Board mandate in relation to the production of film for government departments and agencies, and has received briefs from various private sector organizations. It is anticipated that the committee's report will be presented to the minister in the next two months. While we cannot speculate on the content of the report, the following information may be useful to the hon. member.
The National Film Board has reduced its own production activities in the sponsored film program over the past five fiscal years, in order to provide an increasing share to the private sector. This shift which has taken place in the private sector's share of sponsored film production is from 8 per cent in 1970-71 to 50 per cent in 1974-75.
It is also important to recognize that support to the private sector from the National Film Board is not limited to the sponsored film program, which in 1974-75 was worth $1.6 million to the private sector. In addition to the $1.6 million, the NFB spent a further $5 million in laboratories for processing, for prints, and other private sector creative and technical services. This support is part of the govern-
29956-60(4

December 2, 1975
Adjournment Debate
ment's over-all objective to assist in the development of the private sector film industry.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, December 3, 1975