1975-10-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes! It arises from the frequent use of Canadian territory in conjunction with groups from the United States for activities of a serious nature directed against third countries and, also, from the failure of the government to disclose full details surrounding the expulsion of the Chinese diplomat Kuo Ching An earlier this year. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
That the Solicitor General give the House full details concerning frequent use of Canadian territory in recent years by persons acting or co-operating with certain revolutionary-minded persons in the United States and elsewhere dedicated to action against the legal governments of third countries, and the House requests the full disclosure of all available information concerning the expulsion from Canada this year of diplomat Kuo Ching An of the People's Republic of China, confirming that this was as a direct result of his attempting to convey a sizeable sum of money to a Philippine revolutionary group in the United States as payment for an attempt to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As food plays an important part in Canada and as the prices of 80 per cent of food products are likely to spiral according to the market forces, and given the fact that no
serious measure has been taken in this area, that the amount of money spent on food varies from 20 per cent of the budget for well-to-do consumers to 50 per cent for those in the lower income brackets and also that the cost of grains is decisive for farm products like beef, bread and so on, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the House take immediately all necessary steps to be able to put a quota on a portion of production which is equal to national consumption and set arbitrary prices for it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the social and economic dislocation occasioned by the current cessation of postal services, and in view of the continued insensitivity of the Postmaster General toward the need for equitable completion of contract negotiations with the postal workers, an insensitivity vividly demonstrated by the numerous derogatory statements concerning the leadership of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and his sabotaging of the collective bargaining processes by issuing an ultimatum commanding agreement to the government wage offer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant:
That this House instruct the Postmaster General to cease these irresponsible tactics and that the President of the Treasury Board take his rightful place in the current negotiations with the postal workers in the hope that contract talks may be expeditiously resumed and a just settlement swiftly negotiated.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 22, 1975
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from an urgent matter. In view of the fact that the Department of National Defence has refused to return certain lands expropriated under the terms of the War Measures Act from the Kettle Point Indian Band because of the presence of accumulated live artillery shells on that land, and in view of the fact that in less than two hours' time the department will start firing more artillery on the land, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House order the Department of National Defence to stop these planned manoeuvres, and further that this House direct the department to remove all unexploded ammunition from the land and return it to its original owners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him a fundamental question that must be answered in light of the government's white paper and the postal strike. I do not think there can be any real doubt about the government's position but I should like to make absolutely certain. At the first ministers' conference in April of this year the former Minister of Finance stated that "the imposition of direct controls by the government over prices and incomes .. . would not be acceptable to the people . . . except in conditions of real emergency". I assume there is no question about this, but is it the government's position that conditions of real emergency do exist now?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the legislation now before the House rests, in part at least, upon the peace, order and good government clause in the constitution, and therefore in that sense there is an emergency.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the Acting Prime Minister's position that there is a

real emergency? So there is no doubt about it, is that the position of the government? Secondly, is it the position of the government, in considering the postal strike, that this also constitutes an emergency situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the particular emergency that underlies, at least in part, the legislation now before the House relates to the situation that has arisen out of inflation. There can, of course, be serious problems arising out of a postal strike, but it is not in that sense that there is an emergency.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-EFFECT OF WAGE GUIDELINES ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Robert Lorne Stanfield: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If there is an emergency with regard to inflation but there is no emergency with regard to the post office, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question arising out of the position that he took yesterday. The minister said that he could not hold out any hope that a post office strike would not harm many individuals, but he said that this is one of the penalties of collective bargaining. Is it the government's position that collective bargaining has not already been very narrowly circumscribed, at least in dollars and cents terms, as of midnight, October 13?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is this, that collective bargaining can proceed. If, however, after a reference to the Anti-Inflation Board it is found that the settlement exceeds the guidelines, then, of course, various actions may take place. But this does not in itself interfere with collective bargaining.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You cannot suck and blow at the same time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I can explain the situation in this way. My colleague the Postmaster General has offered to the inside workers the proposal that was accepted by a very high proportion of the letter carriers. That, we hope, will be within the guidelines as administered by the AntiInflation Board. My colleague does not feel at all inhibited in carrying on his negotiations by reasons of these guidelines. We believe the offer is well within them; but this is not a judgment that politicians will make, it is a judgment that will be made by an independent board.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. We are pleased to see the hon. gentleman back in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 22, 1975


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is an obvious fuzziness appearing at the fringe in getting to the root of this post office problem as the bargaining goes on through the media rather than through the established procedures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that the leaders of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have indicated, again through the media, that they are willing to continue negotiations based on the fringe issues rather than the wage packet, and in view of the same statement by the minister and other government spokesmen that they are willing to return to the bargaining process to consider these fringe issues, will the Postmaster General now clarify the matter by stating that this is the government's position so that we might get the postal workers back to work to continue this vitally important service?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, one party in the House that did refuse to help the postal workers was the NDP. I think that was the statement of the C.U.P.W. leader out in Winnipeg the other evening. The last time we were in direct consultation with the postal workers-I am not sure which spokesman it was, but one of them-it was clearly understood we were prepared to continue bargaining and we had not considered at any time breaking off bargaining. We invited them to come back to the bargaining table when they had finalized their own position in so far as the wage packet was concerned, and then we would see to the fringe benefits which are also monetary items.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that if there were no anti-inflation board or anti-inflation campaign, the money we would offer CUPW would be precisely the same as is being offered now because of the fact that the letter carriers have this settlement, and because of the recommendation of the chairman of the conciliation board, who is certainly a very neutral gentleman and a judge of the superior court whose advice we gladly accepted. So the offer to CUPW is based first on the relationship to the settlement with the letter carriers, with whom they must work side by side, and secondly on the report of the conciliation board chairman. The effect of the Anti-Inflation Board simply means that the settlement, when and if it is arrived at, will have to go to the board for ratification or rejection, one or the other.
As far as resuming negotiations, my offer is open and there would be no better gesture of goodwill that would be appreciated by the Canadian people, and an indication of their willingness and sincerity, than for the union to invite the workers to go back to work while the negotiations are going on, because the strike they called was useless and futile, and does not in the slightest add any pressure on the minister who runs the post office.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government or perhaps the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board would ask the major food distribution chains, Safeway, Loblaws, Steinberg and Dominion stores to submit to the board their price lists for the two weeks prior and the two weeks following the announcement of the government's anti-inflation policy in order that the board can ascertain whether in fact prices are being raised, particularly in view of reports from all parts of Canada that these companies seem to have at least anticipated the government's policies and raised many prices over the Thanksgiving weekend?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion of the hon. member is a very sensible one. I do hope we can get this bill into committee so this kind of suggestion can be made to the board. The board can be summoned and suggestions can be made directly. Moreover, this would finally give the teeth that is now lacking in the present law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF BOARD PUBLISHING INFORMATION ON PRICE INCREASES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, surely the board does not need to wait for the legislation to make such inquiries. In view of the thoughts expressed by many people to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour yesterday that the wage and salary restraints will be easy for the Board to monitor, but that increases in prices will be difficult if not impossible to police, will the government impress on the Anti-Inflation Board the necessity to make as much information as possible on price increases which the board will be looking into available to the public so that Canadians can be informed concerning the effect of the government's policy as the weeks and months go by.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in general agreement. It is our view, as I think it is his, that the board should be as diligent as possible in checking both wages and prices, and I only hope he agrees with me that we should get this legislation through so that there will be something the board can do to implement our policies.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the Acting Prime Minister that the inferences in respect of the legislation drawn by at least one if not more of the provincial governments, which are being made known to the Prime Minister today, are that the investigation which the board will make in respect of companies will be made in private and based on confidential information the board receives and that the board is not likely to identify the companies which are alleged to have raised prices, that in fact the board will not be giving the kind of information

October 22, 1975
Oral Questions
which I am suggesting to the Acting Prime Minister it should be giving on a very regular basis to the public.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman should be in favour of what I am in favour of which is to get an independent board established which has the power to roll back price increases where necessary. We are now talking about something that is rather theoretical. What we have provided is the investigation. I agree with him that the investigation should proceed, but I hope he agrees with me the board should have some power to roll back prices.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In accordance with the reports that the FLQ members now in Paris are asking for a permit of political refugees in France and considering their recent statement, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the Canadian government has received an official request for their return in the country and could he, on behalf of the Canadian government, assure the House and the Canadian people that we will have nothing more to do with those revolutionary FLQ members and that we will deny them the right to return to Canada, in spite of their application?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the situation at the present time, as has been the case ever since these serious incidents of five years ago, is that these particular individuals if they return to Canada will be prosecuted for the crimes they committed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaher (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the earlier question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a question which I think must be cleared up once and for all in any discussion regarding this bill, or the labour situation so far as the Post Office Department is concerned will be simply problematical. The question has to do with the constitutionality of this legislation dealing with price and wage control. When it was first produced I questioned the constitutionality of certain elements in the white paper and the reply I received from the government was that the government was assured it is within the legislative competence of Parliament. Now in the last 48 hours outstanding constitutional authorities across Canada have pointed out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member may very well have an interesting debating point, but it

appears to me he is about to develop an argument in favour of his position on constitutionality. If the right hon. member has a question to put perhaps he would do that now.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought this House would like to have the constitutional opinion of experts rather than novices sitting opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: In order to make it constitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear on several occasions that it is necessary to state there is a national emergency. Now, we have the minister saying that there is an emergency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not understand that and I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to be denied-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I feel that in the circumstances I have extended every leniency to the right hon. member to put his question. Since he continues to argue the point, I prefer to go to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not arguing the point, I am asserting the right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have always bowed with deference to Mr. Speaker, but when I have a question on the constitutionality of this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -I say I have the right to speak, despite what Your Honour understands that I am endeavouring to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with the provisional rules under which we have been operating since last Easter recess, I would be prepared to hear the right hon. member's argument at three o'clock. I ask the right hon. member once more, if he has a question to put, that he put it forthwith without further argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are many hon. members who have not even read the law yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Why is it that the words "national emergency" are not included in the preamble of this bill?
October 22, 1975

Peace, order and good government is not enough. Is it because the government realizes that if it placed those words in the bill it would cover all the provinces in Canada and no province would be able to set up a board of its own?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was being drafted the government had the advice of the law officers of the Crown who advised us that it could be defended under the peace, order and good government provisions of the British North America Act and perhaps under other provisions as well. A decision was made to draft it in this form on the best advice the government could receive.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a complete hoax.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister yet decided whom he intends to appoint to the vacant position of minister of communications? If so, when will the name of the new minister be announced, and has the government decided to reserve its new policy of going outside of parliament for its new ministers and decided to take a chance on one of its own backbenchers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister has a name in mind, he has not yet conveyed it to his colleagues. He may do so shortly. I can assure the hon. member that the new minister, if he is from one of these backbenches, will be a most competent one.


An hon. Member:: Why did he not think of that before?


POST OFFICE
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious cost to the country of a prolonged postal strike, is the government prepared to consider a 90 day back to work order during which time the Postmaster General could pursue some settlement with the union membership, or has the government decided that it will not act but rather let the strike run its course even if it lasts for many months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, part of this is a hypothetical question which I will not attempt to answer, but the government has no intention at present to propose to parliament an order to
Oral Questions
return these men to work. That may be necessary, I really do not know; but our hope is that there will be an agreement entered into voluntarily. That is the purpose of the negotiations that we are ready to resume at any time on the basis of the letter carriers' wage settlement. I hope that my hon. friend is not recommending that we should go beyond that.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's comment yesterday that it could be a long strike, in view of the comment of the Postmaster General that he is prepared to shut the Post Office down for three months or until Easter and in view of public concern as to what the position of the government really is in this regard- whether it will allow the strike to go on indefinitely-can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether it is government policy to ride this strike out no matter how long it takes, or is the government prepared to consider back to work legislation after a period of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is not contemplating any legislation at the present time to return the Post Office workers to work.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON WHETHER SERVICE IS ESSENTIAL
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two short supplementaries in order to clear the fuzziness resulting from the answers of the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government reached a conclusion as to whether postal service is essential? May we have the answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we certainly think it is important. We would like to see it resumed as quickly as possible; however, I am sure that my hon. friend is enough of a supporter of the principles of collective bargaining that he would not want to interfere with that process just whenever it suits the convenience of some members of the public.


George Harris Hees: Is it essential or not?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the Acting Prime Minister answer my question? Has the government reached a conclusion as to whether postal service is essential? That is just a repetition of the first question, so I still have my second supplementary to come.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 22, 1975
Oral Questions HOUSING


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ALL THOSE PURCHASING NEW HOMES WILL RECEIVE $500 GRANT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Considering that many home owners currently purchasing new houses are finding that they cannot receive their $500 new home ownership grant because the purchases cannot be processed quickly enough, will the government ensure that all individuals purchasing homes before the end of the month will receive the $500 grant?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist; I am signing my mail. In answer to the question of the hon. member, certainly those applications which are being processed will be honoured. I will be making further announcements within the next day or so regarding the future of the program itself.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF $500 GRANT PROGRAM
Stan Darling: In view of the fact that the new home ownership grant has eased the entry into the housing market for consumers, and considering that the availability of this grant will terminate on October 31, 1975, does the government have any intention of extending this deadline so that those who wish to purchase homes in the future can have the same benefit as those who have purchased homes under this program, and would the minister give further consideration to extending the program to existing homes rather than just new homes as at present?


Barnett Jerome Danson: If I could answer the latter part of the question first, the answer is no. With regard to the first part of the question, I will be making an announcement within the next day or two, when a decision will be made. Certainly we recognize the value of this program, but as hon. members know, I will be bringing to parliament shortly a far more comprehensive program which I am sure will be welcomed by both sides of the House.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister outside the House yesterday threatening to tax away any pay increases in excess of the guidelines of the government, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister to inform the House whether it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation amending the Income Tax Act to permit the use of the taxation system to confiscate income in excess of the guidelines.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we hope that will not be necessary.


AVAILABILITY OF TAX RETURNS TO ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Since the Prime Minister is suggesting one or two alternatives, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to allow the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board to have access to the income tax returns of Canadians or groups of Canadians in view of the confidentiality of such returns.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would not have thought this likely. I would have thought that this would require legislation. If legislation is required, then it would come before the House. I have not heard of any suggestion of that kind.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How will the government enact the suggestion made outside the House by the Prime Minister yesterday if it does not do it in this manner?


Mitchell William Sharp: Any idea of taxing back excess of earnings which are over the guidelines, or any other procedure like this, would require legislation by the House of Commons.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping for the second day in a row to be able to put a question. I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in view of the fact that only four of the ten ministers who adorn the front treasury benches are present in the House, I shall put my question to the Acting Prime Minister as government House leader. Is it now the position of this government that it is putting its ministers back on a rotation system, in view of the fact that few of them are ever here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason there are quite a number of absences today, which I regret as much as anyone else in the House of Commons, is the fact that quite a number of ministers are out explaining the government's anti-inflation program in various parts of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Why not do it in the House then?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is desirable that some of the rather less accurate information which has been spread about by those who may not agree with the program should be answered, so that the public is not confused about the intentions of the government. The other reason some ministers are absent is that they are attending a federal-pro-
October 22, 1975

Oral Questions
vincial conference on the very subject upon which this House is now engaged in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is correct that the executions of three persons convicted or murder by due process of law have been stayed until July 15? Was the reason for that stay, which is not commutation, that the government intends to bring in a bill to completely abolish capital punishment?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Governor in Council has granted stays of execution on the sentences of death pronounced upon Messrs. Con-nearey, Vaillancourt and Chartrand. This request was made because the government intends to present a bill to parliament on the matter of capital punishment and other measures relating to law reform and to crime prevention.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to have this matter clarified in one important area because I know the Solicitor General has been dancing with this subject. Is it his intention to bring in an omnibus bill in which part will be gun control, to give the public the appearance of getting tough on crime, and in the same bill to put in a measure to abolish capital punishment? Is that the game the Solicitor General is playing with the Canadian public?


William Warren Allmand: The package of measures on this subject will be announced by the Minister of Justice and myself, but no decision has been made as to whether it will be one, two or three bills.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT OF LAW RELATING TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. One of the more amazing exceptions the Prime Minister made in his statement ten days ago was his commitment to permit growth within police forces. Given the belief of the Prime Minister that all we have to do is groove on goodness, is this exception an indication that he plans to embark on a program of greater general law enforcement without enforcing the law with regard to capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


HOUSING
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In the minister's tradition of bold inventive housing programs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: -can the minister advise the House if consideration is being given to tax exemptions for mort-gate rates in excess of 6 per cent for new and existing home owners and if not, would he view such a proposal favourably?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, certainly we do not discount any new approaches but I would not want to indicate a preference until I bring my proposals before parliament.


VANCOUVER CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS- FUNDING OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATING IN CONFERENCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I have given him notice of this matter. In view of the fact that the government has failed thus far to promise funding for the Association in Canada Serving Organization on Human Settlements (ACSOH), the agency responsible for the non-governmental organizations participating in the Habitat conference in Vancouver next year, can the minister now indicate whether the government is prepared to fund this international conference on a proper basis so that all taxpayers of Canada will share the load that will otherwise be an unjust burden on the residents of Vancouver?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning that subject to me the other day. I have been looking into this matter and there will be adequate funding for ACSOH and other non-government organizations. I cannot answer specifically what portion of that will be funded by LIP grants or employment grants but there will be some very beneficial residual benefits from the conference for Vancouver and Vancouver-Quadra. I will report more completely when I have details of this, but there will be sufficient funding for the non-governmental organizations to do their job well and for the provision of facilities in Vancouver.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State

October 22, 1975
Oral Questions
(Fisheries). In view of the fact that the incomes of the fishermen are deteriorating as a result of the depletion of our fish stocks, can the minister indicate to the House what is happening with the proposed income support program that was supposed to be implemented in July, 1975?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, on the latter part of the question, I do not think I ever undertook to implement a program by July, 1975. We are working on this program hand in hand with one for stabilization of prices to fishermen. We hoped to bring them before the House in the coming months.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that there might be continuing delays, I wonder if the minister would indicate if he has had discussion with his colleagues on modifications of the unemployment insurance provisions relating to fishermen in order to overcome many of the inequities that are hindering collection of payments?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we had accepted that UIC for fishermen would continue until a program was brought in to replace it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We heard that four years ago.


Roméo LeBlanc: I was not here four years ago. At the present time, I would hope we can move more quickly than on amendments to the UIC.


POISONING OF FISH IN CAPILANO HATCHERY-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries. Can he advise if the RCMP have been called in to investigate the chlorine poisoning of l'A million fish in the Capilano hatchery?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my information is that pathology tests done in the last 48 hours have not revealed in a precise manner the reason for this tragic accident or sabotage-we do not know which is involved yet. The police have been asked to co-operate with us.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to advise the minister that the cause of death of the fish is known and that it is chlorine. I should like to ask if it is possible for the minister to advise how chlorine could get into the water system of the Capilano hatchery as it is a carefully controlled component of hatchery environment?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that traces of chlorine have been found, but I have no report yet from the scientists that this is the final and firm cause of the death of fish. On the question of how this might have been introduced into the system, that is precisely what we are trying to find out now. I find it rather difficult to believe it could have been accidental but we are checking every point.
| Mr Marshall.]


POST OFFICE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Considering the fact that while negotiations were going on between Treasury Board and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, over 100 clauses had been initialled and that the union had agreed not to strike while negotiations were continuing, why did the minister lay a wage ultimatum on the table which forced a strike when so many other negotiable issues remained unsettled, bearing in mind that without the leverage of the wage packet they could not negotiate on the non-monetary issues?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair and honest question. There were many clauses and articles initialled on Friday and Saturday. They let it be well understood that there would be no strike while negotiations were going on. Unfortunately, while negotiations were taking place on Monday night, orders had already gone out to strike at midnight, which is hardly evidence that they acted in good faith. I have the evidence any time the hon. member would like to see it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NEGOTIATING TOTAL PACKAGE OF BENEFITS
Reginald Cyril Symes: I think all members of the House would like to see if that evidence is valid or not, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. Is the government prepared to follow standard collective bargaining procedures and negotiate a total package of benefits with the postal unions rather than trying to force the unions leadership to go to the general membership with exclusively a wage proposal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, because this is a very delicate matter and although I hesitate to say I will take it as notice, it is one of the questions I think I should take as notice so that I will not make any misstatement that might interfere in any way with the bargaining.


AGRICULTURE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since grain prices are not included in the measures announced on October 13, and that as a consequence, they are exposed to changes on the free market of the Winnipeg and Chicago exchanges, has the minister considered taking the necessary steps to protect Canadian consumers from a possible rise in food prices?
October 22, 1975


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all the materials used in bread making are fixed for five more years and they cannot change.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said an agreement with the Republic of Korea concerning the sale of a Canadian nuclear reactor would be tabled in the House. Since we will then be faced with a fait accompli on an extremely serious matter that a host of experts, including General E. L. M. Burns, have warned the government against, what steps will the government take to bring a provisional agreement before the House for debate so that the full scope of the reasons Canada should not take this action can be aired before a militaristic repressive regime is helped by Canada to get nuclear technology?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's point of view and I will convey it to the minister. It would not be in accordance with the responsibilities that are laid upon the government to bring international treaties before parliament before they have been signed.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government has studied the representations made on this subject by the International Commission of Jurists and the International League for the Rights of Man which document the repression now being carried out by the Republic of Korea against its own people and which suggests that the signature of that country on a nuclear safeguard agreement would be worthless.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these views are familiar to the Department of External Affairs and I would assume that the minister has been advised.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's comments, made as long ago as May of this year after four years procrastination, that new oil and gas regulations would be introduced without delay, and in view of the fact that there has been a drastic cutback in oil and gas exploration particularly in the Mackenzie Delta area, can the minister indicate when he intends to bring forward these oil and gas regulations?
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that we will bring them forward this fall.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Could the minister indicate to the House whether he believes that those whose mail is tied up-particularly small businessmen- have any rights to obtain damages through the courts as a result of the current strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I could not give legal advice. The men are on strike legally. In all legal strikes, some segment of society unfortunately gets hurt. We tend to forget that sometimes the workers themselves get hurt. I have checked out the impact of the strike with the 20 per cent of the industries and Canadians who account for 80 per cent of the volume of the mail. There will be some people hurt in the strike. Unfortunately, some are small businessmen. On the other hand, there are many benefiting by providing a substitute service. It is hard to tell the impact. Any mail that is in the post office at the moment and has been sorted by CUPW members will be handled by the letter carriers' union. We have this assurance. However, in a day or two it will be unrealistic to presume there will be any more such mail available. I hope for the sake of small businessmen the negotiations resume fairly soon and that the strike is brought to an end. In the meantime, we are prepared to allow it to run.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-IMPACT ON ISOLATED NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. The isolated communities of northern Canada, as I am sure the minister is aware, depend entirely on the mail as their only means of communication. Can the minister guarantee that people living in these isolated areas will not suffer from loss of livelihood due to this national emergency? I want to assure the Postmaster General that my offer to carry the mail to the Churchill constituency still stands.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, that might be considered as some sort of strike breaking. I cannot guarantee that there will be no harm done as a result of the strike. I think we are forgetting that I did not call the strike and the union did not bave to go on strike, even if they were in a strike position and did not necessarily agree with my particular tactics. It is important to remember that the strike was called by the union, not by the post office. There was no lockout. The responsibility for the effects must be placed exactly where it should be, on those who called the strike.

October 22, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY


ALLEGED USE OF CANADIAN TERRITORY BY FOREIGN DIPLOMATS TO AID REVOLUTIONARIES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I hope I may be permitted to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister, with a short supplementary. First, how recently has the government been advised by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning whether Canadian territory has been used frequently by certain foreign diplomats for co-operation with persons in the United States dedicated to revolutionary activities against legal governments in third countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to answer that question. I think the hon. member should be more specific.


REASON FOR EXPULSION OF CHINESE DIPLOMAT
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Will the minister confirm that Chinese diplomat Kuo Ching An was expelled from Canada because he delivered to representatives of Philippine revolutionaries in the United States, one of whose leaders has been Sergio Osmena, Jr., a sizeable sum of money to promote trouble in the Philippines, particularly to promote the assassination of Ferdinand Marcos, the president of that nation. Also, will the Acting Prime Minister make public all government files in this regard to prove the accuracy of the answer he will now give the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer I will now give the House is that security matters are never discussed in this House if I can help it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the changed economic climate and rules, will the minister be proposing policy variations to the DREE programs to adapt to these changes? Also, will he be speaking, either during the course of the debate on Bill 73 on these matters or on motions in the near future?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that of course all government departments are required to help enforce the measures the government announced last week. As for my department, I am happy to inform him that our programs will keep on developing and I am hopeful that in the next few months, we shall even be able to experience further expansion of the department's activities, since our work is particularly aimed at the areas

in need of government assistance and I shall make it a point to bring the representations of the hon. member and many others to the attention of the cabinet.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer. It is reassuring. I bring to his attention that at the time DREE was conceived, there were in this country clearly defined areas of economic stress. Under the present climate, the whole country is in that category. Will the minister again reiterate that he does have some specific initiatives to take so that DREE will continue to have some priority in the scheme of things?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I must again assure the hon. member that my department has a very specific role to play in that it deals specially with the areas in need of greater help than others. Canada as a whole may be in difficulty but some areas, and particularly the one he represents, need special attention from the government and the department that I head. Its activity will be directed towards those regions. I can again assure the hon. member that we will not lose interest in the underdeveloped areas of Canada. If it is deemed that new programs are needed in co-operation with provincial governments, similar to the one now being implemented, we will doubtless undertake them as soon as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of answers given to members of this House today in response to questions about the present postal strike. It is the feeling of many innocent Canadians that they are entitled to a postal service, that it is an essential service and that with the present arrangement, we are only giving lip service to the bargaining process and then legislating various groups back to work through various pieces of legislation. Is the government now seriously considering that the right to strike in essential services is not workable and that an alternative to the present practice will be brought forward for debate in this House in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We have no intention of bringing forward such legislation of a general character. Whether at some time in the future it will be necessary with regard to particular groups, that is a matter to be determined in the future. At the moment, we have no such general legislation in mind.
October 22, 1975


POST OFFICE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary both to the last and the previous one, but I direct it to the Postmaster General. Since the government is prepared to break the postal monopoly given to it by law to secure the interests of pensioners and family allowance recipients during the mail strike, will it also allow other competitive service similar to the post office to operate, bearing in mind the needs of businesses and others dependent on first class mail?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the last few words, first class mail. The only monopoly we have is in that area. I can assure the hon. member that we have a lot of competition in all other areas such as parcel post and second class mail. Fortunately, all family allowance cheques and all senior citizen cheques have been delivered. None are due until late November. Arrangements will be finalized by that time and delivery of November, December, January, February, and possibly March will all be made at the same time.
With regard to the question of whether we will entertain competition in first class mail, it will depend on whether that competition is prepared to handle the less profitable routes such as, shall we say, from Ottawa to the constituency of the hon. member in which case we would be glad to give them that particular area. Finally, I think it is equally important, and I notified the House of this before, that the main issue in the strike was a question of automation and that particular problem was solved some time Saturday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following documents in accordance with Standing Order 41(2): (1) Prior to ratification, the new extradition treaty with the United States of America which was signed at Washington on December 3, 1971, and the text of which was subsequently amended by an exchange of notes on June 28 and July 9, 1974. The treaty is basically a consolidation in one text of the present network of some half-dozen treaties dating back to 1842; (2) the texts of 32 international agreements.
Order Paper Questions CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


MEASURE TO PROVIDE DRIVE-IN POLLING STATIONS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-413, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (drive-in polling stations).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide, in every electoral district in which there is at least one incorporated city or town having a population of 15,000 or more, that the returning officer establish a drive-in advance polling station for the use of electors who are aged, infirm or approaching termination of pregnancy. This bill would enable such electors to cast their votes in secret, without the aid of a proxy.


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

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,231, 3,039 and 3,116.


Mr. Hogan: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to consider the repurchase of Canadair from the General Dynamics Corporation Ltd. (USA)?
2.	(a) What were the terms of the contract of sale of Canadair by the government to General Dynamics Corporation Ltd. immediately after the Second World War (b) what were the names of those who negotiated the sale (c) what were the details, such as the sale price, assets, etc.?
3.	What was (a) the value of government grants of all types (b) the programme under which grants were given to General Dynamics Corporation Ltd. since the date of sale of Canadair until the present day and the value of these grants specifically marked for Canadair Ltd.?
4.	(a) What is the actual price at which the government intends to buy back Canadair and the legislation under which it is to be repurchased (b) what are the assets of Canadair and its sales potential in light of the deteriorating market for new aircraft of all types?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Defence as follows: 1. The signing of an Option Agreement on January 15, 1975, indicated the Government's intent to consider the purchase of Canadair from General Dynamics.
2. Early in 1947, the Electric Boat Company of New Jersey was authorized to acquire the bulk of the Canadair Limited stock subject to the following terms: (1) Electric Boat to provide Canadair Limited with $2,000,000 working capital. (2) The War Assets Corporation to grant Canadair Limited a lease with option to purchase with respect to the plant, equipment and aircraft tooling for $3,500,000. In 1949, Canadair Limited purchased additional land, buildings and equipment from the Crown for $3,800,000. In 1955, Canadair Limited purchased the balance of the Crown assets for $11,500,000. All these transactions were on the
29669 -sl

October 22, 1975
Order Paper Questions
basis of a lease with option to purchase and in each case the option was exercised. Among the principals in these transactions were: C. D. Howe, Minister, Munitions and Supply; J. H. Berry, President, War Assets Corporation; E. F. Hutton, Representing Electric Boat and the founder of General Dynamics, J. J. Hopkins; D. A. Golden, Deputy Minister, Department of Defence Production; H. O. West, President Canadair. Limited; J. G. Notman, President, Canadair Limited.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
3. (a) General Dynamics Corporation Ltd., nil; Canadair, $68,447,953.
General Dynamics	Corporation Ltd.	CanadairDIP Contribution	Nil	$63,140,050.PEMD Contribution	Nil	$ 57,903.PAIT Contribution	Nil	$ 5,250,000.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
3. (a) The value of all types of DND grants is contained in the annual DND estimates and Public Accounts of Canada, (b) Under the terms and conditions of the Defence Industrial Research Program the value of the grants for each fiscal year in question was as follows:
Year	Amount	Number of Projects1962-63	$ 2,000	21963-64	71,00	61964-65	118,000	71965-66	43,000	71966-67	47,000	31967-68	194,000	51968-69	196,000	61969-70	160,000	61970-71	235,000	71971-72	232,000	61972-73	175,000	71973-74	208,000	71974-75 (estimated)	216,000	74. (a) As announced at the time the option was :	
the maximum budgetary outlay required for the purchase of Canadair is not expected to exceed $38,150,000. An allowance was made for the purchase of Canadair under Vote L-20 which was approved in the 1975-76 Main Estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. (b) The assets of Canadair covered by the option agreement are all the assets except Canadair's investment in the Asbestos Corporation Limited. They include land, buildings, machinery, equipment, designs, copyrights, patents and so forth. One firm of appraisers estimated the total value of all such assets would amount to $103 million after deducting outstanding liabilities. The Government is currently examining Canadair's sales potential together 
with new initiatives designed to help this company achieve long run viability.


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Richard Arnold Irwin, Director of Warnock Hersey International been or is he a member, officer, director or in any way whatsoever associated with (a) a Crown corporation (b) the government (c) a department, agency, advisory board, council or committee and, if so (i) what position did he or does he hold (ii) with what corporation, department, agency, advisory board, council or committee (iii) between what dates (iv) was the position attained by appointment, contest, promotion or through a personnel agency (v) if by appointment, by whom or by what authority was he appointed?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Did Mr. Michael Pitfield or any other individual who was not a Member of the House of Commons or the Senate participate in the meeting of Ministers at the National Capital Commission property on Meach Lake, Quebec on September 17, 1975 and, if so, what was their (a) name (b) position (c) reason for attending?


Mitchell William Sharp: The inner workings of cabinet, cabinet committees (including membership therein), and the services rendered by support staff are traditionally considered confidential matters. Canadian precedents in this regard flowed from British practice over many years. In response to a question in the House the Canadian Prime Minister of the day on February 4, 1960 in part replied: "The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered." A detailed answer to the question would be a departure from the traditional position that has always been taken that meetings of the cabinet are private and no information is given concerning attendance.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker if question No. 2,400 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Beatty: 2. What is the government policy with respect to scientific research on live foetuses where such research might affect the life or health of the foetus?
Return tabled.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I realize that hon. members opposite would feel very badly if I were to let a day go by without calling attention to the fact that question No. 1,232, asking for comprehensive details in connection with the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive, has never been answered. It is a very basic question and asks for the names of the donors, if indeed such donors do exist, and the amounts of money they have given. It further asks for the names of the designers of the pool and for various other technical details having to do with this somewhat peculiar enterprise which has been hidden, and which continues to be hidden, from the Canadian people.
I feel that parliament has a right to know about anything that goes on on public property, and 24 Sussex Drive is public property: it is the Prime Minister's official residence, but it belongs to the people of Canada. I fail to see, therefore, how the government can continue to abstain from answering legitimate questions about an enterprise which has been conducted on public property. Persons unconnected with the government have gone on to that property and dug a hole in the ground and taken part in a sizeable enterprise, apparently without permission from anyone, according to the Prime Minister, and I think it is about time the government put up or shut up about this smelly matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order of the day.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon a continuation of the debate on Bill C-73, I would respectuflly draw to your attention a major deficiency in the bill. The bill was distributed to hon. members without bearing a number; in other words, at the time authorization was given for first reading it did not carry a royal recommendation. It was only by delving into Votes and Proceedings that I was able to examine the recommen-
Privilege-Mr. O'Connell
dation which was made and compare it with the provisions in the bill. This work having been completed, I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention something which goes to the root of the bill and which is out of keeping with the royal recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I had intended to deal with the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but orders of the day were called, and that is this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is perfectly correct, I did call orders of the day; but before the bill was announced I had intended to deal with the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Scarborough East.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
over, the fact that in this case a committee of the House of Commons would be investigating the work or operations of a joint committee makes it even more difficult and, from a jurisdictional point of view, more awkward.
The question may be asked: If this does not constitute a question of privilege, is the House without a remedy in these circumstances? I think all hon. members would be quick to agree that such is not the case. In the first place, a substantive motion can be put forward for an investigation, presumably by joint action in this and the other place. Since it would not, in those circumstances, be under the restriction of privilege, it would likely have more freedom from a procedural point of view.
Furthermore, it seems to me that there might not be great difficulty in the committee itself, because since it is a joint committee of both places it can, if it wishes, investigate further into this mishap and may proceed to do so. Of course, I am referring to hypothetical circumstances now. If there were a difficulty posed by the terms of reference in connection with this special joint committee, it seems to me, from the attitude expressed from all sides of the House yesterday, that there would be little difficulty in having those terms of reference expanded if, indeed, that were necessary. I would think there would be considerable question as to whether it would be necessary for the committee to obtain extended terms of reference if it wished to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the leak of a confidential report. However, I put that forward only as a suggestion which hon. members may wish to consider.
As I say, because the motion lacks precision and specific detail alleging conduct which constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, from a procedural point of view- while it deals with a point which in the abstract or in general terms certainly touches upon the privileges of the House-I feel the motion is not sufficiently specific to enable the Chair to grant a question of privilege at this time.
Orders of the day. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I go to another point of order which does not touch upon the privileges of the House and perhaps will not present Your Honour with quite so much difficulty. The point I wish to make is that the royal recommendation appearing in Bill C-73 and in Votes and Proceedings of October 16 reads:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons a measure to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada and to provide for the measure to expire on December 31, 1978.
I would draw to your attention clauses 26(2) and 46(2). Clause 26(2) provides for four-year appointments, which are far beyond the termination date of the bill as set out in clause 46(2). May I put clause 26(2) on the record:
The chairman of the appeal tribunal shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding four years but may be removed by the governor in council for cause, and each other member shall be appointed to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding four years.
The termination date of the bill, under clause 46(2), clearly being December 31, 1978, this House has no author-

ity to make any appointment beyond December 31, 1978, of any member of the tribunal. The limitation of expenditure, as set out in the recommendation of the governor in council, is very clearly and flatly that the measure shall expire on December 31, 1978. Incidentally, clause 46(2) authorizes this House, by regulation prior to the expiry of the bill in 1978, to continue the measure in force as specified in an order of the House. But that provision is not in the recommendation.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical point, but again I bring to your attention, as I have with budget bills, that the government must follow, in presenting its legislation, the limitations of the authority it seeks. I would therefore ask Your Honour to take this point under advisement and, if you are persuaded by my argument, to direct that the offending clauses be amended to conform with the recommendation or that a new recommendation be brought in in accordance with the intent of the bill as presented. It is either one thing or the other; we cannot have this bastard arrangement that exists in the present bill along with the recommendation that is on the order paper and which is also part of the bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has raised another technical question I agree with him that the point should be clarified, and I think the suggestion he has made that it be clarified by action other than withdrawal of the bill is the kind of action that I hope you will take if you find there is substance to the point he has raised.
May I draw Your Honour's attention to clause 46(2) and (5) of the bill. Subclause (2) provides:
This act expires on December 31, 1978, or on such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation unless, before December 31, 1978, or any earlier date fixed by proclamation, an order in council is made to the effect that this act shall continue in force for such period of time as may be set out in the order in council.
Subclause (5) provides:
Failure of either House or both Houses of Parliament to resolve that an order in council referred to in subsection (2) be approved does not affect the validity of any action taken or not taken in reliance on the Order in Council prior to the conclusion of consideration thereof pursuant to subsection (3).
Clause 26(2) provides for a term of office not exceeding four years. I would submit that if in fact the governor in council were to make an appointment for four years and then later it was found desirable not to extend the act, then at least that appointment would continue to be valid.
As to the other point, whether it exceeds the royal recommendation, I suggest that is a very technical point. Indeed, if I were to follow the line of the hon. member for Edmonton West, I might argue that the final words, which provide for the measure to expire on December 31, 1978, are insufficient because there is in fact provision in the bill for an extension of the time by an order in council that shall be considered in this House and approved or disapproved. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very technical point. I would argue that the bill is within the general ambit of the royal recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: As usual, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has raised a very interesting point. Use of the words "not exceeding four years" in clause
October 22, 1975

26(2) may be the key to this question. In any case, I propose to take it under consideration. It would seem to me that if what appears to be a power in clause 26(2) is in conflict with the clause bringing the act into expiry on December 31, 1978, then since the power given under clause 26(2) is not a power to appoint for four years, but for a term "not exceeding four years" it may well be, upon reflection, that clause 26(2) is circumscribed by the later clause 46, the provision regarding expiry of the act. However, I will take the matter under advisement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 21, 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this piece of legislation is certainly one of the most momentous in which I have had the opportunity to participate since coming to parliament. The actual and potential implications of this legislation are great indeed. It is probably the most momentous legislation that has come before this House since the Second World War.
I was rather interested to hear the government House leader today indicate, in response to a question from the floor of the House during the question period, that there is some hope this legislation will, as he termed it, be speeded through. It seems to me that when we are involved in legislation that does have this type of implication for all the people of Canada, there should be the fullest opportunity possible for debate in the House of Commons and parliament. That is what parliament is for, to look through the legislation presented by the government, especially important legislation of this kind, and to consider the ramifications so that we may in fact put through the best possible type of laws.
Let me suggest to the government House leader that if he is in fact sincere and earnest about getting this bill through quickly, he might consider giving some direction to his party whip. I notice that as many members on the government side as on the other side, if not more, have spoken on this piece of legislation. What they have contributed to it, I will leave to the judgment of those who are listening. Nonetheless, many people on the government side have taken part; I think certainly more than from our side. We are not in the process of delaying this legislation. We are trying with all the sincerity and earnestness at our command to bring to the attention of the government some of the pitfalls and shortcomings we see in respect of this particular bill.
Anti-Inflation Act
The other aspect I think I should mention at the outset is that the bill contains provision for the measure to be effective retroactively. That is to say, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his speech on Thanksgiving Day made it quite clear that this bill was to come into effect on that particular date. I suggest that Thanksgiving Day will have the same sort of infamy, possibly, as Valentine's Day had in another contextl I can only say that the Prime Minister affected my digestion at the time he appeared on nationwide television.
The fact is that the Prime Minister should look at this particular legislation with great care and concern. The potential implications of this bill mean the imposition of a system of guidelines that will have application to all Canadians. The Prime Minister in his Thanksgiving Day address made this point very clearly when he stated;
And I am telling you tonight that this program must work, because if it does not, the government may be forced to impose mandatory, comprehensive, all-embracing price and income controls upon every man and woman in Canada.
He reiterated this in the course of remarks he made in western Canada, in Winnipeg and Assiniboia, just yesterday when he used words to the effect that it was his intention and the intention of his government to make sure that these particular guidelines would have universal application to the people of Canada. I suggest this rather thinly-veiled threat states clearly this government's intention in due course to take all steps within its power to intercede in the affairs of everyone in this country in its so-called program of guidelines. The Prime Minister and other government spokesmen continue to refer to guidelines, but I think there can be little doubt that we are entering into a period during which the government will be doing everything possible to impose mandatory controls.
Reference was made again during the question period today to the constitutionality of this legislation. It remains to be brought forward, on the part of the government, precisely how it envisages the introduction of these guidelines so they will have application to every man and woman, according to the Prime Minister, in this country. I think it is particularly incumbent upon the Prime Minister to indicate in clear, unequivocal terms that there is a national emergency and as a consequence we can look to this bill as being absolutely necessary. There has not been, in my estimation-and I hope to develop this-the type of candour that one might have expected from the leader of this country in relation to economic matters and, in particular, in relation to the imposition of controls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not purport to be any sort of authority on constitutional matters, but I would find it most difficult, if I were in the government's position, to rely upon the advice of constitutional authority in this particular instance. One has to rely on peace, order and good government under our constitution. The government must look very carefully at its future steps and the threat the Prime Minister has made about the imposition of these controls and the other provisions of this bill. The government must look at its constitutional position in this regard.

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
It seems to me that aside from that-and the government is now embarking upon negotiations, commencing today, with the provinces-there are substantial obstacles that will have to be overcome no matter whether the government decides it is constitutional. The very least it will have to do-for a change, I would suggest-is deal with the provincial authorities in a frank and candid manner. I think that is the government's intention, quite frankly. I believe the government is going to try that particular approach to see if it is possible to come down with some type of agreement with the provinces which will have the effect of a penetration of the provisions and principles outlined in this legislation to all people, whether they are under provincial jurisdiction or otherwise.
The potential of this bill for government intervention into the activities of every man, woman and child in our country is, as I have stated, very great. I say this having regard to the background of the growth of substantial intervention by the government in the affairs of its citizens which has taken place so rapidly over the past few years. The legislation before us is rather typical of the kind of legislation we see presented by governments these days, under which some wide-ranging, general principles are stated in the bill with rule-making, enforcement and administration of the legislation being left to order in council.
To summarize this bill in very brief form, the government asks for the right to fight inflation, and concurrently asks for the right to legislate by order in council in respect of areas and matters which the government-I underline the word "government"-deems appropriate for this purpose. We have a tendency these days to accept this kind of legislation, not only in respect of items of minor consequence but in areas of general application across our country. The argument, on the one hand, is that in these modern, complex and difficult times governments must rely more and more on the delegation of power to administrative tribunals and bodies, but at the same time we are involved in an era of participatory democracy under which, apparently, the will of the people will be clearly enunciated in parliamentary terms.
The problem with this tendency which we have experienced, that of government by regulation, is that it appears to be irreversible and-most tragically, in my view-it runs in direct contradiction to the concept of individual rights and meaningful participatory democracy by the average citizen, through parliament. Therefore, when we have legislation such as the bill before us, involving as it does the potential for such long-term, arbitrary regulation and control essentially through an administrative tribunal, one wonders whether when the people of Canada collectively raise their heads to question government control they will discover that the road back to meaningful control by the people over the government will be most difficult if not impossible.
This government, in my view, is not inclined to take stock of its approach to government by delegation. I have the distinct impression that it finds this method of operation convenient and easy. The government appears to

adopt the attitude that it is politically expedient to neutralize major problems by establishing an administrative body and turning the problem over to that body for solution. The political result of such action is to dissipate pressure on the government to take difficult and meaningful legislative action to deal with the problems of our day. As Members of Parliament, we have often heard our constituents who seek redress of administrative decisions make statements of utter exasperation when it becomes clear to them that their rights are governed by arbitrary, bureaucratic decision with no right of appeal.
By this legislation, this government is therefore introducing its most massive delegation of authority for what I consider to be a prolonged and unnecessary period of time. If there was ever a situation where there should be the right of parliament to review a program or specific legislation, this is the time. As I have stated, this legislation represents the type of philosophic approach that the government takes to any problem. The legislation seems to be the sum and substance of the government's meaningful intentions, and it seems to me that there are serious omissions in the over-all program.
While we are now getting details of the negative side of the government's policy consisting of controls on wages and prices for an undue period of time, there is the absence of any statement by the government as to the positive fiscal and monetary policies it will be adopting immediately and over the long term, which in my view are the really important parts of any meaningful attack on inflation.
What are the monetary policies of this government, and are they to be clearly stated and put into effect? What priority of spending will be proposed so that parliament can assess how much money will be available to various sectors of the economy? What projects will be given priority, and what projects will be removed or relegated to a secondary priority? What clear statement have we had with respect to the government's policy concerning interest rates, government bond issues and regulations governing banking?
Fiscally, do we have any idea at all what the government has in mind in the field of taxation to deal with its attack on the inflationary problem? What has been said by the government to give anyone any confidence with respect to meaningful efficiencies and reductions in government spending? The proposals on prices and income control put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the last election were only a small part of the total program announced to increase productivity, restore economic responsibility in government and fight inflation. This part of the program was, hon. as members will recall, strongly criticized by the Prime Minister and the Liberal party even though the proposed controls would be put in place for only a minimal period of time, primarily to attempt to break the inflationary psychology we are experiencing in Canada.
Leadership is sorely needed in this country with respect to our economic situation. I feel that we in the opposition have the responsibility to stand up against inequity in the program, to obtain reasonable fiscal and monetary policies from the government, and to bring unrelenting pressure on the government to re-examine fundamentally its own
October 22, 1975

spending program. People in Canada, by and large, are receptive to a reasonable attempt by the government to give economic leadership. I suspect that if it were possible to take a full survey of public sentiment at this time, the government would find the majority of Canadians responsive to a reasonable program to attack inflation. They are in fact looking at this particular legislation with a good deal of hope and expectation.
I suggest that the bill before us today contains some very serious shortcomings. I have enunciated some of the thoughts which I have. I do not think the bill itself will be sufficient to give us any type of meaningful attack on the problem of inflation. Therefore, it is my view that there will have to be fundamental amendments to the legislation if there is to be any hope of public acceptance of the concept of controls, including a review of the whole program of controls outlined in this bill. This legislation in its present form causes me the greatest concern in terms of the prospect of the restriction of freedom of the individual.
Another aspect of the circumstances leading to the introduction of this bill causes me some concern. The Prime Minister, for reasons known only to himself, chose to make the announcement of his government's program to attack inflation on Thanksgiving Day. Why the Prime Minister made this assault on our digestion on that particular evening is difficult to understand. The program announced by the Prime Minister is a complete turn-about from the position the government took with respect to controls almost up to the time the program was announced. I think it is pretty generally agreed by most authorities on the subject that in order to have an effective system of controls there must be a high degree of public acceptance.
This principle is enunciated by people who were attached to the wartime prices and trade board during the Second World War. They state that their job was difficult even though there was at that time a compelling reason and high motivation. No less an authority than the husband of Beryl Plumptre, vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, was interviewed on television recently, and he confirmed that there must be something in the nature of general public co-operation. This point of view, no doubt, will be well made by Mrs. Plumptre, whose role, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), will be to go out and sell the program with missionary zeal. I am sure that Mrs. Plumptre, having a direct relationship to the wartime prices and trade board, will have some thoughts on the difficulties of enforcing such a program as this even during wartime.
The performance of this government in connection with obtaining credibility for the program, up to this point in time in any event, has been less than satisfactory. The apparently sudden and instantaneous reversal by the Prime Minister on the question of controls will certainly have an effect on the credibility of the government's position with respect to its program. Accordingly, it seems to me that since the Prime Minister and his colleagues in cabinet have been speaking out so strongly against the program of controls up to very recently, there has not been the desired explanation by the government as to why it now expects Canadians to live up to its so-called guidelines.
Anti-Inflation Act
This apparent lack of candour displayed by the government toward the Canadian people is even more surprising, in my view, when one considers the material filed by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on October 14, 1975, outlining the government's program with respect to inflation, including price and wage controls. This document was not a series of hastily drafted mimeographed sheets, but a slick publication, in both official languages, reminiscent of annual reports of large corporations or government departments and agencies. This makes one think that the document had been in preparation over a period of months as opposed to weeks.
In order that any program of controls can be successful, it is absolutely essential that the government be frank and candid with the people of Canada concerning our economic circumstances. Notwithstanding the position of the Minister of Finance-and I am sorry he is not in the House today because, as I understand, he is with the representatives of the provinces; I wanted to address these comments to him in view of some of the statements he made to the House with respect to the program-I trust he will show restraint in his approach to parliament during the debate on this program and will not indulge in a provocative and argumentative debate. This type of debate will do little good in convincing Canadians of the necessity for any program of controls and, in the long run, will tend to defeat the kind of national acceptance required for the implementation of such a program.
Quite frankly, the performance of the government up to this point has made me somewhat nervous. The public perception of the program appears to be that it has been hastily put together-although I am not certain that this is necessarily the case, in view of the material being put out by the minister and the government-and this view has been confirmed by the unfortunate press conference held by the nominees for the two top jobs on the Anti-Inflation Board. Let us, by all means, have openness of information as to what the Anti-Inflation Board is doing, but I hope the first directive by the cabinet to the board will instruct the chairman not to say or do anything further until he is adequately prepared.
I also have the belief that in the months ahead the government must periodically, through parliament, keep the Canadian people fully advised, with all the candour it has at its disposal, of the economic circumstances from here on in. If our economy is in as bad a shape as the government now says it is, this information must be forthcoming so that the general public can, in fact, pass judgment on the necessity of instituting and then continuing a program of wage and price controls.
I am not altogether hopeful that we can expect candour from this government in view of the performance we have seen over the past year, including that displayed in the period during the last election. Hon. members on the government side have not in the past few days been giving a good example to the cabinet. They have been standing up one by one, in an aura of innocence that can only be described as cherubic, to state that they have now come to the realization that inflation is the number one problem in the country. There is no trace of embarrassment in their speeches, yet this problem has been plain and clear for

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
anyone to see, and has been with us over the past few years rather than the past few days.
It may be a partisan thought on my part, but I wonder how that scantily clad girl who was depicted in Liberal ads during the last election campaign, sitting on large blocks of ice and shivering over the prospect of short-term controls is going to survive the government's announced long-term controls. This government has a big job to do in selling its program. I hope that the government and members supporting it will come to realize that unless they are prepared to deal honestly and fairly with the public, including the immediate presentation of fiscal and monetary policies to deal with the fundamental or root causes of inflation, they will have a very difficult time sustaining a program of controls-and will do a disservice to our country.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings to take part in this debate which is one of the most important debates we have had in the House of Commons for a good many years. It is interesting to see, after all the talk of price and wage controls and price guidelines which took place in the 1974 election, Liberal after Liberal literally reversing himself in the debate which we have had in the past week.
An example of that was the speech given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) last night in the House in which he contradicted himself completely. Basically, what he said was that the Conservative and Liberal programs are very different and cannot really be compared. It seems to me that the object of the game, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, is to stay in power. So far as their policy is concerned, their principles are very few and far between. They use everybody else's ideas, or they try to ignore the problem in the hope it will go away or solve itself. If it does not, they often act in a half-hearted manner.
I think we are all indebted to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who had the courage and foresight to conduct his campaign in the 1974 election on the platform of price and wage restraints. What has happened since 1974? The government's inability to act has made the problem of inflation in Canada even more urgent.
There are several aspects of the bill which the Conservative party will want to consider when it goes to committee. But first I should like to point out that the length of time during which these controls are to be in effect under the legislation is too long in the view of this party. Although there is necessity at present for controls so as to produce the psychological impact of dampening the inflationary spiral, if controls are left on for too long they will have a distorting influence on the marketplace. The longer controls are left on in an economy such as Canada's, the greater the distortions may become. There is that inherent danger in imposing them for a three-year period.
We on this side of the House urge the establishment of a full parliamentary review after one year. We feel that it is necessary to keep the public and parliament informed and, most important, to retain the confidence of the Canadian people, because this is what will be needed for an effective program of controls. So far as this legislation is concerned, it contains no provision for comprehensive reporting to parliament during the life of the program. Consequently,

we call for a review not later than one year after the coming into force of the legislation.
We believe that the program set out by the government in the bill before us is fuzzy both in principle and in detail. A good many people in Canada believe that for a program of controls to be effective in this country, it must be decisive and clearcut and it must include all segments of the economy in the initial period. This program allows for exemptions, and certainly in the initial stages it does not apply equally to all interested groups and all segments of Canadian society. Because of that, there is the chance the program may become distorted or ignored by certain sectors of our society. We all know that the people of Canada must be persuaded to accept the controls and must realize that any kind of control or restraint program is not only good for them in the long run but is vital for the survival of our economy.
Clause 14 of the bill requires the Anti-Inflation Board to keep its findings secret. We realize that a program of this kind will only work if some confidentiality is observed, and we feel that the program will ultimately be successful if the public has confidence that the measures are being carried out in their best interests. Returning to what the public perceives in this legislation and whether it can feel the kind of confidence which is needed to carry out this kind of legislation, clause 14 certainly will not instil any great amount of confidence in the Canadian people. The government must do more than simply carry out an elaborate public relations program. This is really all that is being done.
The other day, in Winnipeg, the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a group of businessmen was another shambles. It was a lecture in very basic economics. This approach will not be sufficient if this program is to be sold to the Canadian people and if they are to have confidence in it. If all they see is a high profile public relations kind of program, the public will become more and more skeptical of this program because they will not feel that the federal government, its ministers and the Prime Minister are completely behind the legislation.
Another area of concern in this legislation for the Conservative Party is the aspect of price controls applied domestically but not on imported goods. This could cause Canadian-produced goods to be sent out of the country and hence, if the program is not carried out properly, we could see shortages developing in certain segments of the economy. There will be a greater amount of record-keeping and this can certainly be expected to be time-consuming and costly. This will be so for small business which will ultimately have to bear more of the burden because of the way the legislation is drawn up.
It will certainly prove to be an unfair burden on companies of various sizes engaged in the same industry and in competition with each other, because of the nature of the legislation. In addition, in some respects it will be unfair, for the same basic reason, to various segments of labour. This is because, once again, the legislation does not lump everyone together and impose on the economy the same kind of control for a short period of time in order to move into this aspect of breaking the psychological expectation
October 22, 1975

with regard to inflation. If the government is not very careful, because of its long term of three years, this legislation could lead to something much more serious than double-digit inflation. If a program such as this is not very carefully monitored, explained and laid before the Canadian people on a continuing basis, it could move into the aspect of partial control of certain segments of the economy after the three-year period has elapsed.
Given its past performance, it is not easy to see how the Trudeau government can operate this plan without creating an enormous bureaucratic machine, populated by mini-czars with huge discretionary powers and faceless mandarins behind the scenes operating the program. Conversely, how will the government be able to dismantle this apparatus after three years in which, as is normal in the federal civil service, it will largely be occupied with expanding and perpetuating itself? We have seen enough of that taking place over the last 10 to 12 years.
I submit that the quickest way to stop inflation is for the government to stop redistributing national income faster than the economy is able to generate it. When we look at the books of the government, we see that two-thirds to three-quarters of government expenditures are for redistribution. Increased spending by the government in this area reflects the rising costs of provincially-admin-istered medicare programs, hospitalization programs, unemployment insurance programs and regional development programs.
It is my contention that the government's plan will ultimately fail unless regulations that people live within their means are also carried forward by the federal government. I think that programs such as Information Canada must go. Flag-waving trips around the world certainly can be curtailed. Programs in the $100,000, $500,000 and $1 million range, which are not considered so by most Canadians but are considered by the government to be small programs, must be cut or curtailed. This must be done because the government must demonstrate that it is willing to combat inflation. Unless measures like these are taken, the program ultimately will not work.
Further, capital expenditures which can be cancelled or deferred, must be cancelled or deferred. As I mentioned before, re-examination, is necessary with regard to unemployment insurance and all forms of welfare programs. They must be reviewed very carefully and the government must begin curtailing these kinds of programs. For example, in the period 1971-72 we spent $750 million on the unemployment insurance program. In 1972-73 it increased to $1.1 billion. In 1973-74 it increased to $2 billion, and from March 31 to July 31, 1975, it was up an additional 43 per cent from 1974, to $2.1 billion. These social programs and redistribution programs must be looked at in the long term with a view to curtailing them.
I think it could be said, as a general, blanket statement that if the inflationary program of the government is ultimately to bring inflation in Canada anywhere near the rate the government is talking about, it will have to rearrange spending programs unless they are of top priority. This must be one of the central themes in the government's restraint program. If the government does not move on that basis, I think there is no doubt that the exercise we are going through now will only lead to worse
Anti-Inflation Act
inflation, possibly more unemployment and a kind of social unrest Canada has never seen.
The Prime Minister said that the wage guidelines will be applied to all employees in the federal service. He went on to say that growth in the size of the federal work force would be limited to that required to administer the guidelines, and some increases in law enforcement personnel. Finally, he said, and I quote:
-we'll eliminate or reduce spending in many smaller but separate areas that all add up. For example, strict economies will be imposed on the administrative housekeeping aspects of the government's business-
That is all well and good if the government carries this program through. The Prime Minister also said that in spite of these measures, government expenditures must be expected to further rise-
-if we are to continue to provide essential services such as cushioning Canadians against part of the increase in the cost of imported oil, protecting the aged and others living on fixed incomes against some of the effects of inflation and continuing to provide assistance to the unemployed. Programs such as these ... are the cornerstone of the economic and social policy of the government-
That is precisely the problem. These programs were pursued to such an extreme that the only way their cost could be covered was by expanding the money supply at an inflation-inducing rate. It is no coincidence that the purchasing power of the dollar has been halved over the ten-year period during which the growth in the money supply was twice the rate of real growth in the economy. It is my contention that we will continue to have inflation until those programs which are "the cornerstone of the government's economic and social policy" are also brought within our means.
In the initial period controls will, hopefully, cut back on the excesses in both prices and the wages for which people are asking. Certainly, that is the whole purpose of the program. In the interim period they will, hopefully, exercise some general moderation in regard to expectations. All this is necessary to the abatement or slowdown of inflation. What remains in doubt, however, is the extent to which the mainspring of inflation-which is government demands on the economy to support programs in excess of the economy's ability to pay, without resorting to inflationary monetary supply increases-is unwound or scaled down within the next one to three years.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the announcement of controls came on the thirteenth day of the thirteenth month after parliament met for the first time following the 1974 election. One need not be superstitious to see the significance of this move. We can only hope that the government will put some teeth into this anti-inflationary program. We in this party are ready to support the legislation on second reading and refer it to committee, where we hope to see some amendments which will enable us to bring inflation in Canada down to an acceptable level.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, on December 24, 1970, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated:
There is no more inflation in Canada.
8458

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Now in October 1975, that is five years later, inflation is worse than ever which means that the Prime Minister was entirely mistaken and time will also show that he was entirely mistaken when he announced the steps giving rise to Bill C-73.
In 1974, the price of bread increased by 26 per cent, the price of sugar by 126 per cent, that of apples by 32.6 per cent, that of margarine by 26.9 per cent, that of flour by 35.7 per cent and that of potatoes by 23.1 per cent and those are only a few essential foodstuffs.
In all other production areas, Mr. Speaker, the conditions were the same. The same Prime Minister today who does not seem to remember what he said in 1970 or who believes that everyone has forgotten has announced extraordinary measures to control inflation.
These alleged anti-inflation measures announced by the Prime Minister are nothing more than window dressing and in 18 months from now the government will introduce new measures according to the Prime Minister's wishes as well as the wishes of every good socialist, setting up in Canada a socialist state in the manner of Mao, in which all individual economic activity, be it from producers or consumers, will be subject to the direct control of a giant bureaucracy that is being already structured and will be built.
Moreover, this so-called anti-inflation board will establish itself in all areas and its tentacles will spread everywhere. These first measures, Mr. Speaker, will not solve anything. They are nothing but window dressing. When a house is not level on its foundations, it is useless to try to disguise shoddy construction by attempting to repair the roof. The bases of our economic system are not well balanced. It is the root cause of inflation in the "roof of prices". The Prime Minister wants to attack the consequences of inflation without tackling the causes; he has steered the wrong course ever since he came to power and he will continue to do so. However, I must concede something to the Prime Minister. He is in perfect agreement with the views and principles he held before he was Prime Minister, at the time he was writing in Cite libre. We could refer to numerous passages where, after his many travels around the world, he expresses his admiration for existing socialist and communist dictatorships.
He would like to introduce the same system in Canada. That is why it was easier for him to find his way into the Liberal party than to defeat the Liberal party by remaining in the New Democratic Party of which he was a partisan. He applied the old principle: If you can't beat them, join them. That is what he did.
Inflation suits him. Without it, things would not have reached their present state which forces him to enact measures that are window dressing at the start but within the next three years other measures will follow that will lead Canada to essentially socialist structures.
When the Prime Minister established an objective of a 10 per cent maximum annual price increase, he confirmed this. First of all, he can do nothing to stop inflation. Then, inflation will jump by at least 10 per cent a year and, finally, he will fail to come up with concrete proposals to reduce production costs.

The December 14, 1974 issue of the Quebec City daily he Soleil featured an article by Mr. Jean-Paul Gagne entitled; "The catastrophic consequences of inflation" which reads:
In order for you to better appreciate the scope of the phenomenon, here is a small table which indicates the future costs of various commodities, based on the assumption that the rate of inflation will go up by 10 per cent annually through 1980, 1985 and until 2,000.
The bus ticket which cost 40 cents in 1974 now sells for 50 cents in Montreal in 1975; assuming a continued inflation rate of 10 per cent annually from 1975 through 1985, and 1995, this bus ticket will cost $1.15 in 1985 and $2.95 in 1995. The same ticket which cost 40 cents in 1974 will set you back $4.70 in the year 2,000. A package of cigarettes which cost 80 cents in 1974 will go for $2.30 in 1985, $6.00 in 1995 and $9.65 in the year 2,000. The movie ticket which cost $2.50 in 1974 will sell for $7.15 in 1985, $18.50 in 1995 and $29.85 in the year 2,000. With the same inflation rate of 10 per cent annually, the dress which cost $35 in 1974 will be yours for $99.85 in 1985, $259.05 in 1995, and $417.20 in the year 2,000. A food basket which cost $50.00 in 1974 will be worth $142 in 1985, $370 in 1995, and $595.95 in the year 2,000. A man's suit which sold for $125 in 1974 will cost $356.65 in 1985, $925 in 1995 and $1,490 in the year 2,000. A car valued at $4,500 in 1974 will cost $12,839 in 1885, $33,301 in 1995 and $53,631 in the year 2,000. A house advertised for $30,000 in 1974, taking into account the government's proposals and a 10 per cent increase every year, will cost $85,593 in 1885, not including the interest costs, $222,007 in 1995 and finally $357,000 in the year 2,000.
Mr. Speaker, with such a stupid, upside down and ridiculous economy, an $8,000 annual salary will have, to maintain the so-called constant dollar value confronting this sickness, the cancer of inflation, an $8,000 annual salary in 1974 dollars will have to reach $22,825 in 1885, $59,202 in 1995 and $95,345 in the year 2,000. Anyone who got $12,000 in salary for 1974 will command $34,237 in 1985, $88,803 in 1995 and $143,018 in the year 2,000.
Those figures, Mr. Speaker, show where we are heading to with a maximum inflationary growing rate of 10 per cent a year as was proposed by the Prime Minister when he announced his so-called anti-inflationary new policy. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73 now before us will lead the country directly to economic disaster, destruction of free enterprise, scarcity of goods and to a bureaucratic state where workers will serve the state.
Mr. Speaker, I will now quote an excerpt form Inflation et Societe, 1960, by professor Graham Hutton:
In England, socialist economists publicly proposed that inflation is an economic means to expropriate owners .. . Socialist thinkers have such an aversion against private property and personal savings that, in the late 50's, some of them advocated expropriation by deliberately provoking inflation, after falsely reassuring savers and investors by intermittent periods of stable prices.
May I quote an excerpt from an economist, professor Graham Hutton, in the publication Inflation et Socie te, 1960:
Inflation is an indirect attack against justice and the rights of people. Because it deprives individuals of the value of their savings, it is immoral... inflation is burglary. When those who call themselves economists . ..
October 22, 1975

-those who in effect guided the government into the present inflationary chaos and are unable to lead the government out of it, these same economists-.
.. . debate whether the inflation rate is controlled within one or two per cent 2 year, they recognize in effect they are only interested in controlling the rate of that burglary rather than stopping it.. .
Inflation has always been a revolutionary policy leading ultimately to a totalitarian state.
What are the causes of inflation, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister did not discuss that.
When the gross national product stands at $100 billion and at the sometime the money supply is $60 billion, there is an automatic cry by consumers for higher wages or higher revenue from $60 to $100 billion in order that with such increased revenues the $100 billion price tag of goods may be bought.
The purchasing power deficiency relative to production is a consequence of inflation, and price inflation relative to cost increases is clear proof that there is inadequate purchasing power relative to prices.
As every production cost is included in prices, it is totally stupid and useless to raise wage revenues without increasing costs, because wage revenues are a part of costs. Boosting wages to adjust to cost increases is absolutely no solution. Proof evident is that inflation absorbs wage increases.
If for instance with the use of some devices we hold a prey five feet before any animal, whatever the latter's speed it will always be five feet behind the prey.
Whatever the rate at which salaries are increased to catch up with prices, because wages are a part of costs included in prices, prices will always be ahead of the consumers, whatever the rate of inflation, whether controlled or not.
Wage rises are no remedy to inflation. However, the revenue increase generated by a guaranteed annual income given to all and financed by new credits from the Bank of Canada which would not be included in prices would expand the money supply at the price level and prevent inflation by supplementing incomes without raising prices.
Only the government can take social measures to fight inflation. Neither industry nor labour can do anything about it. Only the federal government, which has all the economic and financial power, can add to incomes the difference between the total of incomes and the total of marked prices.
Social Crediters have two solutions to balance the economy. The first one is to balance the total of incomes with the total of prices and the second one is to lower prices through a retail discount which would allow consumers to pay prices to producers at no loss for them. I regret, Mr. Speaker, not to have more time at my disposal to deal with all the other causes of inflation.
The first cause I have just dealt with is that our production system, total salaries and revenues distributed in the course of production, is always inferior to the total prices attached to the goods produced over a given production cycle, whence the constant difference between total prices and total purchasing power; that, as I explained earlier, leads to useless runs on higher salaries.
Anti-Inflation Act
Another cause of inflation, Mr. Speaker, is the expansion of credit by the private monopolies that banks are in their own interest: they manipulate credit in the country, for their own benefit, without taking into account overall needs or the economic priorities of the country.
At any time, banking institutions can alter the course of the social economy of a country. Still another cause of inflation is the disappearance of competition in the various sectors of production. Multinational companies have, individually, total sales that exceed in value of the national gross product (NGP) of many countries throughout the world. They have plants, branch offices everywhere in the world. They transfer huge amounts of money, exert considerable influence on the rate of exchange and the balance of payments of countries. They can alter to quite an extent the rate of growth of a country either through exports or imports to or from another country. They can trigger off financial crises of worldwide magnitude. Here is an excerpt from an article published in La Presse on March 28, 1974. I quote:
OIL COMPANIES GANG UP TO INCREASE PRICES AND PROFITS?
-and in La Voix de I'Est, dated May 13, 1974, one could read this:
In 1980, 200 multinational companies will control the economy of the capitalist countries.
And, Mr. Speaker, when one discovers what is behind all those multinational companies, one comes to the same conclusions as those reached by some American companies or inquiry commissions some years ago. I refer here to the United States News & World Report of 25 March, 1974, which says on page 20, I quote:

A study of stock concentrations prepared by the Metcalf-Muskie subcommittees showed, for example, that the top 30 stockholders of Mobil Oil Company had 29 per cent of its stock and that 17 per cent was held by the trust departments of seven big New York banks-First National City, Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty, Bankers Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of New York and U.S. Trust Company.

Mr. Speaker, a little further, it says this:
A House Banking Committee survey of 49 banks in 10 major cities found more than 8,000 cases, involving 6,500 firms, in which officials of banks served as directors of other companies and vice versa.
Of the Penn Central's 23 directors, 16 were also directors of 19 banks; 17 bank trust departments were among the 30 top Penn Central stockholders, with an aggregate 22 per cent of its stock.
The most controversial part of the Metcalf-Muskie study was a charge that banks were engaged in a massive cover-up, using nominees or "street names" to hide their holdings.

And this brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the same conclusion I reached a few years ago. An American Senate investigation committee, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Justice Brandies, stated two years later, after the investigation of this committee on trusts and monopolies in the U.S.A. while summarizing his investigation:
There is but one monopoly: the creation of credit.
29669-52V2

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
And he was right. I have in hand, Mr. Speaker, another American magazine, The Business Week, dated March 16, 1974. It lists all the American banks two years before the increase in oil and gas prices throughout the world. American banks moved to Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East. They took over the banks and we have the evidence on page 40 of The Business Week of March 16, 1974, which depicts the increase in oil and gas prices all over the world. American banks settled down in the Middle East, opened up new branches and took over the control of Middle East banks. Now, two years later, the price of gasoline and oil went up, all over the world. Billions of dollars found their way to the Middle East, were deposited in American banks, and returned to the United States or elsewhere in the world under the form of investments called "Arab investments".
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a legislation which is supposed to be anti-inflation, and we know the economic foundation of monopolies and of the banks which control international interests. This legislation will automatically lead Canada to a totalitarian dictatorship and the government will be unable to control the multinational corporations. Why? Because our legislation cannot apply to monopolies whose headquarters is not in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the solution advocated by the right hon. Prime Minister because I know it will lead the country toward figures which now seem stupid. For instance, it seems that if a worker wants to keep pace with an inflation of 10 per cent a year from 1974 to the year 2,000, he will have to earn an average income of about $200,000 around the year 2,000 because of the eccentricities of the present economic structure and its upward trend. The economists who support the government have no alternative solution except to continue with this system which works in reverse and is ruining the country and the savings and which will ruin private enterprise and personal initiative and create a board which will have to be more powerful than the government to intrude in private and corporate fields because the government failed to take its responsibilities. Only the government has the economic and financial power to reverse inflation. The government should have announced an economic policy which would allow it to roll back prices by at least 10 per cent a year instead of increasing them by 10 per cent.
It would have been to the advantage of consumers and producers for the government to introduce fiscal and monetary legislation allowing a reversal of the Canadian economy within 5 years through a price reduction of 10 per cent a year.
Instead, the government is placing itself above producers and this will certainly not protect the consumers who will have to suffer one way or another for this so-called price freeze. The government will perhaps freeze wages, but it will not be able to freeze prices because the Canadian economy is monopolistic. Monopolies control the Canadian economy. One only has to refer to the number of books available here at the parliamentary library and containing the information about the structures of monopolies existing in Canada. In this way you will understand the link that exists between them. That is why the price and wage control policy is an absolutely disastrous policy, a negative policy. It is not a progressive policy, it is not a policy to encourage the farmer, the

individual or the worker to produce more because with 10 per cent a year, the result will be, based on the figures I quoted earlier, that a salary of $8,000 in 1974 will correspond to a salary of $164,000 in the year 2,000.
Perhaps the figures I just gave are not taken seriously. One only has to figure it out. Take an adding machine, figure out a progression of 10 per cent a year, and see the figure you can come up with. That might allow you to realize that the savings, the goods, the work being done now, as those of other producers and consumers of this country, are going directly to ruin because this government did not come up with the policy it should have to halt inflation.
The government listened once again to the economists who created inflation in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to announce that when it will be time to vote on this bill in this House, I will be voting with both hands, and if I could vote more than once against this bill, I would.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, a former Liberal prime minister once said that in politics one must do as one does at sea in a sailing ship- not steer a straight course to one's destination, but pay regard to prevailing winds. I suspect that our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did pay regard to prevailing winds when he suggested to his cabinet colleagues and to the people of Canada that a program of price and income controls should be imposed as a solution to the ailing economic difficulties of our country.
I confess I do not share the degree of enthusiasm my colleagues have expressed-particularly my colleagues on the other side of the House-about this program. As a matter of fact, I would have hoped it would never have been necessary to impose measures of this kind upon the Canadian people; I would have hoped that someone would eventually have been able to manage our economy in a statesmanlike fashion, capable of the kind of fiscal and monetary performance which would have ruled out the type of measures we are now discussing. I am also concerned about the despicable performance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) when he first introduced the white paper on the guidelines and, later, the bill now before us. It is nothing new. It should have been no surprise to us who have become accustomed to that kind of procedure on the part of a minister who sold us an energy package a couple of months ago and used cheap political tricks in an attempt to discredit an opposition which had serious reservations about some of the propositions he was putting forward.
I might add that some of the reservations we expressed at that time have proved to be fully justified. As the House will recall, we were talking about energy conservation, Petro-Can and Syncrude. There are probably not many members in the House today who know there have been developments in the process used to gain oil from the tar sands of Alberta, and that oil can now be extracted at a fraction of the cost envisaged under the plan the present Minister of Finance bought on behalf of the Canadian people. It would be fair to speculate that the minister fell victim to a con game on the part of international oil companies who knew there was better technology in the
October 22, 1975

offing and who had to bail out before this knowledge was shared by a broader segment of the industry.
If the government intends to see this package through, it will need a better sales manager than it has employed up till now. How do people know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are telling them the truth this time? After having been told that price and wage controls will never work because they have never worked anywhere else, how can they believe the government now? The Conservatives' price and income controls of 1974 were said to be a cruel joke on the Canadian people. The performance of my colleagues from across the aisle reminds me of the young fellow at school who was a notorious liar. Every time he had something really serious to say, he had to say, "I am telling you the truth this time". This is what the Prime Minister is saying, that this time he is telling us the truth. But how do we know?
The truth is that inflation cannot be cured with price and income controls. Any member across the way who says that the Conservative party has stated that price and income controls are a cure to inflation is simply being dishonest. What is inflation, anyway? It is the main ingredient of the program that we are discussing today. Inflation is an international and domestic con game. The international con game works in this way. Countries like the United States embark upon schemes of extravagance that they cannot sell to their own taxpayers. They water down their currency and buy products on international markets with those watered down dollars. Of course, in the case of the United States it was the Viet Nam war that made that kind of approach necessary.
In Canada we also indulge in schemes of extravagance in the field of welfare-programs such as unemployment insurance, DREE, LIP, LEAP and a long list of others which do not make sense to a lot of Canadians or have their support. It is for this reason that we have to water down our domestic currency and cheat recipients under these schemes by paying them with dollars that are really not worth what they are supposed to be worth.
The program the government is trying to introduce is very much different from that which we proclaimed in the 1974 election. In my opinion, it is very important that we tell Canadians where the program differs. Firstly, the government intends to regulate the economy with price and income controls. It intends to fight inflation in this way. We feel that inflation can only be controlled and disciplined through monetary and fiscal management. Wage and price controls should only be used as a tool to break inflationary expectations.
It is for this reason we feel that a three-year period is much too long. Serious shortages of consumer goods will occur and there will be an imbalance between imported and domestically-produced goods. I had a telephone call from a constituent yesterday, a contractor, who told me that the day following the announcement of the guidelines he was informed by suppliers of a very important commodity, namely, furnaces, that there will be no supply of furnaces this year until the company can determine to what extent the guidelines will affect its operations.
Anti-Inflation Act
More serious than that is the fact that the program is selective in nature and, therefore, unfair to a very large segment of our people. It effectively controls wages-or at least we think it will, provided the government has the guts to carry it out. But it still allows prices to fluctuate and be regulated by input costs. The large corporations which deal in the export markets will be under no price restriction at all. It is interesting to speculate how unions subject to the 10 per cent ceiling on incomes will respond to that. Some companies will be monitored, others not. What about the lumber industry, the pulp mills and the wood fibre commodity groups that sell 75 per cent of their production offshore? What will the unions say when these companies' profits and prices continue to escalate and rise at the same time as the work force producing the goods is tied to strict guidelines?
Then there is the bureaucracy that needs to be set up, and the prospect of an administrative nightmare. Yesterday I asked the minister in the House whether the government has dealt with the perplexing question of how many people will be required to administer the program, and he said he thought it would take 200. Another minister on the treasury benches said they were speculating it might take 500 people. I suggest to Your Honour that it will take more like 5,000 people, if not 50,000, to administer the program that we have in front of us.
For example, the Anti-Inflation Board reports to the administrator, who is checked by the appeal tribunal, which can be overruled by the governor in council. All are expected to apply a degree of discretion as they monitor, regulate and administer the guidelines which may be changed from time to time. Most important of all is the ingredient that is missing, and that is the faith and trust of the Canadian people in their government which has shown lack of leadership. The program we proposed was watered down because, as the Prime Minister said, he wanted it to be equitable.


Walter David Baker: It was deformed.


Frank Oberle: It was deformed, my colleague says. To whom is it supposed to be equitable? Is it to be equitable to the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the senior citizen? Is it to be equitable to the unions and big corporations; or is it simply to be equitable to the Simards and William Terons of this country?
As my colleagues on this side know, we would have imposed a 90-day freeze on all prices and incomes. We would have made the program equitable to all Canadians. We would have used the time during this solid 90-day freeze to work out monetary and fiscal strategy. One must remember that this proposal was made during an election campaign and we were expecting to take over from a bungling government, which is why we needed time after the election to sit down together and discuss the situation and to tell Canadians that they would be dealing with a group of people who would always speak the truth. It would have taken 90 days to sit down and discuss the situation and to tell the people that this was a government that would always tell the truth and was backing up its convictions by bringing in legislation to keep everybody honest.

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Then there would be a period of adjustment to correct imbalances and inequities and to promote a climate of mutual trust. Unions and businessmen would have been invited to sit down with us. We have heard about the consensus program. This would have come after the freeze. But what my colleagues across the aisle do not understand is that a consensus program in an area of mutual distrust will never work. The former minister of finance learned that in his attempt to carry out such a program.
Because there is no trust among unions and businessmen and no leadership in our country, I fear this program is doomed to failure. Leadership is not something you can announce in the House of Commons or during an election; it is something you have to demonstrate and something you have to practice by example. You cannot announce leadership and ask the people to engage in blind trust.
We know all about blind trust. When it comes to conflict of interest, blind trust, in the eyes of our colleagues from across the aisle, simply means that if you are in a leading government position, a position of power in the cabinet or in the civil service, you pass your shares in private corporations which may benefit from any decision you make in your position of power to a good friend, who will hold the shares in his name. Of course, you still dictate the policy and you still decide when to sell and when to buy. That is blind trust.


An hon. Member:: And urbanetics.


Frank Oberle: Urbanetics is one example, yes. The people of Canada will not engage in that kind of blind trust. One of the concerns I have results from a comparison of the guidelines which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has proposed to the House, with the rent controls a socialist government has introduced in the province of British Columbia. I fear that they will assure, for the next four years, a 10 per cent rate of inflation.
The government of British Columbia has imposed rental guidelines over the last two years, and rents have risen higher than they have in the city of Toronto which has a problem equal to that of the city of Vancouver. The reason is that there were guidelines, and everyone who rented to anyone felt compelled to increase rents in accordance with those guidelines. There is no provision in the guidelines to the effect that anyone who might not need a 10 per cent increase can ask for less. In fact, no one will bargain for less than 10 per cent.


An hon. Member:: This is built-in inflation.


Frank Oberle: Businesses will have to increase their prices three times a year, because that is what the guidelines tell them to do. They would need their heads examined if they did not do that, because the guidelines say they need their profits and need an increase of 10 per cent. What this program does is guarantee that there will be a 10 per cent inflation factor for the next four years. This bill totally ignores the fact that the United States will have half the rate of inflation next year and that industrial countries such as Germany and European Common Market countries will have a much lower degree of inflation, with fewer problems.

This program will depend for its success on whether the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance can again fool most of the people of Canada. The success of the guidelines will depend upon whether the government will listen to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will have to say, and will listen to what members of the committee suggest during the committee proceedings. There will be some very significant amendments made to these guidelines and to the bill. They will have to be accepted before Canadians and members on this side of the House will accept and support this kind of program.
I should have thought it was important, and in the interest of the survival of our economy, for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to display some statesmanship as did the leader of the New Democratic Party when he said the Leader of the Official Opposition had paid the political price for offering to co-operate in every way possible in respect of wage and price controls. I would have expected the Prime Minister to give the Leader of the Opposition credit for having paid that price by stating the government wants to co-operate with the opposition because it needs the opposition and its support in order to sell this program to Canadians.
We do not want to be entirely negative about this program, even though it addresses itself to the wrong area entirely. The program has to be backed up with strict monetary and fiscal policies. Let me say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we are prepared to allow this bill to go to the committee, but if the type of cheap political trickery is displayed in the committee that has been displayed by the Minister of Finance in this House, I fear for the success of the program because it seems doomed to failure. Canadians will not put up with this kind of thing any longer. It is important that more people than the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues look at the interests of their country first, and the interests of their party and their political future second.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the white paper which the government tabled on October 14 as a prelude to Bill C-73, I find these two sentences;
Some groups have fallen behind in the last two or three years because of the time at which their contracts were negotiated or for other reasons. It is essential that they should be provided with an opportunity to catch up.
I suggest that I am not wrenching anything out of its context or doing any damage to those two sentences if I leave out some of the words in the middle and make the statement more direct by putting it in these words, "Some groups have fallen behind in the last two or three years. They should be provided with an opportunity to catch up."
My remarks this afternoon is this debate on second reading of Bill C-73 will be concerned entirely with certain groups that have fallen behind and which in my view should be given the opportunity to catch up, and I call for action to make that possible right away. Whatever we on the opposition side may think about Bill C-73 or the orders and regulations that are to be made under it, it is obvious that the government is determined to use its power and its majority to put this legislation through and to put this program of economic controls into effect. That being the
October 22, 1975

case, I think there is a place for some of us to stand and plead as strongly as we can for the practice of fairness.
Economic controls are difficult to take. They have been referred to as "rough justice" by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and they have been referred to as "unpleasant medicine" by spokesmen on the government side. I suggest that because these controls are difficult it becomes terribly important that fairness be practised. Indeed, I suggest that if gross unfairness is allowed and if gross unfairness increases, the whole program will fail.
The people of Canada are prepared to face up to a crisis. They are prepared to face a challenge, but they are not prepared to take lying down a program that has in it basic elements of unfairness. I call on the government to correct some of these instances of unfairness without further delay.
I said I would address my remarks almost exclusively to the groups which I think should be enabled to catch up. They, of course, are the groups at the lower end of the scale. I want to say as strongly as I can that it is not good enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to give us the idea that if somehow the big people, those at the top, are called upon to practice restraint, this automatically will improve the situation of those at the bottom. It just does not work that way any more than the theories of Adam Smith worked successfully. He tried to tell the people of his time in his work "The Wealth of Nations" that if the wealthy were allowed to get wealthier, some of that wealth would trickle down and cause those down at the bottom to be better off.
We have learned that is not the way to achieve social justice. That doctrine will not hold any society together. I submit, in the same way, that if the government imagines that simply by imposing restraints on some of those who are labelled as big people, nothing needs be done to improve the lot of those at the bottom and that those at the bottom will simply enjoy a better life, this is completely wrong. I want to say to the government that at least one member on that side of the House seems to me to share that view. I thought he expressed it very well in the able speech he made yesterday. I refer to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). According to the English translation which appears at page 8416 of yesterday's Hansard, he said about this legislation that a basic principle of social policy should be reflected in every measure under discussion, namely, that any fiscal or financial action that does not aim at narrowing the income range is socially backward and can have adverse social repercussions in our economy. A little further down he said:
If we look at the social groups affected by these measures, it is easily seen that this legislation will create in a very short time an unacceptable imbalance.
That is not a member of the New Democratic Party speaking; it is a member of the Liberal party. He is saying that the danger in this legislation is it will heighten the differences between those at the top and those at the bottom and will create an unacceptable balance. He said that again two or three times, but I like it as it appears at page 8419 of Hansard, when he said:
Anti-Inflation Act
In the present economic conditions, a government must essentially propose as the aim of its fiscal, monetary and economic policy to shorten the gap between those at the very bottom of the wage scale and those at the very top.
The hon. member during a good deal of his speech dealt very effectively, I thought, with those who come under the minimum wage legislation. He had in mind such persons in all parts of Canada, but he referred particularly to those in his own province of Quebec where the minimum wage apparently is not to be increased as much as the law calls for because of the imposition of these guidelines.
I commend to the Minister of Finance that he read the speech of his colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who made very clearly the point that this legislation will create an imbalance and will not meet the needs of our people unless it does something to narrow the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are trying to tell us that their proposed restraints on big business and big labour, and so on, will leave a little more of the pie for those at the bottom and that those in the lower income brackets therefore will be better off.
They also try to make out that the extent to which prices will be kept from rising will protect the position of those at the bottom without, of course, admitting that there is nothing in this legislation that calls for any direct control over prices. So, what we have is a bill that will provide fairly effective wage control over those in the lower and middle brackets, but will provide nothing for those at the bottom, while at the same time prices for them will continue to rise so that their position will get worse and the unacceptable balance referred to by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont will be their lot in this country.
I said I wanted to deal particularly with some of the groups which in my view are covered by the sentence in the white paper which states that those who have fallen behind in the last two or three years should be provided an opportunity to catch up. I begin, as hon. members would expect, by referring to our old age pensioners. I am sure some members are ready to say-I have heard them say it when others have been speaking on this subject-that pensions are indexed and rise with increases in the cost of living.
That may be true in a legalistic sense. It is true in terms of the percentage of the rise in the cost of living as computed by Statistics Canada, but the fact of the matter is that for older people who have to live on the pension, particularly those who live on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, the increase that they get every three months puts them in the position of always falling behind. The increase they get in January, April, July or in October is always based on an increase that took place over a period of six or eight months before that increase came into effect. In other words, they do not get the extra money when they need it to meet their rising costs, and when they do get it still further rising costs face them.
It is also a fact that the index is not related to the goods and services that senior citizens actually have to buy. I say the result is that those who live on old age security, and especially those who have to live on both the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
always falling behind. I throw to the government the words in its own white paper, "they need the opportunity to catch up". They do not get any opportunity just by the high-flung rhetoric of the Minister of Finance that there will be more of the pie for them. They will only get it if there is a positive step taken by the government to increase the amount of the old age security. The time for that to be done is right now in the context of the economic control program.
Some members on the government side may say that this seems to be a case of asking for exceptions in the restraint program. It is the government in its white paper which has already provided for scores of exceptions to the guidelines laid down, but it says to the old age pensioners that there will be nothing for them; that they are not in a group that bargains, and therefore they do not get any increase in money to enable them to catch up, and that they just have to hope that somehow, because of the rhetoric, they will get a little more of the pie.
It will not work that way, and I submit that if this program is to succeed, and if I am right in saying that it can succeed only if we are determined to be fair, then one of the things to do right now is to provide for a substantial boost in the basic amount of old age security so that it will apply to those who receive that pension only and also to those who receive old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. This kind of action would be an evidence of good faith on the part of the government and would enable the government to say that they are asking all Canadians to share in this campaign against inflation.
I suggest the same thing for our veterans, those on the war veterans allowance and those on war disability pensions. Again it can be said that there is indexing or escalation of these pensions. In the case of the war veterans allowances, there is indexing every quarter; in the case of war disability pensions, there is indexing once a year, but the same story applies-the extra money that comes because of escalation leaves the recipients of that money always behind and it does not relate to things they actually have to buy.
I contend, therefore, that another evidence of good faith, another carrying out of the position taken by the government that those who are behind should have the chance to catch up, would be demonstrated if there was an increase right now in the basic amount of the 100 per cent disability pension under the pension act for veterans and if there was an increase in the basic amount of the war veterans allowance.
In the same vein, I mention that there is before parliament a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was presented some weeks before we rose for the summer break and which is supposed to be under consideration by the government itself. It is a report that recommends an increase in the pensions of Canadians who were prisoners at Hong Kong and which also recommends that there be a scale of pensions for Canadians who were prisoners of war in Europe during World War II. This report came about because of the earnest and thorough study by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and because of representations that were made to us.
I say, again, here are persons to whom Canada owes a great deal, persons who are in need, persons who are in that category of having fallen behind in the last two or three years and for whom there should be provided an opportunity to catch up. It is not good enough just to let the bringing in of that legislation drag on and on while some of these veterans die off. If there is a desire to be fair-and I put it again in the context of whether or not these controls will work-let us be fair to those who are in the kind of need that the report of our committee seeks to meet.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has told us that this matter is under consideration. We have been getting that answer for a long time, and I have no doubt that it is. I think that perhaps there are other recommendations in that report that the government finds hard to swallow, such as a provision having to do with the widows of veterans in the cases where the veteran's disability pension was less than 50 per cent. But here, again, we are talking about people who will fit the category that I have referred to as the theme of my speech, people who have not had a chance to keep up with rising costs and who should now be provided with an opportunity to catch up. I call upon the government to bring in that legislation without delay. The minister has had it for weeks and for months. There is no reason why it should not be on our order paper not later than next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another thing that comes in the same category has to do with Canadian government annuities. When the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), made his budget speech on June 23, four months ago tomorrow, he promised that there would be legislation to amend the Government Annuities Act so that people drawing benefits under that legislation would not have to continue to draw benefits based only on a 4 per cent formula.
We have asked about this several times, and other members in the House have done so. We are told that it is being considered and that it will be along soon. But why the delay? Here is something that is geared to the needs of people who are retired, who are not in the position of being able to bargain for increases as others can. These are people who have the right to catch up, and the government has it in its power to assist these people by bringing in the legislation without further delay.
I come again to the question of other groups about whom I have spoken hundreds, if not thousands of times in the years that I have been here, groups such as retired public servants, retired railway employees, both CNR and CPR. These are all persons who, because they are retired, are out of the category of those who can bargain for increases. I say they are all in the category of those for whom an opportunity to catch up should be provided.
I say, again, that if the government wants this program to succeed, it must convince the Canadian people that it is being fair. It is not fair to leave all these groups of people nothing to make life better for them other than the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance who says that because some

October 22, 1975

people will get a little less of the pie, therefore there ought to be more for them.
Then there is the pressing question of the minimum wage. I realize that this is both a federal and a provincial matter, and I refer again to the excellent speech made yesterday by a Liberal, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who was quite upset about the action of the Liberal government in his own province. I say that to talk about the right to catch up is meaningless unless you extend that right to those who really need it.
What should be taking place now is not just a flood of oratory by these public relations cabinet ministers who are running around the country but, rather, the bringing in of necessary legislation to increase the minimum wage at the federal level, with a plea to the provinces that they do the same. I suspect that some of the provinces will want to increase their minimum wages and may even want to do so to an extent that will break that $600 ceiling which applies to those in the lower brackets, and I hope the government will soon say to the provinces that such a ceiling will certainly not apply to those on the minimum wage. As a matter of fact, I think that the $600 ceiling, which is not in the bill but in the guidelines, should go altogether.
These are the various groups of people. As I say, all of them are at the bottom; for all of them the heart of the Minister of Finance bleeds because he has told us so in the speeches he has made. But it is not good enough just to hope that in an indirect way things will be better for them. Things will be better for them only if positive steps are taken, and that is why I urge that there be positive action to increase the various pensions to which I have referred- old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, war veterans allowance, war disability pension, and so on.
That is why I think legislation regarding Canadians who were prisoners of war at Hong Kong or in Europe should be brought in, and that is why the promise to improve Canadian government annuities should be implemented without delay. That is why I feel things should be done for railway pensioners and for retired public servants, and that is why I believe definite action should be taken with regard to the minimum wage legislation right now, both in Ottawa and in the provinces.
As I have already said, this may sound to some like a speech calling for exceptions to the practice of restraint which is the heart and core of Bill C-73, but I have seldom seen a bill that was so severe and yet so full of exceptions. All over the place there are ways and means by which the ceilings can be pierced, not only in terms of wages but certainly in terms of prices and profits, and many of those exceptions will permit persons in the upper brackets to have increases which are beyond what the guidelines dictate.
I think in particular of professional people and of lawyers who can handle ten cases a day instead of eight. They may not raise their fees, but they can make more money. Doctors who can handle ten cases a day instead of eight, or 20 instead of 15-whatever the ratio may be-may not increase their fees, but they can handle more patients and make more money.
Anti-Inflation Act
Then there is the excuse that if a person is promoted, he is entitled to an increase in pay regardless of the amount involved. So if there are these exceptions built into this legislation for those at the top, exceptions which I think are unfair, and yet nothing is being done for those at the bottom, in my view the legislation will fail for the simple reason that it lacks the essential of being fair. I urge, therefore, that this be corrected by positive steps right now.
Others on both sides of the House who have spoken in this debate have said that this bill by itself is not enough; there have to be fiscal and monetary policies; there have to be other changes. The whole question of housing has been well put forward by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and by others, and I suggest that it is terribly true when hon. members say that these direct things need to be done if this legislation is to succeed.
The theme of the Minister of Finance throughout his speeches seems to be against the big people. I know this has a very strong appeal from the public platform: that the government is out to get the big people, big business, big labour, and so on, and that if these things are done despite the exceptions there are, life will be better for those at the bottom. In my experience over the last number of months, or perhaps even longer than that the group of people which has been hoping the most that there would be some kind of control has been the pensioners, the older people.
There was not much mail today because of the strike, but the mail I have been receiving in the last week or so from older people expresses concern that here is a program which talks about controls but which has no price control in it at all. They see prices continuing to go up and no increase in their basic income. So as far as they are concerned, they will not receive the benefit they thought would come from a program of economic controls. In their name, I plead, not for rhetoric from the Minister of Finance but for positive steps on behalf of these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I began my remarks by referring to a sentence on page 21 of the white paper about groups which have fallen behind, and their right to catch up. At the risk of being unpopular in some quarters in this House, I wish to make passing reference to Bill C-44 which was passed some months ago.


An hon. Member:: What was that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend asks what it was. It was a bill brought in because there were those in this House who thought that Members of Parliament had the right to catch up. It was argued that we had fallen behind financially and that a massive, catch-up increase was justified. What I thought of that bill was pretty well known. My attempt to oppose it and defeat it at every turn is on the record. But I say that this House of Commons, which by a majority supported a measure aimed at enabling us to catch up, cannot keep silent when there is before us legislation and economic controls which do not include an opportunity for those in

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
the lower income brackets, for those on fixed incomes, for pensioners and others, to catch up. I plead that we practice consistency and that hon. members in all parts of the House, especially those who supported the principle of enabling members to catch up-I did not think we needed it, and it certainly added to inflation, but it was passed by this House-do the same for those down at the bottom of the income scale.


Mr. Peters:: That was a welfare bill, a MacGuigan welfare bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says that was a welfare bill, a MacGuigan welfare bill. That is understandable.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude. I was interested yesterday when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) made his pitch for this legislation and said that we are faced with a war on avarice and that that is what we must deal with. Somehow, as Canadians, we must join and make sure that avarice does not get the better of us. In my remarks today I am not talking about persons who are displaying any avarice at all. I am talking about those on the minimum wage, those at lower income levels, war veterans, old age pensioners and persons who are trying to live on annuities based on the 4 per cent factor of many years ago.
Surely these people, when they ask for the chance to catch up which the government has proclaimed in this white paper, are not being avaricious; they are simply asking for fairness. I urge that not only do they have the right to be treated fairly, but that this whole proposal for economic controls and the whole attempt to get our economy back on the rails will have a much better chance of success if it is done fairly.
My complaint about the guidelines, which are apparently to be passed under Bill C-73 if and when it passes, is that they are not fair to the needy, to pensioners and to those on lower incomes, and therefore they are not fair to Canadians as a whole or to the good name of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take about 10 or 15 minutes, to deal with one point only and to make a suggestion in the last sentence of my speech. I would ask the ministers present not to leave, but to convey my suggestion to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I will ask, on behalf of the opposition, for a certain step which I think might make the awesome powers we are being asked to give the government perhaps a little more palatable. I will only deal with one point, though it is tempting to point out that when one considers this whole matter, certain gentlemen in the party opposite, the government party, have called for a spirit of Dunkirk when they might be better advised to remain silent. After all, the spirit of Dunkirk comes better from a Winston Churchill than it does from a Neville Chamberlain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will try again. The other brief point I wish to make is a valid one. The difference between the Conservative philosophy in the last election and that of the present government is that we would have imposed a 
hair shirt on Canadians for three months, not put them in an iron maiden for three years.
The burden of my remarks must start from seven or eight years ago in the House of Commons. This is an important argument; it has not been raised in this debate before. I will try to tackle it as succinctly as I can, but it has to be properly presented. Some seven or eight years ago the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was chairman of a special committee on statutory instruments. One of the recommendations in its report which was presented to the House dealt with the regulations made in the exercise of the powers of the governor i.i council in so far as those regulations were of a legislative character. It was felt by the committee then that these should be subject to the same procedures and requirements as other regulations of a legislative character, and then, except in the interests of national security, there should be no exemptions from the requirements of the Regulations Act other than as to publication. I have dealt with two of the principal points in the report. Another one reads:
Section 9 of the Regulations Act, which allows exemptions from the provisions of that act, should be amended to provide for exemptions from publication and time of publication only.
Finally, recommendation No. 14 of that report;
All regulations, regardless of the regulation-making authority, should be available for public inspection.
The generosity that was suggested in the report by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville some seven years ago was not met in the law that was passed, the Statutory Instruments Act. The regulations that came before the committee established by the changes in those rules of the House of Commons-that is, the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments-covered a wide variety of the regulations made by the government, but the regulations did not go before that committee in totality. In other words, there is an important area of regulations passed by government departments and agencies that are exempt from scrutiny by any public body whatsoever. There is no recourse against them in the House of Commons or the other place; there is no recourse against them in the statutory instruments committee.
Because I happen to be the House chairman of that committee, and because I think this point is important, I am going to hammer away at it in the next few minutes. It may be asked how this can possibly affect debate on Bill C-73, but I say it is a very important matter and I draw my analogy from section 58 of the Immigration Act which reads in part as follows:
The minister may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, respecting the... duties and obligations of immigration officers and the methods and procedure for carrying out duties and obligations whether in Canada or elsewhere.
I can report to the House and the country, through you, Mr. Speaker, that no regulations from the Department of Immigration have ever appeared before the statutory instruments committee because of the definitions set out in the Statutory Instruments Act. No regulations whatsoever. Yet immigration officers are armed with manuals that no one is permitted to see outside of the Immigration Department but which have a life and death effect on
October 22, 1975

people who wish to become citizens, or a sad effect on the relatives of prospective immigrants who want to bring their loved ones to join them.
I say that the Department of Manpower and Immigration is hiding behind a definition of parliament that parliament should not have passed when the Statutory Instruments Act was passed. None of us saw the evil at that time, however. The fact is that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and his department can hide behind a practice that is as undemocratic as anything that you or I could think of, Mr. Speaker. I mention this because I do not want to see the same thing happen with the powers that the government is asking us to give in Bill C-73.
There are five places within Bill C-73 where powers of regulation are given, and one of them I think is unacceptable. The procedure of the appeal tribunal is set forth in clause 26(5). It has the power to make rules and regulations governing its own procedure that any court or quasicourt must have, and I do not think that is something that need concern the government. There are other powers, however.
In clause 3(1), the governor in council can publish guidelines, and in clause 3(2) he can issue guidelines regarding prices and profit margins. I think that puts the governor in council, as the cabinet or minister bringing in these proposals, within a pretty large field of human endeavour and one which can affect almost everybody in Canada. I am curious about what is going to happen when clause 4(5) comes up for debate and what effect the government's agreement with the provinces will have on professional fees. Is it possible that a fee structure can be imposed upon professional people in certain provinces that would never be subject to scrutiny in this House, or in the statutory instruments committee or any other place? This clause provides for dealings between the provincial government and the federal government. Apparently there is no right of recourse to the professional group in provincial legislatures, and this is a very serious matter.
I continue the catalogue of possible powers with two other points, Mr. Speaker. According to clause 13(2), the Anti-Inflation Board may give notice of types of disclosure and the setting up of notices which presumably are directed to individuals or whole industries. This is also a matter of very serious moment. What sort of information would be required, for example? Would it be within the spirit of the act, or would it be possible to stretch the content to contain something not within the spirit of the act-although the act seems so broad that everything would be included in the spirit of what hon. gentlemen opposite propose doing.
I have said that the provisions of clause 26(5) appear quite normal to me. Undoubtedly, this matter would come before the statutory instruments committee as do other boards, tribunals and the like. They are generally of a pattern. I do not raise any cry of "star chamber" or the like, because I think by and large Canadian tribunals tend to govern themselves in a pretty civilized way. You will notice I said "tribunals", Mr. Speaker, but nothing about government departments, boards, agencies or corporations given the power to pass regulations.
Finally, I come to clause 39. The three others I mentioned, Nos. 3, 4 and 13, were not broad enough. The
Anti-Inflation Act
governor in council is given the power, all over again, to make regulations in a pretty general way, not even being tied down to the powers suggested in the preceding clauses. I do not think the House of Commons or the other place would be doing their duty if they allowed the bill to go through without one of two things happening, so I put it up to the two ministers now present, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), to pass on to their colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). His absence this afternoon is understandable; I know he is meeting with his provincial counterparts, so I make no criticism about that. I say that the Minister of Finance must stand in his place, or somebody on the government side must, and before second reading is over indicate that the guidelines, the regulations, the directions-anything done under this act that is directed toward the people it governs-ought to contain a clear guarantee that this matter will go to the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments for consideration. That committee has some power, which it has never abused, and it could examine and bring to the limelight the things that bother us.
I hope that the Minister of Finance or some other minister on behalf of the government can make it very clear that there is going to be the utmost co-operation in parliament in seeing that all of these directives, guidelines, and what-not, go before the scrutiny committee of the two Houses of parliament for study. I put the government on notice that at report stage there will be an amendment moved, that notwithstanding the very restrictive definitions in the Statutory Instruments Act, all guidelines, documents, directives, and so on, under Bill C-73 be referred to that committee of the two Houses of parliament. I put it very simply: we want a guarantee or there will be a flaming debate in this House about what should be done to guarantee the rights of parliament for scrutiny.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-73 I wish to place before the House some of my concerns as I see Canada's economic future developing. In the past few days we have seen the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has always prided himself on being the best example of Canadian public life and being able to use the public media for his purposes, possibly having had that media turn against him to some degree.
Yesterday the Prime Minister took his road show to the fair city of Winnipeg. He presented to the people of that city his views on how the prices and incomes policy of the government will work. Apparently the Prime Minister had a prepared speech, but he scrapped that. While the speech might have been prepared, the program he was going to describe was not. Instead of giving his prepared speech, he spent a fair bit of time lecturing his listeners on the basic fundamentals of democracy and how democracy had to work. He, of course, was the expert on how the democratic system was going to work once he had Bill C-73 in place. To say the least, the speech was not accepted graciously. The press today is-


An hon. Member:: Less than complimentary.

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -less than complimentary. Thank you. It is about on a parallel with the abject performance the Prime Minister gave at Red River community college. When asked very serious questions by students, in a very flippant manner he put aside the questions in a way that was not becoming the leader of this country. We have seen another minister of the front benches on television. In order to see ministers today, you have to watch television, because they are not in the House. We watch television at eleven o'clock to see whether the ministers are still alive and well.


Walter David Baker: And it is worse in colour.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is right. In fact, their colour is draining rather badly, and quickly. Yesterday we saw the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on television. He was appearing before the Canadian Union of Public Employees. He obviously used the premise that was used by a minister in a small community: when the minister was not able to be present to deliver his message one Sunday morning, he asked an elder deacon to deliver it. The minister had the sermon written out. At the appointed time on Sunday morning, the elder started reading the sermon. It was a very fine and stirring message. In true homiletics, there were three points. When he came to the third point, the elder deacon stopped. It stated, "Weak point. You can fill in the rest of the words". Possibly that is what the Minister of Labour was doing yesterday; he was simply labouring in an area he feels rather unqualified to talk about.
Government members today are also rather embarrassed about trying to explain this policy, particularly when they do not have their heart in it. They have been asked by the Prime Minister and other members of the caucus to get out, beat the bushes and tell Canadians that a prices and incomes policy is now necessary even though it was not 10 or 15 months ago. I feel that the performance will have to improve considerably if Canadians are to believe one minuscule part of what they are trying to say.
At least the former minister of transport had one saving quality or grace: when he thought there was a mess, he said so. He admitted there was a mess in his department. If the Prime Minister has a mess, he does not recognize it. The Prime Minister is now trying to reverse himself, do a 180 degree turn and say to the Canadian people, "Look, I was not wrong in July, 1974. I am still not wrong in October, 1975. Circumstances have just changed. All I want to do is be elected. This was my prime aim in July, 1974, and again in 1975 I will lead you through the wilderness." Well, the wilderness has been created by this government.
The bill now before us is to combat inflation. It is entitled "An act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada". Our rate of inflation is double-digit, roughly twice that of the United States. We decried them; this government criticized the United States and its investment in this country. They have used good principles. I think it is often a knee-jerk reaction because it is from the United States. They say we are still better off because we have twice what they have in the United States. Also, we are much ahead in our inflation rate compared to the European Common Market.

Our rate of unemployment stands at 7.2 per cent. The only saving factor is that in some areas such as the prairies, commodity sales have been very strong internationally and prices have been holding. If that were not the case, unemployment in this country would be higher, certainly in the prairie region. We must recall the history which has brought us into this current economic crisis, this mess I have mentioned. We all remember 1968 when a then unknown man was elected as Prime Minister. At that time, he declared that inflation was public enemy number one. Of course, he is now public enemy number one. However, in 1968 it was inflation.
The government embarked on various policies. This resulted in increased unemployment and the fight against inflation was quickly abandoned. Less than two years after the pronouncement that inflation had been singled out for defeat, the Prime Minister clearly stated that inflation had been wrestled to the ground. To my mind, it was just another con operation of a master artist. He has been doing this from 1968 on, trying to show the Canadian people the side of the coin he thinks is most acceptable for his purposes at any given time.
In 1972 we saw evidence of a backlash on the part of many Canadians. They rapped the government's knuckles. Then a curious thing happened. From 1972 to 1974 another picture was painted by the chief architect of this mess, the Prime Minister. He said we could do nothing about inflation because inflation was imported from beyond our shores. We have always conceded that a certain amount of inflation has been imported, but we were also contending that as a sovereign people there were certain things we could do to reduce the domestic component of inflation. But to suit his short-term political purposes, the Prime Minister sought to convince Canadians we could do nothing about inflation. In the meantime, I suppose, the backroom boys were wringing their hands, hoping that the terrible Americans, the ugly Americans as many in the government think they are, would bounce back and that the economic picture generally would brighten.
We come to 1974. That also is history. As a party, we did not receive the support of the people for our economic policy. We accept this. But at least in 1974 the people in Canada had a choice between the party now in power and the official opposition. We have no regrets for having placed before the Canadian people what we thought was needed by the economy at that time. Sometimes it is important to take a position which is honest, one which you know in your heart to be right and one which does not compromise your integrity, rather than adopt a short-term political solution as the Prime Minister did.
In taking the position he did, the Prime Minister had in mind short-term political advantage in the election in 1974. I might say in passing that the Premier of Manitoba became an embarrassment to his friends in the House, the members of the New Democratic Party, because he, too, said, after examining the situation, being a man of honesty and integrity, that we were going down the road of inflation so quickly that a policy of price and income restraint ought to be imposed. He was faced at the time with meeting a level of payment to public servants in Manitoba which he said the province could not afford. While mem-
October 22, 1975

bers of the NDP think highly of the Premier of Manitoba on some issues, they have been crawling all over trying to hide from the fact that he took the position he did on the issue of price and income controls. At least he is one member of the NDP who did not try to foster the idea that he alone was a friend of labour and that nobody else was.
As I say, 1974 is history. Today, roughly 15 months later, we are witnessing a 180 degree turn in government policy, and members on the government side are strangely silent. I believe that people can change their minds. After being apprized of new conditions, people can change their minds, and that is fair. But to this day, even though he is trying to put a prices and incomes policy in place, the Prime Minister has lacked the decency to get up and acknowledge that many of the things he said in 1974 were for short-term political party purposes only. He has not had the integrity to say to the Canadian people, "The government is largely responsible for the present rate of inflation. We must get together to improve the situation. We were wrong as a government, and now we must reverse our position."
Instead, he wishes to claim that the government is always right; that the government always knows best. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. Canadians today are angry and they are confused. They are angry with the government for not telling them the truth, and they are confused because they see the government embracing a prices and incomes policy when only 15 months ago it said such a policy would not work.
What are Canadians supposed to believe next? It is the role of government to lead, but in order to lead it is necessary to gain respect. I put this question to members opposite: What are Canadians to believe, when they find the government asking them to accept a policy which only 15 months ago it completely rejected? Are they to believe that the government is willing, finally, to take action of a kind it sincerely believes is for the good of the nation, or are they supposed to retain the cynicisms many of them have acquired and say it is just another Liberal ploy to reduce the pressure and produce political gains? This is a serious question, and it is one which affects not only members of the government but every elected representative in Canada.
For too long Canadians, as a result of experience, have been saying that what politicians promise during elections and what they do afterward are entirely different things. The Prime Minister's performance on economic matters is one of the principle obstacles upon which Canadians stumble. It is this which has made them so confused.
What has been the government's response to the situation today? It has presented Bill C-73, a far reaching measure and one which I personally would like to support because I feel it is indeed necessary to exert control over the economy. But I simply cannot trust the Prime Minister with the powers this legislation would give him. I simply do not respect him sufficiently to assume he will exercise integrity, a quality which to my mind has been sadly deficient. I believe many Canadians today believe in their heart of hearts that the right hon. gentleman was less than honest in his presentation back in June of 1974.
I want to make this point clear: in the hands of a leader with integrity, the bill could be effective. What has hap-
Anti-Inflation Act
pened? In the white paper that the government brought forward it was clearly stated that food and fish products would be exempted from the guidelines. No sooner was the white paper handed to us than the crew of expatriate Liberals who have become heads of the Anti-Inflation Board appeared on television. I do not know whether we should call them the "Jean and Beryl show", but unfortunately they are guaranteed a much longer run than most poor television shows have the right to run. I am afraid that this particular show will be going on for at least three years.
One of the first things that they said would be examined was marketing boards. When I was back home last weekend the farmers were asking me, what are we to believe? On one hand the farmers know they will be affected by these controls, yet it was clearly stated in print that food products would be exempt from controls. Nevertheless, the two principal members of the board have stated that one of the first things that will be examined is marketing boards.
I should like to read into the record part of an article that appeared in today's Ottawa Journal in which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture took on some of the statements that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board has made respecting marketing boards. Mr. Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is quoted at length. He feels already that the chairman of the board has been influenced by the bias that his vice-chairman, Beryl Plumptre, has against farmers and their products and the position that they have in Canadian life. In the article, Mr. Hill is quoted as follows:
Farmers received 10 cents or 12 per cent of the 84-cents retail price for cottage cheese this year. They received between 8.3 and 12 per cent of the retail price of processed fruit, pears, peaches and prunes; 30 cents or 55 per cent of the price of retail milk; between 3.2 and 12 per cent of the cost of processed vegetables, peas, tomatoes, corn and carrots.
They received about 74 per cent of the retail price of eggs last January, and 76 per cent of the retail price of top-grade steers.
Those are not my figures, Mr. Speaker; they are the figures of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which today, along with many farmers across the country, is deeply concerned whether we can believe what the Prime Minister says. Further, Mr. Hill is reported as saying that farmers have had to face baler twine prices that went up by 400 per cent between 1972 and 1974, and ammonium nitrate fertilizer price increases of 152 per cent from February, 1973, to the same period of 1975. This litany could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, once again I ask whether we can believe what the government says about agricultural products.
With regard to CEMA, all of us in the House know that the board has had serious difficulties. I do not want to get involved today in a philosophical argument as to whether marketing boards are good or bad, but I do want to point out to hon. members on both sides of the House that the farmers have the right to get together as processors and to organize, if they feel that this is the best way to protect their interests, every bit as much as any other group in society.

October 22, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
For example, we have trade associations, labour unions and associations of every colour and creed, one might almost say, in this country. Yet when farmers protect themselves in order to get some return on their investment and keep the family farm going, we get to our feet and scream that the price of food is too high. I suggest that when the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board says that eggs have gone up too much in price during the last year because they have increased 20 per cent-20 per cent of a loss position-she should be enough of an economist to know that the farmers cannot produce on that basis.
Further, I seriously question what is going to happen regarding investment and maintaining business confidence. As we know, profits are to be frozen at last year's level. While business in a sense has been granted a COLA clause which labour has fought for for some time, so that business can pass on direct added costs, I am very concerned over the long term about what is going to happen to business investment if dividends are to be frozen. Let me give the House one example. Credit unions hand out dividends at the end of the year. If the dividend this year is higher than last year, does this mean that this is an excess profit to be entirely taxed away by the government? That is a question to which I have no answer.
On one hand, Canadians today are angry; on the other hand, they are saying to themselves, "We must go along with a policy and program that at least has a chance of working." I think it can work if certain conditions are met. These conditions are, first of all, that the government takes a major step away from its previous performance; we must convince the people of Canada that the government is worthy of leading, and Canadians must follow the government.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It
being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 23, 1975