1975-10-23

NEW MEMBER

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Jacques Lavoie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Hochelaga.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Jacques Lavoie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Hochelaga.



[Stage Direction]
Jacques Lavoie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Hochelaga, introduced by Mr. Robert L. Stanfield and Mr. Claude Wagner.


[Stage Direction]

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of pressing necessity under S.O. 43. Judging from the massive protest that is building up in the country following the closing down of Canada's postal service, it is clear that the resolution of the postal confrontation is essential to the success of the government's restraint program, and in view of the fact that the union officials have publicly stated their desire to resume negotiations across the bargaining table rather than continue the exchange of insults through the media, a viewpoint that was supported by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in the House yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the President of the Treasury Board assume his responsibility in getting the parties back together at the bargaining table so that everybody's face can be saved, the postal workers returned to their jobs and Canadians provided with vitally essential mail service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the concern expressed by many Canadians that the government's controls program is not fair, and in view of the government's obvious desire to allay that concern, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to make a statement on Motions outlining in detail the circumstances surrounding recent salary increases for deputy ministers and senior executives in the public service, including the dates on which the Cabinet gave formal approval for these increases, the dates they were signed, the magnitude of the increases and whether they conform with the spirit of the government's guidelines.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the increasingly serious conditions which are now facing Quebec beef producers as regards ridiculously low prices and marketing problems, due to an excess of that product on the Quebec market and in view of the fact that the federal government tolerates and even promotes massive beef imports especially beef cuts and that on the other hand, the Department of Agriculture allows, as a result of its inaction, ever rising production costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House may now discuss that matter to clear the situation and take immediate concrete steps to improve those shocking conditions which could lead many other producers on the verge of bankruptcy and create a severe shortage of beef followed by a staggering rise in consumer prices before the 80's.

October 23, 1975
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that widespread public acceptance and co-operation is necessary to the success of his restraint program, and taking into account the observation made in the media by at least some journalists who have been travelling with the Prime Minister during the last couple of days that the program is off to a shaky start, would the Prime Minister give the House his own brief assessment of the public reaction he encountered in the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If this can be done under the rules I would gladly report briefly on my travels to Saskatchewan and Manitoba over the past two days, and gladly report from time to time. I am going to spend some time in Toronto tomorrow and next weekend in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Particularly at this stage of the question period I am reluctant to interrupt this process, but it seems to me that the question asks for an opinion and reaction in respect of the Prime Minister's visit. This is a question between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I hesitate to interfere, but with reluctance I think I have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to be a little more specific.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall not argue the point. I thought it would be very useful to the House to have the Prime Minister's very brief reaction to what he encountered. On the eve of the legislation probably being referred to the committee, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he has any initial impression of changes which may be necessary to make the program more acceptable to the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can answer that briefly, Mr. Speaker. Certainly at many of the meetings I had as part of the consultation on the guidelines and regulations to be applied, I had reactions which could be classified under two groups. The first group, which roughly concerns businessmen, professional groups, people in financial areas and people in the trades, asked brief questions concerning

how the guidelines would apply to them in their particular businesses. If I can judge and reflect fairly on this opinion, they were well prepared to support the government on the principle. They wanted to make sure that in detail it would be workable and practical.
The second type of reaction is one I had in meeting with one labour group in Regina, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. They indicated quite clearly in a written brief that they submitted to me, which I am sure can be submitted to the Leader of the Opposition, that they were in favour of price controls but not wage controls. They thought wage controls, as they appeared in our program, would be effective but that price controls would not. I discussed this with them for some time and indicated that we wanted the price controls to be effective, as well as controls on other incomes than on wages, and that we would be happy to implement that intention by modification if necessary of the guidelines and by strengthening the regulations. I urged them to be constructive in their suggestions. Since they started with the suggestion that price controls were necessary, I pointed out to them that price controls indeed were a part of the guidelines. If they could not be implemented in the present form I urged them to make constructive suggestions to me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate if he has reached any conclusion concerning whether any changes are necessary to make the program more widely acceptable, and would he indicate in a very brief way what the nature of those changes might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The meeting took place yesterday. I indicated to them that of course in meetings such as this we were looking for concrete ways to make the guidelines more workable, that we knew there were some difficulties which had to be solved, that it would be some weeks before the regulations would be published and that we would want to hear from members from both sides of the House at the committee stage and that therefore they had a little while to make their suggestions. We, of course, are working all the time to implement better guidelines. I would just add that so far as I was able to judge, the farming communities of Saskatchewan were four-square behind these guidelines.
*: * *


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the maximum $2,400 guideline ceiling on salary increases, would the Prime Minister indicate on what date orders in council or a Treasury Board decision were recorded establishing up to $6,500 per annum increases for top public servants, an increase ten times the amount of the minimum $600 guideline figure for low income workers and an increase higher than the annual personal earnings for 40 per cent of the taxpayers in this country?
October 23, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations concerning the executive group of the public service were accepted in cabinet, with modifications, last July-to be precise on July 24. We had received in April the report of the Lambert committee indicating certain new ranges. We studied these new ranges and modified them somewhat, and then on July 24 we accepted these new ranges with the proviso that the increases as a total would not be beyond 10 per cent. We were, in a sense, anticipating the guidelines at that time. I am told that when the calculations and the slotting were made within those ranges they arrived at an average of 9.3 per cent as the total increase as the result of the decision we took last July. The present period extends from last April to next April, and in so far as any further slotting is concerned I can assure the House that it will be well under not only the 8 per cent or 10 per cent guidelines, but that the ceiling of $2,400 will apply.


DATE OF TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL OF SALARY INCREASES FOR EXECUTIVE CATEGORY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TREASURY BOARD MINUTE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether in fact the finalization of this increase was assigned to the Treasury Board and, if so, would he indicate on what date the Treasury Board finalized the increase and when was the minute signed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is important for members of the House to understand that when we made the decision in July, it was a decision as to the ranges which would be applied to every civil servant at a senior executive level. The actual slotting is done by way of a rather lengthy process in a cabinet committee, assisted by senior officials, which looks at the performance of each individual and decides how that individual performs and whether he should be slotted high, medium or low in the range. This process began after the July authorization by cabinet and it went on for a period of several weeks. I think that probably in August not a great deal of work was done, but the whole matter was carried out between August and two weeks ago.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a final supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Treasury Board minute covering this increase has not been delivered to the order in council office, would the Prime Minister table the Treasury Board minute in which these increases were finalized?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have this minute. If it is customary to table such minutes, I will do so. I believe that in the normal course of events they appear in the Canada Gazette with the date. I believe that the appendices to these minutes are confidential and that they give the exact point in the slotting, but the general range is given in the order in council. I would have to verify whether the order in council is published in the Canada Gazette.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTION SALARY INCREASES FOR EXECUTIVE CATEGORY APPROVED AT SAME CABINET MEETING AS CONTROL PROGRAM ADOPTED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice which follows on the previous questions. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the salary increases for deputy ministers to which reference was made were given final and formal approval, not just accepted, at the last cabinet meeting before the Prime Minister's Thanksgiving announcement of the control program, the same cabinet meeting at which the control program was finally adopted, as I have heard from some one close to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, as I have touched a sensitive spot-


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member is the lead off questioner, I do not want to interfere unduly with his right to ask a supplementary question, but a supplementary question really must arise, or ought to arise, out of an answer given. If a question meets with no answer, it is very difficult to imagine how a supplementary question could be allowed. However, perhaps the hon. member might try one more question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I shall rephrase the question. In view of a statement today by a spokesman in the Prime Minister's office suggesting that orders in council have been signed in the last two weeks increasing the salaries of 250 senior public servants, as well as a statement by someone close to the Prime Minister that the final and formal decision was made at the same cabinet meeting which finally approved the guidelines, would the Prime Minister be in a position to indicate to the House on motions or to table in the House all of the agreements and documents which we are asking about as to when final and formal agreement was given for these salary increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the final and formal agreement was given on July 24. I repeat that following July 24 the process of slotting goes on, which takes place every year, and this follows the recommendations of the advisory council on executive salaries. It goes on every year to judge the performance of the various civil servants. This sometimes takes weeks; sometimes it takes months.
I repeat my earlier answer; if this type of order in council is published in the Canada Gazette, the hon. member will know the date or dates. It may have been something which Treasury Board decided at one or several meetings; I do not know. It is even possible that the cheques themselves have not gone out, or they may have gone out. I do not know the answer to that either. I have not received any thank you letters yet. I do know that, as in every year, we look at the report of the advisory committee, and at some point in the year the cabinet decides to accept it, reject it or modify it. This was done last July.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Were those orders in council finally agreed to at the last cabinet meeting prior to the

October 23, 1975
Oral Questions
announcement of the Prime Minister on television implementing controls for other Canadians? Is that when they were finally agreed to?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not usually give the precise agenda of each cabinet meeting, but since the hon. member is so insistent, I can tell him no, the last cabinet meeting before the speech I made on that Monday night did not adopt any order in council attributing or slotting civil servants to any particular places in the range. This was delegated by cabinet to some committee of cabinet, and it was instructed to follow the ranges as we adopted them last July, July 24, to be precise. This year, because we were so late and because the salaries were supposed to be changed last April, I did not myself chair the committee, which considers this individual slotting which I usually do. I referred it to another committee.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he inform the House whether he is aware that gasoline costs as much as 10 cents more a gallon in northwest Quebec, Gaspesia and the north shore as compared with the south of the province and, if so, could he tell the House what he intends to do about it so that people in the northwest areas and Gaspesia are not forced to pay gasoline at a higher price than elsewhere, while taking into account the cost of transport which is obviously lower than 10 cents a gallon?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should address that question to his provincial ministers. The federal government does not have the responsibility of setting retail prices, but we have introduced guidelines which affect the flow through of costs, that is to say, the wellhead price of $8 per barrel through to the final user. At that point the federal government comes into play, and we apply those particular guidelines.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, and it relates to the postal strike. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how long back-to-work legislation will be postponed? If it is to be a long strike as the Prime Minister said, how long will this House wait before asserting the public interest?

[DOT] (M30)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we consider that freedom of association is also in the public interest. It seems to me that the question as asked by the hon. member is assuming the contrary. That is not our view.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the House just what the government's policy is with respect to the postal strike? Specifically, does the Postmaster General have the support of the government when he talks about a three months strike or, as he said two days ago, a strike until Easter?


An hon. Member:: Or a year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General has the support of the government.


John Allen Fraser: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to starve out the union at the expense of Canadians who depend on the postal service? Has the government adopted Joe Davidson's war cry-"To Hell with the public."


SUGGESTION PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESUMING NEGOTIATIONS WITH STRIKING WORKERS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board and it relates to the motion under Standing Order 43 that I moved at the beginning of this sitting today. The minister has not been with us for the past two days, but I think he will agree that the resolution of the present confrontation between the union and the Post Office Department is essential to the success of the government's restraint program. Now that union officials have publicly indicated their desire to resume negotiations across the bargaining table rather than by an exchange of insults in the media-this viewpoint was supported by the Postmaster General in the House yesterday-will the President of the Treasury Board assume his responsibility and get the parties together so that this matter can be resolved and the public interest protected? The solution is in the government's hands.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I was here Tuesday. Yesterday I was at the federal-provincial conference. I think in this situation the Treasury Board has assumed all its responsibilities. We have been at the negotiating table and have worked in close collaboration with the Postmaster General and his officials. We are anxious to resume negotiations and find a solution to the problem, but I think this has to work on both sides. If they want to meet us, I am sure the Postmaster General will agree with me that we are willing to sit down and negotiate with them. I think we were doing very well over the weekend and if we can resume the talks we would be willing to make progress.
October 23, 1975


WILLINGNESS OF POSTMASTER GENERAL TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS WITH STRIKING WORKERS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister indicated his willingness to resume negotiations as he indicated in the House yesterday? If he has given that indication to the postal union what has been their response?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for so many helpers and volunteers after ten months of continuous bargaining.


An hon. Member:: You need all the help you can get.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is very helpful to know I have the support of so many members. I made it clear yesterday-I think we should make it very clear that we did not issue an ultimatum. We did not-


An hon. Member:: What do you call it?


An hon. Member:: Come on, Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We did not break off talks. We simply rrtade it very clear that when the union felt that our wage package and terms were satisfactory-we felt the talks had been going so well we should get up to that level immediately and not wait days to get up to that level-we were prepared to sit down and start negotiating other outstanding items that have monetary implications as well. We simply suggested that rather than have four or five meetings, as we did on Sunday, the union take the time and come back when they arrive at that conclusion. The union broke off talks at eight o'clock Sunday night in order to find out if this package was acceptable or not. We are still waiting for their reply. Talks have broken off only in the opinion of members opposite.
I might make another point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I am going to restrict members of the opposition in making arguments I should do the same in respect of the government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Postmaster General would answer the specific question because I think it is vitally important to the success of the government's program. It is my information that the union wants to get back to the bargaining table. Have they been invited back to the bargaining table and if so, what has been their response?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said-


An hon. Member:: Don't do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.
Oral Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We never broke off negotiations. I am surprised that the opposition takes the matter so frivolously that they do not want an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, that he be careful of his sources of information. If we acted on his advice, if we are to de-escalate the public debate, it would be made much easier if questions did not tend to create that public debate and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
*	4=	*


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, before asking my very first question in the House, may I assure you as well as all my colleagues from both sides of the House, of my full co-operation.
I should like to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister to whom I respectfully convey the salutations of Montreal-Hochelaga. Can the Prime Minister, who in his message to the nation the day before October 14 expressed concern for senior citizens within his anti-inflation program and a just society philosophy, assure the House that his government will amend Bill C-69 so as to guarantee Canadians 65 years old or more that as in the past, they will be entitled to full payment when they leave a job?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his promised cooperation. I am sure that if he shows much perseverance, he will continue to ask questions in the interest of his Hochelaga constituents rather than partisanship. Although this is an approach which requires great courage, I am sure he will not spare his efforts. The hon. member is certainly aware that the government has increased the pensions paid to the aged. Indeed we apply the escalation provision to the Old Age Security pensions, so that these pensions are geared to the cost of living index. There is no limit to this escalation. Therefore, it is not so much at this time a question of deciding how we can help them more. We are concerned now with a program which will hopefully put an end to inflation, and it is the purpose of the bill before the House. The hon. member certainly understands that it is not in the interest of this war which we all together want to wage against inflation to include in this bill other objectives, however desirable they may be, which might delay its adoption.

October 23, 1975

Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the Minister of Finance a question about the application of the guidelines to dividend payments. I wanted to know if there was to be an actual freeze or a rollback to levels actually paid in 1974. The minister indicated he would look into this. Is he now in a position to tell the House just what the government's policy is in this regard?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The concept was that it should be on a cash rather than an accrual basis. This is the sense in which it was considered in the white paper. I should say, as I am sure the hon. member has noted since then, that there have been some representations suggesting that a basis other than the cash basis would be equitable. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this further, because of the federal-provincial meeting, but will give early attention to it and consider the relative merits of the two proposals.
* *
*


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last Tuesday I asked him a question concerning the submission in the letter of December 20, 1974, by the presidents of the two national railroads for an integrated, intercity rail passenger service. The proposal was for the entire nation. Has the minister considered the correspondence; can he advise the House if the letter was replied to, or even acknowledged and, if so, can he tell us what was the nature of the reply?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the letter was replied to and, basically, was followed up with further discussions with our railways. Obviously, there will need to be intensive discussions about any possible proposal and, indeed, consideration of a variety of legislative and other changes in our law and policy before a particular program can be put forward.


INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE-SUGGESTED HIGHER PRIORITY FOR PROGRAM AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO REPLACE EQUIPMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Actually, may I incorporate two questions in one supplementary question? May I ask the minister if the proposal of the railways means that there is to be an improvement in the low priority which the government in its policy paper proposals and the Ministry of Transport has given to rail transportation. Is there to be higher priority for rail transportation? Also, in view of the cancellation of Pickering airport, will the

minister allocate funds which would otherwise have been spent on Pickering airport to the purchase and refurbishing of passenger train equipment, as two years lead time is required and in view of the amount of existing railway equipment which must be scrapped?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not agree with the hon. member's view of the priority this government puts on rail passenger traffic. Indeed, that has formed an important part of our policy. It is, however, a complex matter and should not be related to whether or not a particular airport is to be constructed, as the hon. member suggests. But it is a complex matter, requiring a sound foundation for restructuring. We are treating it seriously in that light and will come forward in due course with proposals.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Today's Globe and Mail cites an example of how the consumer can face a hidden price increase of 20 per cent as a result of new metric packaging. Can the minister tell the House what steps his department is taking to avoid such errors, be they "human" or otherwise?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries about this particular matter before the question period today and was advised that Dominion stores, the company concerned in this case I believe, has taken steps to ensure that adequate information is provided. We are also looking for techniques by which either the Metric Commission or some emanation of it would be empowered to deal with this kind of situation on an ongoing basis, if it should occur again.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board-if he would kindly divert his attention from what he is doing. He may be getting the answer now, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Following the Prime Minister's suggestion to be persistent, may I ask the minister the following question? Now that the report on the Auditor General has existed for some months and in light of the over-riding need for this government to demonstrate its determination to eliminate the waste and extravagance which have persisted in its spending for some time, will the hon. gentle-
October 23, 1975

man now indicate if he is going to implement the undertaking he made to me and to this House last summer and immediately bring in a bill to carry out the provisions suggested in the Wilson report regarding the powers of the Auditor General?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few months ago, I intend to proceed, and the government agrees on most of the recommendations in the Wilson report. As regards the format the legislation will take, we are not ready yet to make it public but we will do so the moment we can.


SUGGESTED REFERRAL OF WILSON REPORT TO COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND DRAFT BILL
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council? If it is beyond the capacity or desire of this government to bring in such a bill, would the government consider referring the matter to the Public Accounts Committee, so that it may, in view of the government's default, bring in recommendations for such a bill?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not hear the question which was directed to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board and am afraid I cannot answer the hon. member. But I always take under consideration any suggestion made by my hon. friend, the House leader of the official opposition, and assure him that I will give his question my sympathetic consideration, if not my agreement.

agriculture


REQUEST FOR SUPPORT PRICES FOR CALVES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the lateness of the season and the desperation of many cow-calf producers across Canada, and as Her Majesty's official opposition supports the agricultural price stabilization legislation, will the minister not declare immediately that the government will provide support prices for calves under the terms of that legislation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to provide support prices for beef, which will run from August 12 to the end of December, and a new program will begin on January 1, for the beef industry for the next year.


HOUSING
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State
Oral Questions
for Urban Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. As many Canadians have committed themselves to the purchase of new houses on the basis of the government's promise of a grant to first time home owners- indeed, many such people have committeed the grant itself as part of the down payment-and as they may be prevented from collecting these grants because of strikes or by delays caused by labour difficulties, and so on, has the minister given special consideration to the plight of these Canadians in order to ensure that they may receive the first time home owners grant and are not denied the grant because of circumstances beyond their control?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have given thorough consideration to that problem. As grants are to be cut back, as announced, after the occupancy date of October 31, there is an obvious problem for those people who have entered into purchase agreements and have bona fide documentation. For those people who have entered into agreements in good faith and who, because of strikes or others reasons, are not able to move in before that date, I have extended the eligibility period until December 31.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General inform the House if he has any plans to allow private carriers to deliver first class mail, any other sort of mail or parcels during the Post Office strike, and would he consider initiating discussions with the Air Industries Association and the Canadian Truckers Association, to assure that the fullest possible use is made of alternative delivery services in the absence of regular postal service?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Other than first class mail, there is no limitation on competition. As the hon. member knows, many private couriers are delivering mail at this very moment. The only limitation is the statutory one on first class mail and its removal would require legislation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The minister did not answer my question. Would he consider meeting with these associations? I spoke with them this morning. They would be willing to sit down with the hon. gentleman and discuss alternate ways of delivering mail.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am aware of the representations but I think it is a little premature to be encouraging our competition. I appreciate the hon. member's representation but I would point out once again that under the law we did not lock anybody out; they walked out on their own. There may be a moment when we shall have to do just that very thing, but I hope not.

October 23, 1975
. Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
I apologize for taking his time. My question is complementary to that of the hon. member for Hochelaga, and deals with a proposed amendment to Bill C-69 concerning unemployment insurance. At the present time, 65-year-old persons who retire are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for a number of weeks prescribed by the act. Now, the amendment proposed in the bill would limit that number of weeks to three.
May I therefore ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, considering the many representations made in that regard, he would accept that the bill be amended in such a way that 65-year olds continue to receive those benefits for at least a year so that those who will be 65 in the future may become familiar with the new policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is anticipating the debate which will be held as early as next Monday, if I understand correctly what the House leader said. We must discuss that bill. The hon. member's question as well as that of the hon. member for Hochelaga are arguments. Hon. members will have the opportunity to express them during the debate. The minister will be present to answer them, and they can also be discussed in committee.


FINANCE
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I should like to like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House whether he had the opportunity, yesterday, of making representations to his provincial counterparts asking that the salaries of workers governed by the minimum wage not be frozen but that instead the minimum wage be indexed upon the standards proposed in Bill C-73?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we discussed the matter of the minimum wage with the provincial representatives and suggested that the increase in the minimum wage be discussed this afternoon with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). We were made aware, however, as in the past, that some provinces are opposed to an unduly high increase in the minimum salary. On the other hand we are quite concerned about that group of wage earners in our society, and are willing to discuss, with the provinces, the concept of a general increase in the minimum wage.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General and is related to previous questions. Would the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General be prepared to contact the postal union's negotiating committee today in an effort to resume bona fide bargaining and get the Post Office back into operation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I gave earlier, the assurance that the Postmaster General had not only the support but the enthusiastic support of the government. His door is always open to any resumption of negotiations. If any assurance is needed, I can assure hon. members opposite and the members of the postal union that if they want to talk to the Postmaster General he will be happy to talk to them.


An hon. Member:: But will he listen?


PUBLISHING
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the cabinet yet accepted recommendations about Canadian publication content rules and the meaning of the term "substantially different" and, if so, when will regulations be announced? Does the government contemplate having to amend Bill C-58?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: thank the House for its generous applause-perhaps the last time Canada's tax collector will be so treated.
I should like to say, first that the meaning of the words "not substantially the same" as far as the bill is concerned will be interpreted by my department as being at least 80 per cent different. The information is being made public at this time so that the parties concerned will have it. This, of course, is contingent upon the passage of Bill C-58, but as a courtesy to the parties concerned I felt it appropriate we should indicate what our position was.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In the light of the
October 23, 1975

minister's statement that Treasury Board is prepared to resume negotiations with the postal workers I should like to ask whether the government negotiators are prepared to resume negotiations unconditionally in the true spirit of collective bargaining?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, one would think a member of that particular party would understand something about collective bargaining. If he did, he would not do it in the House of Commons and he would have more intelligence than to ask stupid questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I think we see why there is such a problem in the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: I have been informed by the postal workers that they are prepared at two hours notice to sit down and negotiate on unconditional terms as is customary in negotiations. The minister has issued an ultimatum that they cannot negotiate a total package but must accept the wage offer.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member and about 250 other people have conveyed that message to me. When the union conveys it to me we shall resume negotiations, and not before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It arises out of the government's announced intention to stay the commutations of those persons now in jail awaiting a decision on their commutations. The government has announced its intention of bringing in legislation. It is the government's intention to follow the practice which has been followed on numerous occasions of allowing a free vote on the question of capital punishment in the legislation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: We did not
stay the commutations of those three gentlemen; we stayed their dates of execution until next summer. With respect to the substance of the question, I can only tell the hon. member that no decision has yet been made.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Am I to assume from the minister's answer that the cabinet is seriously considering allowing a free vote on this subject in the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there are many proposals which have been suggested to the cabinet, not only by people inside the cabinet but outside.
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader the usual Thursday afternoon question: What are his intentions with regard to legislation in the House over the next week or ten days?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a reasonable expectation, if not a certainty, that the bill now under discussion will be disposed of at second reading this evening. If so, the government will call tomorrow the following bills: S-27, C-23, C-28 and C-25. After consultation with the House leaders, I am led to believe that there will be little or no debate on the first two items, that is to say, second reading of S-27 and the report stage and third reading of Bill C-23. I say this because if this hope is not realized I should like to ensure that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is called early tomorrow to deal with the second reading of Bill C-28. He has an engagement later in the day and I think we would all like to meet his convenience. But I do not think it will be necessary to vary that order.
May I also say, for the information of hon. members, that the House leaders have discussed the possibility of the House not sitting on Monday, November 10. I say this now so that members who may be thinking about their arrangements for that weekend might be able to arrange to do other things than attend the sittings of this House. However, everything is premised on the understanding that the time that is lost by being absent that day will be made up by an extension of hours on other days.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, just in case the minister's expectation as to completing C-73 is not fulfilled-and I am one who hopes it will be-is it the intention of the government to proceed next Monday with the resumption of second reading of Bill C-73?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would think that it would be undesirable to take Bill C-73 out of the House. If our expectations, which I hope are reasonable ones-I think everyone has an interest in getting the bill into committee-are not realized, then tomorrow we will continue with this debate. However, I hope there will be agreement, if any member wants a vote, to postpone the vote until Monday.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business that the government is bringing before the House, in view of questions I have asked on two or three occasions, can the government House leader now tell us when the bill to amend the Government Annuities Act and the bill respecting veterans who were prisoners of war will be introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can speak with authority only in the first of those bills. This was discussed in cabinet today and my colleague the Minister of Manpower and

October 23, 1975
Dr. Morgentaler
Immigration is bringing the bill before us for approval immediately.


INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Leggatt-Bill intituled: An act for the parole of Dr. Henry Morgentaler.
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I understand you have certain reservations about whether this bill can be classified as a public bill or should be a private bill. I wanted to direct a few remarks to Your Honour on that subject so that you might be able to rule on the matter.
This bill is not presented in any partisan spirit. In fact, the co-sponsors of the bill, with myself, are the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) of the Conservative party, and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) of the Liberal party. The reason it has cross-party sponsorship-and I emphasize this-is due to the public importance of the bill. My remarks are directed to this key issue that Your Honour will have to examine in terms of whether you rule it to be a private or a public bill.
The bill provides for the immediate parole of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. It would also permit parliamentary intervention in the parole system to provide him with parole. There is before the House at the present time a government bill, Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code to allow juries to be the final arbiter on questions of fact. In other words, it would prevent the kind of situation that occurred in the Morgentaler case, of a jury verdict of acquittal being overturned by a court of appeal, with the accused not then having access again to a jury of his peers.
Obviously, this is a matter of great public importance. The bill concerns only one man, but it concerns only one man because there is no other person in the Dominion of Canada residing in jail in the same circumstances. The bill does not deal with the subject of abortion, which is a matter entirely different and about which many members have different opinions.
On the procedural question whether this is a private or a public bill, I ask Your Honour to consider the precedent that a bill of public importance which applied to one individual is, in essence, a public rather than a private bill. This House has been run for a very long time on precedents that have been introduced in the past. Your Honour may be familiar with Bill C-107 which dealt with the case of Steven Truscott. In the Truscott case, the situation was almost identical to the one in the bill now before the House. Incidentally, that bill was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is acknowledged as one of the masters of the rules of the House. It was admitted as a public bill by the Speaker of that day, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, who is also acknowledged throughout the House as a great expert on the rules of the House. Therefore, if one were to look at

the precedents, one would have to say that two very great procedural minds have attacked this problem in the past.
To say that the bill came in inadvertently would do a disservice, I suggest, to both those hon. gentlemen. Obviously, the Speaker at that time believed that the Truscott case was of such public importance that it overruled the general principles in Beauchesne which would identify this as a private bill. At that time the conclusion was that it was a matter of public importance that should be dealt with. It was a single individual who had received so much publicity and there was so much concern across the country regarding his being in jail that the bill was introduced as a public bill although, as I say, the bill dealt only with the case of Steven Truscott and did not deal in any general way with any class of persons.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there is no other individual in Canada who resides in jail in these circumstances. Therefore, if it is Your Honour's view that I should present a different bill which does not name Dr. Henry Morgentaler, I suggest that would be a redundant procedure. In examining the Morgentaler case, the Supreme Court of Canada found no single precedent like it where a jury verdict had been overturned by a court of appeal and the individual in question not given the opportunity again to face a jury of his peers regarding the charge.
On the question of public importance, I contend that what may on the surface appear to be a private bill can also apply to a class of persons, simply because (a) we have a precedent of the House in the Truscott case, and (b) the situation is very similar in terms of the subject of the bill being a single individual. There is only one individual in this country who comes within this class, and that is a person residing in jail in these special circumstances. Bill C-71, a government bill before the House, attempts to correct that anomaly and to allow no longer courts of appeal to superimpose guilty verdicts on acquittals by a jury. That being the case, and since we will no doubt be dealing specifically with the subject, I submit this bill is appropriate as a public bill in order to release this class of persons who remain in jail as a direct result of the anomaly in the Morgentaler case.
Dr. Morgentaler has served more than one-third of his sentence. We have released people like Harold Ballard and we have released rapists and murderers and all sorts of strange people in the country, but for some reason or other the Parole Board has not seen fit to move in the case of Dr. Morgentaler. I realize that it sounds as though I am arguing the merits. I am not really arguing the merits except to the extent that I submit we are dealing with the key point in the matter of this bill, and that is, is it of sufficient public importance to merit introduction in the way the Truscott bill was introduced 1957?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, my intervention is not going to be long in the event that Your Honour would wish to rule against the hon. member who has proposed this particular bill. I would simply point out to Your Honour that on Friday when the bill was initially introduced, you suggested that perhaps the matter could be the subject of debate if the hon. gentleman would approach
October 23, 1975

the House leader at the time. There was no indication that he wished to debate the motion, and therefore I am caught a little by surprise. I would simply indicate that citations 459 and 460 of Beauchesne refer directly to the point.
If Your Honour is influenced by the second argument, namely that the bill-a private bill, in my estimation- being presented has some public interest because it deals with a matter of public concern, and if Your Honour is inclined to find that there is some merit in this argument, I would ask Your Honour to put this matter over in order that perhaps better argument may be prepared.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank both hon. members for their intervention. The reference to the citation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) has saved me the trouble of making the reference. It seems to me to be a very clear citation. The reference by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) to the Steven Truscott case indeed challenges the imagination of students of parliamentary procedure. Fortunately, perhaps, some of these miracles are possible without full explanation of exactly how the arguments were achieved. Again, I can only say that it is another indication of the mastery of the proponent of this particular bill that seems, in the humble opinion of the Chair, to run totally counter to the procedures in the way they are set out so clearly in the citation referred to by the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The fact of the matter is that the bill before us at the present time is a proposal to exempt or to except from the operation of the general law one person, namely, Dr. Henry Morgentaler. I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be persuaded that this is the subject matter of a public bill or that it is in any way an alteration of the general law. It is an alteration or exception, for one person, of the application of the law, and it seems crystal clear to me to be the subject matter of a private member's private bill and not a public bill.
The hon. member put forward some very eloquent arguments about the urgency and the importance of the matter, which would certainly go to the merits of the bill and would be part of the entreaty to other members to support it. Procedurally, I feel that despite every careful consideration of the hon. member's very interesting arguments, we are left with no other choice than to decide that the matter is really a proper subject matter not of a public bill but of a private bill.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 28, 1,332, 2,404, 3,130.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Part 3 of Question No. 88 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that all but one of the architects, designers, interior decorators or consultants performing work at 24 Sussex Drive were not selected by the Department of Public Works, what is the complete identity of the individual or individuals who selected (a) Herbert-Lalonde, Designers of Montreal (b) Professor E. Arthur, Designer of Toronto (c) Francisco Ltd., Interior Decorators of Montreal (d) Mrs. Louis V. Beveridge, Interior Decorator of Toronto?
2.	What are the names of any persons whatsoever who in any way recommended the services of these people?
3.	Have any of those named in the answer to Question No. 88 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament done any other work whatsoever for the government in the past ten years and, if so, on what dates, what was the work and what was the fee paid?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1 and 2. It has always been government practice that occupants of official residences should have final say in their family environment and who best can provide it.
3.	(a) In 1968, the firm of Julien Hebert, 430 Bonsecours Ave., Montreal, Quebec provided the design, fabrication and installation of the fountain in the National Arts Centre for the amount of $25,000. (b) The firm of Hebert-Lalonde, Architects and Designers, prepared plans and specifications for the Department of Public Works in the following places, on the dates indicated and for the amounts listed: Chicoutimi, June 3, 1974, $750; Pointe Claire, June 3, 1974, $750; Ste-Foy, June 3, 1974, $750; Ville d'Anjou, June 3, 1974, $750.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) What is the position of the government on the use by non-government vessels of toxic bilge cleaning substances (b) what regulations exist governing the use of toxic bilge cleaners (c) on what date and where were these proclaimed?
2.	Is this in accord with the statements on the ocean environment contained in the "New Oceans Policy" announced July 12, 1973 by the Minister of State for Science and Technology?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: 1. (a) The government does not have a position on the use per se of toxic bilge cleaning substances by nongovernment vessels. It does have a position relevant to the disposal of bilge cleaning substances and bilge wastes, viz.-No substance which is, or contains, oil of any kind in any form shall be released into Canadian waters (including fishing zones). For bilge cleaning substances which are not oil or do not contain oil of any kind or in any form, the position of the government is that wastes containing such substances can be deposited into Canadian waters only if it can be shown that they are not toxic to aquatic life (i.e. deleterious substances as defined in the Fisheries Act). The Department of the Environment, on request from the Ministry of Transport (which has the responsibility for pollution from vessels), would assess the substance and, on the basis of bioassay tests and existing
8482

October 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions
information, determine whether the substance should be released into the aquatic environment, (b) There are no regulations on the use of bilge cleaners. However, the disposal of this class of substances is regulated by the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations under Section 20 of the Canada Shipping Act. The enforcement of these regulations is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, (c) The regulations cited in 1. (b) are contained in S.O.R. 71-495 of September 21, 1971.
2. The position of the government of Canada on the disposal of bilge cleaning substances is consistent with the "New Oceans Policy" announced July 12, 1973, by the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned:
1.	(a) There are no regulations with regard to the use of toxic bilge cleaners by non-government vessels; however, the disposal of these substances is regulated by the Canada Shipping Act. (b) The discharge of bilge cleaning substances which are oil or which contain oil is governed by the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act; the discharge of bilge cleaning substances which are not oil or which do not contain oil is governed by the Pollutant Substances Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act. (c) The Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act were contained in S.O.R. 71-495 of September 21, 197'., published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 105, No. 19. The Pollutant Substances Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act were contained in S.O.R. 73-113 of February 28, 1973, published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 107, No. 5.
2.	Yes.
In so far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned:
1.	(a) Toxic bilge cleaning substances may be used by non-government vessels for the normal purpose of good housekeeping. However, the resulting mixture, an oily substance, is prohibited from being discharged into the water under the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations, (b) There are no regulations that specifically refer to toxic bilge cleaners. However, should the cleaner contain a toxic substance which is included in the list of substances in the Pollutant Substances Regulations, its discharge into the water would be prohibited, (c) The date of proclamation of the Pollutant Substances Regulations was February 27, 1973, and notice of this appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 107, No. 5.
2.	Yes.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did the Government of Manitoba approve the award of the contract to expand the capacity of a direct current long distance transmission line from Northern Manitoba to Winnipeg?
2.	Did the federal government withhold its approval of the contract and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Which level of government has the final say in awarding contracts under the Nelson River Power Agreement signed in 1962, where substantial funding is provided by Ottawa?
4.	Is there a clause in the Agreement providing for flexibility in assessing bids on the basis of Canadian content and, if so, what flexibility is allowed?

5.	Was the contract awarded to Brown-Boveri (Canada) Ltd. and, if so (a) what was the amount of the bid (b) was a change made in the original contract to upgrade the Canadian content in the Swiss bid (c) how much was added to the contract price as a result of such change?
6.	(a) What other bids were received on this project (b) what was the amount of each such bid and the percentage of Canadian content?
7.	(a) Has the Canadian General Electric Company of Peterborough been negotiating with DREE and the Manitoba Government for assistance in establishing a plant in Brandon, Manitoba (b) was the plant related to the awarding of the long distance power transmission contract (c) are negotiations still proceeding and, if not, for what reason?
8.	(a) What has been the total cost of the Nelson River Power Project to date (b) what proportion of such cost has been provided by the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources understands that the government of Manitoba has approved the award of the contract.
2.	Yes. The government of Canada could not accept the techonological and industrial development evaluation for the award of the contract to a foreign supplier.
3.	There is no 1962 agreement, nor is there as yet any agreement relating to the expansion of the Nelson River Transmission Facility. Guidelines for the proposed new agreement included provision for Manitoba to make an independent selection but without benefit of federal financing.
4.	The guidelines relating to the proposed agreement provide for flexibility in the assessment of Canadian content; no specific limits are given.
5.	See reply to question 1. (a), (b) and (c) Information on bids received by Manitoba Hydro would have to come from Manitoba Hydro.
6.	(a) It is understood Manitoba Hydro announced that bids were requested and received from the following companies: Brown-Boveri (Canada) Ltd.; Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.; Canadian ASEA Ltd. and General Electric Co. of England.
7.	(a), (b) and (c) When a firm accepts an offer of development assistance under the Regional Incentives Act, this information appears in the report on Regional Development Incentives, which is submitted to parliament every month. Department policy is to treat as confidential any information concerning an application for assistance until the application has been approved, and an offer of assistance has been made and accepted.
8.	(a) Since the federal government is not involved in the development of Hydro Power sites on the Nelson River, the total cost of the Nelson River Power Project is not known, (b) Under a 1966 agreement between Canada and the government of Manitoba the federal government has expended approximately $240 million in constructing the first stage of a high voltage direct current transmission system from the Nelson River area to a terminal station near Winnipeg.
;.-7

October 23, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Supply and Services or anyone acting on his behalf issue an order, memorandum or instruction of any kind that photographs of the Honourable Jean-Pierre Goyer be hung in all of the Department's offices and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are all the details of the matter including the (a) date on which such a decision was made (b) person making the decision (c) person or persons issuing such instructions (d) number of pictures ordered and the cost thereof (e) location in each office in which such pictures have been hung or will be hung?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,089 could be made an order to return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974 in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (a) how many consultants were hired (b) what were the terms of reference, time and length of the work assignment (c) what amount was paid to each?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 22, 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.
Anti-Inflation Act
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a very interesting point of order about an irregularity in a provision of the bill, particularly, as I recall, the provision in clause 26 which would propose to leave to the governor in council the power to make appointments to staff positions created by the bill for a four-year period, when in fact the recommendation of the bill contains a specific statement and a reference to the expiry date, which is also contained in clause 46 of the bill, which would be in conflict. The bill, both in the recommendation and in clause 46, provides for expiry on December 31, 1978. The power to make four-year appointments would, of course, give the power to the governor in council to extend expenses and expenditures beyond the term limit contained in the bill.
There can be no doubt that the hon. member's point is valid. It is a technically sound point, and the hon. member is quite accurate in his reasoning. The fact is that clause 26 is in conflict with clause 46 regarding the expiry date of the bill, and in turn is in conflict with the specific provision and recommendation. I take it the hon. member has given an indication of his approach, and I suppose that of his other colleagues in the House, in his remarks as follows:
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-
I understand that the House may be disposed to vote on this matter later in the day, so whatever disposition is to be made is somewhat urgent. I have caused an inquiry to be made and I am given to understand that the government is prepared to indicate its willingness at this moment, or will later, to bring forward at the first available opportunity an amendment which would remove the conflict that appears to exist between the two clauses. Presumably, that would be done by making it absolutely certain that whatever power is granted in clause 26 is circumscribed by the expiry date in the bill and the expiry date contained in the recommendation. If that is done to the satisfaction of the hon. member and other hon. members of the House, perhaps we may set the point aside. If before the vote takes place that has not been done to their satisfaction, then I would be disposed to make a formal ruling on it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would regard the hon. member's point as well taken, and I can indicate that at the committee stage it would be my intention to propose an amendment to make the provision in clause 26(2) conform to the terms of the royal recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking yesterday on Bill C-73 I was primarily concerned with convincing the government that if its anti-inflation program is to work or is to be accepted by the Canadian population at large, the government will have to take a new position or another look at its present state of credibility and integrity. It has been my contention, as I brought forward yesterday, that you can only yell "wolf" for so long and so many times, because finally the people do not believe you anymore and they stop listening.
8484

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
I think this government will have to look very seriously at whether or not it is able to convince the Canadian people that the program brought forward, even if it has a chance to work, can work in the light of what has gone on before. In the remaining minutes I have today I wish to present one or two views which I hope may be beneficial in the sense that they are positive and, hopefully, will be considered by the government.
Price and income controls, as the government has presented them to the House, represent a stopgap measure by which the government can help dampen the inflation psychology and expectations and thus get us straightened around in respect of what we think we can take from the economy. I think at some time or other we have all said that we will try to get out of the economy as much as we can, in order to protect ourselves. Frankly, some of us have been more successful than others. I shall have more to say about this later.
I believe the government will have to reverse its general attitude toward government. I believe this government going back to 1965-as well as the provincial governments-has accepted the philosophy that government can actually create happiness, and if governments spend more and more tax money, then all will benefit and have a better quality of life. I seriously question whether it is the role of government to go beyond the economic climate. It should help those who need help directly, but after that point is reached I seriously question whether we should get into all the hand-out gimmicks this government and others used in the last year, for instance.
For example, ten years ago various levels of government were taking approximately 29 per cent of our gross national product, call it redistribution of wealth or whatever you like. Today we are approaching the 40 per cent figure at all levels of government. I say to the government that this has to be counterproductive, in the sense that we have taken so much out of private hands that the private individual seriously questions whether he is ahead after taxes and is getting a benefit for the work he has done or the investment he has made over and above the hand-outs which many people in society seem to be getting.
I think this is the fundamental point the government in its long-term philosophy will have to look at very seriously. I suggest that the proposal requires a complete redirection in attitude and policy. As a follow-up of that, I believe the government must practice restraint. We are often accused of repeating this and not being specific enough. Therefore, I propose that the government should place a freeze on its expenditures and a freeze on its hiring practices. I say this because that 40 per cent figure, to my mind, must be reduced.
In years past, this House passed various bills in the hope that they would help many Canadians. I refer specifically to the unemployment insurance bill. Many of the principles which are found in the white paper in respect of that bill are based on premises which might have existed at one time. One of those principles was that many Canadians avoided unemployment insurance; even if it was the last thing they could do, they would not go on unemployment insurance. Today, I think that attitude has changed in respect of a certain proportion of our population. Conse-

quently, we are spending twice as many dollars on unemployment insurance than is the case in the United States. I wonder when this will stop.
Yesterday a colleague of mine referred to Information Canada. That has been mentioned a number of times. There is also the whole question of a guaranteed annual income. In Manitoba, we have an experiment called a mini-income, whereby an attempt is being made to find out whether people would continue to work if there were a guaranteed annual income. I might say that the results are such that many of us seriously question whether a sufficient number of people in Canada say to themselves, "Granted, we are getting less than we would if we were working, but it is not a bad way of living if you do not have to work." The Canadian worker today is simply saying that he is becoming tired of supporting people who think being on the public dole is honourable or might even be their right.
Then there is the matter of government buildings. Everywhere in Ottawa one sees one project after another which bears a beautiful white and green sign stating that the project is under the supervision of the Department of Public Works. I wish to mention what happened in Winnipeg. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras)-I am glad he is in the House today-might take note of this. We had office space in Winnipeg and it was good space. Recently, however, in connection with the Winnipeg convention centre a new development has taken place right beside it, called Lakeshore Development, which is the most expensive real estate footage in Winnipeg. What happened? The first to move into this building were, of course, government departments. Governments seem to be in the forefront in getting the very best at the highest cost, and this has a psychological impact, I believe, on the Canadian people.
I think, also, the government should move toward a balanced budget. I believe our deficit is too high. The cost of servicing the national debt has become a major part of our yearly expenditures. I believe the government should look at that matter. Then there is the matter of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Representatives of the Quebec government are in West Germany these days trying to attract more investment funds for the province of Quebec. They are running into difficulty. The investors say that they want to invest in Canada but that the implementation of the Foreign Investment Review Act is starting to dry up some of the money supply.
I could go on to talk about consultants and the number of massive projects we have under construction in respect of the Olympics, James Bay, Churchill, and so on, and ask to what extent these massive projects are a strain on our money supply. All these projects are being carried out at the same time. To what extent have they contributed to inflation and the higher costs of construction during this period? Another point we could raise concerns the metric system. At this point in time, should there be a priority for spending in respect of metric conversion, or would it be advisable for us to defer metrification and lock our approach in with that of the United States so that the expenditures could be deferred for three or five years, as the case may be?
October 23, 1975

Lastly, if we are to get this problem turned around, we must go back to a basic fundamental of the free enterprise system.


An hon. Member:: It is a mess.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the hon. member wants to talk about messes, let us look at some countries in Europe-and if you want them, you can have them. Or we could go to British Columbia. Madam Speaker, I want to point out a fundamental principle. I refer to the question of productivity. When is the last time any of us stressed that we must produce more if we want to take more out of the Canadian economy? When is the last time we heard either labour or management bring forward the concept that if we are to turn around, we must strengthen our economic position? How many of us have heard that stressed positively? Where has the concept gone that a person who produces more is entitled to a return on that extra production? If we continue to tax production at the 40 per cent level, I can see why people do not want to produce more; they do not because the government simply taxes it away.
In conclusion, I believe this country, with all its wealth and potential, can come out of this crisis if we, as Canadians, adopt some of these principles. I also hope-and this may not be very popular with some members-that because we have been able to keep up with inflation more than adequately, hon. members will join me in agreeing that as of January 1, 1976, we should not go forward with the 7 per cent escalation in our stipends; that it be a symbol that we also are part and parcel of this problem and we want to contribute our share to combating inflation. I stress again that we believe a person is deserving in accordance with his rate of production, and that this government would govern much better if it governed less.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, in taking part in the debate on this legislation, I want to say at the outset that the NDP has suggested for many years that in a planned economy, which we feel our country should have, there should be policies and programs which call for full production and full employment. There should be, also, a system of collective controls and price reviews so as to contain inflation, or at least to alleviate the rate of inflation that we experience from time to time. I can recall that in the elections of 1963, 1965, 1968, 1972 and 1974 we said that very thing and were ridiculed for it. We opposed the proposals of the Progressive Conservative Party in the last campaign for a freeze and price and wage controls as being unfair and unworkable unless such a program was accompanied by other programs. Today, however, we see the conversion of the government to a program similar to the one the Conservatives were proposing, unless I badly misunderstood them. I repeat what we said a year ago, that this conversion to a program of controls will be unfair, inequitable and in many instances unworkable.
I have noted with interest in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of other members of the government in the last couple of days a seeming willingness to make certain changes, additions or deletions in their proposed program to take out some of the obvious unfairness in the legislation. If the program is to have a
Anti-Inflation Act
remote chance of success, it must not only be fair in its application but it must be seen to be fair.
Of course we must fight inflation; there is no argument about that from anyone in the House. The argument is about how to go about it. I submit that in the process of fighting inflation, or attempting to alleviate the rate of inflation, equal, if not greater, importance must be given to other problems in our economy, specifically unemployment. To ignore that problem and solely to battle inflation will only result in greater unemployment which, I submit, is a far worse problem in our society than inflation.
I and the NDP will not support a program that perpetuates unfair treatment of Canadians who cannot defend themselves, such as the unorganized workers, the old age pensioners and those on low and fixed incomes, people who have no way of defending themselves. That means a great majority of wage and salary earners in the country, and it certainly includes most of those who are on pension. The legislation proposes a 10 per cent limit on wage increases, which means a maximum of $2,400 and a minimum of $600 in applying the guidelines. I want to repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had to say when he spoke in this debate last Friday, that it would make much more sense and we would obtain much more acceptance from the people of Canada in fighting inflation if we reversed that guideline and provided the $2,400 to the people at the low end of the scale and the $600 to the people at the top end of the scale, including members of parliament. The program would then be much more credible and much more fair.
If we are to do anything to help those who are on fixed and low incomes to live decently and not see their standard of living falling as the result of the high rate of inflation, then surely they are the ones who should be getting the $2,400 maximum increase, and those at the high end of the scale can do quite well with nothing at all or, at the most, $600. Surely that would be decent, sensible, civilized and fair. But no, this government keeps on with the old free enterprise nonsense which means that him that has gets, and him that hasn't gets it in the neck. It means, continue striving for all you can get and to heck with the other guy; those who have power will get more, and those who have no power will get less, or nothing.
Surely, if you are going to bring in a restriction on incomes, these restrictions should not apply to those on low incomes. In fact, I submit that any family on an income of less than $10,000 a year right now should be totally exempt from the guidelines. A family consisting of husband, wife and three, four or five children trying to live in an urban centre in Canada is not able to get by on $10,000. They cannot make it if they have to pay for their shelter, pay their food bills, pay for educating their children, pay their taxes, mortgage payments, and so forth.
I saw a survey which was made in Toronto a year and a half ago by the welfare council in co-operation with other groups in the city. It showed that a family of five in an average home, with one car, and assuming they put the three children through high school and into university, will not make it on less than $15,000. To apply guidelines to incomes as low as $6,000 a year, I submit, is unconscionable. The people on low incomes are not the ones who

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
cause inflation; they are the first victims of inflation and the ones who are hit the hardest.
Surely it is not right to apply these restrictions to old age pensioners and to people who work at the minimum wage who have no union to bargain for them. Those people make up two-thirds of the work force of this country. They would receive smaller increases from their employers than they presently do, were it not for the precedents set by organized workers who are able to obtain higher increases through the bargaining of their unions. There should be total exemption for people on low incomes. If the government thought that anything below $10,000 was too generous, surely there should be a total exemption for anyone earning less than $6,000 or $7,000 per year, no matter how the income is arrived at, whether it be pension, wage or salary.
For the minister to suggest that hitting big wage and salary earners, big companies and big labour will somehow help the little people because it will reduce inflation is some kind of sophistry. Economists whose comments I have heard in the last few days have said that there is no doubt this program will have an effect on the rate of inflation, but the effect will be to cause the rate to reduce by no more than 1 per cent or 2 per cent. That kind of insignificant effect on inflation will not be of much value to the little people; it will be of greater value to those on high incomes and to those corporations which make nice profits. It will be of little consequence to old age pensioners or to people working at the minimum wage. Inflation will be only 10 per cent instead of 12 per cent.
In regard to people living on pensions, I have listened to hon. members on the government side telling us not to forget that there is an escalation clause for old age pensioners, people on income supplements, veterans pensions, and so on. That is quite true, but the escalator clause was applied to basic pensions which at that time were already too low. Since it was implemented, all the escalator clause has done is alleviate the situation of the old age pensioner in the sense that he is not as badly off as he would otherwise have been. Regardless of the escalator clause, the old age pensioner has still become worse off, although perhaps not to as great a degree.
If the government will not change its mind about who can receive the $2,400 and who can receive the $600, it should at least indicate that those who are on incomes such as the minimum wage, old age pensioners and those on guaranteed income supplement, shall be guaranteed a minimum of a $600 increase in the first year. That means an increase of $50 a month in the old age pension, immediately. Let us make sure they receive that $600; let us not just leave it in the guidelines as a piece of fantasy. How will these people receive an additional $600? The province of Quebec has already lowered its projected rate of increase in the minimum wage. Let us request, or require the provinces to raise the minimum wage, and let the federal government give the lead by increasing the present minimum wage so that those who work at the minimum wage will receive at least $600 more in the first year of this program.

If we want co-operation, support and even some element of enthusiasm for a fight against inflation, these are the kinds of measures we must take, and we must incorporate them into our program of restraints. I said earlier that it is not good enough just to fight inflation in isolation. Unemployment is a more serious problem than inflation, and in conjunction with the battle against inflation we should be carrying on a battle against unemployment.
The question of housing has been raised repeatedly in the question period since we returned after the recess. If we want to do something about a social right and need, the right and need for a decent home and employment, and to control inflation in conjunction with the program of restraints on wages, incomes and prices, there should be an injection of an additional $1 billion or $2 billion into housing. The creation of employment and the forcing down of the cost of housing could be accomplished in one move.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) announce today that those who had signed the agreement would come under the Assisted Home Ownership Plan and would qualify for the $500 grant. In many of the provinces these people will also receive a provincial grant toward their down payment. The provision was that construction had to be 65 per cent completed by October 31. There are two housing developments in Regina of which I am aware where some of the houses will not be 65 per cent completed until the end of March. The basements are dug and the foundations might be poured. It is not the fault of the homeowner nor that of the government. In many cases it is not the fault of contractors; they are having difficulty obtaining sufficient supplies. I was pleased the minister said that the program is now extended to December 31, but I submit that is not good enough. Tens of thousands of low income families in this country will lose that grant if the government does not agree that all the houses which were under construction, no matter at what stage of completion, will be included in the program.
A family which was eligible for the $500 grant from the federal government and $1,000 from the provincial government called me last week. They borrowed another $250 to enable them to raise the $1,750 required for their down payment. Their house is only about 10 per cent completed. The builder and the realtor, with great apologies, said they would not have it 65 per cent completed until the end of April. I would hate to see this low income family have to take out a second mortgage to cover the down payment, because we all know what that means in terms of interest rates and what it will cost them for that small amount of money. This is only one small example, but it is important and meaningful to thousands of people in this country.
I wish to say something about agriculture and agricultural products. The government's guidelines indicate that farmers and fishermen will be exempt, applying the farm gate principle. However, within hours of the guidelines being made known, the newly appointed chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, and his vice-chairman, Mrs. Plump-tre, in their first press conference indicated they intended to investigate marketing boards. I submit that they cast aspersions and suspicions on farm marketing boards which were entirely unjustified and unnecessary. If we are to control marketing boards, then the policy of the
October 23, 1975

government with regard to exempting farmers and fishermen is just a sham. We should not forget that the farm marketing board is right beside the farm gate, and we should not forget that a fish marketing board is on the dock right beside the fisherman's boat. If you try to control marketing boards, you are in effect attacking the incomes of our primary producers, the farmers and fishermen.
Farmers and fishermen in many parts of the country have fought for decades for a system of orderly marketing, for marketing boards in which they could have some input and membership. It has been the dream of farmers in my constituency and province, and they have fought and persuaded successive governments of differing political persuasions to implement them. If Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plump-tre think that the price of wheat is too high, and start messing around with the Canadian Wheat Board or the Hog Marketing Commission in Saskatchewan, we will have news for them. In the decades of fighting to get orderly marketing and marketing boards, farmers have been victimized by successive governments and have been treated unfairly through a cheap food policy. One of the contributing factors to the demise of 400,000 family farms since World War II is the cheap food policy.
When farmers were getting $1 or $1.50 per bushel for wheat two or three years ago, we all knew it was not meeting the cost of production, let alone providing a return on labour or investment. Now that the price of grain bears some relation to the cost of production for the first time, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board is screaming about marketing boards. If he comes to Saskatchewan, he had better keep his back to the wall and his guns loose in the holster, because a lot of farmers will want to talk to him very severely.
The Food Prices Review Board has not been able to find anything wrong at the packaging, wholesaling or retailing level, nor at the supermarkets of Garfield-Weston; therefore, they think there is something wrong with the marketing boards. But marketing boards are about the only protection the farmer has, and any fair-minded citizen is prepared to pay the price required to meet the cost of production and labour and something to live on.
The cost of production continues to increase. According to Statistics Canada, farm input rose by 9 per cent from the second quarter of 1974 to the second quarter of 1975, the latest figures available. Cost of production rose 29 per cent in the last two years. Just ask the cow-calf operator or the farmer who has a feed lot about his prices in light of that 29 per cent increase in the cost of production. There are many important components in the cost of production-mortgage credit, for instance. The credit required for land and buildings increased by 13 per cent from the second quarter of 1974 to the second quarter of 1975, and in the two-year period it increased by 32 per cent. The cost of farm machinery increased by 19 per cent in one year and 29 per cent over two years. Petroleum products increased 16 per cent in one year and 28 per cent in two years. Fertilizer shows a 39 per cent increase in one year and an 83 per cent increase in the two years. I submit that many of these increases were neither necessary nor justified, but the government is not interested in checking them.
Anti-Inflation Act
In the face of those increases in the cost of farm production, Massey-Ferguson Limited recently reported record profits of $53 million in the nine-month period ending July 31-an increase of 37 per cent over the same period in the previous year. That tells us something about the increase in the cost of farm implements and parts.
Let us look at banks. In the nine months until July 31, both the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Toronto-Dominion Bank reported an increase of 23 per cent in profit over the previous year-$92 million and $65 million respectively. The Royal Bank of Canada did even better; their profit for the nine-month period was $113 million, a 26 per cent increase over the same period in the previous year.
The cost of petroleum products has increased. Imperial Oil Limited is reaping a profit approaching $1 million a day. If we are to do anything about prices, profits and incomes, if we are going to fight inflation, I submit we should start at the top. People at the top cause inflation, not those on low incomes. The old age pensioner is not the one to attack: start at the top and work down. High profits, unjustified price increases and high incomes should be attacked. That is where you start, whether it be with the president of a corporation, a trade union or a member of parliament: it is they who take more out of society than they put in.


Mr. Paproski:: Speak for yourself.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to suggest that those on low incomes should quit trying to take more out of the economy than they are putting into it is the worst kind of insult to those people. I should like to see him work on the sewer and water system in the city of Regina, on a casual basis at the minimum wage. We would see whether he is putting more into the economy than he is taking out. That is an insult to the majority of people in this country. If this program entails attacking and undermining the marketing boards, I will campaign for its failure. I know thousands of others who will do the same and make no apologies for it.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: A great Canadian.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member calls me a great Canadian and I accept that as a compliment. I am sure the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith) will do the same thing if he sees farmers being hurt by an attack on marketing boards through an income and prices program. I know he will join me if this program is not changed to provide more income for pensioners and people on low wages, and unorganized workers. If this program is unfair to them, together with thousands and thousands of other people I will do all I can to see that it fails. If it is implemented in such a manner as to be fair to those people, it will have my support and co-operation and that of the people of this country. From what we know of the program to date, it appears to be grossly unfair to most of the ordinary people in the country who are on low and fixed incomes and it cannot help but be harmful to primary producers. I submit the program is a failure.
As I said at the outset, we agree that we must do all we can to fight inflation or to reduce the rate of inflation. Every country in the world, even the totalitarian coun-

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
tries, is affected by inflation of 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent. There is no such thing as doing away with inflation unless you bring on a major depression: that is the only way to halt inflation. For years my party has said that we can lessen, if not eliminate, the effects of inflation on those receiving low and fixed incomes and pensions. We can contain the rate of inflation to a much better degree if we introduce programs which are fair to people.
I have heard government spokesmen use the term "an element of rough justice." If it is said to be rough justice for the poor and those on fixed incomes, I suggest it is not rough justice but injustice. To control inflation properly, you must bring in a series of policies. You must introduce over-all plans which deal with several problems at the same time. You must attack inflation, put greater emphasis on combatting unemployment, and meet the social and human needs of the people of this country. You must do this through providing, in a massive way, housing which our people can afford. That will do much to cure both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
We have contended for years that we can ameliorate the rate of inflation if we introduce a system of selective price controls and establish a prices review board which would require those who wish to raise prices to appear before the board and justify the increase. If they can justify the increase by proving an actual cost increase, we would be fair and say, "All right; you are allowed that much increase." If General Motors wants to increase the price of its trucks by $300 but can prove only increased costs of $100, then a price increase of $100 would be allowed. Surely that is fair. Surely that is the more honest way to control the cost of living and inflation. It is better to do this than to take it out on our low income people.
If we were to control the prices of areas of our economy involved with steel, farm machinery, fertilizer, and products of that nature, we would effectively control not only the price of steel and of the other commodities mentioned but we would make sure that steel manufacturers and other manufacturers do not create artificial shortages and then persuade the government to grant increases. You cannot have one without the other, as the song says. If you control price, you must have some say in production. If you control the price of steel, you also control the input costs of a host of other items, such as automobiles, farm machinery, refrigerators, stoves, structural steel-you name it. You would not need to go snooping into the books of every storekeeper and contractor to see what he is charged, because you would know what his - steel is costing.
Our proposed prices review board would work exactly the opposite to the way the proposed Anti-Inflation Board will work. If somebody complains to the government board, the board will look into it. We think it should be done the other way. We think that anyone who wants to increase price should first appear before the board to justify the price increase, before the increase is allowed. Do it that way, I say. If the government insists on setting up the Anti-Inflation Board as proposed, then at least I and one other member of parliament will tell the people in our constituencies to send to the board notification of each and every price increase, wherever it may take place.
That reminds me of something. Has the government considered doing as fast investigation of the wholesale and retail grocery chains and department stores of this country? I was on the telephone to people in Regina and Vancouver and learned something which I suppose is common knowledge. Because this dummy government tipped its hand in advance on the holiday weekend, management in many stores the other day went galloping up and down the aisles, putting up the price of thousands of commodities. I am told they started doing this even before the Prime Minister came on television to announce the program. I think the government should order a thorough investigation to compare the price of thousands of commodities in the week before October 14 with the price of the same commodities immediately after October 14. This would be an interesting exercise. The government ought to do this if it is serious about restraint and wants to be fair.
In addition to imposing selective controls and establishing the prices review board, we should make sure that our tax system is fair. I notice that the Prime Minister talked about taxing away the excess income of those who break the guidelines. Fine-but I will believe it when I see it, because so much of our tax system is unfair. It discriminates between the poor and the rich, between the corporation and the individual, and the entire system needs to be revamped.
If the government does the things I have suggested, if it introduces programs which are fair and equitable, it will gain the support and co-operation of the people of this country. But it must do some of those things I have suggested. It must attack unemployment and provide housing if it wants the co-operation which it needs in order to succeed.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise to speak on Bill C-73, the government's announced mandatory guidelines as a cure for inflation. My concern over this bill started with the Prime Minister's presentation on national television on Thanksgiving Day. Although Canadians have much about which to be thankful, the spirit of thanksgiving was not improved by our watching our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mouthing policies he has consistently ridiculed and which he obviously does not intend to support by example.
The fact is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues duped the voters in 1974 just to win an election. At that time, all the members of the cabinet hid the economic facts from Canadians, just as they hid them with regard to our oil reserves. But now some of the truth is becoming evident. Having ignited the inferno, the Prime Minister now asks voters to dampen the fires of inflation.
The request of the Prime Minister for personal restraint was almost nauseating, coming as it did from the mouth of a man who has proved to be the most profligate spendthrift in Canada's history. His personal lifestyle, at public expense, would put an Indian prince to shame. It includes swimming pools, massive staffs, Cadillacs and travel.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I hear an hon. member say "shame." Let him stand and refute what I have said. These are the facts,

October 23, 1975

and they are shameful. Perhaps the hon. member can stand on his feet after I have finished.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is a shame. And after emptying the public purse, the Prime Minister has the gall to call for personal restraint on the part of the average Canadian.
Following the Prime Minister's questionable performance on television we were given a detailed statement on this measure by the new Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), whom I congratulate on his appointment. According to him, the real danger to our economy lies ahead. These were his words:
As countries like the United States, Germany and Japan pull out of their present deep recession they can expect to enjoy very much higher productivity gains than Canada and the effect would be to widen substantially the differential between our unit costs and those of our major competitors.
I believe I have quoted the hon. gentleman correctly. We must ask ourselves why this is so. Do these countries have more natural resources or more ability than Canda? The answer is no. The situation in Canada is due entirely to mismanagement of our economy by the present government. Our new Finance Minister said the program which he placed before us needs the support of all governments in Canada and of all Canadians in order to break the vicious spiral of costs and prices which endangers the stability of our economy and, indeed, of our whole society.
To my mind, such a statement implies that the government has been living in a dream world ever since the beginning of the 1970s. The Prime Minister and his cabinet remind me of a man who had difficulty providing for the wants-not the needs-of his family; his income took care of his family's needs. Though he lived within his budget, he could never seem to get far enough ahead to take care of the many things they wanted.
Then one day he received a notice from his bank that he was eligible for a credit card. They sent him one and encouraged him to use it in every possible way. He began buying everything his family wanted. The card was like manna from heaven. However, he eventually received a statement of indebtedness and was asked to pay up. It was then that his house of cards collapsed. He became irresponsible, irrational and unpredictable, blaming everyone but himself for his own foolishness. That story applies to the Prime Minister; he need only look in a mirror to see the man responsible for Canada's economic problems.
It was the Conservative party, especially our national leader, which consistently exercised leadership in drawing public attention to the serious, even fundamental damage being done to our national fabric by continuing doubledigit inflation. We led the way in calling for strong and direct government action to deal with the problem. Just as consistently, the Prime Minister and his colleagues ridiculed and criticized our proposals, calling them unworkable and unnecessary.
Our position on the evils of inflation has not changed. That, of course, is the major difference between ourselves and the government, members of which have now been obliged to reverse the cynical and misleading position they
Anti-Inflation Act
persisted in putting before the Canadian people not only during the 1974 election campaign but since, up to and including the budget of June 23 presented by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). We remain convinced of the urgent need for strong and effective national action and leadership on this issue. If anything, the 15 months of ineffective action and non-leadership since the 1974 election makes the need for effective action even more necessary, as it has made inflation itself just so much more difficult to manage.
The main problem facing the government at present is that of its credibility. Speaking in Trois-Rivieres, for example, if we look back to June 21, 1974, we find a headline which reads: "Trudeau Continues Attack on PC Policies on Quebec Tour". I shall not burden the record with all he said, but there was one line he repeated over and over again: he continued to criticize Conservatives for their prices and incomes policy, suggesting it would shackle the Canadian economy. Today, the Prime Minister is going around the country saying his policy is the only solution. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: which Trudeau will the Canadian people believe? Will it be the one whose words were reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 21, 1974, or will it be the one who is running around the country today?
While, as I say, the main problem facing the government today has to do with credibility, I should like to make it abundantly clear at the same time that Bill C-73 and the accompanying policies announced by the Prime Minister and his colleagues do not constitute our program as we advocated an incomes policy during the 1974 campaign. There are important, if not fundamental, differences between the program we advocated then and the program which the Liberals have announced. These differences extend to policy as well as to detail.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are perfectly right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One basic difference is that we never presented our proposals as an answer in itself to the inflationary threat. Fundamental to our approach-and the record makes this abundantly clear-was the need to accompany a short-term controls program designed essentially to break inflationary expectations with other, and equally important measures to deal with deep-rooted causes of inflation. In that context we placed, and continue to place, major emphasis on the need for more appropriate fiscal and monetary policies on the part of the federal government. Leadership by example, which is the only kind of leadership people will understand and accept in the long run, does not simply mean holding the salaries of federal civil servants within wage guidelines or postponing the purchase of new carpets or furniture. If the call is for the nation to live within its means, the government, in order to set an example, must abide by the same injunction.
The record of the government in this respect is virtually the opposite of what is required. On the monetary front, for example, the Bank of Canada, with the government's approval, has consistently permitted increases in the money supply well in excess of any increase in real or even inflated economic growth. During the past 12 months alone, that increase has amounted to more than 15 per cent. Indeed, if one wished to look for source's of fuel for
8490

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
this year's degree of inflation, it would be hard to find a better starting place than the $3 billion or more which the bank pumped into circulation during the last quarter of 1974 alone in a cynical exercise to ensure the success of the massive Canada Savings Bond program launched by the former minister of finance during that period.
If inflation is to be brought under control, increases in the money supply must, in my opinion, bear a closer resemblance to rates of growth in the economy. I would also remind the House that the government of the right hon. member for Mount Royal has set a record for living beyond its means while making unrealistic demands upon the economy. Under his administration, government spending increased from $10 billion to service 20 million people in 1968-when the right hon. gentleman came to power-to more than $35 billion to service some 2214 million Canadians in 1975-76. And the end is nowhere in sight.
According to the budget of June 23, expenditures are forecast to rise on a year to year basis by at least 11 per cent. The June forecast by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton of a $3 billion budgetary deficit appears, now, to be too low, and off the record-we certainly cannot find out what the deficit will be from conversations on the record-it is being predicted as likely to be $6 billion rather than $3 billion as stated by the former minister of finance. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this was the real reason for his resigning from the cabinet: he could no longer face himself in the mirror in the morning and live the lie he had presented to the House of Commons.
In short, the government's appetite for spending has been boundless. It has been fed by ever-increasing tax returns from Canadian pockets and by continual heavy demands upon the capital markets of the country. As Conservatives, we have continually urged the government to show restraint in its own demands upon the economy and, more specifically, to limit increases in its spending to rates of real growth in the economy, all to no avail.
There are at least two other basic differences between our approach as set forth in the 1974 campaign and the government's present program. First, there is the time period during which any controls program could hope to function without setting off serious new distortions within our economy. Because we realized that an incomes policy was designed essentially to break inflationary expectations and create a breathing space for other, more fundamental anti-inflation policies to be brought to bear, our undertaking was for a program of no more than 18 to 24 months. The present government bill C-73 seeks a program of three years' duration,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or more.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As my leader says, or more. There is a further provision in the bill for extensions even beyond that period. In other words, this is an open-ended bill. As I have already noted, controls can have a distorting effect upon the economy, and the longer the economy is in a strait-jacket the sharper and deeper the distortions are likely to become. But even beyond that, I seriously question whether Canadians generally are prepared to grant the federal government, especially this federal govern-

ment, on an open-ended basis the kind of sweeping, centralized powers represented in Bill C-73. The exercise of this kind of power over such a long period of time raises questions well beyond that of economic distortion. In fact, it raises the issue of a very fundamental change in the balance of decision-making power within our free market system.
A second difference between the two approaches lies with the way in which one could and should lead into such a program. We advocated, as an initial step, an across the board freeze period of up to 90 days so that the government could sit down with the major interest groups involved and work out answers to the host of questions which arise in any incomes policy. Without the freeze, the present government is left to sort out the ground rules while groups and individuals scamper to assert their special interests within the program.
Within the last few days we have already seen ample evidence of the kind of confusion and exaggerated inequities that result from this government's lack of any orderly introductory period. I predict this situation will develop and grow worse in the months ahead. I make this unfortunate prediction, but I submit this might well happen. At the very least, the bill should be amended in a way that requires the government to return to parliament for renewed powers after a much shorter time period. It should then justify its need for any extension and then obtain formal parliamentary approval to carry on the program for a further period if this action is warranted at that time. We must be very careful about giving away all of our freedom through legislation such as this. It is for this reason that I make this suggestion.
Beyond the question of an effective time period there is also the question of parliamentary accountability during the period that the program is in effect. At the present time, as I read the bill-and I have read it very carefully a number of times-there is no provision for any kind of comprehensive reporting to parliament on the over-all record of the program, and no built-in opportunity for parliament, through one of its committees, to receive and scrutinize regular reports from the agencies established in the bill.
Considering the massive powers involved-and they are massive-I, personally, believe that some process of accountability is not only essential but mandatory. Any process such as this which places massive discretionary powers in the hands of administrative agencies obviously requires a comprehensive appeals procedure in order to safeguard the public against the abuse of such powers. The present bill proposes such an elaborate and complicated procedure that decisions may well be tied up for months in one appeal after another. Justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied-a situation that could well face thousands of Canadians under the government's proposed controls program.
The cause of the entire economic situation which presently faces Canadians is spelled out by the government in its 1975-76 booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". Chapter i tells us that the 1975-76 main estimates propose budgetary expenditures of $28.2 billion. This is $6.2 billion, or-I emphasize this figure-28 per cent more than the 1974-75 main estimates. This booklet is available to all, Mr. October 23, 1975

Speaker, and it makes interesting reading. That figure is $2.8 billion, or 11 per cent above the forecast expenditure for 1974-75.
Since this booklet was printed, according to figures placed on the record by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) when he spoke to the House on Tuesday these figures have now escalated to $35 billion. At the same time as the President of the Treasury Board made this figure available to us, he pleaded in his speech that those on this side give him some suggestions as to how to cut this expenditure. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been here a long time and I believe the minister was speaking facetiously, because whenever we do make suggestions in the House and in committee as to how certain expenditures can be curtailed or cut down, to my knowledge no action is ever taken. Despite the proposals we make and the criticisms we render of certain policies, eventually these expenditures are made and we end up in the public accounts committee with someone asking why they were made.
I am prepared to give the minister some serious suggestions that I hope he will consider, for only by getting to the root cause of excessive spending can we hope, in my view, to curb inflation. For example, in the estimates of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) the minister will find a subsidy to the National Arts Centre of $6,892,000 just to keep the doors open. Apparently in the government's view the show must go on. Give them bread and circuses and let the people pay for it. If you check back, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that Canadians built the building at a cost of something like $50 million. In desperate times of economic recession like those we face in Canada today, I believe this centre could well pay its way. If it cannot, I submit it should close its doors until things improve.
To call it a National Arts Centre is a misnomer in any event, because there are many people in my constituency, and perhaps throughout Nova Scotia, who have never even seen the National Arts Centre, much less attended a show. It is really only for the people of Ottawa. There are centres in Montreal and in Toronto, and not too many people come from regional areas to view the productions that are put on in the National Arts Centre. I think this is one area that could well be examined by the government.
I also submit the expenditures of the CBC should be overhauled. In 1957, when I first came to this House, I remember looking at the subsidy provided the CBC, which at that time was $52 million. I remember making a speech on that item. The Hon. George Nowlan was minister of national revenue responsible to the House for the CBC, and he did not take too kindly to my comments. I criticized the subsidy. I said in a speech I made in the House that it represented $1 million a week and that I felt it should be looked into.
Now what do we find, Mr. Speaker? This year, in addition to all the money that comes in from other sources, the CBC will be subsidized by the amount of $352,895,000. That is almost $1 million a day. Again, the end is nowhere in sight because I understand the amount is supposed to escalate next year on account of the Olympics, when more services from the CBC will be required. Surely, somewhere we must seek a halt. I submit this amount could and should be cut back at least to the 1973 figure, which was
Anti-Inflation Act
$114 million less than the figure listed for this year's expenditures.
I submit we could cut back on the CBC by curtailing programs, for in fact we have a surfeit of TV programs. I am prepared to stick my neck out and state here in this House that following the CBC news at night we could well terminate our TV for that particular day, and I would like to know just how much of a savings this would amount to in dollars and cents to the Canadian taxpayers. I submit we could make that cut without truly affecting the Canadian lifestyle.
Information Canada is listed this year at $9,562,000.1 say to this House that it could be abolished. The minister ridiculed our proposal along this line in his speech on Tuesday, and said it would only save $4 million or $5 million. I submit the minister is wrong in making that statement. I checked the record and it is as I stated, $9,562,000, or almost $10 million. I submit this is no small amount. If it is a small amount in the eyes of this cabinet, I would remind the House that I come from an area where shipbuilding, ship operating and fishing operations are paramount. There is a saying in Lunenburg, my home town, that it is the little leaks that sink the ship. I would not call $10 million a little leak but it, along with some of the other leaks we see in governmental expenditures, is sinking this Liberal ship of state. These leaks are very injurious to Canadians; that is our concern and it should be the concern of all hon. members of this House of Commons. I say Information Canada should be abolished.
There is an increase in running the taxation branch of the Department of National Revenue of $45 million this year over last. The cost of Customs and Excise is up $30 million over last year. This should be investigated. There is no rationale, rhyme or reason for there being an increase of $75 million in this one department in one year. This government has been tossing around million dollar expenditures as though there were no tomorrow; but tomorrow has shown up today, which is why our economy is in this terrible condition. Internal overhead, accommodation, rent and maintenance is up over $105 million this year over last year. Why is this? Contingencies alone are up $85 million over last year. Why is that? Surely this can be curtailed.
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a department which did not even exist prior to the advent of the Prime Minister in 1968, calls for $52,835,000 this year, up $16 million over last year. Why is this? I want to make a sincere proposal to the cabinet, and I hope somebody is listening. Why could we not take some of the bureaucrats and personnel who presently exist in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and utilize them to manage the problems that will accrue to Canadians under Bill C-73? I see a duplication in the requirements as between the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and this bill which should be investigated. This bill states, at page 10, that the Anti-Inflation Board shall:
(a) monitor changes in prices, profits, compensation and dividends in relation to the guidelines and the effectiveness and workability of the guidelines both in general and in their application-
I could read it all, but hon. members can read as well as I can. There is a duplication as between this bill and the
29669-54%

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
responsibilities that have been laid before the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Do we hear anything from the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet to the effect that we are going to take staff from this department? No, that department is to continue as it is. In fact, it is to have an increase of $16 million over last year. I say to you, sir, that with Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plumptre monitoring price increases, there should certainly be less for that particular department to do. Surely there could be a cut in the expenditures of the department.
The Canadian International Development Agency is listed as requiring $734 million, up $207 million over two years ago. The activities of this agenry are questionable. They have been seriously criticized In the committee, not only by members of the official opposition and not only by members of the NDP and of the Creditiste party, but also by members of the government party. We have all shared concern over the arbitrary actions taken by the director of the Canadian International Development Agency. I submit that these expenditures should be severely examined and curtailed by the present administration.
If you check back on some of my proposals, you will find that they come close to a saving of $1 billion, an amount which I submit could be cut off this year's proposals without in any way hurting the lifestyle of Canadians. There are many, many more, but rather than burdening the record I will let hon. members look at the estimate books themselves. However, instead of following the course I am suggesting that our Prime Minister is running up and down this nation, and instead of explaining his policy to the people he is threatening the labouring man, the businessman and the average Canadian. Instead of going hat in hand and saying, "I did make some mistakes: I did construe your wants as needs and I taxed the people accordingly; I am sorry"-instead of saying something along that line and that he will try to do better, he is out there at the various meeting halls literally threatening Canadians. He is saying, in effect, "You do as I say, or
else."	.	.
In the press he is reported as having said, "If you get a raise we will tax it away from you directly or we will tax the company and take it away at the source, or we will take it from the company." What hypocrisy this is! This Prime Minister and this government should seek the cooperation of the people and they should provide an example for all of us.
To date the Prime Minister has said nothing about decreasing the staff of bureaucrats in government. He has said nothing about reducing unemployment insurance benefits for those who refuse to work. He has said nothing about tax incentives for small business. He has said nothing about tax incentives for individuals in this nation- and thank God for them-who are willing to work harder. We hear nothing of this nature from the Prime Minister.
I say to you, sir, that the times call for bold, cold and harsh government cuts and for rewarding the output efforts of others so we can compete in world markets. Instead of following this course, the Prime Minister has been fiddle-faddling and fuddle-duddling while the nation is burning. In closing, I would commend the words of that great United States president, Abraham Lincoln, for the consideration of the government, for they are as true today as they were when they were first uttered. He said:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help a man permanently by doing for him what he could do for himself.
I urge this government to give these views serious thought, for in these gems of wisdom spoken by a great leader of another country lies Canada's only real hope for a prosperous future.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty as a member of Parliament to express my views on Bill C-73 introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to enforce the contents of the white paper as an attack against rising consumer prices.
In 1968, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) offered to the nation a political program whose first objective was to establish a just society. The people believed in the Liberal party's promises and in the just society for all Canadians of good will. The Liberal party won the election with a very large majority. From that moment, it had the power to legislate to establish a more equitable society in Canada.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, a just society is one that first recognizes to every individual and every family the right to an adequate income to meet its essential needs, that is to say, an income which would enable each family to live above the poverty level, as defined by the Senate Committee report on poverty.
Nature imposes on family heads the sacred duty to feed and provide for their children. It goes even further. Because children resemble their fathers-they are somewhat the continuations of their beings-nature inspires them with the idea that they must provide for their future and create an inheritance which will help them fend for themselves, along the perilous journey of their lives, against the strokes of fate. Is it with minimum wages of $2.60 an hour that the head of a family can live up to his obligations and make his dreams come true? And yet, we have been told that the minimum wage level in the province of Quebec has been frozen at $2.60 an hour.
However, judging from the white paper and the bill under review, I am afraid that small earners will be put at a disadvantage and that the gap which separates them from the privileged of society will grow even wider, which may be a source of social disturbance which will benefit
no one.
It is the duty of the state to favour greater co-operation between capital-labour and capital-money. Capital-labour has rights, but it has responsibilities as well. One of these is to provide faithfully all the labour it has agreed to provide under a free and fair contract. It must make every effort to provide a performance of quality which will contribute to lower production costs, as well as facilitate better competition, which would serve to fight effectively against unemployment.
On the other hand, the rich and the businessman must not treat workers as slaves. They should justly respect in them the dignity of man, as well as their human rights. Physical labour is far from being shameful.
October 23, 1975

On the contrary, it reflects credit on man for it is a means which enables him to earn a living. What is shameful and inhuman is to make use of man as if he were a mere instrument, to esteem him only in relation to his physical strength, which allows the firms to make bigger profits.
The unions' first duty, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up for the workers' rights on wages and working conditions. In general, they fulfill this first duty rather well. However, union leaders should make a point of informing their members of the various wheels of our economic system, particularly in the production and consumption areas, and also of the monetary system whose function is to serve as the link between the work capital-labour and capital-money.
Thus the state has the duty to see that harmony and justice is maintained between those two forms of capitals, which would help a lot to resolve the problems of both inflation and unemployment.
We live in a consumer society which has gone far beyond common sense. Even governments spend without much consideration. Departments and Crown corporations are not in the least economical. In many cases the replacement of equipment which is still fit for use could be regarded as wasteful and the workers who have to carry out those changes are sometimes shocked when they see the government give away at ridiculous prices things that have cost a lot of money and are still in good condition.
Even the public is aware of this waste. The same bad example, Mr. Speaker, is given by the big companies which get contracts from governments, and once again it is the public that foots the bill through taxes which increase all the time and which are one of the causes of inflation.
Let us see what happened in the refurbishing of the Bonaventure. Witnesses appeared before the committee of the House who proved beyond a doubt that millions were spent needlessly, that there were even cases of patronage which cost millions to the Canadian taxpayers.
Considering the bad example given by public powers and big business, how, Mr. Speaker, can the public not be tempted to get rid of things than can still be used though they may not be in the latest fashion? Those things are scrapped, sent by boat to Japan where the Japanese use them to make goods we then buy from them, while in the meantime thousands of Canadians live willingly or unwillingly off unemployment and welfare.
One day, when I was a young man, I went with my father to a meeting which was held in a classroom of the school of my village. The guest speaker told us about the advantages of establishing a caisse populaire Desjardins in our parish. He told us about the good virtue of saving and the advantages we would derive from it if we channelled our savings into such a credit union for our future needs.	.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if saving is still a virtue, if it must be practised only by the underprivileged groups or if public authorities must also set an example.
At the inauguration of a building which was to become a caisse populaire Desjardins, I told the audience, particularly the young people, that saving was still a virtue to practise, that they would miss later in life the $10 they spent without thinking today and the $20 they refuse to earn today.
Anti-Inflation Act
How can you honestly ask the Canadian people to tighten their belts when the authorities let super-commercial enterprises make advertisements on the radio, on television, inviting us to spend.
Those ads cost a lot of money and are added to the price the consumer must pay. Ads urge you to spend now and pay later. Finance institutions are taking advantage of that and putting people in the red through loans made at usurious interest rates under the sympathetic eye of authorities. Even governments practice that policy. There is proof in the housing area.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation makes loans to corporations for housing construction for periods of up to 50 years at very high interest rates, with the result that the public will pay their houses four times and own them only after 50 years. People who will be born in 50 years are being put in the red to pay for services for today's generation; yet at that time they will still have to pay for their own services. That is what you call a sound financial system. I do not understand anymore, Mr. Speaker.
The government is asking people to tighten their belt and workers to refrain from seeking higher wages. How is it possible for them to welcome this message when we witnessed in the last few years, and particularly in the last months, a steady increase in the prices of building materials, oil, natural gas, gas and even the gas tax, utilities, clothing, food, and despite the fact that the farm producer does not get the income he is entitled to.
For example, Mr. Speaker, let us take the prices of farm machinery and spare parts, which increased in a discouraging way for farm producers in the past 12 months. How can one expect those same farm producers to produce more economically and accept a drop in the prices of their products?
Only this morning, Mr. Speaker, we learned on the news that Ontario Hydro is increasing its prices by 25 per cent. Who will pay the bill? After big businesses increased their prices in a comfortable way in anticipation of a possible increase in salaries for 1976 and many workers agreed to wait until 1976 to renew their collective agreement the government now imposes a ceiling on them. That is what made my colleague the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) say, as reported in Montreal's La Presse of October 15, 1975, and I quote:
Liberal party workers are more bitter than Juneau.
And the article goes on:
Prosper Boulanger, M.P. who was responsible for the campaign, stated to a journalist from La Presse that "if Juneau was defeated, it was because of that... statement made last night".
It was the statement made the night before the election. It is a Liberal member of parliament who condemns his government's policy. Further, it says:
Other party workers present agreed with "Prosper". Mr. Boulanger even went as far as to say: "It is not Juneau who was defeated, but the government".
Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that in the press throughout the country, the people, especially low-wage earners, find it hard to accept this policy of restraint brought

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
forward by the government, this ceiling policy which will be, as I said earlier, very painful for low-wage earners. This ceiling, in my opinion, hits low income groups harder than the others. As far as I am concerned, I think that the percentage-this is a suggestion I now make to the government-of salary increase should be higher for low-wage earners and lower for high income groups. Let us keep in mind that consumer prices are the same for a family with a $6,000 income as for the one with a $15,000 or $25,000 income. If we want to achieve a distributive justice, we will necessarily have to take means to that end. The white paper makes no mention at all of lower interest rates. Yet, interest rates at existing levels are one of the major causes of inflation and unemployment.
Yet there is an institution responsible for setting interest rates: the Bank of Canada. However, the distinct impression is that chartered banks are the ones that set interest rates. That form of financial dictatorship was exposed more than 40 years ago by Pope Pius XI in the following words:
In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence, they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the lifeblood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life, that no one can breathe against their will.
Mr. Speaker, the situation has not changed. To the contrary, the power of banks grew tremendously in the last few years, so much as that on January 1, 1974, chartered banks could grant $57 billion of the nation's credit out of a total money supply of $62,860 million.
The nation, through the Bank of Canada, has created only $5,860 million. This is why I say that the monopolies are getting stronger because they now have their own banks and lend money to each other at exorbitant interest rates, which necessarily increases production costs, and, of course, the consumer foots the bill.
Small businesses suffer from such disloyal competition because they cannot fight on an equal basis. Only the strongest and the less scrupulous can survive.
Mr. Speaker, the gross national income has increased considerably in the last few years, except in 1974, which goes to show the material prosperity of our country. This prosperity must be shared with the low income groups. It provides a golden opportunity for democracy, but democracy must take charge and insure that the distribution is equitable and just, otherwise this prosperity will not last much longer.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we are generous and open, if we are far-seeing and if we see to it to distribute our wealth fairly and equitably, our country will enjoy great prosperity for a long time.
It is therefore essential that we take unprecedented steps to end abuses, to largely restore material prosperity, to restore the confidence of the millions of Canadian citizens who have been traditionally taught to expect democracy to provide them with opportunities and an ever

greater security in this world where science brings more and more material wealth to mankind.
Obviously, therefore, it is important for every healthy individual in the country to be productive, for every factory to operate, for business in general to make reasonable profits. But the government of a country does not exist simply for this purpose. It is not enough to make the wheels turn. Governments must lead mankind towards a greater satisfaction. The most basic aim of a democratic government is to help the greatest possible number of citizens, especially those who need it most, to improve their standard of living, to protect their personal freedom as long as they do not harm their neighbours, and to seek the happiness that security as well as recreation and cultural opportunities provide.
Obviously, those who are concerned about the future of our country are aware that the biggest problem Canadians have to solve is poverty within a wealthy country. This problem consists in distributing to the people all necessary goods and services it is possible to produce. I always thought I should take for granted that there is a social answer and that the rational process consists in identifying the problem first, then finding a solution and finally implementing this solution in a practical and sensible way while keeping in mind the basic characteristics of human nature.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the honorable member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr.	Nystrom)-Public	Service-
Suggestion salary increases for executive category approved at same cabinet meeting as control program approved; the honorable member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Sale of nuclear reactor to South Korea-Request for debate prior to signing of agreement; the honorable member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Public Service-Suggested denial of right to strike-Government position.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, there has been agreement among all parties in the House to proceed with order No. 15 and allow a 15-minute debate on it, to be followed by order No. 30, again with a 15-minute debate. At 5.30 the division bells will ring and if it is agreeable, we will, proceed to a vote at that time on both motions in sequence.
October 23, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, that is agreed subject to the following: I am prepared to waive my right under Standing Order 48(2) to close the debate within those 15 minutes. I will not reply.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday May 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General and Ministers of Health of the provinces dealing with the subject of abortion and/or section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, today the House is to discuss the release of documents exchanged between the federal government and the provinces on abortion and Criminal Code section 251.
Once more, we see the opposition using that kind of motion to bring back to this House the basic issue of abortion. I regret that oftentimes indirect means have to be used to do what was agreed by all would not be done. Let us then say that if we are to give a meaningful answer to the question, we must limit ourselves to discussing the question of principle involved, that is disclosure of information.
This government proved quite clearly it wanted to move in that direction when in 1973, on March 15, guidelines were issued by Privy Council. Before that date, the situation concerning disclosure was that papers were published if and only if this did not embarrass the government. With the new guidelines, the government improved the situation by accepting a new set of rules. Any document requested should now be published, unless a basic reason prevents it. Before doing this, the government considered a number of factors and especially the desirability of giving as much information as possible to this House and the general public. However, and I hope colleagues from the other side will understand, in addition to pleasing the general public and quenching the thirst of opposition members, a government must first and above all govern. This involves basic rules to be respected, especially in the matter of federal-provincial relations.
A matter as crucial as abortion should then give rise to numerous exchanges of letters and discussions between the various levels of government. And section 4 of the guidelines issued by the Privy Council is categorical:
Abortion
"Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se, should be exempt from production".
Once again the opposition is making a further attempt to ask us, through a well-established and generally accepted rule-and I am sure our friends from the NDP voted for and readily accepted those guidelines-to ask us to discuss again by means of that motion the matter of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to establish positive relationships between the provinces and the government of Canada, I think we should stick in every respect to the 1973 guidelines of the Privy Council.
Finally I wish to raise a point with respect to the substance of the matter our friends from the NDP want to discuss, namely abortion. I believe the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was quoting one of his colleagues whom he deeply admired when he said that we should deal with that matter more rationally than emotionally, and on that point I agree with him entirely. And I wonder, without taking sides one way or the other, whether all those who boast that they can speak objectively on that question on the one hand, and come here with test tubes to show us what is a two, three or four month old foetus, and all those who, on the other hand, come and tell us it is the health, the mental and even sometimes the economical health of the mother which must be considered, I wonder whether those people are really unemotional.
I wish my friends opposite would agree to play the necessary mental game on that question. With so many pressure groups sometimes being insolent, and I mean it, when we are dealing with this issue, and sometimes with groups asking that we totally reject abortion, whatever the reasons urging any medical council to allow it, we should ask such groups whether they are for or against the death sentence. Usually, 90 per cent of them answer that they are for.
Then, if respect for life is an important matter, it remains just as much so for an unborn child who will indeed be born as for an individual who was born but who, due to bad training or education, has not received all the benefits society offers him.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the opposition will once again take good note of my message, namely that we do not do, and this is a good old legal principle, that we do not do indirectly what we cannot do directly.


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) had contributed to this debate in May last year. At that time, he had briefly stated the government position on the matter. Instead of going over his statement, I will elaborate a little more along the line of argumentation he used at that time.
First of all, I should point out that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), with his well known cleverness, has managed to turn this debate on the production of certain papers into a debate on the main issue. I do not intend to discuss the substance of the issue, that is abortion, but to state briefly the grounds which are the basis of the government position in asking the hon. member to withdraw his motion. Perhaps I should point

October 23, 1975
Abortion
out that since the motion has been tabled, the government has set up the Bagel committee which were instructed to investigate look into the application of section 251 of the Criminal Code in all provinces and report at an early date. The facts as reported by that committee will undoubtedly pave the way for a debate to throw more light on that important question, but the main issue on which we have to take a decision now concerns motion No. 15.
In this motion, the hon. member requests that all correspondence between the Ministers of Justice, the Attorneys General and the Ministers of Health of the provinces concerning the enforcement of Criminal Code section 251 be made public.
The question of the duplication of information by ministers of the Crown, as outlined by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), has been discussed several times in recent years. In March 1973, the President of the Privy Council proposed a set of guidelines on that vast question and, as a matter of fact, the whole matter was discussed later on by a committee of the House whose responsibility was to study statutory instruments.
Now, the motion refers precisely to the correspondence between the federal government and the provinces, which obviously falls under section 4 of the guidelines which deals with the refusal to produce government papers, the release of which might be detrimental to federal-provincial relations.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are fully aware of the particularly complex and ticklish nature of federal-provincial relations. Obviously, in some cases, the prime objective of the government, namely to inform, must give way to other interests, of which the free and open exchange of communications between the federal and provincial governments. It cannot be denied that when information is intended for the people or public debate, its expression often takes a meaning or shading that differs from those that are important to the promotion and preservation of the elements of compromise and understanding, as well as open-mindedness, that are indispensable to a healthy balance in federal-provincial relations.
As pointed out by my hon. colleague for Chambly, Mr. Speaker, with all the perspicacity and intellectual sharpness he is known for, honesty and open-mindedness are truly indispensable requisites for good federal-provincial relations. It is always with an awareness of the difficulties which surround those conditions that we endeavour ceaselessly to give satisfaction to the people. The best way of doing this is not to disclose this kind of information we are talking about today at the risk of jeopardizing the good faith and mutual trust so valuable to ensure a lasting dialogue with the provinces.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, reference was made in this House to the Sweedish system of information distribution. The fact is that it provides for exceptions, and rather important ones at that. Which proves that it is not as exhaustive as it looks. Perhaps it would be interesting to quote from or-considering the time limit in this debate-simply refer hon. members to the evidence given by Mr. Donald Rowat, professor at Carleton University, before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.

It might also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act this kind of paper and information also comes under exceptions to the ruies of disclosure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that for the Minister of Justice it is in the interest of hon. members as well as the public to disclose as much information as possible on government activity. But it is obvious that there must be reasonable limits to that rule-and, of course, "reasonable" is the operative word. Reasonable limits are those which allow the government to act with efficiency and in all security. Consequently, the exclusion of all intergovernmental correspondence of the type provided for in the motion is both a motivated and necessary exception. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member kindly to withdraw his motion.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I might answer the last question first by saying I do not propose to withdraw the motion. Perhaps I should deal very briefly with the reasons.
The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) suggests that there is something the matter with the motivations of a member who brings forward a motion to release correspondence between the Minister of Justice and health ministers and attorneys general of the provinces. He says that this is an excuse to bring the subject of abortion into debate in this House. I categorically deny that.
There is every reason in the world why this government should not hide behind the cloak of confidentiality or the subterfuge of its affecting provincial-federal relations. There is every reason in the world why the public should know what the law is on this subject. In fact, right across this country the law is not being applied in a manner that is consistent. It is applied one way in one province and another way in another province. That is the reason I want to see what the Minister of Justice has been saying to his counterparts about this subject.
The hon. member for Chambly suggests that this is a back door way of getting a debate on abortion. Mr. Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to see that matters of national importance are debated in this House. That subject should have been debated fully in this House a long time ago. We would be a lot better off if it had been. We may then have seen some changes-maybe not changes that we would all like, because there are great differences of opinion on the subject. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence in this House not to talk about this question. It is long overdue that we should talk about it.
The other reason given by the parliamentary secretary is the effect on federal-provincial relations. In fact, the precedents are overwhelming of motions being agreed to and not withdrawn. I could go into a long list of matters where the correspondence has been released. It is past the time for this government to hide behind the cloak of secrecy and confidentiality. That includes the motion on CIDA that we are going to deal with after this one. Exactly the same principle applies. It is not giving the opposition the opportunity to do its job; this government continues to deny that right to opposition members.
October 23, 1975

I say to all members of this House, regardless of where they stand on the subject matter, that it is time they stood up and were counted and told this government to let us know what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The question is on motion No. 15. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: According to special order made earlier this day, the division on this motion is deferred until 5.30 p.m today. We will now proceed to notice of motion No. 30.


COPIES OF AREA PROGRAM SUMMARIES FOR 1972-75
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an order of the House do issue for copies of the Area Program Summaries for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, covering such areas as Commonwealth Africa, South America, Francophone Africa, and any other area breakdowns for which Area Programs have been prepared.
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to review briefly the purpose of this motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). It asks that the government produce area program summaries of the Canadian International Development Agency for specific years. It is very clear that what the hon. member is asking for is not studies of what CIDA is contemplating or papers relating to delicate negotiations that it is carrying on with countries which may be helped by CIDA; what is being asked for are area program summaries of actual ongoing programs that have been funded by the House of Commons and for which members of parliament have a responsibility.
We want these papers because the CIDA budget is now $933 million for this fiscal year, and according to the intention of the government to follow through with the strategy of international development co-operation for the five years 1975 to 1980, our budget for CIDA will grow to .7 per cent of the gross national product. With normal escalation for the next fiscal year, the figure will go to over $1 billion. When that figure is introduced, I predict that the public will become quite concerned about how the money
Area Program Summaries
is being spent at a time of restraint in our society. It is not that we begrudge the normal escalation of the CIDA budget, but at this time it is imperative that we assure ourselves, as members of the public and as members of this House of Commons with responsibility for funding, that the money is well spent and that public support is maintained for the CIDA program.
Obviously, members of parliament cannot travel all over the world to look at 2,000 projects in 76 countries. It is just impossible for us to examine the effectiveness of those programs. But we need more than the publicity material put out by CIDA to make a judgment on the worthiness of those projects. We need a criterion of judgment to fulfil our responsibilities. We need to be able to assure the Canadian people that with respect to this large budget, which is going to get bigger-and I speak as one in favour of its getting larger-the money is being well spent. We need to have a criterion of judgment, and that is what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has sought through this motion.
We find, however, that there is a record of CIDA being rather closed in its disclosure of operating procedures. This fact concerned members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the new subcommittee on international development. When the Price-Waterhouse management study was commissioned a couple of years ago, it was denied to members of parliament and particularly to members of the committee who had to pass the appropriations for CIDA on the ground that it was an internal matter. Last spring my request for papers relating to CIDA's five-year strategy was denied. Now my colleague is to be denied the area program summaries of ongoing programs. We must ask ourselves, why is CIDA refusing to give to members of this House documentation to which we have a right; documents we need in order to fulfil our responsibilities?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are hiding something.


Douglas Roche: Last March, the previous parliamentary secretary said, when refusing the motion, that the production of these papers regarding CIDA might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canadian foreign relations. That is an interesting statement. Not only was it rubbish, but it was not even supported by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) who spoke first in the debate last week on behalf of the government. He suggested that the area program documents are part of a whole and that they take into account historical and economic data relating to our programs in these other countries.
This is precisely my point, Mr. Speaker. Because these area program summaries are part of the whole picture of how Canada establishes programs in the first place, it is absolutely essential that they be made available to us in order that we may judge how these programs are actually working. I wish hon. members opposite would get their stories straight. Are we being refused these documents because their production would be detrimental to our foreign relations, or are they being refused because it is felt that members of parliament cannot be trusted with working papers to do with ongoing programs? If the latter is correct, namely, that we cannot be trusted, I can only

October 23, 1975
Area Program Summaries
say that it is absolutely ridiculous to come to members of parliament and ask them to fulfil their legal responsibilities by voting for money without giving them the information they need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Let me say a word about confidential matters. I am positive, and speak with some assurance, when I say that if the government or members of CIDA had come to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) or to me and said, "Look, these are the reasons why these papers cannot be brought into the House" we, as reasonable men, would have said, "All right." But they did not do this. CIDA has not told members on my side of the House why these papers cannot be brought forward. Therefore, we are forced to come to the conclusion that the production of the papers would be a source of embarrassment to CIDA and, possibly, to the government. That, of course, makes it all the more incumbent upon us to press for material which will enable us to fulfil our responsibilities.
I make it clear that I have no desire to hurt CIDA. I have no desire to participate in this debate in a partisan way. I do not want to hurt the ongoing program. Indeed, I want to help it. I know that the speech I am now making will be carefully read by the senior management of CIDA. I say to the senior management of CIDA that the way CIDA is presently being operated involves a certain element of risk with regard to the future of CIDA and, in the next fiscal year, to future programs of CIDA. I say this as CIDA treats members of parliament as people one cannot trust and to whom the organization will not give information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The new subcommittee on international development is about to begin its work on the new economic order as passed by the seventh special session of the United Nations General Assembly. This, of course, is to be conjoined to Canada's own five-year strategy for international development co-operation. Never before in the history of parliament has there been greater need for a more penetrating and responsible study of Canada's role in international development.
I and other members of the subcommittee want to participate in a non-partisan way in the complete examination of everything involving our relations with developing countries, and CIDA is but one part of this process. We must be able to relate CIDA programs to the multi-dimensional strategy of the five-year program which involves commodities, trade liberalization and industrial co-operation. It will be impossible for this committee to work effectively unless it does its work in a good, non-partisan spirit based on information of what CIDA is doing and what its future plans are.
In conclusion, I say that CIDA is gambling; it is taking a risk. I suggest that CIDA is taking a reckless gamble; it is ignoring members of parliament who will serve on the subcommittee and who have a special responsibility to examine and support the government's five-year strategy. This, of course, is one of the most important things this government has done during the past year, even though the matter has not yet come forward for debate in this

House. But it will be debated some time during the next few months. This work relates to the most important problem in the world, global survival. The question involves narrowing the gap between the rich and the developing nations.
Unless CIDA enables us to participate in a way which will allow us to contribute constructively to the government's policy, CIDA risks alienating public support for programs which it wishes to grow and become more meaningful. On our side of the House we stand ready to support those programs, but we will not sit here and be rolled over, as it were, by a government which refuses to produce necessary documents.
The parliamentary secretary suggested that there are reasonable limits governing the production of papers. I suggest that the government itself is transgressing those reasonable limits. We are being reasonable. We need those papers which will help us to do our job. We need them if we are to examine CIDA's programs. It is an organization we wish to continue supporting.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank briefly the sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), for the kind wishes he extended to me on the 16, when he stated why this motion was being moved. But I was somewhat disappointed when he offered his co-operation provided I would table the papers.
I will now offer him mine, provided he withdraws his motion in a moment. But before I deal directly with the motion, I would like to point out the inaccuracies-not to say unfair comments-voiced on the 16 and also the chaf-ings suggested to me by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) a while ago.

On October 16, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), speaking in support of the motion requesting the disclosure of documents from CIDA with respect to the regional program, that is, with respect to the area by area summary of programs throughout the world, said things that are grave accusations. I wish to set the record straight and to correct some of his remarks, as I think it is important to do so. He quoted extensively from reports printed in newspapers, some of which had been printed as long ago as last January. That surprised me. I think the hon. member ought to have been more aware of the general level of CIDA projects. He should have kept pace with the changing world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to the special order made this day it is my duty to interrupt the debate and forthwith put the question on motion No. 15.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
October 23, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Call in the members.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCES ON SUBJECT OF ABORTION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Leggatt:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General and Ministers of Health of the provinces dealing with the subject of abortion and/or Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock I do leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.07 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the

restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I still have a few remarks to bring to the attention of the House and the government before bringing my speech to a close.
Having studied very closely the bill and the white paper, I must say that I have no confidence in the measures proposed. They do not attack the root of the evil. The bill does not say steps will be taken to lower interest rates or brake the exorbitant profits of our banking institutions. Now, on page 5 of the white paper, one can read as follows:
As to profits and prices, the guidelines set a limit on the increases in prices in general, which is equal to the amounts necessary to cover the added costs.
Now, the interest rates will surely always be taken into account in the added costs. In the same chapter on added costs, no percentage is indicated, whereas percentages are given in other areas, in the area of incomes for instance.
The formula of contemporary economists proved a failure. Why would not the government take the trouble to study the means proposed by Major C. H. Douglas? He is a human being. He is an able man. He made considerable research. He submitted proposals. I think they are as good as those we witnessed. One can always at least take the trouble to consider them, to study them, to see whether they would not point to some element of a solution. The takeover of the emission of credit by the State is Mr. Douglas' first proposal. According to it, for the administration of public expenditures, states, governments should no longer depend on the will of those who control currency and credit. Mr. Douglas proposes that governments cancel the privileges which were given to the banks in the establishment of credit, as far as the emission of new credits is concerned and that these operations are reserved to an institution which would be exclusively controlled by the state and which would be to the benefit of the state.
Banks will continue to play the role they play today with a formidable accounting, nobody denies that, but at least they will be subject to a guideline issued by an institution which will have powers and which will enable the government to plan long term measures with financing means corresponding to our capabilities.
Second, he proposes to distribute a national dividend to Canadian shareholders as a means of raising their income without increasing prices. Then, it is the annual guaranteed income formula under another name if the Canadian people are given a discount, a return for their participation in the gross national product, which would be added to their salary without affecting prices. I think that a government worthy of the name should aim at establishing a certain standard of justice for the redistribution of wealth, so that the least privileged in our society may be at least ensured the bare necessities. This is one means of reaching that goal. Then we should provide a discount on the retail price of Canadian products as a regulator. It is the opposite of a tax.
October 23, 1975

Not so long ago, an hon. member was scoffing at this Douglas proposal. He said that it was misunderstood by everyone. But the discount formula on milk retail prices was understood and implemented in 1972. It gave results. If it did not take up too much of the House's time, I would quote figures that show that in each province, it was profitable for Canadian families which received considerable amounts. It was related to milk consumption. If a family consumed five quarts a day, it got five times the discount and if it bought only two, it had twice the discount. Then, it was a regulator. This regulator could also apply to all other Canadian products. This last measure would promote the consumption of Canadian products and therefore increase job opportunities in Canada.
Obviously, if we consume more Canadian products, warehouses will become empty, industrialists will be interested in producing more and they will hire workers. Automatically, this measure would fight inflation and also create more jobs.
In the past, Madam Speaker, when Social Crediters proposed this economic and financial philosophy of Major Douglas, the governments rejected it under the pretext that it would create inflation and unemployment, but this is no longer justified.
Now, we do not have a Social Credit government, but we have a debt-credit system, inflation and unemployment. So, we have inflation and unemployment but we do not have Social Credit. Inflation is not due to the Social Credit and neither is unemployment.
I hope that once and for all those who were not aware of it will find out that it has nothing to do with the matter. The system is deficient and obsolete, thus giving rise to inflation and unemployment. We must therefore make some changes.
Some people, because of their ignorance or their thoughtlessness candidly say that the Douglas system is a money printing press. We have often heard that, it is an old story. However, they forget that the present system is a tool to pile up debts and levy taxes. Why should we not restrict debts and taxes if we want to freeze something? Let us also freeze what hurts the Canadian taxpayers.
Therefore, a discount at the retail level would substitute cash purchases to purchases on instalments. Sales are made under pressure when the buyer is almost compelled to buy. This is the one of the evils we are now subjected to and I would like the government to take steps to control that evil which erodes the purchasing power of the people even before they earn a salary.
Pressure sales consist in selling people anything from automobiles to washing machines in an installment credit system. That means that the people as such do not have enough purchasing power to buy those goods on an installment credit basis. They are therefore lead, in a purely logically and inexorable way, to mortgage not only their belongings but also their future earning power. And it is just a matter of time until they can no longer fulfill their commitments, which means another economic collapse of our nation.
This is a matter of serious concern. People are lead through all sorts of means to run into debts to provide for current necessities. Finally, Madam Speaker, a bill should be tabled as soon as possible, a bill which would provide
Anti-Inflation Act
for a guaranteed minimum income to increase the purchasing power of lower income groups and to enable them to take advantage of the huge wealth of our country. I think such a legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to provide increased security for families. If we increase the buying power of people who really need it, they will feel more secure, and this would in my opinion help the Canadian economy get back on its feet.
Third, I consider the government would also be wise to find a new way of financing the public sector which has become a huge burden for Canadian taxpayers. Just look at the considerable increase in our national debt, in the debts of provinces and municipalities, and you will realize that it is a system which no longer meets today's needs and becomes more and more of a burden for taxpayers. Why should we have a nation of debenture holders and slaves rather than a nation of shareholders?
I never could understand that. I have always been astonished that because we work a lot, we sink into debt. It seems to me that in my family when we worked together we used to prosper, we seemed to get out of debt. But because we live together in our society, the more we work the deeper we get into debt! This is beyond my understanding.
We saw that the Plumptre Commission did not work. We got a lot of reports but none with constructive solutions. True, the board had no powers. Its role was to find out, to scrutinize, to visit retail outlets to see whether prices or profits were too high. It was only empowered to review. I said a number of times in this House that the board would have played a much larger part if it had had certain powers. Laws get into our books but are not enforced. If the board had had some teeth built into it, when it was time, maybe we would not be facing the current situation.
Another commission will be created under Bill C-73, and once more regulations will be issued without being submitted to Parliament. There is a gap in our procedures. I submit once more that regulations should be approved by Parliament or one of our committees. Almost every day we face problems with regulations that were issued under one statute or another, and very often we do not recognize the intent of Parliament in the regulations. Parliament's intentions are distorted, the regulations were made to fit the purpose of those who prepared the bill and submitted it to Parliament. They had different ideas than Parliament, and this creates problems. The bill also provides for the signing of agreements with the provinces. I fear this may give rise to new opportunities for the federal government to further centralize at the expense of the provinces, so I caution the government. We have had some of those agreements and because the central government proved to the provinces they were absolutely necessary, the provinces fell for it but later woke up and realized they had lost powers, which led to disputes. It will be remembered, for instance, that during the war the provinces, Quebec at least, yielded jurisdictional areas to the federal. That is what happened when Premier Godbout ceded certain rights to Ottawa. Quebec has been fighting ever since to recover the yielded rights and has much difficulty in succeeding.
Just one more minute and I am through, Madam Speaker. We shall not start another constitutional battle for all

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
that! Time will tell. I also remember the famous wartime prices and trade board. I have not forgotten that companies got rich on the black market while people were rationed.
I would also suggest that consumers' associations be consulted and that members of those associations become members of the board. Surely they should have sensible advice to give, and this would be an additional guarantee for consumers as a whole. So, since it is wished to protect the consumers, let us give them a chance to be heard, to be accepted within the board, so that they can give their opinion and better protect their fellow consumers, often those who are the most exploited.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, we have before us Bill C-73, the so-called Liberal antiinflation bill or the so-called wage and price control bill which, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party, is one of the most insidious pieces of legislation we have seen before this House in some time. It illustrates very well that Liberal members are without principle because it was only a few months ago that those same members, many of whom owe their election to that fact, argued very strongly against wage and price controls as put forward by the Conservative Party.
In the election last July the New Democratic Party opposed the wage and price freeze proposal of the Conservatives just as we now oppose the wage and price controls put forward by this Liberal government. This bill is unfair and unworkable; it is based on the wrong premise, and does not deserve the support of the people of Canada.
I should like to go into the reasons why we are opposing the bill. I would be interested to hear any Liberal member stand in his place and give the rationale why he opposed wage and price controls in 1974 and is now supporting his government in bringing them forward.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office in 1968 we have had a series of bouts with inflation, and mismanagement of the economy. The position has worsened since he and his government were returned in successive elections.
Between September, 1972, and September, 1975, the consumer price index rose by 33 per cent. In 1974 alone the consumer price index increased by 12.4 per cent. The dollar today is worth only 72 cents compared to five years ago. In response to that kind of inflation and mismanagement of the economy we have before us a so-called wage and price control program. I say this program is based on the wrong premise as to what causes inflation. We hear a lot about the rate of inflation but not very much about the causes. I should like to look at some of the chief causes and then examine this program to see whether it will be effective in countering inflation.
One of the factors that most economists will admit contributes to inflation is the changing role of large corporations in our capitalist or so-called free enterprise economy. Today we see large corporations amassing more and more power to the point that they are becoming near monopolies or oligopolies, that is, a few large corporations driving out their competitors and cornering the market.

Because they corner the market they are able to change the balance between supply and demand in their favour and are able to manipulate prices.
In the past competition or over-supply tended to reduce prices in favour of the consumer. But today what is the real difference in price between a Ford or General Motors car, or a Westinghouse refrigerator and a General Electric refrigerator? We begin to see that the large corporations are able to maintain prices to their advantage, and this happens with steel, automobiles, appliances, and to a large extent with the food retailing and manufacturing industries.
This is such a problem that even the Prime Minister and his free enterprise colleagues were forced to name a royal commission a few months ago to look into the problem of monopoly control of our economy. It is to be hoped that the royal commission will produce some constructive recommendations for controlling the monopoly power of big business. That is one cause-the ability of large corporations to manipulate and control prices, to maintain them artificially high in our economy.
The second cause of inflation is certainly government spending. We have had a number of record deficits under the Liberal government. We have seen millions of dollars, literally hundreds of millions, go to business in the form of tax incentives in the hope of creating jobs. What really happens is that the corporations automate and so do not create jobs. I am always intrigued by my friends in the Conservative Party who say "limit government spending" but who do not mention the amount of money that goes to big business without positive effects.
Then there is the expansion of money supply and credit. These are policies of this government which have contributed to inflation. It has got to the point where government spending results in 38 cents of every dollar of our gross national product being passed through government hands. A lot of this is legitimate and necessary, and I would not want to cut it back-I am thinking of old age pensions, family allowances and other schemes to help people on low incomes. At the same time we see government waste left and right, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on opening an airport at Mirabel, or on departmental functions such as Information Canada. There are tax concessions and handouts to corporations, and even deferred taxes amounting to some five billion dollars. Government spending is the second cause of inflation.
The third cause is the government's expansion of the money supply through our central bank, as well as an expansion of credit. This expansion has been in excess of the growth of production and, as a result, has contributed to the inflationary spiral.
One thing which the Liberals were offering as a cause for inflation in the 1974 election campaign was the cost of imported goods, but we do not hear so much about that today. In 1974 the claim was-and it is true today-that we cannot control the cost of food and other articles that have to be imported. The cost of bananas or coffee is beyond our control.
We have had to pay very high prices for energy. Because of the lack of a national energy policy the eastern part of Canada has had to import very expensive oil from the
October 23, 1975

Middle East and Venezuela. The price rose from $2.80 per barrel to $12 per barrel in a few years, and so contributed to inflation. So, Madam Speaker, there are four general causes of inflation.
We must make it clear, however, that one thing that is not a cause of inflation is wage demands. It is a popular thing for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and certain newspaper editorialists to point the finger at working people and say their wage demands have caused the terrible inflation we have today. Anyone who takes the time to do an economic and statistical analysis of inflation in Canada in the past three years must conclude that such is not the case, and that wage demands have not pushed up the rate of inflation. As I mentioned earlier, the consumer price index rose by 33 per cent during the past three years but, Madam Speaker, wages rose by 36 per cent, or by just one more per cent each year than the rate at which prices rose.
A few weeks ago the Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted that wage demands have not caused our present inflation. Clearly, most workers were locked in by two or three year contracts. They were forced to accept the rise in prices which took place during the last three years while their wages were fixed by contract. In other words, prices went up before wages went up. It has been the actual experience in Canada that wage demands have always followed increased price demands. That fact is indisputable. Even the Minister of Finance last week during the debate admitted that workers' wage demands had not caused the severe escalation in the cost of living which we have experienced during the past three years.
It may interest hon. members to know that government of Manitoba representatives yesterday, at the finance ministers' conference, used figures compiled by Statistics Canada to demonstrate that since January 75 per cent of today's rise in inflation has been caused by price increases in the fields of transportation, housing, and food.
I admit that unreasonable wage demands can contribute to inflation, and can lead to the inflationary spiral. We oppose, as do others, unjustified wage demands which are not related to parallel increases in productivity or profitability of the company concerned. That situation is the exception in our economy and, as I said previously, the Governor of the Bank of Canada agrees.
The Liberals fought the 1974 election campaign on the theme that they were against controls. But it is interesting to note that in 1972 and 1973, when prices rose dramatically and, hence, profits-average company profits rose by 40 per cent and some oil company profits by as much as 200 per cent-the government did not impose selective price controls to dampen that inflationary spiral. Now, after inflation has got out of hand, the government has been pushed into a corner and has responded by bringing forward the present wage and prices control program.
The Prime Minister has argued that the inflationary psychology of workers, a psychology which has resulted from this government's inaction, is causing workers to demand high wages to catch up. Others are demanding high wages in order to insulate themselves from the inflation which will occur during their next two or three year contracts.
Anti-Inflation Act
One also hears Liberal cabinet ministers arguing that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, that we are living beyond our means and that we must begin tightening our belts or in other words, that we must reduce consumer spending. And what will be the effect on the economy of reduced consumer spending?
The government can reduce consumer spending either by increasing taxes of individuals or by controlling wages. Either way the result is less spending money in the hands of people. This means they cannot buy as much, and you will not see too much money chasing too few goods. But when you reduce consumer demand, when you reduce demand for the articles people buy, you affect output. The factories will not produce as much, workers will be laid off, and unemployment will increase. That, exactly, is where we fault the government. It has not thought through properly the implications of the proposed wage controls. They will certainly reduce consumer spending and increase unemployment. And, with 700,000 Canadians presently out of work, unemployment now is bad enough. What is the government thinking? How our people will manage their affairs as we slide further into the recession which the present policy will make worse, I do not know.
The fact is that our economy is not overheated. We are in recession, experiencing our highest levels of unemployment since the great depression. Our manufacturing companies are not, I repeat, are not operating at full capacity. They are not producing all the goods they are capable of producing. For these reasons we say that the government's anti-inflation program is based on false premises, and that its failure to introduce selective price controls during the past three years when prices were running out of control has resulted in our present day inflation.
The present incomes policy which, supposedly, is to control prices but which, as I will demonstrate effectively, will control wages, will force wage earners to pay for the government's lack of policy to control rising prices during the last few years. Actually the Trudeau government will try to fight inflation by controlling wages. The question is: will controls on the scale proposed by the Liberal government work?
I suppose some Liberal members are listening with cynicism. Therefore I will quote one of their favourites, the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). Only eight months ago he said:
The experience of many other countries, most particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, suggests that broad and comprehensive wage and price controls not only tend to disrupt economic growth but over time do little to curb inflation and may, in fact, even aggravate it... It is an expanding economy that in time will enable us to grow out of inflation by providing the increase in real purchasing power Canadian families need to meet the increased cost of food and energy.
Clearly, eight months ago the former minister of finance argued that the sort of controls we are now contemplating will not, in the long run, control inflation, but aggravate it.
Some may say that the former minister of finance fell into disfavour, resigned his portfolio, and that therefore his views are suspect. For the sake of people holding those views let me quote the Prime Minister himself. On September 29 last he was interviewed by Maclean's magazine.

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
The interview dealt with wage and price controls, and their effectiveness. Answering a question, the Prime Minister replied that the essence of his position was:
... that controls themselves, whether it be a full freeze of control of prices and incomes, do not solve the underlying malaise of people generally trying to get more out of the economy than they put into it. If controls were a proper and effective device to change that psychology, I would say, well, it's easy, let's put on controls, then, one year down the road, we'll take them off and there will be no more inflation. But I think every experience that I know of, most recently the United States and the British experiences, are to the effect that when you take controls off you begin more or less where you were before.
So there the Prime Minister himself is saying that in the long run controls won't control inflation because once you remove them everybody feels they have the right to catch up.
We have a program we are told is going to last three years, and then the Prime Minister, on a great pilgrimage-crusade, I suppose he calls it-says maybe we will have the controls for only one year, that maybe we won't keep them on for three years. The man is contradicting himself left and right. I think it indicative of the way this policy was introduced, in haste, in confusion, with lack of proper planning and, as we are seeing now, with business, labour, and everyone else having so many questions which remain unanswered.
What is wrong, then with the Liberal wage and price control package? I have tried to demonstrate that, first of all, the guidelines are based on a false premise, that they do not meet the four causes of inflation which I have outlined, that the government is going at it in the wrong way. I think the second thing which is wrong with the wage and price control package is that it is unfair, and the third thing is that it is unworkable. Why do we say it is unfair? We can break it down into how it is supposed to control prices and wages. Take a look at prices first.
We find in the guidelines in the white paper and in the bill before us that there will be no direct investigation of price increases. Companies will not be expected to refer price increases to the Anti-Inflation Board. The board will rely on consumers or other interested groups or individuals to report to it what they think are unjustified price increases. In other words, the board is to rely solely upon the complaint system, and there are only 200 on the staff to handle the complaints which will be coming in. I think this is indicative of how dedicated the government is going to be in investigating unjustified price increases when it only has that many on staff.
We already know that telephone calls are coming in to the Anti-Inflation Board at the rate of some 500 calls a day. Even answering those calls will take months of delay at the rate things are going now. The government, then, is not going to hold the lid on prices by investigating every price increase or requiring companies to submit price increases. It is going to be selective. The government is only going to respond when the complaints come pouring in, if it can ever find its way to sort through all these complaints.
The most damning thing about how it is proposed to control prices is, supposedly, by controlling profits. In other words, the government will look at the profit picture of a given company and, if the profits seem excessive, then

it may cause a roll-back in the prices. The problem with that, of course, is that you must wait for the end of the year for the financial report of a company to be available. So if there is a rip-off on a consumer item that rip-off will be allowed to continue throughout the whole year until the board has time to look at the annual report and then, a month or two months later after doing an analysis, makes a decision. Therefore the consumer does not have protection throughout the year.
Let us say, that, at the end of the year, plus time for investigation, it is found there has been injustice done by price increase. Suppose it is on a can of beans in a supermarket. How is the consumer ever to get a refund? Can you imagine that Loblaws or, say, Dominion, will have a store clerk standing beside the beans passing out a one cent refund if you bring in all your labels to prove you had purchased them at that store? It is absolutely ridiculous. In other words, the consumer will never get a refund. If an unjustifiable increase can be proved, any refund will come back to the government. Let us not delude ourselves that consumers are going to see an effective control on prices on a day to day basis. We also know that through accounting procedures, an accountant can manipulate profits shown in an annual report. This is done within the confines of our taxation law.
Fees to parent companies can be charged at a greater cost; transfer payments can be made; companies can put money away for future investment and label it as a cost rather than as a profit, in order to show at the end of the year that profit margins are very narrow. This can be done while at the same time increasing the cost of the various items on sale. One can never tell, just by looking at the profit margins, whether or not there was a justified or unjustified price increase.
We also find as we go through the legislation that the loopholes and exemptions which exist as far as price controls are concerned are numerous. First of all we have the provision that when costs go up prices will be allowed to go up. That, of course, is legitimate. But the point is: how will we know for sure that the actual cost of a product went up? Actual costs can be buried in all kinds of accounting procedures.
We also have the grand assurance of the Minister of Finance that if costs go down during the year prices will be expected to go down correspondingly. Well, I wonder if we can really place any confidence in that statement. Consumers will recall that only a year ago, when the price of sugar rose astronomically, one of the arguments the soft drink companies were using to justify the increase in the price of soft drinks was the increase in the price of sugar. They were even applying it to diet soft drinks which did not contain sugar. But we now know the price of sugar has fallen. Has the price for soft drinks come down accordingly? Not at all. I think that is indicative of the hope one should place in prices coming down should the cost of a product be reduced.
We also find in the legislation another loophole in connection with prices. Provisions are made that a compnay can exceed the profit guidelines in the legislation if it experiences unusual productivity gains. That is a phrase vague enough for any company to play with and manipulate, to show that its profit is not abnormal. There is no
October 23, 1975

effective way in which this legislation, by looking at profits, can control prices.
Another exception is interest rates, one of the chief contributors to inflation. Interest rates and mortgage rates will be allowed to rise. Land prices are exempt from any kind of price controls, and we all know that the price of land is such a major component of the cost of housing today. Windfall gains by companies are also exempt from control. If a company experiences a sudden windfall profit, as the oil companies do when the price of oil rises sharply and they have large quantities of oil in storage, that profit is also exempt.
Energy prices are exempt too. The price of oil will continue to rise. That is the government's admitted policy. The price of natural gas was increased a week or so ago. The price of Canadian oil, which now stands at $10.50 a barrel, will be allowed to reach $12 a barrel, and we shall be paying more for gasoline and home heating oil. Utilities are exempt. For example, Ontario Hydro will be allowed its increase of some 25 per cent although, fortunately, with a minority government at Queen's Park the situation is under review. Rent controls are a matter for the provinces. We shall have to wait and see what happens there.
We have also learned that the legislation is supposed to control the profits of 1,500 companies which come under the guidelines. I have since heard that the department has miscalculated, and only 1,000 companies will come under the guidelines in this legislation. What I am saying is that there are so many loopholes on the price controls side of the legislation that, in effect, there will be no real price controls. Prices will rise, hence the cost of living and inflation will continue to rise. On that side of the ledger we say that the price control mechanism is unfair and unworkable.
The other side of the ledger is wage control. The government is implementing a three year program. The maximum increase allowed in the first year is 10 per cent. We have heard some estimates that in the second and third year the maximum allowed increased will be 8 per cent and 6 per cent, though that has not been verified. In other words, the wage controls will hit organized labour, the ordinary working person, the hardest. It is easy to control wages because they are negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement. They are above board and can be seen.
Built into this 10 per cent limit is a very unfair mechanism. At the low end of the wage ladder, workers are limited to a maximum increase of $600. It is not their right to get $600; that is the maximum they can get. You may be lucky enough to negotiate such an increase with your employer if you are earning $6,000 a year. However, if you are an upper income Canadian earning $24,000 a year or above, you will not be limited to $600, as the poor, low income worker is; you can get $2,400. We say that this kind of spread is basically unfair, that it is the people at the low end of the income ladder who need the greater increase, not those who have been able to make a high wage in the past. We think it would be more logical to reverse the situation and give the low income people a maximum increase of $2,400 and the high income people a maximum of $600.
Although you can control wages, Madam Speaker, how are you going to be able to control income from sources
Anti-Inflation Act
such as rents, dividends, interest, capital gains, and professional fees in the form of extras? If an executive gets through his corporation or big business enterprise an extra expense account, stock options, club memberships, or a free trip to Florida, how will this be taken into account under the terms of this legislation? I suggest it will not. Big companies will be able to find other ways of giving their executives benefits in excess of the $2,400, but the ordinary worker will be limited to 10 per cent under the guidelines.
Professional fees are controlled under the program, but the income of professionals is not. The doctor, lawyer, accountant, and architect can increase their total income, in the case of doctors and lawyers simply by seeing more clients, and these people will not be touched by the legislation. That is unfair. Upper income Canadians are treated much more leniently than Canadians of low income. A prime example of this is the mandarins in the civil service, the deputy ministers, who received a $6,000 increase just moments before the Prime Minister announced the new wage and price controls. What I am saying is that those who are not professionals but must bargain with an employer for an increase will have their wages fixed and effectively controlled. This program has obviously been conceived in haste.
There are thousands of workers across the country who have been caught right in the middle of negotiations with their employer. Suddenly the Prime Minister has announced this 10 per cent wage freeze. The Minister of Finance says they should continue bargaining and submit their contracts to the Anti-Inflation Board for final review. But what employer in his right mind will continue to bargain for anything in excess of 10 per cent? No employer will bargain seriously or in good faith because he knows he has the weight of the controls program behind him. Therefore workers who could legitimately show, because of increased productivity or for reasons of catch up, that they deserve an increase of 20 or 30 per cent, are now confronted by employers who say, "No, we have a new ball game, we have to start over. We are not going beyond 10 per cent". The government has thrown a monkey wrench into the conduct of wage negotiations throughout the country.
Let me cite the case of the postal workers as an example. The letter carriers settled for an increase of 36 per cent, I believe it was. Unless they receive exemption the postal workers will be limited to 10 per cent. Fortunately the government has built into the legislation exemptions to permit parallel wage settlements where there are historical relationships.
Let me take another case in point. The majority of the teachers in the province of Ontario have not settled their wage contract. In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie the elementary teachers have settled, the secondary teachers have not. Hence there is a great sense of frustration and inequity among workers caught in this situation. I should like to put on the record a telegram that I have received from the president of district 30 of the OSSTF. It reads as follows:
... should be a chance for public input in committee before it becomes law. Ontario teachers have had five years of provincial education ceilings and deserve appropriate catch up settlements. The federal program must exhibit good faith and equity. No wage controls without effective price controls. Out of 34,000 teachers 14,000 have completed

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
negotiations, 20,000 are then placed at a disadvantage. Teachers share a concern for inflation and will assist in the development of a program which would be fair and equitable to all in our society.
This is another illustration of how this legislation has been hastily and ill-conceived. Unless there are modifications to it and allowances made for historical relationships, it will not only promote bad feeling among different working groups, such as elementary and secondary school teachers, but will in fact promote injustice and unequal wage settlements.
Teachers in Ontario find their negotiating position has been further complicated by provincial legislation, Bill 100, which places certain time limits on negotiations. Many may be forced into a strike position without a concrete wage offer because this federal legislation conflicts with existing provincial legislation that the teachers accepted in good faith.
The members of the New Democratic Party are against this program. We have argued in the past, as we argue now, for selective price controls on key sectors of our economy, such as energy and certain manufacturing industries. We want tax cuts for people of low income in order to help stimulate employment and give them a break against inflation. We want to build more houses through a massive housing program which will provide adequate shelter for Canadians and get them back to work. In order to do that we must control mortgage rates.
In conclusion, we view this program as a failure even before it is implemented. It is a program that will not get at the root causes of inflation. The price control measures in it are ineffective. What will happen is that inflation will be fought on the backs of workers through effective wage controls. We say the program is unfair, unworkable, and does not deserve support.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the House is asked to consider Bill C-73 entitled: An Act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada. On second reading of the bill and on the motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I wish to take part in the debate due to the importance of this legislation and its serious unavoidable implications.
I have been sitting in this House for a few years and I also have some experience in the business world. Having heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speak on our national television network on Monday October 13 last, and after having examined Bill C-73, I must conclude that an experienced political observer soon realizes the instability of Canadian economic conditions and the serious course our country is taking by implementing such a policy.
Far away from me the intention of dramatizing the situation or of playing the alarmist by accusing everyone and making of them the scapegoats responsible for all the sins of the world and for all our problems. On the contrary, I want to make an objective criticism of the legislation while emphasizing the mistakes that may have been made. The recommendations that seem logical to me and the safeguards that I consider important, I will point out to the government.

I would say at the outset that the government did not have any alternative. It had to do something. It could not let the economy follow any longer the course of events without risking irreparable injury.
Besides, I had already cautioned the former Minister of Finance about that and, I say it again, the present Minister of Finance. It is no longer possible for the government to sit back and wait for the problems to solve themselves one way or another.
Madam Speaker, the government has to realize several things and act accordingly. Even tough the proposed measures may be questionable-
I hope that at least the government is now determined to lead the way in the administration of the country and to take preventive measures, if it is still possible, instead of letting problems get out of control and finally, too late, bringing in solutions that lose some of their effectiveness because they are out of date by the time they are introduced.
In fact, it is mostly through its inaction that the government itself has produced this anticipation psychology making businesses proceed with maximum price hikes in anticipation of maximum wage raises and, on the other hand, workers demand the highest possible raises to protect themselves against price rises. It is the start of a vicious circle, that inevitably feeds the inflation spiral.
In other words, motivated by fear and the wish to take precautions, everybody is asking for more and more, while national productivity lags behind. Therefore, this simply could not last. And whether one is in favour or against the bill, one must at least recognize the merit of the government which is trying to do something to correct a situation which, admittedly, is not easy, and for which remedies are not quite so readily available as some may claim.
Mr. Speaker, history repeats itself. The 10 per cent inflation ceiling which is being applied as a means to control inflation is somewhat similar to what was applied in the United States 4 years ago, namely from December 1971 to January 1973. This is a sort of delayed escalation; in other words wages are allowed to increase at a rate inferior to that of inflation, even if they must be readjusted in case the rate of inflation increases too rapidly. A possible wage increase of 8 per cent, plus 2 per cent to keep up with productivity, is allowed, while the inflation rate is estimated at more than 11 per cent.
Even if circumstances have changed since then and if the economic situation is not what it was in 1971, it must be pointed out that after implementing a similar program for one year, the United States have succeeded in lowering their inflation rate by 2 per cent. If Canada could achieve comparable results within a year, which would reduce our inflation rate to 9 per cent, we could say that these measures have been successful in a first stage. What can be said against those measures is that they are negative in the sense that they do not cure the economy by stimulating it, but rather seek to make it hold longer. In other words, the patient is not cured, but an attempt is made to make his hospital bed more comfortable.
In that sense, what cannot be accepted is the fact that it does not solve the problem of the low-and average-income citizen. On the contrary: the gap between them and the
October 23, 1975

more fortunate grows wider. Once again the small fry will suffer most, and have to pay the bill without being able to do anything about it. That situation is truly demoralizing for those people. The government must absolutely find a way to come to their help if we want that important group of our society to weather through the present crisis.
Anyway, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) pointed out that fact, with considerable logic, in the speech he just made in Montreal on October 20 before the Canadian Club of Montreal. I quote:
The most intense demoralization is felt among the middle class, among this silent majority of wage earners who ensure the good operation of our institutions. They see their savings melt away, and the value of their stocks and bonds diminish. They are afraid of the collapse of currency which will reduce the value of their property.
I still quote the minister, Mr. Speaker.
They are concerned about the recession, about unemployment and about their pensions. Inflation forces all of us to be concerned about ourselves.
It gives rise to resentment. People realize that riches steadily flow from the weaker to the stronger without any consideration of merit, efforts or economic contribution. Inflation lets them see our economic system as unfair and leads them to consider our political system as sheer nonsense.
In fact, the government is establishing two different wage ceilings. One for the poor who may get a $600 increase for a yearly $6,000 income, below which the legislation will not apply, and another for the rich who can get a $2,400 increase for a yearly $24,000 salary. To me, this is sheer discrimination which will only widen the gap between lower and higher income people. We have heard all sorts of speeches in this House since the beginning of the week. We heard people say that the $600 wage increase for the have-not and the $2,400 increase for the richer will bring them closer together in the long run. I do not know where they get their figures from, but in my opinion those salary increases will only widen the gap between them. I think this legislation is merely discriminating. It is one step further away from the now famous just society which the government promised us a few years ago. It looks more like a well-organized injustice to the underprivileged.
It is even more true when you consider forecasts for the year to come, when prices will go on soaring appreciably, while income prospects are limited. The Food Prices Review Board for instance still predicts a 15 per cent jump in food prices during the year to come. If we put it in a concrete form, it means that the same order of groceries which amounted to $100 in 1971 now costs $141.20 and that its price might go up by 15 per cent in 1976-1977.
On the other hand, several problems have been left outstanding or have arisen following the announcements of the measures we are now dealing with. What will become of those who already earn less than the required minimum? Why was the matter of minimum wages not settled before those measures were implemented? How will the guidelines be enforced in the case of doctors, barristers, lawyers and other professionals to whom the guidelines seem difficult to apply? For instance, if a doctor earned $40,000 last year, will he close his office as soon as he reaches $42,400? What will become of those with two jobs or those who count on little extras to make both ends
Anti-Inflation Act
meet? Those are questions that we are asking and the minister will have to answer them in this House or before the committee.
We are very concerned about the efficiency of those measures because a few days after that legislation was announced, the consumer price index is expected to rise by 15 per cent. A 25 per cent increase for natural gas in Quebec and Ontario has been made public as well as a 20 per cent rise in Ontario Hydro rates. That is a first loss of control over prices and this situation could spread to other fields.
As for the price and income control board, it has two strikes against it already. First, the committee has no jurisdiction over importations which are an important part of our economy, be they Japanese television sets, Italian shoes, furniture from the United States, Korean shirts, European cars and what have you.
Second, the responsibility of the committee is already hampered because the importance of those measures will probably be minimized by the current changes. Moreover, 1976 is an election year in the United States, and if the United States government establishes a liberal fiscal policy, that could jeopardize any restrictive Canadian monetary policy and slow down the development of our economy. All this demonstrates that once again things are going too fast for this Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not accusing them, but I am afraid that the measures contained in Bill C-73 have once again come a bit too late and do not strike at the roots of the problem. Everything started in 1967 when the government passed a law to allow banks to increase at will their interest rates. This was the start of inflation, the start of high interest rates, the start of interest on interest, of credit cards and unpayable debts for the nation and the individuals. This is the sad reality and it must be told.
And today, the action taken by the government is negative and very marginal since it does nothing to stimulate and balance the national economy. Yet, there are several effective things that the government could have done by gaining inspiration from us and listening seriously to the Social Credit proposals, and this in spite of what the young member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) may think. I listened to him recently in the House when he said that the Social Crediters were misunderstood. In passing, Mr. Speaker, what are the Social Creditors doing here if they are misunderstood by the people? I believe that I am well understood in the constituency of Richmond because I am always reelected. I am grateful for this.


Mr. Boulanger:: Where are the other Social Crediters? There are none left!


Léonel Beaudoin: I must congratulate this new member for having had at least the courage to stand up in the House, but when he has more experience, when he knows better the practices of the House, when he has more experience of life and the business world, he will become wiser and will understand that when you make important decisions, it is always a good idea to obtain advice from everywhere, and particularly to take this advice in consideration. It is quite normal for a new member to wish to place himself in prominence in all sorts of ways, and we must understand him.

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
To come back to my subject, Mr. Speaker, the government should have provided immediately concrete action including first of all lower interest rates. And, on this matter, I agree with the senior economist of the CNTU who said, and I quote:
A 'major gap' in the program is that it skips right over interest rates and capita] gains, two factors that indeed contribute more than their share to the inflationary spiral.
A large part of the problem is at that level, and the government wrongly played deaf when we told them over and over again for a long time to put an end to mushrooming interest rates.
Steps could have been taken in another area to stimulate the economy, and that is residential construction which provides work for hundreds of thousands of workers and countless supply plants. I do hope the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) will announce soon that he is extending his Assisted Home Ownership Program which offers $500 to first home buyers but I rather fear that he will put an end to all that on October 31. Yet, we should be thinking in terms of a fresh start and not forget that as construction goes so goes the economy. Besides there should be an immediate reduction in the abominable mortgage rate now in effect on new houses. It does not make sense to pay 12 per cent interest to buy a house, specially after the government starts controlling the wages of new owners.
In 1970, Mr. Speaker, an average single family house cost $13.42 a square foot in Montreal; in 1972, it cost $14.83 a square foot; in 1974, it cost $22.08; and in 1975 it is estimated that the cost will jump to $27.00.
Not only must the $500 federal grant not be eliminated but it should be increased and, in addition, mortgage rates should be brought down. In that respect it is worth pointing out that on September 10 the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress urged the federal government to bring down to its old level the interest rate recently increased by the Bank of Canada, and subsidize low income people by reducing their mortgage rate to 6 per cent on the purchase of a house. I consider that proposal to be positive and logical.
On the other hand, the federal government should hold immediate discussions with retailers to establish a system of 15 or 20 per cent compensated discount financed through the Bank of Canada. This would give immediate results for the benefit of all, without any discrimination for once. Low-wage earners would benefit as much as the rich.
I am pleased at least, Mr. Speaker, that no one blamed the farmers for inflation in this debate. If this should happen, I would raise a question of privilege to set the record straight, because they are more victimized by inflation than anything else. I would like to quote a brief article that appeared in La Terre de Chez nous of 15 October last and has much to say about inflation. I quote:
What is the cause of inflation? The Faculty of Science of Wisconsin University computed the following figures:
Here I would remark these are U.S. figures, but financial trends in Canada have been largely similar during the last 30 years.
-between 1944 and 1974, from October to October, salaries went up from 1250 to 3600 per cent, sugar increased by 512 per cent, coffee by
337 per cent, bread by 300 per cent, steak by 296 per cent, lettuce by 258 per cent, postage stamps by 233 per cent, milk by 169 per cent, butter by 90 per cent and eggs by 31 per cent. The performance in Quebec certainly did not show that much difference. But remarkably, the items produced here such as milk, butter and eggs showed the smallest increases. The price of eggs even increased 100 times less than the salaries with which they are bought. Butter 40 times less.
I believe those figures are eloquent and speak by themselves.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we must admit it: we are experiencing, according to some analysts, apprehended hyper-inflationary conditions and we can expect major changes in our economic policy. The government has just created a review board, but the actual board should have been the government itself. It should have acted before today to prevent problems.
I hope that the economic advisors of the government did not attend the same school as New York City economists because in that case we can expect any thing! Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I must emphasize: If we recall how federal taxes were temporarily introduced in wartime and have lasted all this time, we must say that for the government, there is nothing more permanent than temporary measures! And it may be the case with the legislation now before the House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I suppose at this late stage in the debate we can begin to speculate about the government program, what inspired it, and what it was about the state of the economy that required these draconian measures, draconian certainly in the wage sector.
I scratched my head and told myself, first of all, it could not have been genuinely the problem of inflation because history has told us that these kinds of controls in every modern western industrial society do not work. I then asked myself, why then would this government be so interested in controlling the wage sector? Then I thought of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. If we in this country go ahead with that pipeline we will have to raise tremendous amounts of private capital, and one of the major ways to increase the amount of private capital available is to freeze the wage sector, but to leave alone the question of prices and, in effect, profits. Although the bill apparently attempts to deal with them, in effect you will see profits rise. The result will be, if the scenario is played out, that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will be able to proceed partly as a result of this bill.


Mr. Gilbert:: Ask them what will happen to the Indians.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am saying this, as a bit of warning to the public, that before the next federal election I fully expect an announcement that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will proceed and that it may very well attempt to proceed largely on Canadian capital which will be raised initially as a result of the wage freeze which will allow the private sector to expand ahead of the wage sector, thereby leaving additional amounts of capital available for the project. If I were Machiavellian I might have thought that that was behind it, but one wonders whether, as this government

October 23, 1975

proceeds, it has in fact just stumbled into the Mackenzie Valley money. I do not know.
I notice with some cynicism that we on this side of the House should welcome this legislation with open arms because if ever an albatross has been hung around the neck of the government, it is this bill. This bird will shake around that neck, and ministers can move up and down, but no government in the western industrialized world has survived this kind of legislation, nor can this government survive it in the next election. I do not think it can, for the simple reason that it has opened Pandora's box. The government cannot put it all back together again now.
This reminds me of the story of the sorcerer's apprentice who finally discovered from the sorcerer the magic words. Once he said the magic words, a broom came to life and carried water in a bucket. This was amazing because when the apprentice did not have to work any more, he solved the problem of supplying water with the magic broom. But he forgot to learn the word that shut it off. What the government has done is to find the magic word on inflation-that is "controls"-but how will it shut the controls down in this allegedly free market? The government has opened Pandora's box but it will not be able to close that box.
I have no doubt that at the moment this program is superficially popular. I think there are people in the country who have not examined the program carefully and who are saying, "Thank God something is being done about inflation". Those of us who have looked at it can examine the bill and see that nothing is being done about inflation. If there is any effect at all, it will be extremely marginal if anything.
Some 75 per cent of our inflation is in three areas- rents, food, and energy. Controlling wages in these three sectors will not contribute whatsoever to the savings. First, in the energy area the wage factor is almost insignificant. In the rent area it is the cost of land that is driving rents high-the cost of labour is immaterial. A study was done recently regarding the cost of housing. A house in one end of the country and a similar house in the other end, belonging to people in the same wage bracket, were taken as an example, the first one in British Columbia and the second in Quebec. A house selling for $36,000 in Quebec sells for $55,000 in B.C. for one reason only, the value or the cost of the land. So the government has not tackled inflation in the rental area; it has not tackled inflation in the food area, and it has not tackled it in the energy area. By saying, as it does now, that it is the people who work in those fields who are contributing to major inflation it continues to duck the problem.
What we are going to have is a program which will in fact reduce our real national income and reinforce the misallocation of resources already distorted by a system founded on competition and greed. Controls will continue to contribute to massive unemployment and a massive recession.
I have a feeling that perhaps the government may have known what it is doing. We have speculated about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Perhaps out of a feeling of frustration it said, "We have to do something to reverse the frustration and rancour building up in working Canadians as a result of many governments' ineptitude in
Anti-Inflation Act
dealing with serious difficulties in the economy." If this is the result of that famous contingency plan, if this is the result of hard research, I really wonder what we can expect from the program.
It was stated in the white paper that there would be 1,500 firms with at least 500 or more employees which would come within the ambit of the guidelines. In fact there are around 1,000 which come within the guidelines. There was a 30 per cent error in the research in the white paper when they named the major companies that would come under the controls. If that is an indication of the kind of research on which the government relies, it is a good indication of the effectiveness of the bill and of the way in which the government will carry out the program. There was a 30 per cent error in trying to identify the number of companies. It is quite ridiculous.
I think that the Conservative party can be forgiven for not having completed its homework when it rushed into the last election with an incomes policy. The Conservative party felt it was necessary, but being in opposition it lacked the human resources to articulate anything more than the bare outlines of the program. It covered itself, to its credit, by proposing an across the board freeze for a short duration which would be time enough for its members to get their hands on the expertise they had been led to believe would be found among the ministers and their deputies. They argued that a freeze would be brutal but rough justice. As their leader has since pointed out, it would pave the way for a more comprehensive program subsequently.
The government had no such excuse. Shortly after the last election it announced it already had a contingency plan, and it was poised to act at the right time. So the anti-inflation bill we are looking at is that plan, and I suppose that according to the wisdom of the government this is the right time, but some of us in this party are agonizing about whether the bill should be amended, improved, tinkered with, or whether we should try to plug holes here and there.
It is my view that the bill is not amendable because it deals with the fundamental principle of wage control without price control. No matter how much rhetoric we hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), it clearly places the blame for inflation on the working sector of the economy.
I wish to point out some of the clear inequities and some of the mechanics of the bill which would simply render it useless in terms of the price sector. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was in the House a few moments ago, but I see that he has gone. I believe it was in 1973 that his predecessor, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), introduced an anti excess profits bill which this party looked at with a rather jaundiced eye. Frankly, I did not think it was a bad piece of legislation, and I still do not. I think it may have been one of the more original approaches to excessive profits we have seen in this country, and I commend the former minister for bringing forward what I thought was a fairly interesting approach of selecting companies, examining them, and dealing with profits.

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
However, within that bill there was a provision which this bill does not contain. That bill contained a mandatory reporting provision for companies which allowed the board to determine whether they were taking more than their share in terms of profits. To the credit of the minister that bill provided that price increases should be telegraphed in. This provision was contained in clause 51(1),-the bill, by the way, was dated April 29, 1974-and it required that any company seeking a price increase must first notify the board. The board then had the opportunity to inquire into the proposed increase. If the board did nothing, the increase came into force; if the board on examination found that the company was taking too much, was raising its price too high or its profits were excessive, then the board would exercise control. There is no such provision in the present legislation. In my view it is completely essential for any meaningful price control legislation that the board have advance notice of the price increases.
Ex post facto regulations simply will not work. What do we do if a woman buys a loaf of bread, and seven or eight months later the board determines that Weston's, or whoever it was, had allowed that price to rise to an inordinate degree? First, we do not know who the woman is who bought the bread. The fact that there is a possibility of a fine-and I will deal with that because the likelihood of a fine is very slim-will not help her very much, her standard of living or her ability to support her family.
Without the necessity of telegraphing price increases in, we do not begin to tackle the question of price control. The idea that somehow this board will be able to monitor prices across the country simply will not bear reasonable examination. In the kind of complicated market system we have it is completely impossible for that to be effective. However, if it were turned around and all prices, before being allowed to increase, had to be telegraphed in, at least there would be the beginning of some sort of price control mechanism. The fact is that that floodgate cannot be opened just a little bit. We cannot say we will deal with these little sections of the economy after prices have gone up.
What will happen is that by next spring the government will be hanging its head because of the inequities which will naturally develop throughout the system.
We in this party have been receiving a lot of mail for a change.


Mr. Darling:: In other words, you are the friends of the union. We haven't.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: It is coming by courier service.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The last piece of mail I received before the shutdown dealt with this matter, and I think it dealt with it in a rather poignant way. It said the following:
We all listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's speech, as well as to Mr. Barett.
This letter obviously came from British Columbia.
We think it is a good move and would like to give our views.
Would it not be more fair to scale the wage demands, like: people making up to $10,000 may ask for 15% increase, from $10,000 to $20,000

may ask for 10%, from $20,000 to $30,000 may ask for 5% and all over $30,000 should set a good example and not ask for any increase?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The letter goes on:
If the average Canadian realizes that their leaders, business bosses, etc. tighten their belts, you can be sure they will follow.
The country and the Canadian people are beautiful, that's why we decided to become part of it. We would not like to see it destroyed.
The members of this family put their finger on the basic problem behind any kind of control system. There has to be equity and fairness; there cannot be a control system where the rich get ahead on the backs of the poor. If we examine this system we find that the poor will become poorer and the rich will become richer. The rich will fight inflation on the backs of the poor. That is no system by which to develop a consensus. We cannot expect to pull society together, to make people feel as one, as Canadians fighting inflation, when they look around and see a $36,000 carpet in the parliamentary restaurant and subsidized parliamentary meals.
There is nothing in the bill which touches one of the real problems of inflation, which is the credit card philosophy in this country. When we go into a good restaurant we find that a large percentage of those who are eating there are eating on expense accounts. The manager of the restaurant knows his patrons are passing the charge on to their employers, and so the price of his product goes up and there is no resistance to it. The man down the block who runs another restaurant may not have as many expense account customers, but when he sees steaks selling for $10 he figures he can get $7, and then the next man further down who might be selling for $5 raises his to $7. That is not price push, it is price leadership, and it goes all through society. This bill does not tackle that problem.
There is 18 per cent interest charged on credit card accounts, and people have the idea that they can buy anything they want any time. This is one of the major features of inflation, and one of the major reasons for the permissiveness and softness being developed on the Canadian scene.
Someone quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) earlier as saying that the underlying malaise is people trying to get more out of the economy than they are putting in it. I am convinced that is part of our problem. It is a deep problem, a philosophic problem. We are becoming a soft, permissive society, but people are not strengthened by being told to reduce their level of consumption, to pull in their belt exactly one inch. That way the fat man is still in great shape but the man with no room left on his belt collapses from hunger.
We are not being equalitarian in the way we are producing this bill. We are rewarding the rich and penalizing the poor, so there is no reason for the poor to get behind the legislation. If the maximum were made $1,000 across the board that might tackle some of the problem. If the salary rate increase for members of parliament were limited to $1,000, and also to $1,000 for everybody else, that might start to deal with the problem, but we should not expect
October 23, 1975

the Canadian people to develop a consensus of something that is so inherently unfair.
I want to say a few words now about the bill itself because I have had some experience in the law, and this bill is a lawyer's dream. It is a beautiful exercise in the granting of discretionary power. Basically it provides for a board to be set up and allows it to do almost anything it wants-not by legislation but by order in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or not to do
the thing it does not want to do.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: So in spite of the fact that we are all talking about certain guidelines referred to in the white paper, there is nothing to stop the board, within a week or two, or three weeks, from changing those guidelines entirely and bringing in a whole new program. It could be a program which would not be subject to scrutiny by this House, or which would do absolutely nothing in terms of allowing members of parliament to exercise judgment on whether the guidelines were fair or not.
It is the kind of sweeping power that I thought we had departed from following World War II when most of those involved in law welcomed the return to sanity in legislation. It was almost impossible for people who practised law during the war to find out what the law was. All sorts of people could be pushed around and their rights taken away. This bill will be the beginning of a return to that kind of arbitrary democracy, something that those who are concerned with individual freedom and rights have every reason to challenge.
In clause 44(1) the bill provides penalties, and the press has made a great deal of the fact that people can get up to five years in jail for an indictable offence. Let me read the relevant parts:
44. (1) Any person who,
(c) wilfully, in any manner, evades or attempts to evade compliance with any provision of this act or an order made by the administrator-
Wilfully is a very interesting word. It means that if you are going to put Mr. Weston in jail you have to prove that Mr. Weston wilfully broke the guidelines. Anybody who has done defence work will tell you that in a matter as complicated as setting prices and trying to relate them to unit costs it is almost impossible to establish mens rea. In fact the defences are so voluminous we could spend the rest of the night on them. The first question is: did he know what the cost of the product was? I doubt it. I doubt he knew all the elements in the cost of any particular item. You could make it a capital offence under this, but it would not make any difference. Five years is meaningless, yet we see newspaper reports to the effect that this bill is tough. It is not tough, it is just unenforceable.
I want to talk for a moment now about professional fees because I have had some experience with them as well. I do not make any apologies for lawyers who charge high fees because they work very hard for them. Anybody who suggests that controlling the minimum schedule of fees which lawyers charge will control their incomes does not know anything about the practice of law. If I were in active law practice this bill would not bother me, and it will not bother anybody else in that profession regarding the amount of income they can earn.
Anti-Inflation Act


Mrs. Sauve:: What if he works doubly hard in that year? Answer that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The lawyer has total control over his charges. His hourly rate can be based on the value of the work. Most real estate conveyancing in this country is based on a percentage of the value of the real estate. As the inflationary factor in the country affects the rising costs of houses and land, the lawyers just make more and more money. Their incomes are not going to be affected by this bill. They are getting off scot-free, but the poor are controlled. There is no way to control professional incomes successfully. Lawyers can even get around taxing off.


Jeanne Sauvé: I know how that can happen. You don't have to tell me.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thought you would not mind hearing. It is quite simple. If you try to tax off a lawyer's excess income he incorporates a private company and funnels the income into that company. Clearly the sort of company I am talking about does not come within the guidelines, because it is small and because there are no employees. The result is that lawyers will not be controlled at all by this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the doctors.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The guys who work in the mill are controlled. I do not want to be too hard on my profession.


Jeanne Sauvé: We know all about lawyers. Deal with somebody else.


John Gilbert: Yes, let's deal with the doctors.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: How are doctors to be controlled under this bill? Doctors will face difficulties. If the bill attempts to control medical fees, but not medical income-and I suggest that this bill will not control income-doctors will pack twice the number of people into twice the number of waiting rooms and cut in half the time spent on each patient. That will be the result if we do not control doctors' incomes. As things now stand, you will affect only the quality of medical service provided to patients.


Mr. Peters:: You will lower standards, and that's terrible.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is interesting to compare figures. We talk about the inflationary effect of the horrible demands of the postal workers, who allegedly want 71 per cent over three years.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, allegedly?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: All right. They want 71 per cent. But I tell you, the majority award provides for about 14 per cent a year over three years, a percentage which is only slightly larger than last year's inflation percentage. Clearly, suggestions that postal workers are to get fantastic increases are ridiculous. I think the offer is modest. Actually I think the postal workers will accept it, because they happen to be public spirited people like the rest of us here.


An hon. Member:: That's why they are on strike.

October 23, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


William Arnold Peters: Mackasey's the reason.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is the reason for the strike. If the Postmaster General did not insist on seeing his picture in the papers three times a week, and on being on three television shows a week, there would not be a strike. But he wants public bargaining in the public service. I am amazed that the strike has only now begun. I thought the strike would take place at any time during the past year, and every time the postman came to my door I was surprised. Every time I read the newspaper I was told that the strike was imminent. When I saw the postmen I said to them, "Are you not on strike?" They said "No, we want to continue delivering mail." Judging from what you read in the papers, a Post Office strike has been in progress for the past two years. But that is not so. The mails have been delivered.


An hon. Member:: You couldn't tell that by the deliveries we have been getting.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My mail delivery has been good.


An hon. Member:: No drinking in the House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I assure hon. members that this is the purest water you can get from the tap.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His name isn't John A. Macdonald, you know.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Although the postal workers asked for 71 per cent over three years, the award is for 14 per cent a year, which is not particularly generous.
There is something we forget about postmen, something people do not often mention. My dad worked in the Post Office for 36 years. He was proud of his job. He knew all the routes in the community. His work as a postman was challenging, and he worked hard in the postal service. Now, because of the increasing introduction of technology, there is every reason for people in the Post Office to be concerned. Increasingly, Post Office jobs are becoming more boring. The workers are being told to push buttons. Their jobs are becoming more mundane, more boring, and they are mad about it. How would hon. members feel if they were no longer asked to make decisions or exercise judgment, but had to sit here and do nothing?


An hon. Member:: That's nothing different.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It seems to me that the problems of inflation and problems in the Post Office are related. This is not a one-way street. The people in the Post Office are entitled to some dignity. They are entitled to negotiate changes in their working conditions, changes which are negotiated in most industrial sectors. I do not support everything that has happened in the Post Office. I do not think the Montreal situation is good, just as the Post Office does not think it is good. But I do not think it is right to precipitate a strike in the postal service to solve it. Let labour solve its problems itself. The labour movement will do it. The government is not going to do it. You will merely turn these people into martyrs. The labour movement is getting behind them, and I do not think we are
adopting the right approach. As I say, there are problems in the Post Office; there are particular difficulties in Montreal, but I submit the government is going about their solution in a wrong-headed way.
Let me return to my theme. I was diverted. I want to deal briefly with an interesting article Walter Gordon wrote in the Toronto Star of October 13, dealing with wage and price controls. In that article he took the trouble to examine oil company profits during the past four years. Apparently between 1970 and 1974 the profits of Imperial Oil increased by 176 per cent. Poor old Gulf made only a 313 per cent increase in the same period, and Shell Canada increased its profits by 178 per cent. Compare that with the 71 per cent the postmen are seeking. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to pursue the question I raised this afternoon with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the timing of the formal and final approval of salary increases for senior civil servants. May I go over the sequence of events?
This afternoon the Prime Minister suggested that the Lambert report was presented to cabinet on March 31 and accepted by the cabinet on July 24. That general approval and acceptance by the cabinet led to the reference of the proposed salary ranges to the cabinet committee. The cabinet committee studied these salary ranges and slotted individuals into those various ranges between that time in question and two weeks ago.
When the Prime Minister responded to my question in the House he said that the final approval given to increases for deputy ministers did not coincide with the cabinet meeting which approved the guidelines affecting all Canadians in this country. The Prime Minister had said that he thought that probably in August not a great deal of work was done, and that the whole matter was carried out between August and two weeks ago. He was referring to the slotting of various individuals into the various salary ranges agreed on and approved by cabinet in its July meeting. Therefore, until two weeks ago the cabinet committee was apparently slotting people into those various salary ranges.
Two weeks ago it was October 9 or thereabouts, and if I take the Prime Minister literally, on that date and thereafter Treasury Board minutes were signed formally ratify-

October 23, 1975

ing salary increases of deputy ministers. It seems to me that on October 9 the cabinet had already reached a decision to impose wage and price controls on Canadians. At the same time they were giving final and formal approval to the huge increases deputy ministers were about to receive. Some of these increases in the top range are as high as $6,500.
The Prime Minister argued today that the average increase is only 9.3 per cent. But I ask: on what incomes, to begin with? They are incomes ranging from $27,000 to $60,000. As I said, some civil servants have been granted increases of $6,000 or $6,500. This is an increase which is well in excess of the $2,400 limitation imposed on all other Canadians. I do not think this is right. I do not think it is morally right or fair.
I charge that the Prime Minister today was evading answering the question I put to him. I have a source very close to the Prime Minister that tipped me off this morning saying in essence that when the cabinet met for one of the last times before the Prime Minister addressed the nation on October 13, it approved the guidelines he announced, and then turned to some household or routine business, which was the formal ratification of the increases for the deputy ministers. I put that question to the Prime Minister and he said no, it did not occur at the last cabinet meeting. But I suspect, from what I have picked up since, that those increases were, in fact, formally ratified by a cabinet committee, by Treasury Board, and perhaps it took place as the cabinet agreed to apply controls to all other Canadians.
I then asked the Prime Minister whether he would table those Orders in Council, and he replied that the House would eventually see them. I found out later from a reliable source that the authorization had probably taken the form of Treasury Board minutes and that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is not going to make public either the date or the contents of those minutes. I ask why he doesn't do that and I suspect, from what we have been hearing, and from what someone in the Prime Minister's Office said just today, that they were all ratified in the last two weeks. I can understand the Prime Minister saying, "Well, the authorization was given in July, we farmed it out to a cabinet committee, we didn't really expect controls would be coming into effect." But the Prime Minister left himself open on that point.
He said in the House today that back in July "we were in a sense anticipating the guidelines" and as a result they kept the average increase down to 9.3 per cent. For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, if they were anticipating the guidelines at that time, why in the devil did some of the increases go over $6,000? Why did they not anticipate the ceiling of $2,400 at that time?
So they farmed it out to a committee, and the committee's job is to slot various civil servants into various salary ranges; there was a summer recess so all the work was done in September and was completed two weeks ago on October 9. By that time the cabinet knew the guidelines. It had ratified the guidelines affecting other Canadians and it could very well have instructed that deputy ministers should obey the rules set for everyone else. Yet here is a government which has imposed guidelines on janitors, clerks, waitresses and lower echelon workers and which at the same time is having Treasury Board minutes signed
Adjournment Debate
putting into effect some of the salary increases to be enjoyed by deputy ministers.
In the House today the Prime Minister admitted that the slotting was not finished until October 9, two weeks ago. Obviously the Treasury Board minutes were not signed making it formal. We have sources in the PMO which have said this is the case. I do not want any evasive answers from the parliamentary secretary tonight. I want him to respond to my questions. Will they make public those Treasury Board minutes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If they do that there will be more co-operation from the public-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -and the control program that the government is imposing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in raising this point has very carefully chronicled the sequence of events. The advisory committee on executive compensation looked at the performance of the people concerned in the period between April, 1974, and April, 1975. Recommendations were made to the cabinet early this year. These recommendations were approved on July 24 by the cabinet. The process of implementing the decision which was approved at that time by the cabinet is, as was indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a somewhat cumbersome and time consuming procedure. It involves a review of individual performance, slotting of individuals within the various ranges indicated, and this procedure was completed prior to the adoption of the guidelines by the cabinet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The P.M. said two weeks. Check his words.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The government's policy in the circumstances is to follow the usual procedures regarding tabling of documents, procedures that have prevailed in every other instance, as indicated by the Prime Minister. I can only repeat that this is the sequence of events and that the documents that were produced by cabinet were prior to the adoption of the guidelines and they implemented a decision of July 24.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-REQUEST FOR DEBATE PRIOR TO SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, last December the Government of Canada authorized Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to negotiate the sale of a CANDU reactor to South Korea. We were told that safeguard arrangements would ensure that Canadian supplied nuclear material would not be used to produce nuclear explosive devices. But we were not told what these safeguards were. We will only learn these, perhaps,
29669-S 5

October 23, 1975
Adjournment Debate
when the agreement with South Korea is tabled in the House after the fact.
The government is bent on a course of madness. A cloak of morality has been thrown over this madness. That cloak must be ripped away and the nuclear sale to South Korea exposed and stopped before it is too late.
Thanks to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) unappealing speech to the Canadian Nuclear Association it has suddenly become moral, even obligatory, to share nuclear technology with the developing world. Of course the Prime Minister has worked to achieve a foolproof inspection system to guarantee against nuclear bomb proliferation. The point is that we do not yet have an internationally recognized foolproof system. We have to rely on the good faith of recipient countries that they will not abuse technology. Already South Korea has expressed reticence about Canada's tougher countrols, doubtless slowing down the agreement. Even if South Korea accepts Canada's term there is no guarantee that future governments in that military dictatorship will not abrogate or evade them.
The point I wish to emphasize is that it is folly verging on the criminal to assume that Canada will be able to impose the additional bilateral safeguards it desires. General E.L.M. Burns, respected head of Canadian disarmament teams for many years, warns us against nuclear sales to governments that are autocratic and not stable. If the military in South Korea think they should have nuclear weapons, he says, "no inspection agreement is going to stop it".
In effect, General Burns feels that the government's duty is to do nothing which may lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that this obligation, which is explicit in Article III of the non-proliferation treaty, takes precedence over Canada's desire to assist, through nuclear technology, the underdeveloped nations of the world.
It is true that the CANDU reactor itself is safe in that it cannot be turned into a bomb. But the spent fuel from the Canadian reactor, when reprocessed in the proper way, can produce a bomb. The French have been exporting this very process, and South Korea has recently purchased a $50 million reprocessing plant from France. Moreover, President Park of South Korea has stated that his country will be obliged to develop nuclear weapons if U.S. assurances of nuclear protection against North Korea are ever withdrawn.
How much more evidence do we need to realize that any agreement with South Korea will not be worth the paper it is written on? At the very least, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said some months ago in the House, there should be a moratorium on reactor sales, pending agreement on foolproof safeguards by the six nuclear exporting nations.
Instead of making a quick buck from South Korea under the guise of morality, Canada ought to be leading the way in strengthening and expanding international co-operation in finding safeguard agreements. This work is imperative since by the end of this year there will be 650 nuclear reactors operating in 38 countries. It is precisely because of our superiority in nuclear technology that we must put statesmanship ahead of salesmanship.

Finally, I plead with the Canadian government to stop and look at what kind of government we are dealing with in South Korea. It is one of the more repressive regimes on earth today. The Park regime is accused by international observers of economic injustice, corruption, and increasing violation of human rights.
An Amnesty International mission to South Korea said this:
The mission found torture is frequently used by law enforcement agencies both in an attempt to extract false confessions and as a means of intimidation.
There are also reports of cruel and arbitrary punishment in military life.
Other secular human rights groups have criticized the regime, including the International Commission of Jurists and the International League for the Rights of Man. The World Conference of Religion for Peace has publicly expressed its deep concern about the political repression in South Korea, especially for those who, out of their religious conscience, have expressed their stand against the violation of human rights by the Park government, and who are now in jail. This is the administration the Canadian government says it will trust. What a distortion of morality we are sliding into; what madness!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, in my answer on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), I would first of all enlighten his personal judgment concerning the government of the Republic of Korea. His judgment may obviously not be shared by other Canadians whose values are not the same as those of the hon. member. I must ask who are we to pass judgment on political systems under which other people choose to live. That has not been the major line of thought in our commercial dealings with other countries, particularly as regards the sale of nuclear reactors.

We have attached great importance to that sort of dealing with another country, and no Canadian can question the seriousness of our approach to any international binding agreement.
The Republic of Korea has never abrogated any international agreement it has concluded. We know also that the Republic of Korea is a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty whereby it has undertaken an international treaty commitment to the international community not to develop any nuclear explosive devices, and under the same treaty it has placed its entire nuclear program under the International Atomic Energy Agency.
May I just conclude by saying it is well known to my colleague opposite that it is not the international practice to table treaties before they are signed. They are made public after the text has been cosigned by the governments concerned. I should like to make very clear that the Government of Canada is, with the rest of the international community, trying to find better ways to ensure that nuclear devices are used for a pacific purpose only.


PUBLIC SERVICE-SUGGESTED DENIAL OF RIGHT TO STRIKE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the seven minutes given to me tonight I want to lay before the government again my view on the right to strike in essential services. I think it is very appropriate that this question be placed before the government at this time when we are again in the midst of a national strike by a union which provides an essential service to the people of Canada.
In 1967 when the right to strike was given unions in the public service the principle argument used was that this was a civil right which was given to other groups in labour, and that the public service should have the same civil rights as labour anywhere else. However, I think bitter experience has shown that we must ask tonight whose civil rights need protection. I seriously question whether it is not the people of Canada whose civil rights need protecting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to this House in 1972, not too long ago, my experience is that we have had to legislate the grainhandlers back to work, we have legislated the railroad workers back to work, and I am confident that before too long we will legislate the postal workers back to work.
What is the scenario? We see workers in essential services calling for a strike. It is carried over the media that a strike is imminent. Everybody gears up to it and battens down for the occasion. The first thing the government does when asked how it will solve the strike is to express pious support of the right to strike. Once having expressed that support, the government lets the strike go on. After it has been going on for a while the government realizes that it is an emergency, that it must do something, and then brings in back-to-work legislation. We have had that experience. As members of parliament we become the conciliation and arbitration board as well as the body which sets the wages. At least this has happened in the past.
Whether or not the government says it is committed to the right to strike, in actual fact it breaks that very principle which it espouses and to which, it says, it wants to hold. It is a charade. Tonight while the people of Canada are in the midst of a strike in another essential service, they are sick and tired of the charade. They do not want it any longer. They are saying to the government that they do not want to be held ransom to unions, and will not negotiate with an economic pistol to their heads any longer. There are many people saying today to the government, and to the representatives opposite, that if the postal workers want to go on strike and hold us for ransom then so be it; they can go on strike and stay there.
We might take a look at some of the union leadership we have seen in the last few days by people such as Messrs. Davidson and Parrot. If this is union leadership then no wonder we are in trouble because it is hardly responsible leadership. These people have done immeasurable harm to
Adjournment Debate
the working people of Canada who are deserving of pay, but who do not want to have that type of leadership so far as they are concerned.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: From their own unions.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Precisely.
The question then comes back that we want to pay for people who are giving us essential services. I believe that when a person enters the public service he enters it slightly differently than if it were the free market place, and his prime consideration should be to give service. As taxpayers we want to pay for that service, but the prime motivation must be service.
I am saying today that many of the union leaders have lost that motivation. Today all they are looking at is how much they can get out of the grab bag. Today we should ask the question: should those who are in the public service and do not want to go on strike, and do not want to exercise that right, have the right to work? I would like the government to express its views on this. I say the time has come when Canadians demand that the government get off its backside and say what is its position on strikes in essential services, whether it is committed to a process to bring those services back, to bring back productivity in the public service where small groups, who are supposedly in the process of exercising their rights, will not be allowed to take away the rights of other Canadians to make a livelihood and to carry on their own businesses.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has raised a question concerning the present postal strike.
The Public Service Relations Act provides public service employees, through their bargaining agent, with the right to select a dispute settlement method. There are two: binding arbitration, or the conciliation strike route. The employer has no involvement in the selection process.
Parliament having granted to federal employees the option of the conciliation strike method for dispute settlement, it would be wrong to assume that some employees on occasion would not choose this recourse.
On balance it can be said that the federal government has a most favourable record in terms of the number of strikes which have in fact taken place. Over 300 collective agreements have been signed since collective bargaining was granted to the public service, and there have been 11 legal strikes.
It is not the government's intention at this time to bring forward general legislation which will deny public servants the right to strike. Parliament will, of course, always reserve the right to review specific situations in order to protect the public interest.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
29669 - 55>/2

Friday, October, 24, 1975