1975-12-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in view of the Department of National Defence's proposal to establish a French language operational Argus squadron at CFB Greenwood. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the government forthwith arrange for an investigation of the Department of National Defence's policies with respect to the posting of Francophone units in wholly Anglophone communities, and vice versa, and immediately suspend all measures and steps which might lead to the establishment of a French language operational squadron at CFB Greenwood until such investigation has been completed, and until the views of the communities and personnel affected have been ascertained and taken into consideration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE BOARD WILL NOT INTERFERE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a case of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that ministers of the government have repeatedly stated that the anti-inflation legislation before us is not intended to take the place of collective bargaining, and in view of the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board itself in a statement November 7 stated that it did not intend to replace normal bargaining processes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House condemn the Anti-Inflation Board for its attempt to set itself up as a labour court in its dealings with striking Toronto secondary school teachers, and that the Prime Minister assure this
House that the board will no longer be permitted to interfere in the collective bargaining process.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may not be aware that the order of business for today is the third reading of the very bill to which he refers in his motion. It seems it would be an abuse of our procedures to ask the House to set aside a third reading debate for another debate on the subject.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
In view of the increasing number of problems arising in the field of labour-management, and as it has become essential, in the face of many strikes in all sectors, to try to orient our legislation with a view to attenuating the evil effects of numerous work stoppages which are always disadvantageous for the workers and, in addition, create a climate of provocation which dislocates the whole Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House urge the government to take serious measures to interest the workers in Canadian undertakings through benefit sharing and share buying so as to ensure peace and a greater measure of co-operation between capital and labour.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As consent is not unanimous, the motion cannot be put.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning 19

December 1, 1975
Humane Way
year old Nehemiah Richards, son of Lloyd Richards, of the city of Toronto, a student at Bloor Street Collegiate, who is scheduled to be forcibly and inhumanely separated from his father, mother, seven brothers and sisters this weekend and deported to Jamaica by a senseless, cruel, unnecessary application of regulations by Canadian immigration. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
It is the opinion of the House that the disgraceful deportation of Nehemiah Richards be forthwith halted, that none of the circumstances involved warrant such ruthless treatment, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration immediately issue a ministerial order granting him landed immigrant status, that the House deplores the heartless written refusal of the Prime Minister to assist in the case and, finally, the House requests the Prime Minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to show at least the same sense of compassion and understanding which they so willingly extended to undesirables like General Quang.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent issue.
Since some officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission disgracefully take advantage of the honest people, making them sign statements which force them afterwards to refund the amounts received over a long period of time, which is inhumane, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the minister responsible for unemployment insurance take steps to give more humane directions for implementing unemployment insurance regulations.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. PIO-CARLO TERENZIO, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the House the presence in your gallery of a very distinguished international public servant, the Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Mr. Pio-Carlo Terenzio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important and urgent issue.
Since the federal Minister of Agriculture is responsible for foodstuff supplies to meet the needs of the population; since this responsibility concerns the quantity and quality of food produced in Canada as well as imports; since also to enable him to discharge his duties more effectively an efficient control of imports and exports must be made in accordance with the above-mentioned responsibilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider the advantages of giving the Minister of Agriculture the responsibility of issuing import permits and licences for farm products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OFFICERS OF CANADIAN COASTGUARD
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the presence in your gallery of officers of the Canadian Coastguard attired in their new uniforms?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 1, 1975



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the very serious charges made against the RCMP on Friday by the Minister without Portfolio, has the Solicitor General asked the Minister without Portfolio to turn over to him all the evidence one must assume he has to support such allegations? I further wish to ask the Solicitor General what action he has taken to investigate such evidence.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I have been absent from Ottawa since Thursday afternoon; I only heard about the allegations after I returned from Winnipeg on Friday night. Prior to my leaving I met with the Minister without Portfolio and asked him to give us any evidence he had with respect to his allegation. So far, we have received none from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is it the position of the Solicitor General that the RCMP, to use the words of the Minister without Portfolio, are trying to use public opinion to get a strength they would not otherwise have and also-another quotation

"some of them think they are above everything; I don't want another CIA in this country" is not a serious matter? Does he feel his colleagues over there have free vein to cast apparently unsubstantiated slurs upon the force for which he is the responsible minister?


William Warren Allmand: I have never found any evidence to support the allegations made by the Minister without Portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I gather the minister is saying he does not agree with the inference that the RCMP are appealing to public opinion through the media to clothe them with power they need to carry out investigations.


William Warren Allmand: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDING AND LIST OF MEMBERS TO BE INTERVIEWED
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Bearing in mind the grave concern and unrest which exists among the public, can the Solicitor General assure the House that the RCMP investigation into Sky Shops and related matters is proceeding fully and freely despite the obvious attempts of certain members opposite to intimidate the force?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: As the minister responsible for the RCMP I can say we are proceeding in these investigations with all due haste.


Gerald William Baldwin: Last week the Solicitor General told the House that the RCMP intended to interview certain other members of this chamber on all sides of the House, as the Solicitor General put it. Can the minister tell the House whether he has been given a list of the members the RCMP intends to approach, and can he tell us the basis upon which members, especially members on this side of the House, have been chosen for interviews into what is, after all, an investigation into what appears to be Liberal party fund raising practices?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want completely to reject that last allegation. There is no investigation of Liberal party fund-raising practices; there is an investigation into matters relating to the Sky Shops and related incidents. With respect to the other matters raised by the hon. member, when I said that the RCMP would be interviewing people on all sides of the House, I meant to say in political parties other than the government party. They did not give me any list. Again, I want to make very clear that when the RCMP visit ministers or members of parliament on this matter, it is not as suspects but as people willing to help with the investigation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. At the first ministers' conference of last April both the Prime Minister and the minister, then in his capacity as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, argued for higher oil and gas prices on the grounds that they would be necessary to stimulate exploration for higher priced reserves. Given the fact that figures from the Canadian Petroleum Association now show that although revenues for the last three years running have been increasing at unprecedented rates in the oil and gas industry, money spent on exploration has actually been falling at a rather drastic rate as a percentage of revenue. May I now ask the minister whether the government is prepared to make it an absolute condition that any increase in the price of oil at the wellhead level will be conditional upon the companies doing further exploration?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have approached the matter in a rather different way, in the sense that we have so arranged the income tax system by the budget of June 23 that a company which does engage in exploration could receive up to 71 cents of the $1.50 increase for the purpose of exploration in Canada. If it fails to do so, its net will be down to 28 cents. In other words, we have provided a taxation disincentive for those firms which fail to carry out exploration in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Instead of using the usual approach of the government,
9574

December 1, 1975
Oral Questions
which has been to provide some kind of incentive and which goes back over the past decade, why would the government not make it mandatory that all such increases beyond cost increases be put into future exploration?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we think the incentive will be effective and it has been effective since the budget bill was enacted in late July for the purpose I set out.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS ESTIMATE OF JOBS LOST AS RESULT OF OIL PRICE INCREASE
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question. Given the estimate over the week end by an Ontario government economist that the Ontario economy alone would have lost some 37,000 jobs because of the most recent price increase permitted by the federal government to the oil companies, can the minister inform the House whether the federal government has done an estimate in terms of lost jobs in the economy as a whole as a result of that decision apart from that done by the province of Ontario, and if so is the minister prepared to table in the House such estimate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine the precise Ontario analysis, checking its accuracy, to see if we have done exactly the same thing at the federal level. However, the analysis seems to me to escape the basic truth that we are faced with in Canada. With a dwindling resource base from conventional producing areas we will have to pay more for petroleum in Canada, and it is in the interest of all provinces, including Ontario, to develop a higher capacity to meet our own needs from our own supplies.


POST OFFICE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the quite controversial information given on the radio about the postal conflict, can the minister tell the House whether the negotiations held during the weekend gave any results and whether the conflict is or will be over shortly?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, a collective agreement was signed Saturday. Naturally, it is the right of the union to ask its members to vote on it tonight or tomorrow. I hope it will be a secret vote, as provided in the collective agreement. We will wait to see if they support the agreement; if not the strike will go on.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question.

According to his statement, a document which confirms the conclusion of an agreement between the federal government and the postal workers' union has been signed. Does the Postmaster General happen to know if the leaders who have signed on behalf of the union are the same people who are now recommending that the Montreal postal employees vote against the agreement which has been reached last weekend by the Postmaster General and the union?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this inconsistency coming from the president of the Montreal local is not unusual. On the contrary this is just what we have been expecting from Mr. Parrot for quite a while.


AIR CANADA
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disappointing results which the last appointment produced, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government this time to make a knowledge of airline operations and a proven ability to direct large corporate operations the criteria on which the appointment of the new Chairman of Air Canada will be based?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we will continue as in the past, seeking out the best person available for any job which is open.


An hon. Member:: You will have to look outside the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about you, George?


George Harris Hees: You couldn't make a better choice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask him about the anti-inflation rules.


George Harris Hees: As morale within the airlines has suffered very materially during the past seven years, is it the intention of the government to give serious consideration to the appointment of a replacement for Mr. Pratte from among employees of the airlines, in an attempt to restore that very important ingredient to corporate success, namely, morale?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will certainly consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. We will look at any person within the airlines, and consider that very seriously. I think there may be a contradiction between the two parts of the question of the hon. member, in that he first said a better choice than himself could not be made, which leads me to say that he does believe in certain cases we could get a better choice outside the airline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 1, 1975


George Harris Hees: Well, that is your opinion, and what is yours' against thousands of others?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say that I think the hon. member would probably be a very good choice, indeed. What I think is a bit suspicious is that the backbenchers applauded that suggestion, so it would appear that they want to get rid of him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It would be a nice way to go through, wouldn't it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering the tremendous increase in the costs of the Olympic facilities, and considering that Canadians want to be sure of the costs of those games, can the minister tell the House today whether he is willing to consider, along with all concerned parties, a new formula to help the self-financing of the Olympic Games, a formula which would comply with the assurances already given and which would not be an additional burden on public funds?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would table such magic formula immediately. Obviously, in the House I am the person most willing to promote such ideas. But, I think the hon. member's suggestion flows from a great dream.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I thank the President of the Treasury Board for his broadmindedness, which is to his credit. If, for instance, this new formula, which is to be announced within the next few hours, were sent to the Minister officially by the authorities in Montreal and Quebec City, are we to understand that he would at least agree to consider it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not received any new formula. However, if such a formula were received, I hope that the opposition would consider it and would make unanimous recommendations. Then, this attitude may facilitate our work. Anyway, the formula for financing the Olympic Games was accepted by the three levels of government, several years ago, and we do not intend to change it. But if amendments are put forward which do not change the principles on which it is based, we are evidently prepared to consider them.
Oral Questions


POST OFFICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. It relates to the reply he gave to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. In the event that the most recent offer made to the postal workers is ratified, would the minister consider making at least a portion of the retroactive pay of these workers available to them as soon as possible before Christmas.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would be more than happy to recommend this to the minister responsible for Supply and Services. I think we could provide each and every postal worker affected by this unnecessary strike with at least $500 as soon as possible so that he or she could enjoy Christmas which, at the present moment, would be very difficult in light of the fact that they have now been without any income for 41 days. However, I must stress that this will depend on the speed of the ratification since every day they are denied the opportunity to return to work they are losing $1 million in income.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the complete pulp and paper industry is in a state of jeopardy with 45 mills on down time and others on strike almost daily, would the minister advise the House what answer he received from the pulp and paper industry to the demand that they sit down with the unions and come to a successful conclusion to prevent the total collapse of this important part of our economy.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any notification directly from the paper companies. It is the provinces of course, and the labour ministers in the provinces involved, which have been talking to the representatives of the paper companies. I think it is their hope that the parties will get to the bargaining table to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible. I might say that there are some who believe the Irving settlement in New Brunswick the other day may prompt early settlement. That is the hope.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the Irving settlement has been used as a benchmark, I wonder if the minister could discuss with the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board some flexibility in negotiations so that this very important part of our Canadian economy will not be drastically affected?
29956-54%

December 1, 1975
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it would be my proper function to tell the Anti-Inflation Board what they should do with any individual settlements. Certainly, it would help in this situation if the Anti-Inflation Board looked at the Irving settlement and indicated as quickly as possible whether or not it approves it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the widespread concern among feed grain users in British Columbia about the future of the feed freight assistance program, can the minister advise the House if the government has yet decided to carry on with the program in its present form or to replace it with something else?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on this.


HOUSING
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and it is about the fact that CMHC, as he well knows, makes loans and grants to limited dividend housing projects or rental projects under the National Housing Act under agreements to control rents. It now appears that rent increases are being made on these projects of up to between 20 per cent and 30 per cent and evictions are taking place. What steps will the minister take to prevent the rise in the rents of federally subsidized housing and to prevent evictions, as this seems to be a matter falling within federal jurisdiction?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member might know, I met with some 40 representatives of the Tenants' Association from the limited dividend housing projects in Toronto on Saturday. I am taking immediate steps to check those evictions which are as the result of leaders organizing into tenant groups. I think it is unacceptable. If they wish to organize, there should be absolutely no coercion or pressure on them, and I have taken immediate steps to see that that does not take place. There are occasions, as the hon. member knows, as one learned in the law as I am not, when eviction is quite an appropriate procedure, but we certainly want to see this minimized.
In so far as rents are concerned, we are investigating this. I think the 20 per cent to 30 per cent figure which the hon. member indicated is higher than those which the tenants themselves have indicated of around 17 per cent to 20 per cent, but I am investigating even that at this time. The distinction in control here is whether the provincial

legislation will cover this type of accommodation or whether we will continue to control it ourselves. We are trying to work this out in relation to the provincial legislation. I am certainly looking into these cases individually to make certain that there are no undue increases and that people are not evicted because they are being coerced or because they want to organize to make representations.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of the fact that, for example, the Ontario legislation restricts increases to 8 per cent and, as I understand it, CMHC officials themselves have said that increases in some of these projects are between 20 per cent and 30 per cent, will the minister endeavour to persuade the Ontario government to include in its legislation these federally financed projects so that there can be some degree of uniformity?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, this is a matter of some discussion between the provincial ministers and myself. We are not anxious to see public housing where rent is geared to income come under rent control schemes. That creates another level of bureaucracy which is not responsive and sensitive to individual needs which are usually way below market rents. But this is an area at which we are looking in so far as the specific types of projects are concerned, and we will be discussing these with the provinces.


LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF RENT INCREASES IN OTTAWA AREA
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of the fact that in the national capital area in this kind of housing there are reports of increases of not only between 20 per cent and 30 per cent but specifically increases of $27.00 per month which have been described as totally warranted by an officer of CMHC, has the minister personally investigated the cases in Ottawa-and I refer to Minto construction-and is he prepared to substantiate the assertion that has been made by the officer of that corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I had not looked at the Ottawa situation specifically. Now that it has been drawn to my attention, of course I will. What has happened in some of these projects is that in an effort to keep the costs and rents down we have found that some of the projects themselves have been kept down so far that they went into bankruptcy. We must adjust the rents to allow them at least to remain solvent and we must look at incomes to see if income support is necessary.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is it the policy of the government that rent controls will
December 1, 1975

only be enforced by provincial bodies and not by CMHC in instances of this nature?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: will be glad to make a more precise examination of this. As the hon. member pointed out, generally speaking rent control will fall under provincial bodies.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ENSURE BUILDING OF APARTMENTS-ACTIONS OF SOME GROUPS BLOCKING BUILDING OF APARTMENTS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the statistics published by CMHC this weekend with regard to vacancy rates in apartments, will the minister come to Edmonton to explain to the people there why apartments are not being built, and will he visit other centres to give the same explanation? What actual steps will the government take to see that these apartments are built? The government itself is not doing it, and that is one of the explanations he has not given with regard to rental increases.


Barnett Jerome Danson: We are certainly well aware of the problem which the hon. member pointed out. The reason that apartments are not being built, or starts are down so substantially, is that they cannot be built at today's costs and rent levels without showing a significant loss. The legislative policies of the government are to lend the money so that it is economically feasible for those buildings to be built and rented at market rents, so that owners do not suffer a loss. Indeed, we are increasing our activities in this field. We were tremendously successful this year but still not as successful as we would like to be, and that is why we are requiring an additional three quarters of a billion dollars from the private sector directed to this type of housing. Indeed even in the private sector, before it became mandatory, 60 per cent of private funds was going into rental accommodation which was subsidized by the government of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister comment on the low vacancy rate and the absence of apartment construction as the result of the some of the actions of the so-called reform groups and city councils who have deliberately blocked the building of apartment buildings?


Barnett Jerome Danson: This is a matter of grave concern and that is why, in addition to all other things the federal government is doing to enrich the housing program, we are providing municipalities with $1,000 per unit for every one approved under our new National Housing Act program, which should have a significant effect. There are other factors involved in the municipal councils blocking of building which I discussed with the limited dividend tenants association, which the hon. member for Greenwood mentioned, which is a concern about tenant groups which may make unreasonable demands. I do not think those demands are unreasonable and my intention is to have a forum where they can discuss these demands rationally. I
Oral Questions
found the tenants groups rational and I am sure the landlords will be rational.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Solicitor General to answer a question regarding several correctional officers and what the stand of the government is in respect of injuries sustained by these correctional officers in the penitentiaries, regard being had to the numbers of these events. I asked a question about this the other day and the minister said he would look into it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, persons who are employed with the Canadian penitentiary service are eligible for benefits under the Government Employees Compensation Act. However, with respect to their families, if the employees are on duty or if they die as a result of injuries, at the present time their families are not covered by the said act, but up until now we have been getting permission from the Treasury Board to make compensation payments to those families. After a certain amount of study, the penitentiary service has now seen fit to try to have this put into statute form so it will not have to continually go to Treasury Board for approval. A proposal will be put forward in this respect in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Solicitor General for his very sympathetic consideration of the claims, particularly of the families of those who die in service. I ask him whether it is the intention to bring in that legislation in the present session, and will it apply in respect of those families whose breadwinners suffered fatalities during the past year or so?


William Warren Allmand: I do not know if the legislation will be ready for this session, but if it is not, we will continue to grant compensation to the families through special Treasury Board rulings, as we have done in the past.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the overcrowding at the existing facility at Charlo airport in the county of Restigouche, could the minister inform the House as to the status of the implementation of the extension of facilities at the Charlo airport, specifically with regard to the new air terminal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the long range plan of the department calls for continued improvements for technical facilities as well as a

December 1, 1975
Oral Questions
terminal building at Charlo. Because of the priority of a need for the operational facilities, the terminal is still some time away in the construction plan.


OLYMPIC GAMES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
It seems the city of Montreal will face a deficit of about $600 million in the organization of the Olympics. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the municipal authorities have asked for a long term interest-free loan from the federal government to tide them over?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such an application and I am told that neither did the President of Treasury Board get any such request.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If Mr. Drapeau were to state tonight on the Parle parle, jase jase television program that he is about to ask the federal government for a $600 long term interest-free loan-without any indication as to the number of years-would the Prime Minister consider such an application from Mayor Drapeau?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that Mayor Drapeau was to appear on the Parle parle, jase jase program. Having had a fine experience myself when I appeared not such a long time ago, I can say that if he does he will certainly be quite welcome. However, after some consideration, the hon. member will certainly realize that his question is purely hypothetical and that I am therefore under no obligation to reply to it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In considering the proposal to convert an Argus squadron at CFB Greenwood into a French language unit, which is obviously not a military decision but one which is more political, is the government prepared to consider the views of the community and the personnel affected before a final decision is made?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to increasing the number of French language units in the Canadian armed forces, but there has been no final decision with regard to the unit at Greenwood.


BILINGUALISM
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In the consideration of establishing Francophone units and/or Anglophone units in Francophone unilingual parts of Canada, does the Prime Minister think that the artificial creation of linguistic ghettoes in unilingual areas of Canada is a positive way to promote bilingualism and to help bring unity to this land?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I always feel that any form of creating ghettoes is a retrograde step. I must indicate to the hon. member that it seems to be in his mind that ghettoes are being created; the government is not creating them.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know what is in my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Tell us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have difficulty trying to define what is in the mind of the Prime Minister. Assuming the facts as they are, that in areas of Canada which are 100 per cent unilingual, be they Anglophone or Francophone, and that the artificial creation and ordering of another unilingual group is not creating a ghetto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since there seems to be some misapprehension or some misunderstanding on the part of the negotiators for the teachers in Toronto-they were informed by the minister or someone in the minister's office that they would not come under the guidelines, and since that time the statement has been made by the minister that they do come under the guidelines-I wonder if the minister could set the record straight. Was there any communication between the minister and the teachers in Toronto and their negotiators to the effect that they would come under the guidelines? Perhaps that whole issue could be clarified.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity. We made clear to the teachers and to all others by telegram and by statements in the House, in the committee and elsewhere throughout the country, that any particular settlement would have to be judged by the Anti-Inflation Board in its
December 1, 1975

Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[Stage Direction]
current form under the Inquiries Act or in the form in which it is proposed under Bill C-73 when it becomes law, so we are not in a position to give an assurance to any group that they would not be covered by the guidelines. We have indicated in the white paper that there are exceptional circumstances. It would be incumbent upon any particular group to establish its own entitlement to exemption.
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Just so that I am absolutely clear and the record is absolutely clear, was there at any time any communication with the negotiators for the teachers that the teachers would not be covered by the guidelines? Was that commitment made to the teachers at any time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was a communication by telegram in effect confirming what has been said in this House and elsewhere, that of course they would have to meet the provisions of the guidelines like any other group, but bringing to their attention that the white paper did contain these exceptional provisions which they might attempt to meet.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES TREASURY, MR. YEO
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to take this opportunity to call the attention of the House to the presence in your own gallery of Mr. Yeo, the Deputy Secretary of the United States Treasury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to the one already put to him by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo. In view of the fact that freight rate increases are also in prospect, will the minister delay any reductions in the feed grain freight assistance program until a more equitable program can be worked out? I gather the matter is under consideration. The net effect of a reduction on the assistance program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to work out proper programs which do not create more disparity, but which make things more equal.


POSSIBLE DISBANDING OF MINISTRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.


Donald W. Munro: He has forgotten he is the Minister of State.


Harvie Andre: Can the minister confirm or deny reports in today's Citizen that the cabinet is considering disbanding the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, or one half of the ministries falling under the jurisdiction of the minister?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the cabinet is not considering disbanding the ministry.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES ANNOUNCED IN THRONE SPEECH
Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the performance of this ministry, a decision to disband it may be in order. As any comparison of Canada's performance in science and technology with that of any other western industrialized nation shows us to be last, will the minister tell the House when those few policy announcements proposed in both the last two throne speeches will be implemented by the government, and by which department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I emphatically deny the slight on Canadian scientific and technological work. I do not think it helps the hon. member to make that kind of statement, which is manifestly untrue nor does it help Canada. To answer the second part of his question, I should be interested to know what specific policy aspect he has in mind.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST THAT BOARD REFRAIN FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNTIL SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the repeated statements made by the government, that its anti-inflation program is not intended to take the place of collective bargaining; as the Anti-Inflation Board itself, in a statement on November 7, stated that it did not intend to replace normal bargaining processes, and since Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin's latest statement regarding Toronto secondary school teachers' bargaining constitutes not only a prejudgment of collective bargaining but also an undue interference in collective bargaining, has the minister made it clear to Mr. Pepin and the Anti-Inflation Board that the board is not to make statements which can only prejudge

December 1, 1975
Oral Questions
collective bargaining, and will the minister instruct Mr. Pepin, and the board, to refrain from making statements on collective bargaining which may take place in future until a package is put before it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question, and therefore I will not comment further.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for the National Capital Commission. Can he answer the question I directed to him on Friday through his parliamentary secretary?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, the hon. member asked a question relating to the National Capital Commission not proceeding with the roads program until the sewer program is resolved. I understand that there is a program involving the province of Quebec, the regional government of the Outaouais region and the National Capital Commission, under which work is to proceed. The cost was to be some $45 million, of which each government was to share one third. In the interim that amount has escalated to some $120 million. The National Capital Commission is prepared to carry its third; I understand that the government of Quebec is prepared to carry the balance of two thirds, leaving the original $20 million which was to be absorbed by the regional municipality. Until the sewage network is in place it is not possible, I understand, to proceed with the road network. Meetings are going on, in order that this may be resolved, but the time frames have been changed and I understand that the program, under present conditions, will not be completed until 1978.


POST OFFICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can the minister offer this House an explanation as to how a collective agreement could have been signed on Saturday with the same CUPW executive now urging its rejection; perhaps, what is more important, can the minister assure the House that voting this time will really be by secret ballot?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the memorandum of settlement I have in front of me indicates that the collective agreement was signed on Saturday, subject to ratification. It was signed by myself, as representing my colleague who played a great part in
[Mr. Rodriguez.)
helping us negotiate the clause on automation, and representatives of CUPW. Fortunately, it was signed in the presence of the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and the former deputy minister of labour, so that there is no doubt in my mind that a collective agreement was signed.
As to the change of heart in 48 hours by the negotiating team, which is now recommending rejection of their own judgment of Saturday, that can only cast some reflection on their judgment. Under Article 6 of their constitution, I think they are obliged to present for ratification this collective agreement through the process of a secret ballot. There are indications that at some locals this feature of the present collective agreement will not be honoured, unfairly casting once again some reflection on the integrity of the labour movement as a result of the actions of this particular union.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
PROVISION OF OFFICE SPACE AND SECRETARIAT SERVICES TO CONSULTANT ROY MacLAREN-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the treasury board circular issued last year questioning the legality of providing tools and facilities to outside consultants, will the minister investigate the provisions of both office space and secretarial services to Roy MacLaren for consultant's work with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and report to the House his findings?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate this matter and report to the hon. member.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the answer given by the minister to a question put to him on November 21, when he indicated that he hoped to bring forward oil and gas regulations before December 21, and in view of the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, made before the resources committee on Wednesday, November 26, to the effect that he hoped the regulations would be ready early in the spring of next year, can the minister say if he is still considering December 21 as the deadline, or was the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources more realistic?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall meet later this week with the Minister of Energy, Mines and
December 1, 1975

Resources and still hope to make the deadline by December
21.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the present president of Air Canada, Mr. Ralph Vaughan, continue to retain his position for 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Vaughan and have every reason to believe he will continue with Air Canada. The question of responsibilities within Air Canada, and its over-all structure, is under review, and therefore there may be a change in his actual role.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if Air Canada is to be reorganized substantially, if, as part of the reorganization, the airline is to be compelled to compete equally for routes with other airlines, and if, as reported in a newspaper this morning, the government intends to offer Air Canada shares for sale to the public? Is the government thinking of introducing a major reorganization when it brings down the Estey report and proposed legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that particular newspaper reporter should recheck his cabinet sources, because the cabinet has not made any decision on these important questions. Consideration is being given to the whole role of Air Canada and its structure, and I hope, in due course, to put the results of these deliberations before the House.


DATE OF PRESENTATION OF ESTEY REPORT AND LEGISLATION TO REORGANIZE COMPANY
Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the presentation to the House of the Estey report being withheld, or to be withheld, pending the completion of new Air Canada legislation? Further, can the minister assure the House that we shall see the Estey report before legislation pertaining to Air Canada is introduced in the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Estey report will be made available as soon as physically possible. I certainly expect the legislation to be introduced only after that.
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. I would have liked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to be present in the House today, but unfortunately he is held back in his riding. I had the opportunity to speak to him last Friday and this morning. I trust he will be back tomorrow and surely will have the opportunity to make comments if he has any.
Last Friday, the Leader of the Opposition linked a statement I allegedly made the night before on television to racism. As a Canadian who has spent his adult life promoting understanding between the two major language groups in Canada as well as solidarity between all the ethnic groups which make up our country, I consider very serious this allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition. I attach importance to it, all the more because I consider the Leader of the Opposition as a man of honour who, in spite of many difficulties known to all, has proved many times his attachment to the same objectives.
I already had the opportunity to tell him personally how I felt about this last Friday. To avoid any misunderstanding about what I may have said last Thursday, I want to table, with leave of the House, a transcript of the interview between Mr. Eric Mailing of CTV News and myself. The text speaks for itself and in my opinion justifies in no way the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition.
On the contrary, the interview rather appears to me like a defence of the most fundamental rights of every citizen and a call to avoid global judgments on the various ethnic groups which are Canada's wealth.
In fact, the only references to racism that may be found in the transcript are in the words of the reporter who interviewed me. I must add that the text does not justify either the introductory comments made by CTV that night.
I would like to raise another point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerning a report presented by CBC on the English channel during the 11 o'clock news last Friday.
Mr. Brian Stewart said on that occasion:

A furious Lalonde told reporters in the lobby that the Wasps are out to get the French. He said all Quebec was being smeared by the English media.
The attribution to me of such a statement is a total fabrication and a complete, unadulterated lie. I never said any such thing in any way, shape or form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I have had this matter checked with some reporters who were present in the lobby on Friday morning and none of them can remember such a statement. Moreover, nobody remembers having seen Mr. Stewart around at that time. In fact, Mr. Stewart himself has

December 1, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
admitted he was not present. At best, Mr. Stewart has been reporting on hearsay, and at worst he invented what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can only express the deepest disgust and contempt for that type of journalism. I am asking the CBC to retract fully and immediately the statement falsely attributed to me, and of course, I reserve all my rights in every other way.
I trust, in addition, that the other journalists who based themselves on the comments made either on CTV News last Thursday evening, or on CBC News last Friday evening, will show the same zeal in denouncing those who misled them as they showed themselves in commenting the statements I was falsely accused of having made.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I should like to table copy of the transcript of the interview between myself and Mr. Mailing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In so far as the question of privilege raised by the hon. minister is concerned, perhaps the easiest solution for the Chair is to point out that the minister has not followed his question of privilege with a motion seeking action on the part of the Chair. No action being sought, accordingly there is none the Chair proposes to take.
The minister has put forward for tabling, with the consent of the House, a transcript of the interview that was referred to extensively in his remarks. Ministers of the Crown, of course, exercise some rights in respect of. tabling documents in the House, but under the Standing Orders this is not with respect to documents which fall outside their administration and responsibility. In other words, it would require the unanimous consent of the House for the minister to table this document. I presume this consent is forthcoming. In any event, I must ask whether there is unanimous consent for the minister to table the transcript. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in this matter. I was not in the House on Thursday and Friday when these events were alleged to have taken place. With regard to the first matter raised, having in mind the fact that the minister has tabled the transcript of the proceedings and has mentioned the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I wish to reserve the right of the Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter when he is here, if he wishes.
With regard to the second matter, we have enough problems in this country. I was glad to hear the minister say in this House that he categorically denied using those expressions. I accept his statement because it was made in this House: we are obliged to accept it. However, I must say that I am glad to accept it because we do not want to have the proceedings of this House and the political life of this country disturbed and marred by allegations and accusations of this kind. As to the rest, I would ask that the matter be reserved for the Leader of the Opposition to

raise any issue arising therefrom when he returns to the House, if he chooses.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Nationsl Health and Welfare, I listened personally to the accusations of racism against the minister on television and on the radio. I think that all parties in this House must admit that if there is one hon. member who is not racist, it is the minister involved here. For instance, he never used his position to make racial discrimination against anyone, whereas I saw this in western Canada, among my good friends of the Progressive Conservative party who say in this House that if the situation is so bad in Canada, it is because of the "French Power" in Ottawa, because of the French Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is not serving Canadian national unity, it is not promoting cooperation either to make charges left and right against anyone, whether a minister, a member of the opposition, or some of my colleagues. I think we must look upon Canada as a country which is ours and in that country rather than devour one another we should at least try to understand one another and serve the best, interests of the people of this country. In that respect, the minister is quite right in blaming CBC because it is nearly always shooting under par and in a mess. It is about time I think that the government as well as opposition members saw in those people, people who are interested-I do not know whether it is out of envy or jealousy- but who are interested in creating discord in the House of Commons instead of reporting accurately and honestly subject matters under consideration and the debates that take place here.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill C-418, entitled "An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (party status)."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to recognize that 12 members are needed to be recognized as a genuine party but once it has had 12 members elected that party will continue to be recognized as long as there is representation in the House of Commons. If at a certain moment all members of that party should disappear then it will have to have another 12 members at least reelected at another election for the party to be recognized but once it is recognized as long as there remains one member that party will continue to be recognized officially.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
December 1, 1975


Barnett Jerome Danson: for leave to introduce Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.


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

Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of expediting the debate on Bill C-73, I have a suggestion to make. First, may I point out that it is now December 1 and it is our hope and expectation that we shall be able to adjourn on December 19. I have been working with the House leaders in an effort to organize our time in such a way as to enable us to deal with all the important legislation which remains.
The debate today will be on Bill C-73. In the event that this debate concludes before the end of the day, I would suggest that the vote be postponed until tomorrow after orders of the day are called. I say this because there might otherwise be a disposition to prolong the debate in order to avoid a vote tonight.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have no objection, Mr. Speaker. We have stated our position on the bill. Our views will be presented today by a number of speakers, beginning with the right hon. member for Prince Albert, but we recognize that the government has the brute force to put the bill through, so we see no reason for delaying it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The suggestion is, of course, based on a hypothetical situation and we know what is usually said about hypothetical questions. However, if it should work out that the debate ends today, we would be willing to have the vote deferred until tomorrow. Maybe if the debate does not finish today but does finish tomorrow, we would agree to having the vote put off until the next day.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, at noon today we came to an agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais). I would like to point out to the Chair that our leader (Mr. Caouette) wishes to speak on Bill C-73. We would not like this to stand in the way of hon. members of the opposition or of the government who might wish to discuss this bill. Incidentally, I think December 19 would be a most suitable adjournment date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,210, 3,237, 3,245, 3,352 and 3,494.



Mr. Howie: How many positions are there in the Department of Agriculture's Dominion Experimental Station, Fredericton, New Brunswick (a) how many are designated as bilingual (b) what are the positions?


Eugene Whelan: 118 full time 19 casual, seasonal and part-time man-years, (a) Twenty-one; (b) one research manager, one secretary, one stenographer, one telephone operator, 14 scientists, three technicians.
DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES OFFICES; GERMANY, LONDON AND WASHINGTON


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the cost of maintaining the Department of Supply and Services' contracting office in (a) Koblenz, Germany (b) London (c) Washington?
2.	Has Canadian Forces Headquarters delegated local procurement powers to (a) bases outside Canada (b) ships at sea (c) aircraft on detached duty and, if so, what are they?
3.	What dollar amounts are these respective DND offices allowed to appropriate?
4.	In the year 1974, were there any exceptions where dollar amounts contracted out exceeded this limited figure?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and National Defence as follows: Estimate for the fiscal year 1975-76: 1. (a) $197,600; (b) $133,100; (c) $230,933.
2.	(a) Yes. Through DSS offices for major cost items up to $100,000 and direct with the trade for items up to $5,000. All delegated procurement has to remain within the annual budget allocation for the respective Base; (b) Yes. Within budgetary limitations (1975/76-$130,000 for outside Canada procurement for fleet units) and as directed by Maritime Command Headquarters and direct with the trade for urgent repairs and authorized requirements of stores or services except where DSS standing arrangements exist; (c) Yes. Up to $25,000 direct with the trade by detachment commanders where appointed on behalf of aircraft captains for emergency aircraft repair, salvage, service fuels and stores.
3.	See above paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (c).
4.	No.

December 1, 1975
Order Paper Questions IN-PLANT TRANSPORTATION CARTS


Mr. Reynolds: What was the price at which (a) Moody-SI Limited, Terrebonne, Quebec (b) the G.E.C. Elliott Mechanical Handling, Wiliowdale, Ontario (c) the E.K. Neuser Machine Company Limited, Downsview, Ontario tendered for the supply of in-plant transportation carts for use at the postal facilities in the Toronto area, as was contracted January 29,1975?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) Moody-S.I. Limited, Terrebonne, P.Q.: $2,038,779; (b) G.E.C. Elliott Mechanical Handling, Division of English Electric-A.E.I. Canada Limited, Wiliowdale, Ontario: $1,496,750; (c) The E.K. Neuser Machine Company Limited, Downsview, Ontario: $1,226,842.96.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Minister of Supply and Services announce on August 14, 1975, that the Cheque Redemption Division of the Service Administration of DSS was to be relocated in Matane, Quebec and, if so, how many (a) jobs are there currently in this Division (b) jobs are projected for the new site (c) current employees have been found new jobs?
2.	How many jobs of the Cheque Redemption Division (a) are currently (i) unilingual English (ii) bilingual (iii) unilingual French (b) will fit each of these categories after the move to Matane?
3.	What arrangements have been made regarding the relocation of employees in Matane, Quebec and what will be the estimated cost of this relocation programme?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. (a) 255; (b) 255; (c) Employees are now being asked to indicate whether they wish to relocate in Matane.
2.	(a) (i) 96, (ii) 32, (iii) 17. In addition, 110 jobs are either English or French; (b) Nil, 70, 188.
3.	The estimated cost will not be known until after the survey mentioned at 1(c) is complete.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL EMPLOYMENT GRANTS
Mr. Fortin: In regard to the federal-provincial grants for job creation programmes, what are (a) the number of projects approved (b) their categories (c) the amount granted to each province (d) the number of jobs created?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Under the Winter Capital projects Fund, the following applies: (a) 1,523; (b) Loans to Provinces, 226; Loans to municipalities, 1,297; (c) Amount of Loan Advanced to September 30, 1975: Newfoundland $11.5 million, Ontario $38.3 million, Prince Edward Island $2.4 million, Manitoba $13.4 million, Nova Scotia $2.6 million, Saskatchewan $5.9 million, New Brunswick $13.8 million, Alberta $13.5 million, Quebec $113.9 million, British Columbia $27.8 million. Amount of Loan Forgiveness Claimed by Provinces as of September 30, 1975: Newfoundland $0.6 million, Ontario $5.1 million, Prince Edward Island $0.6 million, Manitoba $2.4 million, Nova Scotia $2.7 million, Saskatchewan $3.1 million, New Brunswick $0.4 million, Alberta $4.8 million, Quebec $12.1 million, British Columbia $7.4 million, (d) Data not available pending completion of "Census of Projects" currently underway.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on November 7 last an incorrect reply was given to question No. 3,359. I would now seek permission of the House to have that particular question reinstated.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be a more important bill before the House than the one we are now considering, at least not this session. I think it is interesting that as far as the government benches are concerned, there are very few members present. It appears they have concluded that no matter whatever arguments may be advanced, when it comes to a vote they will put an end to discussion in connection with this important matter.
My first words must be of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) for the manner in which he has carried out his ministerial responsibilities. I have always had a very warm regard for his parliamentary capacity and the manner in which he answers questions that are asked of him. The minister smiles at this moment. However, it is difficult for me to understand how a minister with his experience could have introduced legislation of this kind, legislation which has the effect of nullifying the legislative power of parliament and the interpretive and judicial powers of the courts. The bill will go through because it will be forced through by a government which, regardless of the inconsistency of its stand in connection with inflation, has brought about a situation in our country dangerous both to the economy and to society itself.
The minister is sometimes known as the "thumper". I decided to look at the dictionary meaning of that word. I find that a thumper is a person who uses banging and thumping. In other words, it says, to thump is to strike or beat heavily with a blunt instrument such as a club. If that definition were applied legislatively, it would describe what is happening in connection with this matter.
December 1, 1975

I have to say at once that if the vote comes tomorrow, I shall not be here. However, by the time I have finished what I have to say I think the House will be able to conclude how I would have voted had I been here. To make my position abundantly clear, it is not one of politics as such. This is a matter that requires the fullest consideration by parliament. In order to ensure the non-political nature of what I am about to say, I can do no better than to point out that in the other place a speech was delivered on November 24 by a senator who belongs to the Liberal party and is from the city of Toronto, Senator Daniel Lang. As reported at page 1447 of the Senate Debates, he said:
The significance of Canada's absence from the Economic Summit Conference recently held in France should not be overlooked. I suggest it marks a new low point in how Canada is regarded by other nations, and a new low for Canada in the economic world order. From the end of World War II up until recent years, Canada would almost automatically have been included in such a conference.
It is not difficult for senators to remember that in the 1950s our per capita income was the second highest in the world, exceeded only by that of the United States. Today, our per capita income is fifth ranking in the world, behind that of the United States, West Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
It is not difficult to remember that during that same period, Canada enjoyed an international prestige and a small but real military presence, both of which ranked in the world second only to that of the great powers. Now, however, in the eyes of Dr. Luns, the NATO Secretary General, we rank scarcely ahead of Luxembourg, at least so far as our military significance is concerned.
While Canada is still one of the few countries on earth combining natural resources of an immeasurable quantity and a high degree of modern industrialization, our development has now almost come to a stop, and strikes of national significance are paralysing our economy. Last year, only Italy exceeded Canada in time lost as a result of strike actions. It would not be surprising to any of us if we succeeded Italy this year to that dubious distinction.
He then goes on to deal with expenditures:
Canadian governments at all levels have increased their spending by 300 per cent in the last decade; that is, from $14.9 billion in 1964 to $60 billion last year. In terms of the gross national product, that represents an increase from 31 per cent to 39.3 per cent. In other words, Canadian governments today at all levels control close to $40 of every $100 spent on goods and services in the country.
Statistics for 1973, being the latest available, show that such percentage government spending is only exceeded by Sweden and Holland, and statistics for 1975 will, in all likehood, show Canada to be among the highest government spenders in the western world.
Further on in his speech he said:
At the federal level, last June's budget forecast a deficit of $4.3 billion for our next fiscal year. Indeed, it looks like $6 billion, and many economists are predicting that we will reach $7 billion. Canada's federal spending in the first half of the 1975-76 fiscal year is up a whopping 30 per cent over last year. Our net public debt has risen from $18 billion in 1975 to $25 billion in 1976.
Sir, that view from an outstanding Liberal epitomizes the dangerous situation in which Canada finds itself today. I approach this matter by saying that it is the first time I have spoken on the bill. I have studied the legislation in detail and I have come to certain conclusions that I intend to place before this House.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), after two years of "all is well", said in Winnipeg on September 13 that "the Canadian economy is not in very good shape right now" and he warned that "Canada could go down the drain if the economic picture does not improve". Nothing could be
Anti-Inflation Act
more definite than that. Canada's rate of inflation today greatly exceeds that of the United States, where the rate is almost 6 per cent. Trade is down. Productivity is down. Over and over again mention has been made of productivity. For some reason that I do not understand, the productivity council set up under my administration and which did such effective work was abolished as soon as the Liberal party came into power.
Canada's real gross national product is declining. Our growth is almost nil while, according to the lastest report from the statistical branch in the United States, that country's growth has risen 11.2 per cent. Food prices in the United States-along the boundary, at any rate, where many Canadians today do their shopping-are very much lower than they are in Canada.
Why has the government not acted? I will deal with this question in some detail. We are in a very frightening position. For three years the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the party as a whole have been pointing out the danger to Canada of the government's failure to take action. The answer was that it was of no consequence. So serious did the matter become by 1975, however, that finally the Prime Minister did speak up. I remember so well the ridicule heaped on this party and on its leader, yet it won the Liberals an election.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has taken properly, strong objection to anything being said that is not justified by the facts. I point out that the Prime Minister is one of the major wrongdoers in this regard. All through the election he said, "There is nothing to it; it is a matter that does not deserve consideration by Canadians". I remember his speaking in North Battleford, where he read from a speech that was apparently prepared by one of that company or battalion of extra officials who today clutter the offices of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council.
How frightening, Mr. Speaker, it was when he said: "Do you realize how serious the situation is in our country?" Yet he said there was nothing to it. The Conservatives say that there was. "What about the United States?", the Prime Minister asked. "How much worse off are they than we are? They had controls". I point out that their cost of living today is much lower than ours. The Prime Minister then went on to use these immortal words:
Do you realize that in the United States they are gassing their children and killing off their hogs?
I wondered whether we had a modern edition of Herod, but it turned out afterwards that that was in his speech material and he had to point out that he did not really mean children but he meant chickens. That is the sort of thing that went on, Mr. Speaker.
We have endeavoured to be of every assistance to the government, disagreeing as we do with many of the terms of this legislation, by asking that it be restricted to 18 months and not continued through the life of this parliament, because the present plan means that it will be continued until the next election and this will emasculate the economy of Canada and we will be controlled and dominated by bureaucracy.

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
We also realize, and it is realized by Canadians today, that if action had been taken earlier we would not be in the position in which we are. The Leader of the Opposition asked that the term be restricted to 18 months, but the Prime Minister refused to accede. Why did he do that, having stated he would be willing to accept recommendations and suggestions from the opposition? The only one that was of any consequence he turned down abruptly and cavalierly, substituting a system whereby we might consider the matter at the end of 18 months but not through parliamentary examination.
The Prime Minister asked for co-operation but he denied it through his attitude and his determination to push this legislation through and actually placed the economy of Canada in a strait-jacket dominated by bureaucrats, without regard to any other consideration than their decision that this was the proper course to take through this legislation, intending to have it carried out regardless of any objection raised. The Prime Minister's statements during the election campaign regarding inflation were not true and he could not but have known that they were not true.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: His statements were in keeping with the three charges he made against me, all of which were the product of false information given him by some bureaucrats. Instead of following the parliamentary system of rising when a mistake takes place-all of us make mistakes-and saying he was sorry, but he was wrong, he stayed pat. All over this country the reaction to that attitude was one of general condemnation. I am one of those who want to believe the Prime Minister and expect to believe anyone holding that position, perhaps not in the conclusions the Prime Minister arrives at but, surely, in the truth of the factual situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I say without fear of contradiction that the Prime Minister deceived the Canadian people at the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Furthermore, since that date, when the Prime Minister speaks on any controversial matters one does not ask whether what he said is true or false but whether it is true or "Trudeau".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That is a serious situation for a country to find itself in. I am going to show the way in which the Prime Minister turned from condemning the opposition for asking for qualified controls over a period of three months to bring about quietude to inflation. He said it was all wrong and it would not work, from the time of the election in 1975, and then when Pierre Juneau was brought into the cabinet-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that the only attractive thing about him is the fact that his first name is Pierre. I would have thought that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is in charge of bilingualism, if he could do it would change the name of the constituency of Peterborough to "Pierreborough". That is how highly the name Pierre is regarded.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps Hochelaga.


John George Diefenbaker: The suggestion is that it might be called Hochelaga, or perhaps even Stadaconna.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Let us see how the Prime Minister turned around. At the time they held a press conference for him when Mr. Juneau became a minister, these were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada. This article reads:
Trudeau stated more emphatically than he ever has before that controls are not the answer to the problem.
"The technique-the statutory technique-of freezing and controls does not solve the underlying problem".
He said a freeze would bring only "temporary relief" and that "no form of controls will keep the prices down for any period of time". The Prime Minister in fact said that under no circumstances would we have controls because as soon as controls went on, up would go prices. Strangely enough, there was a complete about-turn in the middle of October. Suddenly that thing which was regarded as the most dangerous economic nonsense was attractive. Suddenly he embraced that which he had always condemned.
What happened during those three weeks which brought about that change in viewpoint? It was not the fact that inflation had become worse, because the latest statistics from Statistics Canada indicate that in September the rate of inflation was 10.2 per cent and in October it was 10.3 per cent. There was no great increase and no change to speak of, yet suddenly he proceeded to disavow everything he had brought before the Canadian people. That is the reason why today across this country whatever he advances is regarded with suspicion by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have read this bill with care and I spoke about it, giving my own personal views, four days after it came into effect, when speaking to the Canadian Club in Toronto. I said that this bill simply places Canada in a trap. It makes a group of bureaucrats almighty masters in this country. In earlier days they used to sign letters "Your obedient servant". From now on that will be "Your all powerful master". I have never seen in any statute such a conglomeration of despotic bureaucratic powers given to anyone. The Prime Minister was in the cabinet of the late Lester B. Pearson and in one of his books he says, in effect, "I fear the control of bureaucrats who build up little empires around themselves".
The bill in its present form will dethrone freedom far beyond what is necessary in the public interest. It will build up an all-powerful bureaucracy virtually above the law; there is no right of appeal, except in the most limited sense, that in any way will protect Canadians whose rights have been interfered with. No power-hungry person or
December 1, 1975

bureaucrat could ask for greater powers for three years, which will be to the next election. The economy of Canada will be strangled by the political philosophies carried out by bureaucrats virtually above the law.
I do not trust this government. What kind of justice can be expected from a government when, on an appeal now before the Supreme Court of Canada launched by an alleged Mafia group, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Government of Canada have joined with these individuals in arguing before that court that the crime probe in the province of Quebec is unlawful. Why did the Government of Canada become involved in that? Are the Government of Canada and the Department of Justice afraid that justice will not be done to the underworld? Why add the advice of the Canadian government? At a time when crime is rampant as never before, why should the government argue that what is being done is not within the legislative authority of the Government of Quebec? The court could have found that out without the assistance of counsel for the federal government.
I intend to discuss this legislation very briefly, because if I were to take the time to analyse all the clauses it would involve a great deal of time. First of all, I suggest the question is whether this legislation is constitutional. It could easily be made constitutional by a simple provision in the preamble that an emergency exists, but the government did not dare admit that because it had contended for several years that there was no emergency. The government follows this tenuous trickery that can be found in clause 20. Of all the evasiness I have ever seen, clause 20 is in a class by itself. The Bill of Rights is swept aside, or at least an endeavour is made to sweep it aside, by a declaration under that clause which is not effective, as I see it, because it does not provide specifically, as the Bill of Rights demands, that the Parliament of Canada will in this case abridge the rights providing fundamental freedom under the Bill of Rights. Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights reads as follows:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized-
Just imagine the field day for the bureaucrats! We do not know what will be in the bill. We do not know what the guidelines will be. We are simply being given a pig in a poke, a skeleton on which there is no flesh and they will flesh it up after the legislation is passed. Under this bill the government will have unlimited right to change the guidelines. The bill provides for the setting up of an antiinflation board which has the power to punish an individual for what he has done that contravenes the guidelines either in fact or in spirit. What greater power can there be than for a board to be able to punish a person for doing something in the spirit and not in actuality?
An administrator is to be appointed who will perform whatever duties are assigned him by the minister. Where the administrator is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the guidelines, or is likely to be, he may proceed to prosecute. If one's rights are trampled on, what appeal does he have? He has an appeal to the hired man of the
Anti-Inflation Act
government, the anti-inflation appeal tribunal. The appeal may be disposed of by a single member or by a panel of three.
Looking at this legislation as a whole, this nation will be under the dictatorship of the Prime Minister or the cabinet to a vritually limitless extent. They do not have to be concerned about any existing laws; they are set aside unless they come within the ambit of the provisions of this skeleton bill. What about appeals? I wish I could go into the detail of the appeals. They are meaningless. They grant no individual the right to protect his rights. The appeal is to the tribunal. There can be an appeal beyond the tribunal only to the Federal Court within such a limited area as to be almost without effectiveness.
If this bill should pass in its present form, the denial of individual rights can well be imagined. Individual rights will be at an end, because whenever the cabinet thinks there ought to be a few more guidelines, changes made in the guidelines or any laws made, it has the power to do so. That power is dangerous to freedom at any time. It can be changed every hour on the hour. What is lawful today under the guidelines can be changed tomorrow and made unlawful.
I shall say a personal word now. As I approach the setting sun of my life I can do no other than stand against the provisions of a bill that will destroy parliament. I stood against the Defence Production Act and Foreign Exchange Act which denied any right to the individual. Finally, after pressure over and over again, a change was made. Mr. Howe said that he would give them the right to sue in the courts, but that that would be restricted so that if they sued and were successful they would receive $1, without costs, because that would uphold the principle.
This legislation will be law; it will be put through. The ranks of the Liberal party are pretty thin today, with 15 or 16 members present in a majority government. They do not want to hear any criticism. This legislation will be passed. I do not want anyone to say I suggested that we in this country should break the law. If it is passed, it will have to be upheld. I have nothing but condemnation for the powerful heads of two or three of the big unions who have threatened to defy the law. That is anarchy. That would be dangerous to the future of Canada. But I would be less than honest if I did not oppose this bill which asks parliament to give the cabinet the power to pass unnamed laws. That is a denial of justice.
I have always been a reader of history, and I know of no example that is contrary to the principle which I now enunciate. My reading of history reveals to me how dangerous it will be, for it is filled with examples which show that when conditions are allowed to worsen to a point when in desperation people will accept arbitrary and authoritarian solutions, democracy ends. The powers that are asked for in this bill made a sham of parliamentary government and deny the rights of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister tried to sell this legislation when he went across the country. I have already mentioned that his credibility is at about zero, whether you consider it in Fahrenheit or in Celsius. He went everywhere across this country. The people sat on their hands. They charged them

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
$20-they must be well off in Nova Scotia-to attend a dinner to hear how good this legislation is. Then they sent out the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). The audience slept, or they did not stick around. Then they sent out the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). The audience just laughed when he spoke because the people knew that they had been deceived.
The Prime Minister said, "Pull in your belts; restrain your expenditures". The words of the Scripture come back: Physician, heal thyself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Let me give a few examples. Consider the Mirabel frolics. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) brought them out.


An hon. Member:: He attended the frolic.


John George Diefenbaker: He also brought out a number of these individuals who are parading around, experts who advise all these multitudes in the Prime Minister's office. Last year we spent thousands of dollars for these counsellors and advisers. Mirabel was opened. The frolics cost the people of Canada $214,000. I will not go into particulars because my time is limited, but let me give as an example the attitude of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). He is one who does not get involved in things like that. He just takes a stand and tells them all to go where they will. As to the rest of the government, they multiply the number of civil servants.
When we were in office, the largest number of civil servants was 200,000. Last year it was 290,000 and I think it has gone up another 10,000 since then. I have already mentioned the consultants. The Prime Minister gives a lead to this country. Never have we had such a spendthrift government with the Prime Minister leading. Harrington Lake was furnished for $32,000. The residence at 24 Sussex Drive, which all visitors from abroad who were there said was a wonderful place, has cost us so far $297,000. The centre office was redecorated at a cost of $61,000. They have stone animals out in front sitting on very deep, thick carpets because the Prime Minister says, "I like nice things". There are Eskimo carvings there.
This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has been on an orgy of extravagance. When I was prime minister it cost $50,000 a year to operate the PMO. Under Mr. Pearson it cost $75,000: that was understandable. In 1968, when the present Prime Minister came in, he spent $406,000. In 1972 he spent $1,384,000, and the expenditure this year is expected to be approximately $2 million.
Then there is the swimming pool. Nobody knows who gave the money for its construction. I have never before seen philanthropists and individuals who conceal their help to the Government of Canada in this way. You pay for it and I pay for it, because in permitting them to deduct whatever expenditures they had from their income tax, they took it from our pockets. The swimming pool is so large that the 200-mile limit at sea, some say, will be taken advantage of by the Prime Minister.
I have dealt with the Prime Minister's residence, but let me mention a few facts about the cost of operating it. When he came in, it cost $37,000 and now it is $94,000. He

goes politicking at the expense of the Canadian people. They blame Mr. Nixon for losing the election in Ontario. They should blame the $20,000 which was spent on helicopters. It has been an amazing performance. The government says to the people of Canada, "Don't spend, retrench; be careful. After all, your country needs restraint on your part". But the government itself, as an example, spends as never before on waste and extravagance in order to gratify those who benefit therefrom.
If you really want to find out what wonderful improvements were made at 24 Sussex Drive, let me tell you, but do not show this to your wives. In 1968-69, the cost was $27,000. Then we come to 1969-70. There are several pages of the wonderful things that were done there. For example, we see here easy chairs, carpeting and fixtures at $3,000. It cost $584 to repair the lights after they were put in. There is the purchase of a nest of tables and antiques. There are some minor items, but they look pretty well. Then we come to 1972-73: installation of Christmas tree, $2,100.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: But to the people of Canada they say, "Retrench; watch yourselves; do not overextend". Then we see crystal arms, whatever they are, at $881, and electric brooms. I know what they could be used for there. We see page after page of this.


An hon. Member:: Give us some more.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we see a chandelier at $3,000, antique bronze cubes, whatever they are, for $436. This is a government with a Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) asking Canadians to retrench, a government which by its own action has contributed to the frightening situation in which we find ourselves today. Our national debt has increased by billions since the Prime Minister took over. The deficit this year will be $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion. The Minister of Finance made a statement one day and I think he said it will be $5 billion or $6 billion; then the next day he said he did not have all the facts.
Where are we going? When this bill is carried into effect it will throttle the economy of Canada and in three years it will change our whole social fabric. While powers are needed in order to bring about controls, those who denied that they would ever be effective now embrace principles which are a denial of every principle of democracy; and parliament is asked to say that they are bad, they could be worse, and we will support them. I, for one, will not support this legislation until the government shows in its own expenditures that it is going to follow its own admonitions of retrenching. Taxes are up to heights never before equalled. Every time the government has a large deficit, it hits the cost of living and raises it. None of these things are to be faced. The minister says there are plans to reduce expenditures. They have not been brought before parliament. Until they have, it is simply a vocal exercise in acuity for him to say so.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened while the right hon. member for Prince
December 1, 1975

Albert was upbraiding the government, more especially for its excessive expenditures. On that point, he is perfectly right, but it does not solve the problem stated in Bill C-73. The government had to resort to a rather special propaganda, despatching its ministers throughout the country to tell Canadians, boards of trade, unions, labour and management organizations all about the advantages of Bill C-73 for the Canadian people and the provisions in the bill to control inflation or to avoid its unbearable ravages in the Canadian economy.
We hear many of those ministers depict the world situation and say, for instance, that inflation in Canada is not as serious as in Spain, Vietnam, France and England, as if this were a remedy to the inflation now affecting Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, of course some people are against the bill, oppose it very strongly for various reasons. We are against it because it does not solve anything; it tends to worsen the situation rather than improve it and make consumers still less able to afford current prices. While the Progressive Conservatives fought an electoral campaign calling for the imposition of wage and price controls, today they turn back. They would like the controls to apply for not more than eighteen months. However, their whole campaign was in favour of controls. An objective look at the situation leads one to wonder what the government could do in eighteen months with the present structures of the economic system to arrive at a solution to correct it. In five years from now nothing will be solved. That is the way it will be with Bill C-73. The Progressive Conservatives for their part might have titled it Bill C-74, without solving anything more than the others.
According to NDP members, the controls are not severe enough; they are too flexible. They ought to be made still stronger and all-pervasive, similar to those which nationalization would imply. The government would become the employer, the boss of all economic activities in Canada. The partisans of socialism would be delighted with them. Well, we have examples of a number of socialist states where the cost of living has not been going down, but up like in many non socialist states. I feel that the cost of living in British Columbia is higher than anywhere else in Canada. And yet, a socialist government has been in power in British Columbia for three years already. There has been for many years a socialist government in Saskatchewan, as well as in Manitoba. Although in power at the provincial level, these socialist governments have been unable to prevent inflation from ravaging their provinces, as it does ravage Ontario, Quebec and the remaining provinces.
It is fine always to blame the federal government for everything that happens in Canada. Last night, I was listening to a lecture given on television by Mr. Rene Levesque, the leader of the Quebec separatist party, who was again blaming Ottawa for inflation, for everything that goes wrong, for undeveloped natural resources. And Levesque goes on saying again and again that in a normal country, a normal province, a normal state as the state of Quebec, this and that should be controlled, natural resources should be developed, mines should be nationalized, most of the production and consumption should be
Anti-Inflation Act
nationalized, and then the federalist system would be done for.
Mr. Speaker, Rene Levesque was once the Minister of Economic Affairs or Natural Resources in the province of Quebec. What he advocates today, why did he not do it when he was a Quebec minister? When Quebec Hydro was nationalized in 1962, Mr. Levesque then said: We want to be masters in our own house. That was back in 1962, thirteen years ago. Are we more masters in our own province, Quebec, than we were in 1962? It is worse than ever today. Mr. Levesque, who nationalized electricity, said: We are going to become masters through electric power. Mr. Speaker, they were supposed to standardize electricity rates in the province of Quebec so that consumers would pay less. Today the rates are 10 times higher than they were before the companies were nationalized. That is Rene Levesque's "baby". It is the same Levesque who wants to nationalize the rest of the Quebec economy and who impresses the "suckers" in the province by making them believe that he would do better than those who are in power. What did he do anyway?
Moreover, when he was Minister of Social Affairs, what prevented him from raising pensions? Who prevented him from raising family allowances? Who prevented him from giving assistance to the poor at that time? Mr. Levesque did not say that in 1962 or in 1965, but since he was defeated, now that he is no longer in power, he is capable of everything, whereas while he was a minister, he was incapable and helpless. People who are quite capable when they do not have to give any instructions, but who become quite incapable once in power, we have known some in the past, and Rene Levesque is no exception.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Progressive Conservatives now blame the Liberals for trying to apply restrictions for three years. They would prefer 18 months. Yet, they know full well that within 18 months they would not do any better. That is clear. The system implemented, tolerated and generated is the same for both parties.
Also, objections are raised by the unions. What about Mr. Pepin, of the CNTU, Mr. Laberge, of the QFL, and Char-bonneau, with his goatee, calling for a 24-hour strike, which would bring the workers back to work 24 hours later still suffering from the hardships of Bill C-73? Do those people, i.e. Laberge, Pepin, Charbonneau and Chartrand, explain to their members what would happen if they were in power instead of the present government? What would they do? Some union members are stupid enough to believe that if Pepin, Laberge and Charbonneau were to take power forcibly tomorrow, the worker would be freed. It would be called "power in the hands of the workers", that is precisely when the workers would get kicked, you know where, by guys like Pepin, Laberge and Charbonneau.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen what happened in some European countries because of stirrers of trouble and strike organizers. What happened in Russia as a result of repeated 24-hour general strikes? They led to authoritarian communism. The same thing happened in all socialist countries throughout the world. It happened in Cuba, closer to us. When Castro fought against Batista, he wanted to overthrow exploiters, yes, but in the name of Christianity, of

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
civilization. But once in power, what did Castro do? He became a notorious communist. Today, when we hear he has built small houses for the workers, we should go and see the police system that exists in Cuba. Go and see the small socialist countries: do the workers hold the power and or is it not rather the union leaders who have become the government? In those countries, no one is free today. That is why the Social Crediters have been saying for a long time now that the day we lose our freedom, we will have put it in the hands of guys like Pepin, Laberge and Charbonneau. When that day comes, our freedoms will have gone forever, and we will never manage to get them back. What do those people want who fight for freedom? They only want to take the liberty of citizens, our own liberties, to seize upon them and then impose on us the dictatorship they have been dreaming of for many years. This is the danger with union leaders. Another has been keeping postal workers on strike for 41 days; a Mr. Parrot said to the workers: Vote against the settlement of the strike. Is Mr. Parrot going to refund the money lost by postal workers in Canada? Some postal workers have lost $2,000 in salary over 41 days. When will they make up for these $2,000? Never. They will not make up for this loss over a hundred years. But Parrot did not lose his salary during the strike. The other union leaders did not lose their salaries. But the head of a family, the postal worker, his wife and his children had only $40 a week for several weeks.
Is this the way to settle the labour problem? Mr. Speaker, and I say it again and again: Just prove to me that a strike is going to settle the labour problem and I shall be the first on the front line with the strikers. But since I know strikes, the end of a strike has always meant the beginning of another. When the contract expires, they still must strike to cancel or renegotiate a contract. Strikes have been known for 30, 40, 50 years. Is the workman better off now than in those days? In my view he is a hundred times worse off than 25 or 30 years ago! That does not mean the government program should be endorsed, far from it. The government program is a kind of law which promotes economic, social and political unrest throughout Canada. In what may? Let me tell you.
I recently asked the right hon. Prime Minister about the notorious Bill C-73.1 asked him how he proposed, when the implementation of the program comes to an end, to balance the consumer's purchasing power with the increased production. I read over the clause of the act which provides for an 8 per cent salary increase to take care of the rising cost of living and which allows 2 per cent indexation and 2 per cent for miscellaneous, making up a total possible increase of 12 per cent. Therefore I told the Prime Minister: The 8 per cent increase is directly included in the cost of production of goods. Surely everybody can see that. The Prime Minister then replied: I have asked him. I then said: Since the worker who will obtain an 8 per cent increase will have to pay taxes on this increase, how will he be able to cope with higher prices, which will not be taxable since the producer or manufacturer or businessman will only have to raise his prices according to what he paid, to what it is costing him, and not a penny more. Therefore, the $800 salary increase will be translated by the retailer and the businessman into an $800 price increase because salaries are a factor of prices. There is no profit for the business-

man. It is simply the additional amount that he must pay for salaries. The Prime Minister says: The worker will have 8 per cent, plus 2 per cent, plus 2 per cent, which means 12 per cent, when prices will only increase by 8 per cent. I am very surprised to learn that the Prime Minister cannot add better than that.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider the example of a citizen whose annual income is $10,000 and let us set present prices at $10,000. This is false because prices are much higher than salaries. Prices are at least 40 per cent higher at the present time, and I am being conservative, not of the Conservative party, but conservative in my figures.
So, what happens? Let us say that this figure of $10,000 is equal to the worker's income, but prices now certainly represent $14,000 whereas the worker only makes $10,000. He is already lagging behind. This government tolerates such a situation. Usually, private enterprise is recognized the right of making profits, but we must fight inflation. We are going to ask manufacturers, businessmen, contractors not to raise their prices more than the increase in real costs. Take the example of the worker who earns $10,000 a year and gets the maximum to which he is entitled. He will get a raise of 8 per cent plus 2 per cent, plus 2 per cent, a total of 12 per cent. This is a $1,200 yearly increase, which means that he will get $11,200. Not only the 8 per cent is included in the prices, but also the 2 per cent. If the government paid the 2 per cent and also the other 2 per cent, I would agree because prices would only go up by 8 per cent. But the government does not pay anything.
The government says: You are entitled to this, but to nothing more. Then the 8 per cent, the 2 per cent, plus the other 2 per cent, are included in the prices, and it adds up to 12 per cent. And 12 per cent of the $10,000 figure I quoted earlier means a price increase to $11,200. So, prices reach $11,200 and the income exactly the same amount. The difference between the two figures is that when a businessman increases his prices by $1,200 according to the increase allowed, it is only a cost increase. It is not an increase in profits, because under Bill C-73, he is not allowed to make a profit on the $1,200 price increase since it is the cost price. On the other hand, the worker who earns $11,200 must pay taxes on his $1,200 increase under the Income Tax Act. He will pay at least $300 in taxes. Let us say 25 per cent. I think that $10,000 a year represents more than 25 per cent. But let us be conservative. When his $300 in taxes are paid, he has only a $900 salary increase left to pay a $1,200 price increase. The consumer has then $300 less than before.
The prime minister did not understand that. He said no: With 12 per cent, he will be able to buy 8 per cent. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. With 9 per cent, he will have to buy 12 per cent. It is impossible for consumers-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Do you have the income tax table? Who will pay the $250 in income tax?


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: The consumer.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, the consumer is the one who will have to pay his income tax. The wage earner will pay his income tax, but the total increase
December 1, 1975

brings no profit. The employer has to pay the $1,200, not the government. It is not the Bank of Canada, but the employer who pays 100 per cent of those $1,200, and he will pay no income tax on that since there will not be any profit. He cannot pay income tax on something which brings no profit. The government therefore tells us in its bill that the businessman or contractor will pledge riot to raise his prices more than the real increase in costs. So, the $1,200 are a real increase in costs, not with a profit, but without a profit. But the person who earns the $1,200 has to pay $300 in income tax because it is an income for him, it is not a cost, but a purchasing power. He will therefore get $900 for a price increase of $1,200. There is your Bill C-73, and that is why it will solve nothing. Year after year, the gap will become wider and deeper than it is now.
We advocate price controls, but if they are applied for three years, businessmen, small tradespeople, small manufacturers will have to close down. They will say: "We are not interested in working without a profit, and only apply a cost pass through method to our prices, and anyway we shall not be able to survive very long". That is exactly what will happen.
Consumers are now protesting everywhere. The other day, Jean-Luc Pepin, the new chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, was right in saying about this act that the government is trying to do something, but the people do not agree. When you talk with a group of employers, they are glad to see that the wages will be frozen; they say it is a good idea. As for the wage earners, they object. The proof is that Pepin and his gang, Laberge in particular, and the good gardian angels who are in those unions, the QFL in particular, are not even able to get along; I learned with much satisfaction at noon that the steel workers strongly object to the 24-hour general strike plan. Gerin-Lajoie said so, then I think that he is the most reasonable and responsible person in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Jean-Luc Pepin said: the employers are happy to see the wages frozen, but they object to the price freeze. Then, the wage earners of the unions are happy to see the prices frozen but they object to the wage freeze. So, Jean-Luc Pepin told them: Please try to decide what you want. If you want to help us help you we are going to do it but if you are there one against the other all the time, you do not mind if the other guy is squeezed but you do mind if you are squeezed. Everyone is going to have to be squeezed, or nobody will. He was right. If it freezes it must freeze but what will that give? That will give frost. What do you want? We will not know where we are going anymore nor would we have known where to go with the Progressive Conservatives and absolute controls of more than two, three or four years. Not at all. Not with socialization or nationalization.
We say that the gap between prices and the purchasing power is too wide. Here is a specific case. Suppose that prices are $10,000 and income is $10,000. At a certain moment prices increase by $12,000. If you tax the increase in salaries to go and get that amount or distribute that amount the consumer is not better off than he was. A retail discount at the retail price level would have cost a lot less than what the Anti-Inflation Board is now going to cost. It would cost a lot less in bureaucracy across Canada because we could have used the services of Statistics Canada, for
Anti-Inflation Act
example, which is practically useless, or the services of the governor of the Bank of Canada who sits around all day and does not know whether he must increase interest rates or bring them down who comes to us to try and make us believe that we are better off when the interest rate is higher because that prevents us from having recourse to new credits when everyone is caught at the throat, still being forced to go to banks, credit unions, financial institutions to pay interest rates of 12, 15 per cent.
We say, order a retail discount at the retail price level across Canada after agreement with retailers and the federal government. This would be a 20 per cent discount on prices of $10,000-which would reduce the price to $8,000. The purchasing power is then increased by $2,000 without taking a nickel out of the pocket of the consumer, the small wage earner or the average worker. The balance between products and consumers would then be restored. The other way would be, for example, to increase prices by 8 per cent. That adds to the cost price, you do not make a profit, nothing like that. Instead of saying that if we said to the worker that instead of paying taxes on his income we are going to give in a national dividend to fill the difference that exists between prices and his income. You would have some balance then. But in the present context, far from promoting balance we are increasingly promoting economic imbalance. This is why everyone, all social classes throughout the country, are revolting one against the other or against the government. Reference is made to division and separation. Quebec would be better if separated. In Saskatchewan, they feel their lot would be improved if they were separated. In British Columbia, they think they would be better with the United States than with Canada and while slowly but surely the foundations of a very rich country, one of the greatest in the world, Canada, are eroded, our figures and our accountancy system are not adjusted to our great opportunities.
Instead of a reflected kind of accounting permitted by our physical possibilities, our producing potential, our productivity potential, they try to reduce, to shrink down physical possibilities to figure possibilities, to the financial possibilities the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Banking Association of Canada want to force on us. But labour unions do not tackle that problem. Liberals, Progressive Conservatives totally ignore the existence of such a control. The New Democrats pass judgment on about everything there is, but they propose nothing to put the axe into the current financial system.
This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I repeat this in this House. As long as we do nothing to put our national accounts system in order, so that figures may be brought to serve the individual, as long as we do nothing in that direction we will have numerous bills such as this one. Because Bill C-73 will be enacted. It will definitely pass, whether we vote for or against it. The government has the majority so the bill will go through this House. It already went through the committee stage. Almost no amendments were accepted.
It will go through the Senate, where the government is also in a majority position. Bill C-73 will be enacted and forced upon the people. The right hon. Prime Minister said so the other night when he announced: "If the present measures are not rigid enough, we will strengthen them."

December 1, 1975
Adjournment Motion
We will use the army if we have to, but the bill will go through, whatever the cost. The fight against inflation is a must. So in order to fight figure-inflation, we are going to fight the Canadian citizens at the same time. Let us crush them! Let us make them suffer as much as we can, in order to pay tribute to a monetary system that someday or other will have to be replaced by something more sensible. The most sensible-those who have been the laughing stock for years-and I mean the Social Credit Party, whether people laugh or not, I say this in earnest: Social Credit is not garbage, it is not a whim thrown the public, it is something reasoned, something serious and well analyzed. A lot of people do not understand it. I referred to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the media, the stations, radio, those people that are always crying: Freedom of the press. People clamour for freedom of the press when that suits them, when their own freedom is at stake, but there is never enough time for reporting what is going on in the House. I noticed in the last few months that when statements are made in the House, CBC and Le Journal de Montreal, Peladeau's baby-I think his name is Peladeau- report that there would be three parties in the House: the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party, and the New Democratic party.
Social Crediters take part in all the debates; they are overlooked, ignored and that is what is called freedom of the press. That is the freedom of the press that was kicked out in some socialist countries and when socialism will be established here, all of you, press people, will applaud, you will have won your case and reaped your laurels, but until then and as long as I shall breathe, the dressing-down you will get will be a good one.



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 hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-External Affairs; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Labour Conditions; the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-External Affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, for the past three years it has been clear that government action is necessary to curb inflation and stop the cost of living from rising at a steadily accelerating rate. In February, 1973, the official opposition in parliament urged the government to introduce a policy of price and income restraints as a means of curbing inflation. As you know, the government refused to follow this suggestion and price and income restraints became the main issue in the general election a year ago. Now the government has finally come to realize that price and income restraints are necessary if inflation is to be brought under control, and has presented its restraint program in the bill we have before us.
Already, many weaknesses in the program have been pointed out by members of the official opposition and others at the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Some of these weaknesses have been corrected. Many remain to be corrected before the plan can work effectively to curb inflation. Two things which the government must do are the following: first, reduce the increase in the money supply to a range between 5 per cent and 7'/2 per cent per year. That is the range of increase which has made it possible to reduce inflation in the United States to around 6 per cent per year, half of what it is in this country today; second, keep the increase in government spending to no more than 8 per cent per year during the coming year, thus limiting the increase in government spending to the percentage the government will allow the people of Canada.
As old age pensioners, war veterans and others in need must receive increases equal to the increase in the cost of living, it will be necessary for the government to reduce other increases in expenditure to less than the 8 per cent a year in order to make an over-all limit of 8 per cent possible. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do everything I can to persuade the government to take these necessary steps.
Turning, now, to the situation which confronts us at this moment, I believe the important thing for us to remember is that however imperfect this program is-and we can only hope the government will soon have the good sense to correct its imperfections-it is the only program for controlling inflation which will be presented to this parliament. If the bill is defeated on third reading, the program will cease to exist. The result would be a continuation of the inflationary spiral, our products would continue to be increasingly less competitive with foreign products in both the Canadian and the export markets, and unemployment would rise until we found ourselves in an all-out depression.
December 1, 1975

It is for this reason I intend to vote for the bill and, if it passes, to do everything I can to persuade the people of this country to get behind the program and work in the national interest toward reducing inflation to around 3 per cent per year, the average for the past 65 years during which we have measured inflation in Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on many occasions in the past few weeks we have registered opposition to the bill which is before us for third reading. This afternoon I intend to do so once again on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Our party has long been concerned about the effects of inflation in this country and throughout the world. Spokesmen for this group have at various times made many suggestions as to the steps we should be taking domestically to help bring down the rate of inflation. We have pointed out, too, that it is desirable to seek international agreement on measures to govern inflation since a large part of our own inflation is, as we know, imported. As a trading nation, this is an aspect of the issue we cannot ignore.
As has been stated earlier, we think the bill before us is inequitable since its primary effect will be to control the wages of working people. From this point of view it is a frightening bill and its effect in limiting raises in wages for the working people is likely to be very powerful. Contracts are negotiated in the open. It is easy to control the salaries of, say, teachers in Toronto or potash workers in Saskatchewan. I predict that the wage control aspect of the program will be firmly carried out.
I am concerned about the danger the bill poses to the collective bargaining system. In effect, many trade unions will have to negotiate with the anti-inflation board. I draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made, apparently, by Mr. Pepin over the weekend implying that the offer made by the Toronto school board was higher than the anti-inflation board is prepared to permit. Here is the chairman of the anti-inflation board making a judgment before the collective bargaining process has reached a conclusion. He is intervening in a dispute. These are matters that are of contern to the salaried workers of this country.
This bill is one that will quite adequately control the wages and salaries of workers. On the other hand, it will have very little effect in controlling prices, profits, dividends, professional fees and incomes of people derived from investments and corporate profits. To my mind, one of the prime reasons for bringing in this bill is that the government wanted to dampen down increased wage demands.
During the past year, wage demands have been rising. In 1970, wage and salary increases in this country, as a percentage of national income, stood at 72.8 per cent. In the first half of 1974, wage and salary increases, as a percentage of national income, had dropped to 67 per cent. By the end of 1974, there has been a reversal of that trend and wages and salaries started to go up, representing, as a percentage of national income, 69.4 per cent. By mid-1975, wages and salaries represented 70.8 per cent of national income. In other words, wage and salary earners in this
Anti-Inflation Act
country were starting to get more than their fair share of the national economic pie.
At the same time, business profits and interest fell from 21.1 per cent of national income in 1974 to 20.1 per cent by the middle of 1975. That is why I wonder whether this trend in the economy finally prodded the government into bringing in this bill. A spokesman in the 1974 election campaign said that a bill such as this would be very effective in controlling wages and salaries.
Let me go back to the first attempt of the government to bring in an incomes policy. One saw a similar economic pattern developing in Canada between 1969 and 1970. Wage increases were getting progressively higher and higher. Then suddenly an incomes policy was brought in which affected the wage earners more than prices and profits. I should like to quote a statement made in the "International Labour Review" of December, 1973, by one of the commissioners of the former prices and incomes commission of this country in 1969 and 1970, a fellow named George Haythorne, who explained why the first attempt to control incomes in this country was made. He said:
From 1957 to 1963 the share of Canada's national income going to profits and capital had risen steadily. The situation was reversed in 1964 when labour's share began to rise, a trend which continued until 1970. Given these conditions . .. action to stabilize the economy was clearly required.
Here is a commissioner on the prices and incomes commission in 1969 and 1970 saying that because labour's share of the national income was going up, the government had to do something about it. I suggest we are now in the same situation as we were a few years ago. In fact, in the 1974 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when talking about the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to bring in a 90-day freeze followed by some kind of controls, time and again said that that type of program in essence would be a wage control policy. At this third reading stage I want to put on record a quotation from the Toronto Star which reported a meeting that the Prime Minister had in Timmins on June 28 as follows:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau maintained his onslaught on Conservative prices and incomes restraint policies before a large noon hour crowd here yesterday.
Mr. Trudeau said the proposed 90-day freeze, followed by up to two years of controls, would take vast numbers of bureaucrats to administer. Even then, it wouldn't work. He said: "You can't freeze executive salaries and dividends because there are too many loopholes to squeeze through".
Mr. Trudeau said Conservative leader Robert Stanfield had already said he would not freeze the prices of farm produce and fish. He could not freeze the prices of U S. imports or Arab oil, and he admitted he would exempt housing prices.
"So what's he going to freeze?", Mr. Trudeau shouted. "Your wages. He's going to freeze your wages."
So here the Prime Minister is talking about a program that is very similar to the program that he announced to the nation on Thanksgiving evening, a program that in essence will freeze the wages of working people. As I have said, it is very difficult to control professional fees and salaries, or profits and prices, or dividends and other forms of investment income. Suddenly there has been a turnabout. A government that was elected primarily because it was fighting against this type of program has now brought in a program of wage controls and so-called controls on

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
prices in Canada. I do not think it is the sort of program that we on this side of the House should let the government get away with.
Experience of this type of program in other parts of the world shows almost every time that wages have been controlled much more effectively than prices. Take the United States, for example. In August, 1971, wage increases in the United States averaged 13.5 per cent across the board. At the end of 1972, wage increases had fallen to 6.4 per cent. There was very effective wage control in the United States. In 1971, wages as a percentage of national income in the United States were 74.5 per cent. In 1975, they had dropped to 72.5 per cent. Once again this illustrates that the controls program brought in by President Nixon was very effective in controlling salaries, the wages of railway workers and other workers in the United States. At the same time, the percentage of national income going to big business went up from 14.6 per cent to 16.2 per cent, once again illustrating that controls on professional incomes and the incomes of the wealthy from dividends, profits, and so on, are by no means so effective as controls on the wages of ordinary people.
There is no rigidly defined method of controlling prices set out in this bill. The regulations will not be published until the bill passes parliament, so we do not know whether the government is really serious about controlling prices. Even if we had prior notification of price increases, once again there are all kinds of problems that are very difficult to solve. For example, in Britain there was a controls program in effect from 1968, to 1970 which required prior notification to their prices board of any price increases. But this did not work. It was terribly impractical.
In Britain the government estimated there were some some three million price changes per year in the period when these price controls were in effect, and over this three-year period there were only 2,162 prior notifications. Out of that number, only 345 were rejected. In percentage terms, only 0.0004 per cent of the price changes in Great Britain were actually held back by the board or changed by the board. This demonstrates it is very difficult to control prices in Canada, whereas it is very easy to control salaries and wages. The real victims of legislation of this sort will not be people who are unionized, but those who do not have a trade union to speak and fight for them when it comes to bargaining for a salary increase.
We have already seen examples in Canada of employers in certain corporations using the guidelines as an excuse for not raising the salaries of the people who work for them above the 8 per cent or 10 per cent level outlined by the guidelines, in spite of the fact that there are exceptions in the guidelines for some working people. I think that is one of the very unfortunate aspects of the bill before us. If I were an employer, I suppose my natural tendency would be the same; that is to say, this is a good reason for not giving my workers an increase in pay. I do not think this is fair and I think it will aggravate even more the disparity in wages and salaries in this country.
Another thing that really concerns me about this bill is the immense power it gives to the anti-inflation board. It 
gives the members of that board the power to interpret whether a certain cost that goes into the increased price is legitimate. It gives the members of that board the power to make decisions as to whether prices can be held back and what a fair profit is going to be. In other words, it gives the board a tremendous amount of subjective power interpretive in making judgments as to whether to be tough on certain corporations. When that type of power is given to any board, I automatically look to see who makes up the board, what type of people are to hold this power. I ask myself if they are likely to be fair, and is the membership a good balance of the Canadian people, the business community, the senior citizens, farmers and all Canadians? Is it a good cross-section of the people?
In this regard I find that the people on the board, as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) has suggested, are really "poor" Canadians. They are people who have been involved in the business community as directors of huge corporations. They are people who do not really have any understanding of what it is like to live on a low salary in this country. These people will, naturally, have a certain bias in their approach and they will interpret these guidelines to reflect this bias.
I think the board would be much more effective, and fairer, if its membership reflected more what Canada is really all about. I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon putting on the record some of the background of the people sitting on the anti-inflation board. This is only a very brief sketch or summary of the background of some of them, but these people will have a tremendous impact on the people of my riding and on Canadians right across this country so I think it is only fair to examine the background from which they come.
First there is Jean-Luc Pepin, chairman of the board. If you examine the background of Mr. Pepin, you will find he has recently been the director of six companies in this country. He has been a director of the Power Corporation of Canada, Limited.


An hon. Member:: And a university professor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He has been a director of the Canada Steamship Line, Celanese Canada Ltd., Collins Radio Co. of Canada Ltd., Westinghouse Canada Ltd., and Bombardier Ltd. These are corporations in which Mr. Pepin, the chairman of the anti-inflation board, has served as director.
Incidentally, the Power Corporation, which is the largest Canadian corporate conglomerate, seems to have certain ties with the Liberal party. I notice that between 1968 and 1972, for example-it is probably just coincidental that Mr. Pepin was minister of industry, trade and commerce at the time-this powerful corporation received $10 million in federal grants. Here we have Mr. Pepin, with this kind of business contact in his background, as chairman of the board, expected to make decisions that will provide a balance between contolling profits on one hand and the wages and salaries of workers on the other. I noticed the other day that Mr. Pepin's salary will be $54,000.


An hon. Member:: No, $40,000.
December 1, 1975


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mrs. Plumptre will be getting $40,000, but Mr. Pepin will be getting $54,000 to head up this anti-inflation board. He will be the person telling many people earning $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $10,000, $11,000, $12,000 and $13,000 to tighten their belts and restrain themselves. After all, Mr. Pepin took a great cut in salary as well. In order to take over the chairmanship of this board, he had to resign his corporate directorships and give up any revenue or income he might get from them. He had to give up his pension as a federal MP and cabinet minister. He can no longer make speeches and charge a fee or stipend for that. He himself said he had to make a sacrifice in only getting $54,000, and it is only fair that the people do the same thing. What hypocrisy!
Things like this make it difficult for the ordinary Canadian, the little guy, to accept seriously the idea that the government wants them to tighten their belts and restrain their attempts to obtain larger incomes for themselves. Mr. Pepin is not the only one on the board who has very strong background connections with the business community. Let us consider the so-called labour representative on this anti-inflation board. That is William Ladyman, a former vice-president of the CLC and also a retired member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. This is the man the government has put on as the representative of labour, the working people of this country.
I find when I look into this man's background that he has had a couple of feet going in opposite directions. For example, in 1966 he became a director of the Polymer Corporation, thus putting one foot in the corporate door. Since then he has put his other foot in by becoming a consultant to the Great West Life Assurance Company. He has also been involved in several other endeavours that are clearly on the side of the corporate or business community. This is a man who does not in any way represent the labour interests of this country.
Then there is Jack Biddell and Harold Renouf. Renouf is a past governor of the Canadian Tax Foundation as well as a director of Associated Accounting Films International, based in New York. Mr. Biddell is president of Clarkson Gordon Ltd., an accounting firm. Earlier this year he made the statement that the government should encourage company and regional unions. Again, I think we have someone here who has a clear bias on the side of corporations and business.
As the remaining members of the board we have Claude Castonguay who has been a very prominent member of Mr. Bourassa's cabinet in Quebec. After he left provincial politics he, too, re-entered the business community as a corporate consultant and picked up a directorship in IMASCO Ltd. Then we have dear old Beryl Plumptre, the former chairman of the Food Prices Review Board. Again, her bias is very clear. She was chairman of the Food Prices Review Board in this country for a long while, but failed to find any excessive profiteering in the food industry. She was able to state that increases in the wages of the working people were primarily responsible for inflation in this country. She also said that marketing boards and government agencies which represent farmers were responsible for inflation.
Anti-Inflation Act
These people have a clear bias. This board is not balanced at all. It has a clear bias on the side of big business and corporations and I would be very surprised, indeed shocked, if the people on the board in any way tried seriously to control profits and prices in this country. They believe in the free enterprise method. They believe that the making of big profits is a really good thing. They believe that the bigger the profits, the bigger the reinvestment in the economy and the better the economy; that somehow the benefits will trickle down to the people at the bottom. This is the bias they have and I do not blame them for it. If you are to set up an anti-inflation program in this country and have a board to administer the program, surely the membership of that board should reflect all aspects of the Canadian economy. If that were the case, you would not have a single member now on the board representing the same point of view and probably supported by the Liberal party in this country.
Let us look at some of the loopholes in this bill on the price side. There are many loopholes to which no answers have been supplied by members on the opposite side. First of all, price increases will be accepted in general if the cost of producing the product goes up. How do you determine whether these are legitimate costs that are pushing up the prices of products to new levels? How do you police the transactions which go on within a corporation? How do you police what one arm of a corporation may sell to another arm of the same corporation? How do you police Bell Telephone when it deals with some of its subsidiaries?
These are questions which were not adequately answered in the committee. The only answer was that the board will have to make decisions, that it will have to use its best judgment. That is the reason I am concerned about the people on the board. If the board were more reflective of different thoughts, different people and different groups in this country, perhaps we could have a balanced interpretation of the law in respect of this program regarding which we have asked questions. But when all the people have a bias toward corporations, when between them they share many corporate directorships, I am certain the board will reflect that bias when making decisions of this sort.
How will they, for example, deal with the question of foreign ownership? How will they know whether or not a Canadian subsidiary is paying a fair price for something it purchases from its parent in the United States or some other country? How will they do that? Once again they will have to make a decision on the best information they have. I am sure their decision will reflect their bias. Once again may I say that if we had better representation on the board, I would be much more confident concerning the decisions made.
As if that is not enough, there are two exclusions written into the bill. A corporation will be exempt if it has an unusual productivity gain. What is an unusual productivity gain? How does one define that? I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would define it in a different way than the chairman of the anti-inflation board, Jean-Luc Pepin. There is another exemption for an unanticipated cost development or cost benefit. What the devil is that? What is an unanticipated cost benefit or cost development? Maybe we should hire a psychiatrist or a

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
psychologist to sit on the board so that he can go to all these companies, such as the Power Corporation, Safe-ways, Loblaws, General Motors or any similar company to determine whether or not their cost benefit was unanticipated. We could have a lot of fun with that.
Once again, we have a board with the people on it now making that decision, and I am sure their definition of unanticipated cost benefit would be different from that of someone representing the working people, the farmers, or someone with a different point of view concerning how the economy should be run. These loopholes in the bill cause me to have a sense of lack of confidence in the government and in the program which has been brought before the House.
Then there are other inequities. We have the half-hearted attempt to control the fees of professional people. It seems to me the only way we can control the incomes of professional people is to tax back at a rate of 100 per cent anything over the maximum increase of $2,400. Many people in this House-including the minister, I believe- have stated that when you control the fees of professional people such as lawyers and doctors, they can get around that by seeing more clients or patients or, in the case of lawyers, by seeing more expensive clients. Even though their fees are frozen, their incomes can still go up by well over $2,400.
There are many dangers involved. In the case of medicine, for instance, the doctor could see his patients for a shorter period of time than usual and therefore perhaps see more patients a day. There is the possibility that the quality of health care in this country could decrease. There is also the hypocrisy and irony of allowing professional people to go above the so-called ceiling of $2,400 a year while working people and ordinary people must remain within the guidelines. If this program is to work, that part of it must be enforced. The government must be prepared to tax back at the 100 per cent rate any income above $2,400. If it is not prepared to do that, why in the devil is there this ceiling of $2,400 in the first place? Either the government is serious about this or it is not. If that is not done, this will be another part of the program which will turn out to be a farce.
Another thing which concerns me is that this year-we have heard very little debate about this-we are holding International Women's Year. Supposedly, as a country, we are trying to remove some of the inequities between men and women when it comes to salaries, working conditions and general treatment right across the country. Any bill that in essence will freeze or control salaries at a certain percentage will widen the inequity. If there is to be a salary increase of 10 per cent, this really means there will be more for someone making a bit more than there would be for someone at the lower end of the salary range.
We know that in general women receive less wages and are paid lower salaries than men. This type of program will freeze that inequity into the law for more years than might have been necessary. Indeed, it will widen the gap in salaries between men and women in Canada. I think in the past year or so there has been an attempt by some employers in this country to narrow the gap between women and men in terms of salaries. If we look at the guidelines which have been brought down, this type of attempt may not be

justified or allowed by the anti-inflation board if the increase in the salary of women happens to be above the guidelines laid down.
Another thing that concerns me in the guidelines, because the bill does not really say anything at all except mention the power to control salaries, prices and so on, is that dividends probably will not, in effect, be controlled as rigidly as salaries. Many people have pointed out that dividends will be frozen and have asked what the poor investor will do. I do not think that argument has much credibility. Dividends can be withheld by companies; they can be held back until after the program expires. Also, dividends could be plowed back into the corporation, thus increasing the value of the stocks, bonds or shares of the corporation. Once this program has been terminated, someone could cash in the bonds, stocks or shares and reap a capital gain. That is one way to get around it. Again, that is not fair. It is the person who has the money to invest who will not be affected as greatly as the janitor in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, or the CPR worker in my constituency.
Another thing in respect of this bill which I believe to be hypocritical is that before the bill was brought in, before the Prime Minister's announcement to the cabinet and immediately prior to the Thanksgiving night announcement, senior civil servants, senior executives and deputy ministers in this country received very large salary increases. Some of those increases were over $6,000 a year, on the very eve of the government saying to ordinary Canadians that they should tighten their belts and we must all make sacrifices and restrain ourselves, otherwise there will be real problems in respect of the economy.
Some of the civil servants who were involved in drafting these regulations and the bill received very large salary increases. When that happens, I believe it is very difficult for the ordinary Canadian to take the government very seriously. I think the goal of the government should be to redistribute income in this country and redistribute wealth. The bill before us today will not do that. In essence it will freeze some of the inequities we already have in the economy.
Another concern I have, which I should like to mention briefly, is in respect of government spending. I think all of us in this House would agree there is waste in government, that the government's spending in many areas could be cut back. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) today mentioned that the Prime Minister's office had paid for a very expensive Christmas tree. Then there was the example of the swimming pool and other such waste. Surely many, if not all, of these things could be cut out. There are extravagant contracts which could be cut back. Information Canada and such agencies certainly could be cut back.
I want to say, however, that there are many social programs which should not be cut back. Many of them in Canada should be expanded. These are things the government will have to be very careful about in controlling inflation. Our party has said a number of time that the best way to control inflation in this country is to control the prices of the commodities we produce. Commodities such as oil are already controlled. Let us expand the two-price system to other commodities such as iron ore, nickel and
December 1, 1975

timber. This would be one way of bringing down the inflation rate in Canada.
Another way would be to control interest rates, control financial institutions and control mortgages in Canada. Another thing that could be done would be to control the price of energy. Also, we could do certain things in the area of food, that commodity being one of the greatest targets of inflation. If you had orderly marketing and price guarantees for farmers, there would not be the constant pressure on the price of food in Canada. These are things that could be done and our party has spoken about them often.
I want to say, in closing, that the government will not see its program succeed unless it makes radical changes to it, because in order to succeed the program must have the co-operation of all Canadians. In fact, most Canadians are probably very skeptical of the program. Two of the major parties have spoken against it and the labour movement is opposed to the program, as are many provinces who are asking questions about it. Unless changes are made, the program will not work. Certainly our party cannot support it on third reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for a certain change. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) was scheduled to speak at this time. Unfortunately, he felt that the inexorable advance of time precluded his waiting long enough to make his speech; he was due to catch a plane in less than an hour's time. He apologizes to the House for not being able to make his speech.
I am also conscious of the fact that this has upset the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers) who has yielded his place to the hon. member for Don Valley. I was to speak afterwards. It will be possible for the hon. member to follow me, because I do not want to lose my place, having appeared on the roster at this time. I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley would have been interested in participating in the debate at this time. After all, 46 people spoke on second reading, ten of whom were on the government side. The hon. member for Don Valley was precluded from speaking. We will have the benefit of his views at some other time on this subject, because he will be out in western Canada tomorrow.
We have reached the stage where the public has been heard, the minister has defended his bill, and the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has had extensive hearings and discussions with the minister and outsiders who made representations with regard to this part of the anti-inflation program. Where do we turn from here? The government proposed certain amendments. The minister did not clarify the position of the government with regard to certain matters. The chairman and vicechairman of the anti-inflation board appeared before the committee but, frankly, they left us puzzled for the simple reason that they were asked questions about problems for which they have no solutions yet. There will be some very rough justice in certain areas, but undoubtedly with experience they will be able to fashion certain rules and regulations which will make it easier for the people to accept the program or, conversely, will scuttle the program if too many exceptions are made.
Anti-Inflation Act
The problem here lies, I would say, in the total policy of the government. Let me try to put the story together. The government's absolute opposition to controls as one means of attempting to curb inflation back in 1974, and even in 1972 when inflation was much less rampant than it is now, is incomprehensible. My colleagues, particularly the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), indicated that there had been palpable dishonesty with the Canadian public in 1974-and that is true.
I could underline the great crime that was committed by the Liberal party in 1974 with regard to inflation and trying to blacken the program of controls. They did a masterful job in Ontario when the NDP aided and abetted them to the point of almost annihilating themselves because they came up with the Prices Review Board with the power of roll-back which obviously applied to wages as well. It could not do anything else but that, and therefore it was wiped out. Then a mere 13 months later we saw the government in a panic with regard to inflation, deciding to warm up the idea of controls. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said many times, this was always the ultimate weapon, the ultimate defence. While attacking it as being unworkable, it was still to be the ultimate defence.
How the Canadian public was bamboozled into accepting the program, I fail to understand. In my part of the world there was never any hesitation as to what the controls were to be, but the people feared inflation more and they were prepared to accept controls. Certainly they were not a hidden factor in the election. Now, having reached this point, why has the Prime Minister not been present at this debate to defend his complete change?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He was so free with his ridicule, not only of the program but of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and his economic program. All those on the other side ridiculed the idea. Now we have their version of income, rent and wages controls, but who do we hear at this stage, after the examination? Undoubtedly we will hear from the minister, but what about his parliamentary secretary? He is a genial character, well liked by federal members on the committee. I would like to hear the hon. member from Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) defend this program.
Where is the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)? Where is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik)? Will they be here to defend this bill on third reading, or will they be part of a mute majority-


Mr. Bechard:: Why are you so mad, Marcel?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -who are going to emphasize the type of, shall we say, mulish conduct which we saw at the beginning of the committee hearings? There was an absolute refusal to consider opposition amendments. There are some good lawyers among hon. members opposite, and I know the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) knows what clause 20(8) means- that in the full analysis the powers in clause 20(8) are as great as even those contained in the War Measures Act of five years ago.
9598

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
What happened to the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner)? Where is the former minister of finance in the total picture? Incidentally, he is not out of town or on some government mission. In representing his constituency, this is a program with which he should deal. I should like to hear from the man who is the resident member of the constituency of the district in which I live in Ottawa. My neighbours would also like to know what he has to say about the government's proposals to deal with economic consequences, over which he presided.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is the man who was
responsible for the economic policy of this country for three years. What has he to say, and why is he not here helping and advising his colleagues? He has a tremendous amount of knowledge. He knows more facts about the economic situation in this country than any other man in this House with the possible exception of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Why is he not here to advise the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) or the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr)?

The member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine because he might benefit from the advice of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) in that regard. But there is as always a conspiracy of silence.

I am told that when the word went out to take down from the shelf the plan for the ultimate defence, government officials, particularly those in the Department of Finance, soon realized that if they were going to implement a system of controls the first step would have to be a freeze, but on hearing the word "freeze" the Prime Minister-


Walter David Baker: "Froze."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, froze in consternation because within a year he would be adopting the economic program of the Leader of the Opposition which he had so ridiculed the year before. That was too strong even for the elastic, shall we say, conscience of the Prime Minister; therefore we did not have a freeze. That word was banned; that aspect was cut out of the program.
Then, however, we had the spectacle of the chairman of the anti-inflation board and the vice chairman, and hon. members of the House who are members of the finance committee, including the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa, will readily remember how Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plumptre said that of course it would have been preferable by far to have had a freeze, because everything is now running away from them; they are under pressure and they do not know how to bring the situation under control. That is the story behind this program. I believe that a properly instituted program of controls is one thing that should have been instituted long ago to deal with inflation.
I am not going to go into the other aspects of inflation. This is not a debate on dealing with total inflation in this country; it is a debate on Bill C-73 dealing with the government's proposals with regard to controls. I also assert,
(Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
because it was part of the proposition I put forward in 1974, that in addition to a freeze there should be a period of 18 months to two years for the establishment of appropriate controls in the various aspects of the economy. There would then be no feature which could really escape, because a study of the problem indicates that if you touch rents or those things which go into determining rents such as taxes, utilities and labour costs for maintenance have to be frozen; otherwise the whole thing becomes nonsense. The effect spreads all through the total economy, and the sooner it does, the better for the country.
There would have been some rough edges. But, after all, the malady is so serious that the remedy which must be taken must be Draconian. Also, it must be seen that the government means what it says and that everyone is included. There must be a mobilization of every individual in the country in order to achieve the desired end. I did not want to talk about inflation, but people on limited and lower incomes should be the first to endorse this type of program because it would serve to protect their rapidly diminishing incomes and holdings, whatever they may be, through double-digit inflation. Yet we hear people trying to encourage them to knock such a program on the head, telling them that this is only good for those people who have economic power.


Mr. Blackburn:: Right.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is totally wrong. The people who will be helped by these controls are those who are otherwise helpless. Those who wield an economic crunch will be contained. People who belong to strong unions are in the same category as a strong, shall we say, industrial association.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Strong law societies?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, absolutely.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They are going to suffer?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, they are.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member knows so much about this legislation, he should get to his feet later and debate this point.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I will.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. We have another person who will participate. I wish to discuss some other difficulties with regard to these proposals, certainly the interpretation by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) with regard to professional salaries and incomes, that they can be contained merely by a figure of $2,400. However, the professional going from an articled student to a practising lawyer is not just producing that many more bricks. What about a doctor going from residency into practice, or from a salaried position to that of a partner in a group practice, or an architect who does the same, or a consulting engineer? I invite hon. members to read the brief of the association of consulting engineers. They point out some problems. It may be very nice to kick at their incomes, but they are the doers. They are the
December 1, 1975

people who put the packages together to make it a certainty that down the line people will be working.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How do you make combines without workers?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Consulting engineers are the ones who have to be encouraged to make the economy turn. It is not the man with the shovel who makes the economy move; it is the man who makes the proposal, who puts the package together and who undertakes the risk, whether he is assisted by government or otherwise, to produce goods and services.
How does the construction industry work? All the thousands of people working in the construction industry are not all working on Olympic Games sites, or Mirabels. How many are working on apartment buildings? Today the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) told us that the building of apartments in this country is coming to a stop. At the same time, in places like Regina there is a zero vacancy rate. That prompts the question, why do rents go up? Obviously, because there is a shortage of apartments. Why is there a shortage of apartments? We are given a multiplicity of reasons, including some shallow ideas with regard to the environment, the quality of living and the influence of people who belong to certain little reform groups, made up mostly of tenants with no stake in the area in which they live because they are transients. However, no apartments are going up.
Then people start to wonder why key money must be paid; why all sorts of prices go up. Naturally they go up; there is a scarcity. It is the same with the workman who is in great demand. Will he not say, "Sure, I can get along on $5.50 an hour, but if they offer $7.50 an hour across the street, that's where I will go." He maximizes his return. It is good for him that he does that, but is also good for the other fellow.
The anti-inflation board realize there are difficulties. Mr. Pepin has said, even before the board has held any hearings, that he is having nightmares about some of these problems. Yes, he can see the difficulty. The settlement with regard to the Post Office presumably will be at 39 per cent. On the other hand, the day before that settlement the anti-inflation board told the Toronto secondary school teachers to go home, as the school board's offer of 39 per cent-I am putting the matter purely in percentage figures-was too great for the school board to pay and well beyond the guidelines.
It is the percentages that stick in the craw, no matter whether the settlement is for one, two or three years. People see the figure being offered by way of increase. They see that the 39 per cent offered by the metro Toronto school board to its teachers was insufficient for the teachers and led to a strike. If 39 per cent in the case of the teachers is beyond the guidelines, what can one say about the settlement with regard to the Post Office workers? What can one say about it, if it is 39 per cent? With regard to this matter, I think many editorial writers and commentators both inside and outside this House are engaging in demagogic appeals to baser instincts when making such comparisons in percentages.
Anti-Inflation Act
There is also the question of marketing boards. Are they, or are they not, covered by the guidelines? The hon. member for Windsor West, a copy of whose speech of November 17, delivered in Calgary, I have in my possession, said something about marketing boards. I quote part of his speech as follows:
At the recent national Liberal convention, the Prime Minister said, in part-
He quoted the Prime Minister as follows:
We are coming in with ... guidelines applicable to everyone, because we are asking everyone to show this sense of co-operation on which our society is built... and even those we hope we don't have to control by the force of law, we are asking them to co-operate with us voluntarily.
That is the end of the quotation attributable to the Prime Minister. The hon. member went on to say:
These words like those of the Minister of Agriculture in St. Jacobs, Ontario, could imply to some at least that the guidelines-that is, the rules for acceptable price and salary increases-would apply to farmers but would not be enforced against them by the compulsory selective controls provided for in Bill C-73. However, what does the government's own policy statement-the white paper-actually say about this? On page 18 it says "prices received by farmers and fishermen are exempt from the guidelines.''
And at a meeting of the finance committee on October 30, the Minister of Finance referring to that white paper which he, himself, had tabled in the House, said "That is the one I go with."
The speech continues:
You can see why I say some clarification by the government would be helpful so that we would know whether the words of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture reflect current policy or whether the words I have quoted from the white paper still apply.
The Minister of Agriculture appeared to say in the House that marketing boards are covered by the guidelines. He also said at that time that "they cannot inflate prices beyond a fair level because the National Farm Product Marketing Council is the watchdog over national marketing boards and there are representatives of consumers, producers and business on the present council which demands that prices paid to producers be based on the cost of production and the reasonable return for their investment."	r
I quoted extensively from the speech simply to show the complexity of the problem. When ordinary citizens, farmers and other producers ask whether marketing boards are going to be caught by the guidelines, one minister says yes and another no. But the anti-inflation board representatives think marketing boards should be included.
I have raised certain problems. If a marketing board is caught by the guidelines with regard to the prices it is going to charge at the next level, say to the wholesaler or retailer, that marketing board will make felt the controlled price at the stage ahead. In other words, the producer will then find the marketing board saying, "Look, prices are fixed; that is all we have to pay you, all we can pay you, and it is what we are going to pay you." The farm gate has always been open. I could never understand that you could not get behind the farm gate or into the fisherman's dory. Certainly, the marketing board will do that.
I raise another question. Does this government want to allow the anti-inflation board to monitor food prices to the same extent as was being done by the Food Prices Review Board? As former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Windsor West said in the speech referred to:
If so, it should say so clearly and make any necessary changes in the guidelines and legislation now under study without delay. If it does not
29956 - 55(4

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
want the new board to have this kind of authority it should explain why such authority was considered necessary and desirable prior to October 14, but is no longer necessary and desirable since that date, although food prices continue to be an area of concern for Canadians generally.
As I say, the author of those words was the hon. member for Windsor West. I have alluded to some problems and I now raise the question of requests for exemptions. The government has received requests for exemptions from teachers' federations, from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Teachers' Federations, this group and that, professionals and others. I hold in my hand a brief from the Association of Consulting Engineers. They ask for certain exemptions. This is happening all the way through the economy, and herein lies one of the problems which we must recognize.
Having said that, I say that certain features of this legislation I cannot find acceptable, one being the blank cheque parliament is being asked to write. The government wants this program to continue to December 31, 1978, or after the date of the next election which would be the time of accounting to the public. It could end on a date fixed earlier, but I do not think that will happen. There is a provision whereby the government, with a majority, could pass an order in council extending the program for one, two or three years. There could be a debate, but with a government majority it could pass.
In addition, as indicated by some of my colleagues previously, there is the question of the government's entry into or interference with all lines of business. At one time the Prime Minister said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. However, with this bill and other proposals the government will have the right to live in and share every boardroom in the country, every manager's office, the office of every business. It has the right of access and to share in the offices of any union.
Look at the powers that are incorporated in this bill. Are they subject to review by this House? No. Orders in council will have to be passed and, when passed, will be subject to examination by the committee on statutory instruments. However, that committee cannot reject any order in council that is passed according to the terms of legislation. No matter how outrageous it might be, provided there is no legal contravention, no order in council can be rejected. That is a pretty safe wicket.
Looking at the powers given to the administrator, there is a limited appeal. Ultimately, although I am not sure of this, perhaps on a point of law there might be an appeal to the Federal Court, but only on a point of law. It is all made to order for a very, very tight system.
I again quote the Minister of Finance who said that the system being set up was frightening. Of course it is. It is one of the most frightening things we could have under peacetime conditions. I am astounded at the equanimity with which it is being accepted. That is point number two to which I object strongly in the bill. I object even more to clause 20 than to the terminal date.
One other reason why I do not think this should get our support is that the government has been preaching and laying down guidelines for everybody. There is an eight

plus two plus two limit on salaries. There are freezes on prices. With the co-operation of the provinces there will be controls on rent. However, there is not a thing that says the Government of Canada must impose or follow any guidelines on its own. It imposes guidelines on municipalities, crown corporations and otherwise, but not for the Government of Canada.
My colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), introduced an amendment to limit the government to its own stated guidelines and the declarations of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). The government of course defeated that. It said it was unacceptable, impossible to follow or even accept.
Basically a program of controls is a very useful tool for fighting inflation as we know it today. However, having said that, it depends upon the type of controls, the types of problems that are left unanswered, the period of control that is being sought, and the powers that are being sought from parliament.
The more I sit in this House the more I am amazed at the cabinet coming before this House asking for more and more powers. If they are not powers for the cabinet, they are powers for a bureaucracy. In many instances it has reached the point where this House is nothing but a pale and weak rubber stamp. Somehow or other, such is the feeling.
Government members feel they must support government. They feel they must support cabinet. Their reaction is supine. They act like jellyfish. They are wet noodles. But in private, some have very serious objection to and concern about some of these things. I am talking very seriously to government members as well as to my own colleagues who often are quite prepared to accept this-the motto may be efficiency. However, in the name of efficiency more than one bootheel has been put on the neck of the citizenry. There is administrative efficiency, a close cousin to convenience.
The other day there was a $1 item before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to validate a whole program to set aside some requirement of one of the basic acts. The financial administration of this country was being numbed by a $1 item in the Appropriation Act. No one outside government circles understands where and how this can be done, but for the initiates the minister said this was a very useful shorthand. However, that is the danger. Sometimes those in the press gallery, the editorial boards, and the academics feel that this House is slow. It does not move as fast as they would like. They feel that once having made up their minds, it is not necessary for anyone else to speak. The preservation of parliament, this House and the other, and its rights and powers, and the curtailment of executive power will continue to be the main guarantee for Canadians over the years.
We are dribbling out our birthright. Sometimes this is by handfuls. At other times, it is as thin as a slice of salami. But forever it is going out. Over the years, and I have been here for more than 18, I have seen the control over financial expenditure go away from this chamber. Parliament no longer has control over the purse strings of government. It is an absolute farce to say that parliament controls the purse strings. It does not.
December 1, 1975

The charade of studying estimates is a good example of how to keep government and opposition backbenchers busy. The public does not know what is going on because the press representatives do not attend committee meetings. Therefore they do not write about them. However, when we are studying estimates, members scurry about like frantic ants, attending 18 or 19 meetings on a Tuesday or Thursday. That is not worth one iota in so far as control of the purse strings by parliament is concerned because, under the guise of efficiency, of administrative convenience, we have accepted a guillotine not only with regard to the main estimates but the supplementary estimates. The powers of the House are gone.
This bill is in keeping with the demand for the handing over of power to the executive, and to the bureaucracy that stands behind the executive. It is for this reason my colleagues and I, in addition to the provisions in clause 20(8), in addition to the government being unwilling to conform with the guidelines it lays down for others, in addition to the date proposed for its termination, are opposed to this bill.
We voted for the bill on second reading to see what would happen in committee, to see what the public would say, to see whether the government would listen to reason. But our conditions have not been met, and even though I am a great supporter of the idea of economic controls to deal with inflation, though only as part of a total program, I regretfully must vote against this measure on third reading.


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me to address this honourable assembly on such an important issue as Bill C-73.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this legislation deals with the controls of prices and wages. It was introduced after .due consideration because of the risks the Canadian economy would be running if no immediate remedy were found for this situation. This policy affects everybody: workers, employers, small businessmen and consumers alike. As a rule, a government policy affects only a very limited sector of our people; on the contrary, a legislation such as this affects most everybody. The decision of this government is the logical conclusion to a great many investigations and studies on the possible and likely consequences of this long and short term spiralling inflation on Canada.
The government is aware that such a price and wage control legislation will leave nobody indifferent. Yet, in spite of everything, the government had to take action and is taking action. Its action is centered on a policy called price and wage control, not price and wage freeze but price and wage control. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I have another expression in mind, namely the wage control and price freeze policy. Later on I will tell hon. members why I prefer and even recommend this expression. For the moment, let me single out some of the reasons which have forced the government to put such a legislation before the House. During last year, inflationary thrusts have scored in the vicinity of 11 per cent, and the forecasts were probably ranging between 15 to 18 per cent.
Anti-Inflation Act
Those forecasts were rather accurate when referring to the 71 per cent wage increase claimed by the postal worker union, the 45 per cent wage increase claimed by the Ontario teachers, and the same could be said for each one of the next collective agreements. Are those workers to blame who were claiming such high wage increases? I do not think so. Workers were trying to protect themselves against the unknown rate at which inflation could have got. Thus began the inflationary psychosis era. Indeed, the union leader were trying to get wage increases which would make up for very high inflationary thrusts. At the same time, companies drew up new price lists with the worst in mind, and raised prices accordingly. The eternal wheel which was spinning its way towards disaster and the inflationary expectations which had got hold of everybody appeared to be one of the major causes of inflation. I remember two or two and a half years ago, when prices were just beginning to rise more sharply, people were very much affected by each rise. Let us take for example the price of milk which rose by about 5 cents a quart. There was a wave of protest among consumers at that time. And the newspapers seized the opportunity to denounce the increase and predict a national disaster. At the same time, the price of a loaf of bread rose by 3 or 4 cents. Again people were indignant. Since then, the wheel of price increases has spun a great deal, because the problem is now worldwide.
There is a strange phenomenon which arises from this worldwide problem. People are so used to hear about wage increases and price increases all the time that they have resigned themselves to inflationary increases, and I would even say that they accept them. And it is precisely this acceptance which I call inflationary expectations. As proof of this for about six months, prices have risen staggeringly, but people no longer argue; they know what the cause is: inflation. And it is precisely this attitude that makes the lack of price controls extremely dangerous because businesses can raise their prices even inconsistently without any objection from the consumers who are paying.
In analysing those statistics, one also notes another very serious factor. Last year, indeed, wage increases in Canada reached 18 per cent. For the same period, they reached 9 per cent in the United States, and 8 per cent in Germany.
It must also be kept in mind that the United States make up 70 per cent of our import and export trade. Was it known that Canada won a silver medal last year? And, mind you, it was not at the Olympics. Indeed, Canada run second for the largest number of strikes to its credit. That world competition was won by Italy by the way. I think those facts are extremely important, all the more as we, Canadians, believe that we are among the best workers in the world, particularly among the most productive. Yet, when one considers the fantastic number of man-hours lost in this country, one realizes that the time has come to ask serious questions. Besides, one of the main causes of inflation in Canada is precisely the lack of productivity.
Several unions are now trying to demonstrate that salary increases are not a cause of inflation. They should indeed be more responsible than that and understand that salary increases are an integral part of the causes of such inflation. They are certainly not the only ones, of course.

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
The increased cost of raw materials, increased administrative costs, the lack of productivity and many other factors are also part of it. However, the responsibility or the role of salary increases should not be minimized. When it is known that in service industries 70 per cent of the expenditures incurred represent salaries, this means that every 10 per cent salary increase results in a 7 per cent increase in service costs. So, one must really be blind to suggest that salary increases in Canada are in no way a cause of the inflation facing this country.
I will now deal with the matter I raised at the outset, the reason of my preference for the title "Wage control and profit freeze" rather than "Price and wage controls". I mentioned "wage control" because the government allows salary increases up to 12 per cent, or a maximum of $2,400 a year. Which is not a freeze but a control that I find reasonable. As to companies with 500 employees or more, or 20 employees or more in the case of building industries, we are dealing not with profit control but actually with a profit freeze. In fact, the anti-inflation act allows no increase in profits for those companies. The only thing they are allowed to do is to raise their prices by an amount equal to their cost increases, which is to say that they are not allowed to increase their benefits.
I shall explain the consequences of the measure by giving you a simple example. A manufacturer produces shoes at a cost of $10 a pair, and sells them at a 20 per cent profit, that is to say for $12. Let us exaggerate a bit, to make the example that much more striking, and assume that production costs increase from $10 to $12. Without the anti-inflation act, the company, keeping a 20 per cent profit margin, would then sell those shoes for $24. However, because of the new act, the company will be entitled to a gross profit, not of $4 per unit but of $2, as was the case when its shoes cost $10 to produce. You will note, through that example, that profits are in fact being frozen and not controlled. On the other hand, the fact must be accepted that all companies will not come under this act.
As a matter of fact, as I said earlier, only the firms which have more than 500 employees on their payroll are included in this legislation. Therefore a certain number of firms could increase their prices beyond the standards set by Bill C-73. However, it should be noted that in this legislation there is one clause which gives the Anti-Inflation Board the power to order that some firms with fewer than 500 employees can become subject to this legislation. Why then did the government specify in the legislation that it included only the firms with more than 500 employees? The fact is that 60 per cent of Canadian productivity derives directly from these firms. Moreover, it is extremely easy for the board to control these companies, and this with a minimum staff because these large corporations have a very efficient accounting system.
This system is adequate, not to meet the needs of the government or of the Minister of National Revenue but to protect the shareholders. In these companies headed by a board of directors, the directors are elected for one year. If they did not have very adequate control or accounting systems, it would become easy for these directors to defraud the real owners, namely the shareholders. Most of those companies also have cost price systems. The executives know the exact cost of each item they produce or the

total cost for a group of items. These are the reasons for my saying that the Anti-Inflation Board will be able to control corporate prices in a very efficient manner and with a small staff. That is why I am not afraid to tell those who try to imply that such measures will be inefficient that they deceive people for egoistical purposes. It is precisely to allow the government to make an efficient control that the companies with fewer than 500 employees were excluded.
Several union leaders say that the import prices, which represent 30 per cent of the expenditures of Canadians, will not go down. On that point, I agree with them to some extent. Indeed, if U.S. inflation goes on eroding their economy, certainly the price of their products will go up proportionally and Canada will feel that increase. Yet, let us not forget that last year, wage increases in the United States were only 9 per cent, while in Canada they amounted to 18 per cent, as I said earlier. This means that the price of products imported from our neighbours will be lower. And even if the increases were higher than expected, Canadian industries and labour will benefit, because those products will be manufactured right here in Canada, instead of our having to import them and I am sure this would substantially contribute to the elimination of unemployment.
Last fall, I was delegated to the NATO economic commission. The representatives from the Federal Republic of Germany told us that one of the reason they had a low inflation rate was their labour union system. Indeed Germany has only one union per industry. If we had the same system here, there would be only one postal workers' union, one for Air Canada and so forth. This would result in an overall improvement of our economy, I am sure of that. Let me elaborate a little. Let us consider the mess due to our labour unions. When the letter carriers are on strike, mail sorters cannot work and moreover all Canadians must contribute to paying them unemployment benefits. The postmen's strike is over and now the inside workers are settling their collective agreement. They are also on strike and what is more ridiculous, as the postmen are unable to work, they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This is why a single union in each economic sector would probably eliminate from 50 to 60 per cent of our strikes.
I will make a second suggestion, Mr. Speaker. When a strike is considered in any kind of private or public undertaking, a secret vote should be compulsory. I think that we are well aware of the unorthodox procedures used to compel people to vote according to the whim of union leaders.
In addition, the Department of Labour should control the counting of the secret vote, to make sure that the results are true by appointing employees to see that every operation is carried out according to law and order. I think that such procedure would liberalize the union movement, because I feel that a vote by a show of hands is anti-democratic and often removes individual freedom.
The government should also prescribe standard forms of financial reports to Canadian labour organizations. Indeed, acts passed by Parliament gave unions some taxation
December 1, 1975

power, which means that all employees of one company, whether they are willing or not, are imposed union dues which are levied at the source, from their pay, in exactly the same way provincial or federal taxes are collected.
When municipalities were given the power to tax, many requirements were included allowing constituents to be informed of how much was spent and where their money went. On the other hand, unions were invested with taxation power without any obligation to account in detail for their expenditure. Consequently, we can see under the heading "other", expenses of $2 million, $3 million or even $4 million in financial reports of Canadian unions. Do you not think that unions members who mandatorily pay their dues are entitled to ask for clear and precise financial reports and judge whether those expenditure are allowed for their own needs? In brief, how do union leaders administer these funds?
To conclude, I would like to draw the attention of all to a very important point. Even though this anti-inflation law is about to be passed and the majority of the business concerns will comply with it, yet we must not delude ourselves. Some concerns will try to get around it, in addition to all those with fewer than 500 employees which do not come under this law. For this reason, it is our responsibility to see that these concerns control their profits in a reasonable way.
Therefore, I ask people not to buy the products whose price is exorbitant, and to inform the Anti-Inflation Board. We .may be sure that those who manufacture those products will get the message quickly.
Let us all work together and the results will be positive for the greatest benefit of all.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to intervene in this debate in the House on Bill C-73 which, in my opinion and the opinion of my party, is one of the most powerful pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced. Perhaps second only to the Emergency Measures Act introduced, I believe, during World War I.
At the outset let me say I feel at this time in the debate, as we are drawing to the close of third reading, it is rather unfair, to say the least, of the government to expect us in opposition to, shall I say, buy a pig in a poke. We have a bill which in one respect gives the Anti-Inflation Board extreme powers in a democracy. There are no regulations as yet. Nothing has been firmed up, but the government is saying we should pass the bill and then it will give us the regulations.
My party wishes to continue this debate as long as we can to show the people of Canada that we as a democratic party, and I think I speak for many members on this side, are not prepared to give the government carte blanche without having some assurance that the board itself will be restrained in its use of the dictatorial powers being given in this bill. I think this is one of the most important aspects of this debate.
Government members for obvious reasons are attempting to play down the tremendous power given in this bill. Another reason why we oppose the bill, and there are several, is not an opposition to the fight against inflation,
Anti-Inflation Act
but an opposition to the unfairness of this piece of legislation. It is unfair because the axe does not fall evenly on all sectors of the economy or the working force.
No one is going to convince me that a lawyer, and I am not blaming all lawyers, cannot increase his income next year by 20 per cent or 25 per cent as a result of this bill. The bill includes a productivity clause, and if a lawyer wants to take on more clients or wealthier clients, or gets involved in a $400,000 or $500,000 real estate deal, his income will go up by more than $2,400, without even considering the fee schedule.
I am not saying all lawyers are going to take advantage of this clause, or that all doctors are going to do likewise. I am saying that these people can increase their incomes above the stated amount. Certainly lawyers can in the way I have mentioned, instead of piddling around with $30,000 mortgages. As far as I can determine most doctors are over-worked now. Supposing a doctor does have five patient consulations an hour instead of three, that represents a very significant increase in income.
This is the kind of thing that those on fixed incomes, or those who belong to the trade union movement, or teachers' associations resent. The teachers were here on the Hill today and I spoke to them out front, as did the minister. I congratulate him for having the courage to go out there and face them. They were very militant, and I do not think he had very much to say. But this is the kind of thing that really galls these people because they know any increase they will get will specifically be 8 per cent, plus 2 per cent, plus another possible 2 per cent. What they do not know is how this board, with no regulations so far, is going to govern prices and profits. As long as this doubt remains these people will become more infuriated as the months go by and as we see that prices are not kept in line with wages and salaries.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) may think he has seen some opposition to this bill so far. If it does not work I suggest that he will see a great deal more opposition. I suggest that the bill is not going to work in its entirety, and not even in part. The real trouble will come next spring or summer when people have been required to hold back on wages and salaries but they see prices continuing to rise.
A perfect example of this is the increase in food prices since October 14. Let no one be fooled by this tremendous generosity on the part of four, five, or six major food chains in the country, and I would put "tremendous generosity" in quotation marks. These major food chains have already raised their prices in the last six weeks, and they have already bargained with the processors and distributors so they know they can go easy for 60 days. They are not going to lose any money, and the average consumer is not going to be taken in. Consumers see through this.
Average people are not angry enough yet as the full effects of this powerful, authoritarian piece of legislation have not been felt. But when that occurs, probably in six to eight months, we will see tremendous social discord. We will have groups fighting other groups. This bill will be divisive rather than a bill to bring people together.
Members opposite suggest it is unpatriotic to oppose the bill or not go along with the legislation. I suggest at this

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
time it is the government that is being unpatriotic by forcing various groups to fight other groups. Just this afternoon in the Citizen one newspaperman wrote about planned economic changes. I am not suggesting these have been endorsed by the cabinet, but this is the kind of government restraint we are to see. Governments are among the biggest spenders. What are the cuts they intend to make? Apparently we are going to see three day a week mail delivery. That is one suggestion. There is the elimination of LIP, OFY, CYC, and the phase-out of the science department as well as the end of Information Canada. I do not think that would be a bad move, although it would eliminate some jobs. Then there is the freeze on research spending.
I have heard members from other parties say that the government should trim the fat. People have said it is the fault of the government, and that we must cut down on government spending. This is very dangerous because when we wipe out OFY, LIP, CYC, the science department and so on, this means we are cutting out jobs. If we cut out these jobs what will happen? Is it better to see that these people are employed at a meaningful job so that they will pay taxes, or is it better to lay them off? If they are laid off the chances are that they will not go to private industry, because when there are already 720,000 people out of work the only route they have to follow is through the UIC or through welfare when the unemployment insurance runs out.
If the government is to trim its costs obviously it cannot trim its transfer payments and socially-oriented programs. It must create jobs and good social services. Are we to negate all the best legislation that has been passed in the last ten years and wipe it out because we must trim federal spending? As other members of my party have already stated, the fundamental question concerning this program is whether we have a just approach to dealing with inflation, or an incomes policy. I suggest the two are separated here. Having studied the white paper and the bill, the answer is that the approach the government has adopted is unfair and unworkable. We in this party cannot accept it in any way, shape or form. A few moments ago I alluded to the teachers from Toronto who were demonstrating on the Hill this afternoon.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You spoke to them.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, I spoke to them. Did you have the guts to speak to them? I did not hear you speak, Joe. To give an idea of how this bill is dividing the country, already when it has not even become law-we have in the city of Toronto elementary school teachers teaching in the junior high school who settled for higher wages than the secondary school teachers teaching in the same junior high school. One might make the argument: what is a degree if one is not a good teacher? All right; I shall not go into that aspect. However, this is dividing the groups of teachers in the city of Toronto.
Also when the teachers in the city of Toronto compare what they have been offered by their board, which the Anti-Inflation Board has knocked down, with what the same teachers make in the city of Ottawa or in Windsor,

they say they are all teachers and that they have all put in at least four years at university. In fact this is one of the most highly educated professions in the country as a whole. What is the difference? They are doing the same job, and yet in Ottawa they found that teachers are making $3,000 or $4,000 a year more than they do. It is this kind of unfairness or lack of justice that will badly divide this country. How do I know? It has already happened. I just gave an example. It has brought bitterness to one group of teachers, the teachers in the city of Toronto, because it is unfair. I think we have already proven before the first regulation is brought in that this legislation is unworkable.
It is becoming increasingly evident as time passes that the government in its attempt to secure a lower rate of price inflation has adopted a policy of wage restraint to deal with the matter. In other words, the burden of this program is being placed on the wage earners of the country, particularly the low wage earners. There is no doubt about that. I do not know how anyone who has finished high school, has gone through university, and is now earning $7,800 in the city of Toronto-I admit this is the low end of the scale-can live. I do not know how they can live on $7,800 in the city of Brantford, from where I come.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Pepin seems to think they can, but he gets $50,000.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, he is a lot more comfortable. He is getting $1,000 a week in the form of a handout from the government.
It now turns out that the Quebec minimum wage was increased 20 cents instead of 32 cents as had been promised a couple of months ago. This is another example of the adverse affect this is having on unity in the country. Again this is very important. They were promised 32 cents and now must settle for 20 cents in respect of the minimum wage in Quebec. Granted the government can argue it is not responsible for Quebec's actions; nevertheless this action in one province is an example of the reason why so many individuals are becoming thoroughly convinced that most wage earners, organized and unorganized, will be the biggest losers once this program becomes law.
This reminds me of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, and this has been mentioned by other members. When he was desperately fighting the 1974 -election campaign against wage and price controls he said that the little guy is hurt with wage controls. Now what does he say? So far the Prime Minister has refused to take part in this debate. I would like to suggest he is ashamed and that is the reason he will not take part in the debate. There are not very many hours left, so perhaps someone over there would pass on the word that he should defend this policy before we have a vote on it.
At the outset I stated that we in this party reject this bill in its entirety. To date we have not had satisfactory answers concerning the reason why this particular approach was introduced. If anything has become clear it is that the government adamantly believes that labour is the culprit in the inflationary troubles of today. What are the facts? Mr. Speaker, I think at this point I should call it 6.30.
December 1, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, 1975,1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, before I called it 6.30 p.m. I was concentrating on the divisive aspects of this bill which pits groups against groups, unions against unions, organizations against organizations, and businessmen against businessmen.
I could give you the example of a small company settling a wage contract of, say, 18 per cent or 20 per cent a week before the anti-inflation bill becomes law, and a similar corporation making the same product being held to the 10 per cent guideline. You can rest assured that the small companies particularly will be fighting it out with the Anti-Inflation Board because one company might have to pay higher labour costs while competing in the same market with another company which does not have to pay those higher costs. As I said earlier, this is an infamous, authoritarian bill which gives the government powers that should not be given to any government in a democracy such as ours.
I would like now to dwell for a few moments on our export situation. I think this is one of the major thrusts of the government's arguments in favour of Bill C-73. I would like to begin by simply asking: are we to accept the statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that Canada's international competitive position and ability to pay its own way in the world are being set back because of our current wage trends?
Statistics Canada reported that on a year to year basis the rate of increase for imported goods was 14.5 per cent and only 7.5 per cent for exported goods. Furthermore, just a few days ago, some five weeks after the introduction of wage and price guidelines, trade figures issued by Statistics Canada showed that sales of finished goods rose 9 per cent in the first ten months of 1975. Thus, despite gloomy warnings that Canada is losing its edge in world markets, the best performance this year is coming from manufacturers. Statistics Canada reported also that exporters of finished goods are now doing better business and making greater inroads into foreign markets than they were last year when economic conditions were far more buoyant.
Based on the above it is no wonder that various groups have been less than exuberant over the ramifications of this program. As I have already said, this package of controls is nothing but wage restraints predicated on the phony assumption that wages have led the way in the inflation spiral.
As I said earlier this afternoon, it is always the low income earners who are blamed for overspending and for inflating the economy. But I wonder how often those in power on the treasury benches-I do not see many of them present-sit back and reflect on two points: one, if you are making $7,500 a year, how in heaven's name can you
Anti-Inflation Act
overspend? I do not know what the national average income is today; it is probably about $10,500 or $11,000. Even then, how can you overspend and create inflation on that? The other point is that these people are bombarded day in day out through the electronic media to buy, buy, and buy. It does not matter what the quality of the article is, what its workmanship is and whether or not you need the damn article-you are told to go out and buy it.
If there is anyone causing inflation in this country, or who has caused it in the last ten years, it is those people who have told everybody to go out and buy. They have psyched them to the point where they are almost reacting like Pavlov's dogs so that they have to go out and buy. But who is reaping the benefits from it? It creates employment, but we get back to the same point again that as it creates employment there are more people to spend money, and we are back in the vicious circle of inflation.
If the infamous Bill C-73 becomes law, who will get it on the head? The guy who has been told to buy, buy, buy. This is the ridiculous aspect of the economy of this country today. I deplore it and I deplore the fact, as I said earlier, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) refuses to take part in this debate, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said earlier today. He should take part in this debate and give us on this side of the House good reasons for voting for this bill, the regulations pertaining to which have not even been drawn up yet. We do not even know what we are voting for.
In the early stages of this debate some Canadians expressed a degree of satisfaction with the anti-inflation program. I suggest that the reason for this is that the major attraction of any income policy is that it promises-I stress the word promises-price controls as part of the package. But if the promise is a hollow promise and there is no real, effective legislation to back up that promise and to make sure that prices and profits are in fact controlled, then we descend into the area of cynicism, and if there is one thing this country can do without today it is cynicism. That is why I am opposed to this bill. It will create more cynicism. It will not reduce it.
This promise of price controls had to be introduced because the government realizes that wage earners will readily ease off from demanding higher incomes if they are assured that prices will be kept stable. This is a point we have stressed for years. Yet how does this policy operate with respect to prices? We now all know that the guidelines explicitly say that wages cannot rise beyond specific percentage points each year. There are no such specifics in regard to prices, and that, again is what creates cynicism and the divisiveness which will develop from this authoritarian piece of legislation.
Other members of my caucus have gone to great lengths to point out that price increases are taking place in three principal areas: food, shelter, and energy. In fact, of all the inflation we have in this country approximately 65 per cent is in the area of food, shelter, and energy, and it is in these three areas that the controls policy will have little or no effect. I think that is a very important point.
All hon. members of this House no doubt were inundated with calls to their homes and constituency offices regard-
9606

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
ing the dramatic rise in the cost of food following the introduction of this program. After all, prices can increase to cover increased costs, whatever they might include. We still do not know what increased costs are all about. Only Jean-Luc Pepin knows. He claims he knows for sure. In terms of food costs, people just have to pray that their frozen wages will be enough to cover their increased costs. The advantage is clearly on the side of the corporations which know exactly what their wage costs will be. They can plan now. They know the limits. The limits are there, thanks to the Liberals, and thanks to the government.
I wish to make one last point regarding food costs. All of us have noticed the full page ads which major food chains have taken out since their announced 60 day price freeze on November 21.1 alluded to this earlier in my address late this afternoon. One such ad reads, and I quote, "Loblaws freezes prices." William Sherman, president of Loblaws, says in the ad that this action is being taken in, and I quote "recognition of the consumers' growing concern over food price inflation." I love that.
Before consumers embrace the Christmas good will of all the food chains, they should keep this in mind: as reported a few nights ago food chain spokesmen stated that, and I quote, "There is a standard industry practice involving private agreements between the stores and their suppliers." In other words, chains such as Loblaws will not have to absorb price increases until mid January because pre-bargaining with their suppliers will cost the food chains virtually nothing. William Sherman said, and I quote, "many suppliers have already taken their increases, and we requested that there be no increases during December." Big deal-60 days!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the Christmas spirit.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Therefore the risk to chains such as Loblaws, Steinberg's and other major chains is minimal. What happens after 60 days? Can we count on good corporate gestures come January or February? I doubt it very much.
As I said this policy, and this program, do not apply to the key elements in the cost of living. Since wage bargaining takes place in the open, and since any increase is subject to stringent regulations, the government can make wage restraints stick. It is a very simple thing. We have heard that many times before in this House, and I do not hesitate for a moment to repeat it tonight. As long as we have the democratic right to keep talking against this bill, we on this side of the House will keep talking against it.
Price decisions, on the other hand, are not as easily identifiable. Here again my colleagues have cited numerous examples of the inability to pin down what constitutes increased costs. Thus far we have had no comprehensive statements on how costs will be monitored. The Federation of Independent Businessmen cited several examples of how large corporations can hide their profits. For example, General Motors in Canada sees that profits for the coming year will increase appreciably. The head office in the United States then proceeds to charge the Canadian subsidiary higher management fees. In effect, G.M. of Canada faces higher costs, and the consumer is left with having to pay those costs-not General Motors, but the people who buy G.M. cars.

The only impression with which consumers are left is that price controls are merely a symbolic gesture in the incomes policy. It is not extraordinary then that groups such as the CLC, QFL, the National Council of Welfare, and the anti-poverty organization, to name a few, have condemned this national belt tightening campaign. Prices in key elements of the economy will not even be touched, and this the government admits and has admitted.
Aside from food costs, which I have already mentioned, energy costs to the average consumer will be up this year. In fact they are going up right now. Because of the government's excise tax, it will cost more to drive. Because of the government's changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, those on lower incomes will have to pay higher premiums proportionately. Because of the government's inaction in the housing industry, houses will not be available to most Canadians who are looking for housing this year.
In this program the average consumer is being told that it is he and his wages which have to be restrained. Workers are becoming increasingly disenchanted with what they see happening. The current rate of inflation in Canada is 11.3 per cent and, if this situation does not change, workers' real incomes will fall by about 1.3 per cent. Again, keep in mind that inflation in 65 per cent of a family's costs will not be controlled. I am talking about food, shelter, and those other basic commodities such as clothing and so on.
The Minister of Finance has made much of the fact that this policy is designed to benefit those worst off in society. Nothing, in my opinion, could be further from the truth. What this program does, by means of everyone being entitled to receive the same percentage increase, is to freeze the present situation. Granted, those on lower incomes are being given a measly $750, if they can get it. There is no guarantee. The folly of this was exemplified, as I said earlier this afternoon, by Quebec's actions, to which I referred earlier. The power to obtain any sizable increase- that is, to those on low or fixed incomes-rests with the provincial governments, and if one is treated in the fashion with which Quebec has treated its people, I suppose that is tough. I think this is an important point. I have not raised it before.
The Government of Canada could use this bill in a very effective way to begin to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. If it wanted to use this bill, it could say, for example, that anyone earning less than $11,000 or $12,000 per year would be exempt from the guidelines. From there on the percentage increase in income would decline, so that by the time a person reaches $24,000 per year he receives no increase, regardless of productivity. However, the government will not use the bill in this way, and I suggest that the reason it will not is that it is still tied in with the old Manchester school, the old nineteenth century school. Economists of the nineteenth century thought there was no ceiling to an income one can earn, provided you scratched your way up over people's backs, even your mother's back. They thought the sky was the limit to incomes.
Where does that philosophy lead us? Look at the major cities of the United States, that great land of free enterprise, and their skyscrapers. My God, what has bigness
December 1, 1975

brought that country-nothing but misery, social distress, crime, hatred, bitterness, class against class, people against people, organization against organization. I suggest that this bill will help to contribute to that kind of social psychology in this country, and for that reason I oppose it.
There is no doubt in my mind that low-paid workers will not be better off under this program. On the other hand those on the other end of the scale will do very well. Dividends will not be controlled because companies will be able to increase dividend payments to obtain capital on the stock market. Furthermore, dividends will be paid out to the owners of corporations after this policy ends. In other words, dividend payments may be deferred. This suggests, Madam Speaker, that we shall witness in the next few years a redistribution of wealth, not from the rich to the poor, but in favour of the rich and powerful.
Probably the strongest condemnation of this type of program came from the Prime Minister himself, when he said about 18 months ago that you can't freeze executive salaries and dividends because there are too many loopholes to squeeze through. Meanwhile the Prime Minister has turned 180 degrees. Now he says we must have controls, although 18 months ago he was desperately courting votes with exactly the opposite policy. No wonder he will not enter the debate. He has not the nerve to come to this House and explain why he changed his mind. During the election the Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), for whom I personally, and my party have a great deal of respect, would not freeze prices of farm produce. But this 1975 program will not do this either. The Prime Minister went on to say that prices of United States imports and of Arab oil would not be affected. I ask, what is left to control?


John R. Rodriguez: Wages.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, wages and salaries are left. They are the only component which can be controlled effectively. The Prime Minister and cabinet realized this a year ago, and I suggest, Madam Speaker, the same is true today.
The government had to do something to prove that only it could provide the leadership this country needed, indeed has demanded for 18 months but has not received. Madam Speaker, this is not the kind of leadership Canadians expected. The government ought to have known that the program it introduced would not be accepted by the majority of workers. As my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre said in a speech last week, many workers, union people included, voted for the government on the assumption they were voting against controls as advocated by the official opposition, those very same types of controls we face today.


Walter David Baker: There is a difference, you know.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: This program is somewhat different, I admit. But how does the government explain its introduction now, considering it was totally opposed to any controls?


Walter David Baker: That is the point.
Anti-Inflation Act


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: And the government is asking us to buy its program, even though the regulations have not been written. I wonder if any democracy is left in this House. We, on this side of the House, represent more voters who voted in the 1974 election than the Liberals do. Yes, we represent more Canadian voters; but what is happening in this House? An unacceptable bill is being forced down our throats, and we can do nothing about it. Do you call that democracy? I am beginning to wonder what this game is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I recall the Prime Minister saying about four and a half years ago that, 500 feet off the Hill, we are all a bunch of nobodies.


An hon. Member:: That includes you.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Let me tell hon. members opposite that the people who are more than 500 feet away from this House are somebodies, and they are fed up with the way this country is being run. I want to say many more things, but I see that my time is nearly up.


Walter David Baker: Keep going.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am tired of listening to rhetoric from the other side couched in technical terms, rhetoric which merely hides a lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, and lack of concern for our people. Yes, we are concerned about inflation. NDP members in this House are concerned about inflation. We do not oppose the fight against inflation, but we do oppose the unfairness of the bill.
As I suggested earlier, the government could make this legislation more fair if only it would listen. But it only listens when it is in a minority, not when it has a majority. When the government was in a minority and was scared, it listened very well. If only the government would listen it could make this bill more equitable. We could distribute wealth more fairly. But the bill will not be used for that- no, that is not the purpose of the bill. It is easy to control incomes, but virtually impossible to control year-end profits. One need not talk in terms of increases in unit costs. Corporations need not worry about that. They only need to average out their profits at year end, and dividends can be paid in one year, or 18 months, etc.
For the people of this country, this bill does not represent equity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Benjamin:: Joe Guay said no. We will remember that, Joe.
29956-56%

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, as I rise to participate in this debate I wonder where the government is leading the Canadian people. We realize that parliament must attempt to control inflation. After all, it is the country's governing body. Eighteen months ago my party had the foresight to recognize problems we should encounter, and we put a program of action before the Canadian people. Hon. members opposite put forward a different policy; I suggest that any who did not agree with their leader's position at that time should stand up now and say so.
My party told the Canadian people that we were facing serious economic problems; but hon. members opposite said that was not so, that there was no danger. Actually the Liberal candidate who ran against me said in the election campaign, "If this is inflation, give me more of it." Madam Speaker, unfortunately we have more of it, much more.


Walter David Baker: Where is he now, in the Privy Council office?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are all suffering from the negative attitude the government showed in the election. If government members would have had Canada's well-being at heart, they would have gone along with us. They should have had the foresight. If not, they should not be governing this country. It is as simple as that.
We must now ask ourselves why we are in this condition. Why the about-face of the government? As stated this afternoon by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), just two weeks prior to the announcement of October 13 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that he had no intention of embarking on price controls. He said they were not necessary. Why the change in two weeks? I wish the Prime Minister were here to give us that answer. He is the only one who knows. I do not criticize members opposite on this because I am sure they do not know.
The Prime Minister made this decision on his own. I certainly have some misgivings about why he made it. Was it because of the resignation of his Minister of Finance? Why else did that minister depart in the middle of the Ontario election? It certainly was not planned that way. Only two days later that minister was seen over national television in the company of the leader of the Ontario Liberal party.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is straying from the motion.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I apologize. What I am trying to do is to analyse why we are in this position at this time. The Prime Minister is not here to answer our questions. That is why I wonder why we are dealing with this bill.
There was also to be a Liberal convention. The former minister of finance stood in the place the present minister occupies and said that he would have no part of wage and price controls. Now that the Prime Minister received a vote of confidence at the Liberal convention, he is away for a while. Nevertheless I fear that the Canadian people are 
going to suffer as a result of the decisions that have been made.
Inflation is a very destructive force. Nothing will destroy society as will the inflationary factor. It causes a breakdown in moral values, increased greed, a rejection of the work ethic, and creates a confused society. That is the position the Canadian people are in today.
There is a breakdown in moral values. Every day in this House the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) answers questions about why we are in this position. What action is the Canadian government taking to counteract that? Why are we in this position where our moral values are breaking down?
Quite a few years ago, after the second world war, a friend of mine returned from Italy. He said that the Italian children were not attending school. They were hungry, and there was no use in sending them to school without first feeding them. This is not the problem with the Canadian people. We are well fed. However, there is no guarantee this will continue in the future. Actually we are destroying ourselves. We are destroying the work ethic. We are destroying the incentive that built this country; It is a sorry day when we destroy the very spirit that built it.
I have a terrible fear of a government controlled or state controlled economy. There is nothing worse. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) said that these powers should not be given any government. I agree. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) then said, "unless it is an NDP government".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: The problem with that is simple. If they came to power we know the type of economy we would drift into. They would take over the control. We have to realize that members opposite are drifting into the same type of state economy.
On a recent visit to the United Nations I was told by a representative from Russia that that country had Wi per cent inflation in ten years. However, is there anyone in Canada today who would want to limit himself and be under the control and jurisdiction of a state government such as that in Russia? I would think not. I do not like inflation. However, I am satisfied that it can be licked. It is not, however, going to be licked in the manner specified by the government.
You cannot have a healthy body while there is pain or suffering in any of its members. Unfortunately that is what happens with restricitve controls. That is why we in this party stated that prices should only be frozen for 90 days and then guidelines should be set up under which we could work, operate, develop, and live.
There is a great danger with this bill. The government wants it, and it is going to have it. There is no doubt about it. The government is going to shove it through. I do not want to be part of a program that will last 13 times longer than the one we suggested. That is the vast difference. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said there could be a parliamentary review after 18 months. Actually he was just trying to get our support. However, our support is worth more than that.
December 1, 1975

We submitted an amendment. Our leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister stating that if the government valued our support, it could agree to an 18 month freeze. We were willing to go part way. In fact we went from three months to 18 months, but the government would not move at all. All we were told was that there would be a parliamentary review. Your Honour and I came to this House at the same time. We both know that parliamentary reviews are all right. You can put certain issues on the table and thereby bring them before the Canadian people. However, with something as important as this, they do not work that well.
I have something to say about the Minister of Finance. It is he who caused the problem with the province of Alberta two years ago over natural resources. Because the Middle East decided they would cut back 5 per cent on oil reports, he immediately created a problem for the Canadian people, stating that there was an oil crisis. I am sure everyone will agree now that we did not have an oil crisis at that time. Six or eight months later there was more oil in the pipe lines that they knew what to do with. They were at that time slowing ships down on the ocean because they did not have storage facilities for landing oil. So I say that he just reached up in the air and grabbed it out, and at the same time he caused a confrontation with the Province of Alberta and the Province of Saskatchewan which set the oil industry back two years at least, maybe three years.
We are just now recovering the rate of production we had at the time the minister embarked on that atrocious plan he had connived in his own brain. And that has been the history of this government, unfortunately-it has been going from crisis to crisis. I do not know whether it manufactures them or not, but first it had a political crisis, which it reconciled by the War Measures Act. Then of course, as I mentioned, it had the energy crisis. Now it has found an economic crisis. It would seem to me that during the political crisis, when it embarked on the War Measures Act, it over-reacted. Time and circumstances have proven, Madam Speaker, that the government did over-react at that time because of the fact that it had been warned previously there were political problems, and it did nothing. When it did break, the government over-reacted. And it caused problems for people. I remember that in western Canada we sat up all night watching national television because we were concerned; we did not realize it was a sort of over-reaction.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I fail to see the link with the motion to provide restraint on profit margins, prices and dividends. Perhaps the hon. member could deal with the motion.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just mentioning the relationship between the present problem and the history of the government. I mentioned the overreaction in the political crisis, the over-reaction in the energy crisis, and now I am mentioning the over-reaction to the economic crisis.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the problem before us is, I think, the most serious of all because of the fact that with the oil, the oil was there and it kept coming; with the political crisis, it resolved itself; but the economic crisis is
Anti-Inflation Act
much different because of the fact that the government is taking over control for 39 months. That is a long time for a government to take over economic control of a country. Just think of those people who have perhaps only ten years left in order to make their livelihood and provide for their retirement. It is taking a third of that time out and it means they are going to suffer. This is why our leader said it was rough justice. It is rough justice.
I do not think it is necessary for the controls to last that long because we saw what happened in the United States. They had shorter term controls and they worked. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers) said this afternoon that their inflationary factor is much less than ours simply because they moved to control it when it was of fundamental importance to do so.
Our inflationary factor today would be much worse if it were not for the fact that Canadians are a resourceful people. They are a great people. They are a strong people. And they are living in a strong land blessed with a great amount of natural resources. So you couple the three together and this is the only reason we have survived.
It was suggested today, I believe by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that we are second worst in the world so far as our destruction of our work ethic is concerned. This means there is dissatisfaction-a great deal of dissatisfaction-and we are therefore destroying the spirit that has built this country.
I have a great fear that this is what is going to happen unless there is a turn around, and it has to be in the very near future. I am not prepared to sell my birthright for a bowl of porridge, but unfortunately I am caught up in this process. Many people have said we should go along with this program because of the fact that the government hasn't got anything else. Well, that's a pretty lame excuse for supporting a program which you do not think is going to be in the best interest of a country, when there could be a better one put in its place. But if it is the only thing it has got, then what do you do? Either vote for it or vote against it, and my conscience, Madam Speaker, tells me we would be much better off if we voted against it.
I want now to read just a few statements made by a gentleman who I think is going to become very well known to a great many Canadians, including the Minister of Finance. This is what he says: I read from the report before me.
Regulations to implement Ottawa's anti-inflation program will be "too restrictive and inflexible" for business, according to Toronto accountant J. L. Biddell.
In a speech to a construction industry seminar in Toronto, Mr. Biddell, who was recently appointed to the Anti-Inflation Board, called the proposed program "a good one" but said it could pose a serious economic threat to the country.
The report went on to say:
Mr. Biddell, who resigned as president of Clarkson Co. Ltd. after accepting his new appointment, predicted gloom for business because of the program's regulations.
"The white paper guidelines will require the businessman to suppress almost every one of his natural entrepreneurial drives".
Mr. Biddell said the controls are so strict that Canadian business "can expect to live with them for only a short time." . ..
If the controls are not removed quickly, there is a distinct possibility that "stagnation" will set into the economy and "create a climate where it will be impossible for new business to get off the ground."

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Wage and price controls are necessary as a short term solution to the country's inflation ills, he said. "The measures will simply not do in the long term. It is a treatment of symptoms and not a cure."
The country must reach a consensus on the causes of inflation during the control period to prevent a return to an unacceptable period of rapid price escalation, he said.
Mr. Biddell said Canada has been overspending in recent years, living off earnings from its natural resource base.
That must change, he said. Canada must develop an industrial complex "to take the place of its depleting natural resources."
There we have, Madam Speaker, a member of the AntiInflation Board, and he was muzzled by the members of government not allowing an amendment that we put forward in this House to allow him, as a member of that board, to criticize them in the area where he felt he had such a right. They don't want to allow that. It would be an embarrassment to them, and therefore he was muzzled. This is why I feel the government does not have the Canadian people at heart. I am satisfied that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are only interested in survival- power seems to be the main thing in their mind-so we have to be very, very careful. We have to warn the Canadian people what they are about.
While approving the general intent of the government's program, my leader and other members of our party made it clear from the outset that we had grave reservations about some of the major features of Bill C-73, and that we would not commit ourselves as to our ultimate position on third and final reading until we saw what kind of amendments emerged from committee examination of the bill. We put forth our amendment, and I have explained the difference between our position and their position, and why this amendment was not passed.
It is of fundamental importance that Canadians should realize that what could be accomplished in 18 months should be all that is required in the best interests of the country. We are not taking anything away from the bill by this 18 months period. If at the end of that time it is found there have to be other controls put into place, I am sure members of the opposition would be ready to go along. If the government would like to bring in a different program we might be ready to agree to that also. However, as I say, we would like to restrict the program to 18 months, and we would like also to give the Anti-Inflation Board an opportunity to criticize the government for any failure on its part to follow the guidelines, just as it is able to criticize business and labour.
We said the period should be 18 months. The minister said no. For the life of me I cannot understand why there should be this refusal to co-operate if he wants our support.
Developments since second reading have done little, if anything to assuage our concerns over the program. Committee hearings have produced wide-ranging criticism of the bill by spokesmen from major industry, labour, and other groups. While we may not have agreed with all of their particular criticisms, the comments and statements of these groups have reinforced the view that the government program is, at very best, pretty rough justice, with a number of built-in inequities and distortions.
[Mr. Towers. 1
Government statements inside and outside the House of Commons, be they by the Prime Minister, various members of cabinet, or the chief officers of the Anti-Inflation Review Board, have offered little reassurance either. Rather, they indicate that the government is still very much feeling its way, unclear even in its own mind on many important aspects of the program, including the all important question of relationships with provincial governments. That is very important, Madam Speaker.
How in the world can a program work without the support of the provincial governments? Why was not support of all provinces asked for prior to embarking upon the program? The answer is simply that there was not time. The Prime Minister announced the program without communicating with the provincial premiers in advance. The provinces themselves, while supporting, as we have, the principle of a direct action program, have filed a number of significant reservations of their own. The province of Alberta has announced it will go along with the program for a short period of time but may opt out later.
It should be noted too that all of this uncertainty and concern has been generated over the basic framework and direction of the program. As yet we have not even seen the precise regulations in which the government will set forth the details of its policies and which will form, in many respects, the real guts of its program. One can only believe that these will cause even more confusion, uncertainty, and feelings of inequity.
People will put up with this program for a short period of time, and we thought 90 days was the right period. But the minister says the period will be 39 months. This is why we have reservations about this bill. It is also causing concern among various business groups. In fact, I have a great fear that we are going to revert to the law of the jungle, where only the strong survive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Start swinging from the trees.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is a great misfortune, Madam Speaker, that our friends to our left are so far left that they cannot even understand the fact that the economy is better in private hands than in government control.
I have been contacted by some professional people who are concerned about the outcome of this legislation and what it will mean to them. This is why I say we are now getting to the stage where it is a matter of survival for certain segments of our economy. One of these groups has this to say:
We would like to take this opportunity of expressing our concerns in these matters in the hope that our representatives can make the government aware of them, before the regulations are finalized, as it will be difficult if not impossible to change the regulations after they become law.
Fundamental to applying price control regulations to auditing and accounting practices is an understanding of the good will factor inherent in many professional accounting practices in Canada today. Good will represents the intangible value of having an established clientele who continue to deal with the same firm. The value of good will however becomes tangible when an incoming partner pays hard cash for it. The purchaser has in effect purchased the right to a share of the income of the accounting practice. In an established practice the older partner anticipates that he will be able to sell his good will on retirement. Thus many practising professional accountants have spent many
December 1, 1975

years of their lives investing their time and ability in establishing a practice that will be saleable when they retire. This investment is analogous to the employer's contribution to a pension plan on behalf of an employee in that both have planned and look forward to these funds as part of their retirement income.
It is therefore imperative that the wage and price controls be administered fairly and great care must be taken to ensure that the value of good will is not impaired or destroyed. The impairment or destruction of good will would cause economic chaos to the accounting profession and would be the equivalent to imposing a 100 per cent capital tax.
They go on to say this:
We are aware of an accounting practice which has a July year end. At July 31, 1974 this was a four man practice and the practice income was shared four ways. On August 1, 1974 one of the partners retired and the three remaining partners purchased his partnership interest including good will and have contracted to pay him a capital payment for good will over a period of years. On July 31, 1975 the practice was a three man practice who now share the retired partner's income. Thus the remaining partners' incomes materially increased in 1975 and if the difference in incomes from 1974 to 1975 were confiscated by way of a tax the remaining partners would be unable to complete their obligations.
I am sure the minister gives cognizance to the fact that a lot of business people are caught up in this program. With the continued invasion of government into private affairs we have to rely more upon specialized professions to protect our personal well being. This group goes on to say:
When one considers the strenuous effort required to build and maintain a professional practice; the liability of the professions to the public and the fact that a professional has to provide for his own retirement are factors that should be considered before making hasty adjustments to the very roots of this type of business.
In conclusion, with respect to the effect on good will, we are concerned that there may be an unfair, and perhaps unintended, side effect of the legislation and regulation: it appears probable that they may result not only in a limitation on income but also have the effect of confiscating capital. This, we suggest, must be avoided if equity in the efforts to control inflation is to prevail.
So it is obvious there is great concern in the country about where we are going. After all, it takes all kinds of people to make our economy work, such as the professions, labour, and all segments of society. We must work together if our economy is to get ahead; we must get away from the kind of misunderstanding that has occurred under the present administration.
Given the degree of rough justice involved, given the economic distortions which are virtually inevitable in this kind of program, and given the well founded mistrust that we have for the government's motives and willingness to deal openly and frankly with the people of Canada, we are not prepared to hand the Prime Minister and his ministers these extraordinary powers without any effective time limit on their use.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are all rallying to the cause.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the peanut gallery to our left is in fine form this evening. This is third reading of a bill which euphemistically is known as the Anti-Inflation Act, Bill C-73. It is a bill to deal with inflation.
This is an incredible development, coming about a year and a half after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in co-operation with his cohorts to my left, stumped up and
Anti-Inflation Act
down the country saying that price and incomes controls are absolutely the worst thing that could ever be undertaken by a government in an attempt to fight inflation. Every possible adjective of condemnation was used to decry price and incomes controls to fight inflation. Yet 18 months later, on Thanksgiving Day last October 13, the Prime Minister sat down to a meal of crow and announced to the nation price and incomes controls.
This new example of leadership, it is said, will take us out of the economic morass in which we find ourselves. One wonders what occurred, what caused this transformation. What caused this proud government and its Prime Minister to eat crow on Thanksgiving Day? What caused it to do an 180 degree flip and advocate policies that it wasted no energy in condemning over a year previously? Was it a change in the economic situation? Was it the sudden realization that the economy was in bad shape, and suddenly inflation was perceived to be a serious problem? That is some change, but that is the essence of what the Prime Minister tried to convince the country. Yet an examination of the figures, the numbers, the indices, the measures of economic performance, inflation, and the consumer price index now indicate there was no dramatic change. They indicate there was no disastrous trend in the last two years, and no dramatic change suddenly before Thanksgiving Day to bring on this turn-around.
The second theory proposed by some political observers is that this was really a Machiavellian plot. The suggestion is that in fact the leading indicators showed that inflation was on the way down now and that the economy was due to improve, and the Machiavellian devil that he is, the Prime Minister, felt by introducing this program he could then claim credit for leadership. This has been proposed by a few media observers of the political scene in Canada. I tend to dismiss that because if that was the motivation behind the Thanksgiving announcement surely there would have been better preparation and a more complete program offered. Surely we would not have the uncertainty and the wishy-washy change in opinion and direction the government has demonstrated since.
The third reason proffered by some observers of the political scene for this about-face by the government has to do more with the state of the Liberal party than the state of the economy. The rationale behind this reasoning is that there has been a considerable amount of discontent since July, 1974. The energy, the new direction, and leadership expected by the Liberals after their victory were just not there, and by the summer of 1975 that discontent was starting to manifest itself in audible grumbling. The Prime Minister then chose to appoint an old friend to the communications portfolio rather than a sitting member, which gave rise to even more grumbling and discontent. Then the former minister of finance resigned, and the public outpouring of discontent became nearly deafening.
At this point it is suggested that Senator Keith Davey was able to convince the Prime Minister that prices and incomes controls would let the Prime Minister seize the reins of leadership again, demonstrating vigour and vitality in attacking problems of the economy, and this would in fact allow him to turn the situation around and pass the upcoming vote of confidence at the Liberal convention.

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Quite frankly, that theory has a lot of credence, and is substantiated by a lot of observations for those who want to look at them. It is really tragic that the economic initiatives taken by the government should be dictated by considerations such as that rather than by the state of the economy. It is tragic that the Prime Minister would play games with the economic lives of millions of Canadians because he had to face that vote of confidence at the Liberal party convention.
Whatever reasons there were, on October 13, Thanksgiving Day, the Prime Minister said we were going to have a system of prices and incomes control. That was an infamous October 13. Fans of the now defunct comic strip character Pogo will recall that when Friday 13 fell on Monday one had great reason for concern. We now understand and see some wisdom in that comic book character's philosophy.
Flowing from that October 13 statement is the bill that is before us tonight, C-73, called in clause 1 the "Anti-Inflation Act". That in itself is reason enough to vote against the bill because there is nothing anti-inflationary about it. This is not an anti-inflation act. It is not an act to impose a system of wage and price controls. This act is nothing more than a means of giving sweeping and extraordinary powers to a so-called Anti-Inflation Board and an administrator still unnamed. That is all this bill does.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) spoke in general terms about the scope of the wage and price control program they had in mind for the country, but we do not know what it is. This House does not know what it is, and the country does not know what it is. I suspect that those on the other side, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, do not know what it is. I suspect they are still working on it.
This bill is not an anti-inflation program and not a wage and price controls program. We will not be voting on either of those things. A realistic anti-inflation program that addressed itself truly to the root causes of inflation would combine prices and incomes controls with other features. Prices and incomes controls by themselves without the other features in the program are worse than nothing at all. In a sense the Prime Minister was absolutely right last year during the election campaign when he said that price and income controls were bad. They are bad if that is the sum total of the anti-inflation program because by themselves they can do more harm than good. It is the steps the government must take during an anti-inflation program, while price and income controls are in place, that would constitute an anti-inflation program.
What are those opportunities or steps? One of them quite clearly has been referred to repeatedly, but apparently the lesson still remains to be learned by those on the other side. This step has to do with government spending and the money supply. I should like to quote from a report by Dr. Philip Cramm of Texas A & I University, reported in the February, 1975, issue of World Oil. Dr. Philip Cramm, to put this in context, is a consultant who has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. and the Canadian governments. He states:
-there has never been a prolonged general price inflation in recorded history that was not preceded by and directly related to a growth in money supply. In our economy a growth in money supply occurs

principally when the government spends more than it taxes and prints money to make up part of the deficit.
That is precisely what has been happening in Canada. Since 1968 when this administration took over spending has gone wild, up by some 300 per cent, with deficit followed by deficit. These deficits have been financed by the printing of money, that is, by the selling of bonds to the Bank of Canada which in turn prints the money to pay for the bonds.
In spite of the claims repeated so many times in the past that we are the victim of world circumstances and that world inflation is at the root of our problems, a fact echoed just recently this evening by members of the NDP, the bulk of inflation in this country is domestic, and one of the main causes is that our money supply has gone berserk to finance government spending, which has also gone berserk.
In addition to the question of money supply and proper management is the matter of the discipline the government exercises in respect of the money it spends. For the record I should like to quote from a policy review report in 1975 by the C. D. Howe Research Institute. This report states among other things:
It is clear that governments will have to impose a new form of spending discipline on themselves, because there are not sufficient natural restraints forcing them to assess the productivity of their spending. As a first step in this process of self-discipline, the public should be given more and better information on the spending process.
That is a polite non-partisan way of saying the government is spending our money in an unwise and inefficient fashion. In addition to the magnitude of the spending, this inefficient spending is one of the root causes of inflation.
This afternoon the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave numerous examples of the wasteful extravagance of government spending such as on the Prime Minister's residence, frills, tapestry, and all the [DOT]accoutrements of power-spending which certainly the average Canadian can hardly appreciate makes his life better.
I do not intend to dwell on this at any great length, but I want to refer to an article in this morning's Montreal Gazette by Don Sellar. He says that the contract given Mr. Roy MacLaren, a consultant whose Liberal party connections are well established and who was chairman of a 1974 fund-raising dinner for the Liberals, was that he would receive up to $158,000 in government money in return for his services in two years. This includes up to $20,000 a year in expense money, a daily allowance of up to $35 a day for food and accommodation while in Ottawa, and a special allowance of up to $4,000 a year for transportation to and from Toronto to visit his family. This gentleman was to get $158,000 of our money.
When the government spends its citizens' money in this fashion how can this have any effect other than to debase our currency and debase our taxes? The citizen does not consider, in this type of example, that taxes are his way of contributing to the financing of the operation of a government which performs services on his behalf. He looks at this sort of thing and says that the government is wasting his money. To him taxes represent something extracted
December 1, 1975

from him by law so that when he sends in a dollar from his salary he does not consider that 20 cents from it will go for housing, 30 cents for food, and so much for the salary of his member of parliament. He says that the government is ripping him off to satisfy its friends. So he will not be satisfied with an increase of $1 but will want an increase of $1.50. It is that sort of attitude toward government which is one of the root causes of inflation. This is the example this sort of thing sets for public servants and those in the private sector.
There was a time when public servants and members of the government viewed themselves as trustees of our money and acted accordingly. The example was set by government in that it had an obligation and responsibility to be frugal and efficient in the spending of our money. Frills were to be avoided in the way they would be avoided by any trustee if he is to have the respect of the individual whose funds he administers. That, however, seems to have gone by the board. Frills and wasteful spending are the norms for this government, and represent one of the root causes of inflation.
A third cause of inflation which must be addressed in any discussion of an anti-inflationary program is the matter of the position of the power groups in our society. This is a position about which John Crispo of Toronto has written and spoken. There exists in our society numerous groups which have grown up in the last few years which have the power to overcome the restraints which exist in a free enterprise system. These groups which we know as big business, big labour, and big government are immune to normal restraints. When there is an increase in wages they pass on the increase. When there is inflation they receive a larger share of the pie. An increase in taxes means nothing. Ironically the Minister of Finance alluded to that when he spoke on second reading on the bill when he said:
The goal of narrowing the gap in income distribution can be thwarted if those in higher brackets are successful in maintaining or increasing their own real, after tax, share of take-home pay by pushing up their income levels.
If instead of talking about those higher brackets he had in fact generalized about those in positions of power he would have been right on. But I do not see any evidence that the government appreciates that these power groups are able to misdirect the economy or that there is any willingness on their part to find some solution. With the powerful looking after themselves, it is the weak, the unorganized, who in fact are paying the price. That is what is happening.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I find I am being applauded by the New Democratic Party. If in fact the hon. member would applaud equally as loud when I say it is important to attack those power groups which are able to exert their influence over, the weak and the non-influential then I would be assured that his thought processes are straightened out.
We need evidence that the government is attacking the real causes of inflation before we or the Canadian public will be convinced that the government has a true antiinflation program. This bill is not an anti-inflation program. It is not even a price and income control program. It
Anti-Inflation Act
is nothing more than a bill to give some extra-ordinarily vast powers to an administrator and an anti-inflation board. Even if it were considered as part of an anti-inflation program it would still be subject to very serious criticism. For that reason it is impossible for us to support it.
The main benefits of price and income controls are the psychological benefits. They provide an example of the seriousness of the problem as viewed by the government. After the government spent many months condemning such a program it is small wonder the public is very skeptical about this program. They say the government tells them one thing and then turns around and does the opposite the next year.
Even as a psychological tool or as a strong medicine, as a few people have described it, it must be responsible. We must be very careful in terms of the powers granted by this bill. It is indeed strong medicine. Price and income controls represent strong medicine. When I refer to medicine we must remember that when we have strong medicine it should be administered in limited dosage. You do not call for the open ended, unlimited administration of strong medicine, which is essentially what this bill does. One observer likened controls to a narcotic. He said that your head tells you it is not good, but it seems almost irresistible and once on it, it is tough to get off. A narcotic is not a cure, it is simply a way to kill pain temporarily, but if you get on it and take it for too long, it becomes addictive and very difficult to get off it.
My friends to the left are wondering if we advocated narcotics. Let me continue with the medical analogy and tell you that there is a role for pain killers in medicine, and in fact as part of our anti-inflationary program with which we faced the Canadian people we stated in all honesty that price and income controls were part of an over-all package, necessary pain killing medicine at a time when the country was suffering from a serious malady indeed.
Let me say again that this bill is not a price and income control scheme, it is not an anti-inflationary scheme. The fact of the matter is that the economy is sick, there is no question about that, and the measures of that sickness are multiple. One measure is in terms of our trade imbalance.
Earlier a member of the NDP indicated that our trade situation was fine. Obviously he has not examined the figures because, if he did, he would see that in 1975 Canada's trade imbalance in high technology products will be $9 billion as compared to $2 billion five years ago. There has been a steady deterioration over the last five years in our trade imbalance in high technology products. We are partially paying for the $9 billion by selling off capital, selling off part of the farm, and selling our raw materials. That is irresponsible. We simply must become more competitive in high technology production, and anyone who chooses not to see these figures, as does the NDP, is being totally irresponsible.
Another measure of the performance of our economy and the sickness from which it is evidently suffering was provided in this morning's Montreal Gazette in an article written by Mr. Peter Cook. The article is headed "Canadi-

December 1, 1975
Anti-In flat ion Act
an Economy Headed for Worst Year Since 1954". The graph which accompanies the article shows it graphically.
No one in this party discounts the seriousness of the malady from which the Canadian economy is suffering. Our economy requires a medicine, but not this kind of medicine.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you want more free enterprise?


Harvie Andre: Yes, indeed. The sickness from which our economy is suffering comes from excessive socialism since 1968, and if you had been listening earlier you might have learned that lesson. We have indicated that because of the seriousness of the problem the Leader of the Opposition adopted a responsible position, he could not operate from any other position, it is an inherent part of his character to act responsibly at all times. He proposed that if the government would restrict the use of these excessive powers to 18 months, our party would go along with this legislation. The government chose not to accept this offer by the Leader of the Opposition and proposed in return a half baked measure of parliamentary review. For that reason we have no choice but to vote against the bill on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: But we express the hope and indeed the plea-and if it would help to get on our knees and beg, we would do so-that the government take the other remedial action that is necessary in the other areas I have mentioned to mount a truly anti-inflationary program so that the poor and unorganized workers, the elderly, and those in our society who do not possess the power to look after themselves can stop being buffeted about by inflation and the concomitant problems that flow from it.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-73 may I say that judging from the status of the bill and the present response of the public to it, we can see it will receive only grudging support. The large group of organized labour, the Canadian Labour Congress, is telling us what they find distasteful in this bill and what they believe is unfair in the controls as they are proposed to be applied, that is, mostly to wage earners. I think they are making very valid points about the impossibility of applying the whole program fairly. On the other hand, profits are to be curtailed severely to 95 per cent of the previous year's average, which raises the question about our need for large capital expenditures in coming years and whether or not we will be worse off than ever. It has been indicated that in many industries profits were low. The stock market will bear this out.
It will give me great pleasure to vote against this bill as I am sure it will accomplish very little and only set the stage for reduced growth in the years ahead. The imposition of controls on the Canadian economy will slow down the economy's recovery without appreciably reducing inflation for at least a year or more.
Speaking to the Conference Board, Mr. Arthur Smith had this to say, as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 20:
Next year's improvement in productivity ... may be one of the lowest in the past 50 years ...

In addition, "the underlying trend rate of productivity may continue to be among the lowest of all the industrially advanced nations in the world," he told a conference on trade competitiveness sponsored by the board.
Next year, "domestic productivity inhibiting factors, including those likely to arise from the anti-inflation program, are likely to make it extremely difficult to achieve quick and substantial domestic productivity gains".
What may make the situation more difficult for Canada is that it may occur at the same time as the exceptionally large current account deficit, which has been shrinking for the past several quarters, starts to widen again. If the latter happens, as historical experience suggests is likely, it could begin before the end of 1976, Dr. Smith said.
What makes the outlook for late 1976 even less promising is the expected high unemployment level and considerable under-utilized capacity that will be present. Also, Canada may at that time be on the verge of an "enormous" buildup in net import requirements for oil.
Behind the recent deterioration in trade competitiveness for Canada are several factors, failure to increase real new investment spending to any significant extent from 1967 to 1972, the long lagged effect of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar in 1970 and the ending of the special advances in productivity under the auto pact.
"A powerful array of depressing Canadian federal and provincial policies (especially regarding taxation and royalty matters) have curbed strong and efficient growth generally in Canadian resource industries."
No one is more to blame than the government for the problems of our resource industries.
Only during the past year with weakened markets, corporate profits that declined, a more competitive import competition and the perception that inflation was producing intolerable distortions, have Canadians begun to raise the issue of job security and the risks of inadequate new job creation in decisive ways.
Even then, "instead of trying to make labour markets and collective bargaining procedures work much more effectively, we have now acted to introduce a control program which even its most ardent supporters can hardly claim will help to make labour markets work better."
Surely this is an indication of what we are up against with these controls. Let us consider what is happening in the United States where there are no controls. Their third quarter growth reached 13 per cent, the strongest rise since 1960. Almost certainly the U.S. recovery will be superior in performance to that of Canada if for no other reason than the extent to which Canadian controls and their application to profits actively discourage the capital investment essential to establish any prolonged recovery.
The effect of limiting profits will be felt further down the road. The effect of controls is to limit any increase in profit and the process discourages investment. The control program takes the income redistribution process a little further at the expense of real corporate growth. For example, a person told me that he had been in business with a partner and liquidated the business, which had considerable capital, and they were waiting to divide it so that they could start a new business. However, under this legislation they will be prevented from doing so and probably will be for a long time if they are ever allowed at some time in the future to take their money out and get going again in another business. This only goes to show that two small individuals in private enterprise are going to be shackled by this legislation for some time to come.
Almost certainly unemployment will increase in the next few years. A study of the possibility of unemployment in the next few years raises certain disturbing questions. A
December 1, 1975

sharp rise from the rate of 5 per cent in June, 1974, to 7,2 per cent in October of this year has been the result of the North American economic slowdown.
It is clear that the combined effect of income controls, debilitating monetary and fiscal policies, and the low utilization rates in U.S. industry provide little optimism for improvement in our unemployment position. All studies indicate that the restrictive fiscal and monetary policies accompanying the income control plan will only stretch out Canada's high unemployment rate problem.
One of the obvious doubts being expressed is whether the controls will be accepted or will work. From the recent meeting with the federal-provincial ministers it seems obvious that provincial spokesmen are critical of the failure of the government to get the program working and to provide some ruling or benchmark. Mr. Darcy McKeough said, "Let's get it cracking." As to whether we shall have provincial boards to monitor prices, we will have to wait until December. The Anti-Inflation Board chairman now says the board will need to employ 300 people instead of the 200 originally planned. The Saskatchewan finance minister suggested that the meeting was not the most productive and called for a surtax on private incomes of more than $30,000 per year, and by doing so has introduced a new form of control.
How is each province going to react to this? Well, according to the Globe and Mail:
The federal legislation provides that the private sector of the economy will come under the federal Anti-Inflation Board. A province may, according to Ottawa, place its public sector-civil servants, municipal workers, teachers and so on-under the control of the same board. Or it may decide to set up its own board to handle them.
As Quebec has done.
Last week Premier Peter Lougheed told the Alberta legislature, "We concur with the Government of Quebec". He believes that the federal legislation, unsupported by provincial legislation, could constitute an intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction. He fears this on economic as well as constitutional grounds.
Once the federal controls are in place, he fears that they might be kept in place too long, permitting Ottawa to interfere with business to the detriment of economic health.
What Alberta proposes to do, therefore, is to pass legislation that is identical to the federal legislation, with its own additions. The legislation would authorize the lieutenant-governor in council to delegate administration of the act, for both private and public sectors, to Ottawa on a trial basis. Alberta would retain the power to opt out if it found the federal program unsatisfactory, or if Ottawa were to make significant unilateral changes to the program. The unilateral changes which would concern Mr. Lougheed would be anything that put controls on prices of products at the farm gate or further controls on petroleum products.
They put on a time limit of 18 months, which I think is in line with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has suggested, that controls should be re-examined at the end of 18 months. All this indicates that the public is becoming unhappy with the program and is seeing that it is in fact Swiss cheese, with so many holes that in effect it is not a program at all.
The growing confusion in the five weeks since the time of the announcement on October 13 is overwhelming, and the Leader of the Opposition has had this to say:
The government can bring in whatever kind of controls program it chooses within the ranges of these wide powers; it can vary any program virtually beyond recognition while the law remains in effect.- It asked us to accept instead a complicated review process which, in
Anti-Inflation Act
effect, represents nothing more than a progress report to be followed by a vote which would be meaningless considering the government's majority strength in the Commons.
This is the great problem with this program at a time when confederation is indicating to all that there is too much centralization in the economy and in the political process. We are going to centralize further with an army of civil servants.
It is obvious that Mrs. Plumptre, as a member of the Anti-Inflation Board and being critical of the action of the Egg Marketing Agency in raising the price of eggs at a time when feed costs were dropping, touched a very sensitive nerve with consumers. It is obvious that the board can do nothing about farm gate prices. I do not see it being able to do so unless it wants to have shortages develop very quickly. It is estimated that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the change in food prices is related to farm gate prices for food consumed within our own country. That merely leaves the Anti-Inflation Board with the possibility of doing something about food from the time it leaves the farm gate until it ends up in the housewife's basket, and that would be precious little. Indeed, a substantial amount of foods is imported.
Labour is unhappy with the program; what about management? Mr. J. L. Biddell has expressed the view that the proposed guidelines are too tough on business. There is a comment by Mr. R. W. Billingsley, president of the Reed Paper company, who said in Toronto last week:
"Perhaps the best thing I can say about the policy as now proposed is that it probably won't work, which means that it will have little detrimental effect on the economy."
Billingsley's comments about the program point to one fallacy-that the control program is supported by business but opposed by labor.
I suggest that many businessmen are concerned about the long-term effects of the program on business. These effects can only be endured for a short time, if there are not to be serious consequences to productivity and investment. And nobody believes that the government is seriously concerned about cutting public expenditures. Indeed, the setting up of the bilingual districts, announced a few days ago, can be cited as an example of the government's intentions.
The government's campaign has lost support for the control program, rather than rallying support. Canadians are not willing to support this sort of program. They do not want to hear the Prime Minister talking about a wartime atmosphere; neither do they like Premier Regan's reference to the Dunkirk spirit. We are not ready for it. Even the Prime Minister has said that the program is primarily psychological, not economic. Canadians really do not believe that controls will work in peacetime. Organized labour has been portrayed as being against this program, while business has been portrayed as supporting it. But there are many misgivings in the business community about the value of the plan. Businessmen believe that, in the long run, it will do considerably more harm than good.
This controls plan is really a ploy in that the federal government is trying to shift the problem to the private sector from the public sector where most of it belongs. Without doubt, if inflation is to be curtailed there must be a drastic reduction, at least in the rate of government

December 1, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
spending, and a corresponding contraction in the money supply. The number of claims for exemption from the guidelines which will qualify for special treatment within the incomes policy will be much greater than we can expect.
I cannot help but agree with much that was said in the Canadian Labour Congress brief to the finance committee. The congress maintains that the federal government has been largely responsible, through the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada which has been developed in a most erratic fashion, for it swings from one extreme to the other. Monetary policy has never been stable, and this has created economic instability of serious proportions. All kinds of cost pressures were built into the economy from the blatant mismanagement of our monetary policy. The congress went on to say that the mismanagement of fiscal policy has been almost as bad.
The Federal Reserve Board of the United States has tried to hold the expansion of the United States money supply to some 5 per cent. In Canada the position is somewhat different. Governor Bouey has gone to great lengths to explain that the chief problem with monetary policy lies in making sure it is the right policy. He suggests that we need a moderate rate of monetary expansion, sufficient to support rising levels of economic activity, together with a gradual decline in the rate of inflation. He asked what constitutes a moderate and sufficient rate of monetary growth, and suggested that the Central Bank has been too vague in defining its goals. Others, while applauding objectives underlying the control of the money supply, are unhappy about the effect of monetary restrictions on interest rates.
Mr. Bouey has pointed out that in the past two years our money supply has expanded at an annual rate of 15 per cent, although at the end of the second quarter in 1975 the rate of expansion had been brought down to 10 per cent. Weekly statistics published by the Bank of Canada show that the money supply, as defined by Mr. Bouey, rose by 17.5 per cent, from October, 1974 to October 1975; in the past six months, from the end of April, the money supply increased by 15.8 per cent, while in the last three months the rate of increase was at 15.6 per cent. This indicates that the expansion of our money supply is proceeding apace, with no indication that it is coming down to the sort of figure the Americans have in mind.
In their brief the Canadian Labour Congress set out what the program is not able to do, namely, come to grips with the weight of external factors which produce inflationary pressures on our open economy. The government has conceded that the prices of imported products will not be controlled and that this will continue to be a major inflationary influence on Canadian costs and prices. As the world around us slowly recovers from recession, it really means that the price of foreign goods will rise. This will constitute a large element in the increase of prices in Canada. I believe that this will be the single most important factor which will prevent this program from having an over-all effect on the rate of inflation in this country.
We are now attempting, Mr. Speaker, to apply a form of wage and price control which proved wanting when applied in the United States and the United Kingdom. Shortages are bound to occur. When they do, people hoard.

Scarce goods are stockpiled and the shortage is compounded.
Various countries, even provinces and cities in Canada, have tried rent controls on residential housing. Always such controls have brought the people close to disaster and created shortages. The government has tossed this knotty problem to the provinces. When rents are controlled for any length, investment is discouraged. Continuous acrimonious debates go on between landlord and tenant, and nobody is happy. One of the great problems in controlled rents is arriving at a reasonable rent increase. The tenants, naturally, ask for reduced rents, and landlords for increased rents. As there are many more tenants than landlords there is a marked tendency for boards to keep rents below economic levels. We tend to become penny wise and pound foolish and, eventually, shortages develop.
This bill will not cure inflation, and may even compound it. It will almost certainly increase unemployment in the 18 months or so it will operate, by stifling productivity. Obviously, professionals will have to pare and reduce their workload in order not to breach the guidelines because, if they do, even with increased productivity, they will find themselves penalized. The large number of employees working for the 1,500 firms covered by the guidelines will feel aggrieved when comparing their lot with that of workers in firms not covered. Clearly, their fellow workers will have greater advantages when seeking wage increases. This can only accentuate the harmful effects which changing inflationary conditions can exert on the Canadian economy.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is no substitute for good control of the money supply, reasonable fiscal measures and, above all, prudent government spending. Unless we wish to have a completely controlled economy, these standard and traditional methods are still the best means for controlling an economy in a free society.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in rising to register my opposition to this bill on third reading I begin by saying that we have opposed this bill from the beginning because we argue, and our arguments are supported by virtually all economists except those bought by the government, that this so-called anti-inflation program cannot work.
The government calls this a bill "to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada." All available evidence, reports of discussions of provincial governments with the minister and the buffoon chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, as well as statements of the Anti-Inflation Board, reinforce our view that this program could not have worked from its conception, which was illegitimate, one might say. In addition, if one considers the composition of the board, what it has accomplished, said, and refused to say until now, one thing becomes apparent-this board will not deal with the problems suggested by the title of the bill; at least it will not deal with them equitably. It will not restrain profit margins, freeze prices, hold back dividends, etc. It will do one job only-restrain wages and salaries.
Look at the board's membership. Its chairman, just a dozen or so years ago, was a professor in a Canadian university, probably making not more than $10,000 a year.
December 1, 1975

He was elected as a member of parliament, became a minister, and was defeated in 1972. He immediately became a lobbyist for multi-national and large national corporations. He has now been appointed as chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board at a salary of more than $50,000 a year. By his own admission he is taking a cut in income. We can see on what side his bread is buttered.
The vice-chairman, Mrs. Plumptre, receives $40,000 a year. As Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board she received a lot of press coverage. However, very few in the press gallery seemed to do much other than read the headlines. They did not read the reports that were made. They did not read the fine print.
Let us look at Mrs. Plumptre's record. After looking at price increases for butter, eggs, meat, and everything else, what did she tell the Canadian public? She said the farmers are receiving too much for their products. Workers in British Columbia's supermarkets asked for wage increases which she said are too high. She said they are responsible for high prices.
Every time Mrs. Plumptre looked at food processors such as Canada Packers, Burns or Swift, she assured the public that they were not making too much money and that everything was fine. Even though their profits have gone up every year, she says they are legitimate profits.
Then there are the supermarkets which are growing in number, dollar volume, and profits every year. After looking at them she said that Loblaws, Safeway and Dominion Stores were not making too much money. She said it was the farmer and the supermarket worker who were getting too much. They are the villains.
We then come to the former vice-president of Clarkson Company. I thought the board would have at least given the appearance of being impartial. I thought the board would at least seem to be fair and look at all the questions before giving a judgment. I quote from the November 19, 1975, issue of the Globe and Mail where Mr. Biddell, the former vice-president of Clarkson Company said, and I quote:
"The regulations are likely to be too restrictive and inflexible and I would expect an early need for adjustment."
The regulations have not even been tabled. They may have been drafted, but they are being kept secret. Mr. Biddell, however, knows that they are too restrictive. I again quote from the article:
He envisages a system where a company's auditors, as part of their normal function of verifying financial statements, would also take on the additional responsibility of ensuring obedience to the wage and price guidelines.
The auditors for Eaton's, Hudson Bay Mining, Swift and Company, who receive their salaries from those companies, will work for the government, at no cost to the government, protecting the interests of the ordinary people! I know whose interests Mr. Biddell has, and they are not the interests of the Canadian people. It is the interests of his former corporate clients. I again quote:
Adjournment Motion
"The white paper guidelines will require the businessman to suppress almost every one of his natural entrepreneurial drives." . ..
The program's effect on wage and salary earners will not be severe, he said. "I think they will get along quite well."
I am sure the teachers in Toronto agree with Mr. Biddell today.
We then have a man who took a job that no other labour leader would look at. Not a single labour union has given its approval to the program. The CBC tried to tell the public that the CBRT and the Public Service Alliance had endorsed the guidelines. What they said was that they would support some kind of wage restraint if there were price controls which, of course, the minister has rejected from the beginning.
The former vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Ladyman, has gone from being vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a union which has been very successful in getting high wages for its members, and I give it credit for that, to being a consultant for the great friend of the working people, Great West Life Insurance, an affiliate of that poor powerless corporation, Power Corporation. No other labour person would go anywhere near the program, but Mr. Ladyman did. I suggest he had good reason.
Let us look at what this board has done in its short existence. The board issued a statement in November saying that it was not the intention of the board to replace the collective bargaining process. It said it was expected that the parties would negotiate in good faith with a view to concluding an agreement under the guidelines. After they had reached an agreement, the board said it would then look at the agreement to see if in fact it was too high.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that that policy was laid down. The board has already violated its own statement. In the case of the Toronto teachers the board acted before there was an agreement. The board acted at the request of one of the contestants. I say that the chairman and the board showed their bias. They showed it further this week by saying not one word about the exorbitant, fantastic profits which the large Canadian banks have reported this year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock-


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the adjournment debate proceeds, may I announce that following the disposition of Bill C-73, we will call the housing bill, Bill C-77.

December 1, 1975
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, on July 22, as recorded at page 7803 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question with regard to the level of representation which the government would make at all future meetings in which we would negotiate our position in respect to the Law of the Sea, ICNAF and so on. The answer I received when I asked that the ministerial level be the level at which we should be represented was, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's representation.
I suppose the day of debate for this could not have been more timely than this evening. Today I received a call from a fisherman. He advises me that in one of the areas off the Atlantic coast the Russian fleet has a quota of 19,000 tons. The Russian fleet appeared in that zone in May, 1975. It is present still, and it is still fishing. As to the 19,000 ton quota, I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that two good-sized boats operating off the Atlantic Coast would be quite adequate to catch that quota of fish in a much shorter period than that between May and December.
There is, on the Atlantic coast, absolutely no trust that the foreign fleets are observing the quotas. Negotiations have taken place on an international basis, as we know, and we must compliment Mr. Beasley who has headed these negotiations on many occasions and who is, unquestionably, a very able and dedicated Canadian. The trouble is that whether or not he is scared of the minister, as has just been suggested by one of my hon. friends, or whether or not the minister gives him proper authority, the negotiations have not been as productive as they should have been. Attending these meetings, one finds that able people are sent by other governments-representatives who are capable of making decisions on the spot.
The only way in which Canada can hope to be represented by someone authorized to make decisions on the spot with respect to the welfare of our offshore fleet is by the minister responsible for the fisheries being a member of the negotiating team at all times. First, this would give us decision-making ability. Second, and at least as important, the presence of the minister would confer a prestige upon the delegation which it would not otherwise possess. Thus far, we have given an indication to all the foreign countries concerned with which we have been negotiating that these are items of secondary importance at best because the minister has never been present to negotiate.
This matter has been brought up on a number of occasions. If we look at page 7804 of Hansard we find the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley

(Mr. Nowlan) saying, in effect, that it is difficult to withdraw historic fishing rights from European nations which have fished off our coasts for hundreds of years. I want to point out that until we entered upon this complex of international negotiations and treaties we encountered no problem as far as nations with historic fishing rights, such as Portugal and Britain, were concerned. However when we began to carve the pie up among a multitude of international fishing fleets, when we started to extend the use of these waters to Germany, East Germany, Russia, Poland, Japan, etc., the depradation of the seas began.
The Prime Minister also suggested in one of his answers on this subject-these are his words-"Of course we trust them; that was why we would not let the Russian ships come into the ports." That is a strange statement for a prime minister to make. We trust them, so we won't let them enter our ports. We are in a serious position.
The fishermen in the herring industry find that they are constrained by international agreement to the point where they can no longer make a living. The halibut and haddock fishermen are dumping their fish at sea because they dare not come ashore with them.
It is high time that the government took its stand strongly and clearly and that we, as a country, assert our historic rights; that we as a coastal state have jurisdiction over these resources; that we have our minister or the Prime Minister himself so express ourselves in the international meetings in order to bring back to this country the opportunity for making a livelihood for our fishermen off our shores, as well as for the processors and workers on shore. Let us exercise our historic rights in the fishing industry and supply the world with the food it so badly needs.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) basically because, as he pointed out in his initial remarks, his original question was put on July 22, which by some strange coincidence was immediately after the ICNAF meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, in June of 1975.
I suggest that at the time he put his question the hon. member did not expect the eventual success that was reached by the negotiators, including the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), at the meeting completed in September of 1975 in Montreal. It is of interest to note that during the subsequent negotiations the minister was successful in reaching most of the aims that he had set himself in June. He succeeded in having the foreign fishing fleets of nations belonging to ICNAF, including the Russians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Germans, French and so on, limit their fishing efforts by 40 per cent. In that he achieved aims that members opposite did not think would be possible.
I think the compliments that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte paid to the negotiator should have been directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries), who has manifested in his portfolio imagination and persuasiveness, and has sought to protect the interests of the very fishermen in whom the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte has displayed interest.
December 1, 1975

With reference to the herring fishery, I suggest that there has to be a recognition on the part of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to study the fishing stocks and the quality and condition of those fish stocks through ICNAF, there has to be as well on the part of Canadians a conscientiousness and an awareness of the necessity for preservation and building up of fish stocks. If we do enter into international relations whereby foreign fishing fleets limit their catch, Canadians must also be mindful of conservation and the development of fish stocks.
I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte for communicating to the House the information he has received from one fisherman in his riding. I suggest we all communicate that information to the Minister of State (Fisheries), who in the past has shown a great deal of dispatch in dealing with such matters and investigating and taking appropriate action. The hon. member's reference to the action relating to the Russian fishing fleet is a case in point.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-STRIKE OF PULP AND PAPER WORKERS-RESULTS OF DISCUSSION WITH COMPANIES- SUGGESTION ANTI-INFLATION BOARD BE FLEXIBLE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could elaborate on the last question, but I am pleased that I can elaborate on a question that I put to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in this House today having to do with the pulp and paper industry.
For some reason or other, I will never understand in a million years why we do not take up in the House of Commons matters of concern to Canadians, rather than items that are newsworthy in the eyes of the press gallery. We should deal with situations of concern to the Canadian economy. I wonder why the Canadian Press has someone in the press gallery even at this time to bother making notes, because they do not pay any bloody attention to what goes on in the House of Commons. They are concerned with what might be sensational and what that can do to some newspapers.
The pulp and paper industry stands second in manufacturing capacity in the world with a total of 1,290,000 workers. I got these figures from Statistics Canada today. In Canada the industry supports 61,873 production workers, or 5 per cent of the total in the pulp and paper industry.
The industry is the second largest in Canada. There are 41 pulp and paper mills on downtime and many more are being added each day as a result of strikes. This pulp and paper industry which is so vital to our economy is going to drive our economy into disaster and drive Canadian exports into oblivion.
Of total world exports of pulp and paper, Canada's exports are responsible for 7 million, or the greatest percentage of the pulp and paper industry exports of some 11 million. The main thrust of my question tonight is related to the effect of strike action in the Atlantic region, particularly in the province of Newfoundland, where the pulp and
Adjournment Motion
paper industry, apart from the fishing industry, is the basis of our economy.
Already two paper mills in Corner Brook and Grand Falls, and a linerboard mill in Stephenville are oh strike. This is the whole basis of the economy of Newfoundland, and these strikes affect some 3,525 employees, not taking into account ancillary employment in resulting services. If we were to take into account the two and a half times factor that results we would be talking about the jobs of some 9,000 employees in a province where the unemployment rate is over 19.6 per cent. If we add the 28,000 unemployed, this would bring the percentage much higher.
In 1973 the total number of workers in production capacity was just over 11,000, and of this number some 2,590, or one-quarter of that force, were in the pulp and paper industry. This figure has now reached 3,525 in three mills, which is approaching the one-third level. When taking into account our total work force it is obvious that this situation is more than disastrous.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) indicated today in his answer to me that the responsibility in so far as coming to terms between industries and unions is concerned was of provincial nature. I quarrel with the minister's determination in this regard. When any breakdown is in such a vital industry that it is of national priority in its influence, surely it has to be treated as a national responsibility, not only from a labour point of view but from the point of view of a declaration of responsibility by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie).
I feel that a responsibility exists in relation to the AntiInflation Board, particularly when it is difficult to determine responsibility from the point of view of the guidelines laid down and negotiations between management and labour as related to the October 14 deadline.
It should be obvious that, as both the minister and I projected today, in the Atlantic region which is so dependent on the pulp and paper industry, the embarrassing unemployment rate should demand some concern, particularly when there appears to be a total collapse of the industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
It is, therefore, most glaringly obvious that when the difficulties exist in an industry with that basis in the Atlantic region, in light of the effect as declared by the Irving settlement, the situation must be examined on the basis of a uniform agreement throughout the region regarding all aspects of pulp and paper mills in Atlantic Canada.
Alternately, Madam Speaker, we can look at the facts as they reflect the situation in the whole of the Atlantic region where not only is the unemployment rate the highest in Canada, but where the New Brunswick and the Irving situation are prevalent and where the entire pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is in a state of complete collapse. If in fact this situation is recognized then it is incumbent not only on the Minister of Labour, who I am sure is most sympathetic, but also on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, to exercise the necessary flexibility in determining the guidelines die-

December 1, 1975
Adjournment Motion
tated by the anti-inflation memoranda so that a state of justice can be recognized in order to determine justice for all.
I hope that the representative of the minister in replying tonight will recognize that the pulp and paper industry has an influence on the Canadian export trade, and that therefore the Government of Canada should take steps to resolve this problem which affects so many people in our work force.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for raising a question which is so important to more than 60,000 Canadian employees, as he said himself.

The government fully understands and shares the concern voiced by members of this House on the gravity of the work stoppages facing the pulp and paper industry. As members will appreciate, while this industry is one of national importance it nevertheless is one which falls for labour relations purposes under the provinces in which it is located. Members will be aware that several provincial ministers of labour are faced with work stoppages within their respective jurisdiction in this important industry. These ministers and their officials are, of course, working to encourage settlements in the disputes, and remain in close touch with developments in each of the particular cases.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) pointed out in the house earlier, he has not received any notification directly from the companies following request for them to review negotiations. However, as he also pointed out, a settlement has been reached in the Saint John area relatively recently. According to reports, about 500 members of the Canadian Paper Workers' Union employed by Irving Pulp and Paper Limited of Saint John, New Brunswick, have ratified a two-year contract which would renew one expiring last April.
Questions have been asked by members of this House concerning the need for the Anti-Inflation Board to indicate whether or not the settlement reached in this case might be used as a benchmark in other cases. As the Minister of Labour pointed out, it is not his function to tell the board what it should be doing which individual settlements. Indeed, it would be quite contrary and prejudicial to the board's independent status for him to do so. However, he has indicated that the workers may be entitled to more money because unions which entered negotiation for new contracts before the guidelines were proclaimed October 14, and whose previous collective agreement was signed before January 1,	1974, could get special
consideration.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that parties to disputes in the pulp and paper industry, and indeed parties to collective bargaining disputes generally, should not pass the responsibility to the Anti-Inflation Board or the Minister of Labour. They have a responsibility to bargain together in good faith to secure settlements. Labour departments in all jurisdictions have experienced personnel

available to assist them should the need arise. The AntiInflation Board, in spite of its relatively brief existence, is gearing up to answer technical questions for the application of the guidelines, and has guaranteed an answer within 30 days.
Hon. members may be assured that the government will continue to watch developments in this important industry very closely. It must be remembered, however, that we live in a free society, and among the freedoms valued very highly are the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.
It seems that at the present time some employers abuse the guidelines and refuse to sit down at the negotiation table, obviously failing to meet their responsibilities towards their employees. We want to correct this situation as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ANGOLA-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT ACTION AT UNITED NATIONS TO PREVENT FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN CONFLICT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, on November 17 I raised a question with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) regarding representations that might be made by Canada concerning the situation developing in Angola. At that time the minister said that no initiatives had been taken. In the reply tonight I will probably be told that subsequent to my question representations have been made at the UN. But that is not really sufficient. I would appreciate the opportunity to enlarge somewhat on my question.
I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken an extraordinary interest in Angola for some time. On February 19, 1975, addressing the fifth annual conference of the Canadian Association of African Studies in Toronto he said:
Developments in Southern Africa during the last year give some hope that the situation may significantly improve. Events in the Portuguese territories have been so rapid and so dramatic that they emphasize how unwise it is to be dogmatic. We are gratified and encouraged by the decolonization process undertaken by the Portuguese government. Very few people foresaw such changes as have occurred in Guinea Bissau, Angola and Mozambique during the past year.
Then he went on to point out the pressures that have been placed on South Africa to change its policies.
On April 11 the minister announced that Canada would be sending a special diplomatic mission to Angola and Mozambique, two Portuguese African territories which were scheduled to become independent later this year. The mission, which was to take place from May 5 to 26, was intended primarily to make a first contact with the provisional governments and future leaders of these countries. One may wonder why a mission was being sent so early and prior to their actual independence, but if we read the announcement of April 24 we learn why. Speaking in Accra the minister said:
... and we are sending in the next few weeks a special mission to Angola and Mozambique to lay the ground for good relations with these countries, as well as the smaller Portuguese territories of Africa, which
December 1, 1975

will stand as free and sovereign members of the United Nations and the OAU.
We learn there was a reason for that special mission. Then, on November 13, we had a somewhat belated and wan announcement which reads:
Canada has consistently supported the rights of colonized peoples to self-determination and independence, and we have accordingly taken note and welcomed Angola's independence from Portugal which took place on November 11. However, the political and security situations there are extremely confused, and we are not at present in a position to recognize or enter into relations with any group which may claim to govern the country.
One may wonder just what report the special mission brought back. It seems to me, now we are hearing disquieting stories about Soviet and Cuban interventions, and about intervention from Zaire and intervention from South Africa, there should be a flurry of diplomatic activity to match the flurry that has gone on, and the minister's interest now should continue and not suddenly fade, when surely this is the time for Canada to be interested in a situation which very seriously threatens the peace of the world.
I would inquire what representations, not only in the UN but directly to the nations involved, the minister has made, or whether any pressure was put on Cuba. It seems to me that through our long ties with that country this is the place where some influence should have been built up over recent years. What representations have been made to the Soviet Union or to Zaire? Surely with our interest in western Africa through many years a certain influence should have been built up. If we have been pressuring South Africa, what questions have been asked there about the situation developing in Angola?
Surely if the minister has been so interested I cannot believe that the special mission did not come back without some very serious warnings to him. I cannot believe that he was not in a position months ago to have voiced the fear that there would be foreign interventions in Angola, and that a very explosive situation would develop there.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to such an important matter. Evidently, it is an extremely difficult question, especially in an underdeveloped continent such as Africa where most countries have been independent only since 1960. The experience of almost all
Adjournment Motion
countries, especially in South Africa, not the country itself but the southern area of that continent, leaves much room for improvement. They obviously need much sympathy and understanding from all countries. This sympathy and understanding were apparent from the beginning in the minister's statement.

As the hon. member indicated at the outset, when Angola contemplated independence the minister indicated the government's position that there was a hope that upon the granting of independence there could be a recognition within a short period of time. That is always hoped for. Unfortunately, as the political situation developed, it became evident that there were conflicting positions taken by various groups within Angola itself. The minister indicated that because of that political uncertainty, upon the declaration of independence if there was any possibility on the part of Canada to make any decision on a de jure or de facto recognition-Canada recognizing that Africa is not an area with which Canada is overly familiar-Canada could not play any helpful role by direct intervention or even in direct intervention in any of the affairs of the countries involved in this particular dispute.
However, Canada has always offered its assistance in the ways it felt it would be helpful to the nations concerned. Canada has repeatedly contributed to the International Red Cross and answered its appeals for the victims of the strife, and has indicated its preparedness to continue doing so.
I note from the remarks of the hon. member that he has been very interested in the pronouncements made by the minister relating to Angola. However, in listening to the minister's words being repeated in this House I find that there is nothing there which is contradictory, or anything which could be held to be negative or which would indicate that Canada is not ready to accept its international responsibilities. I suggest that before Canada can take bilateral steps, unilateral steps, or any steps through the United Nations, it has to think very seriously of the consequences. I think that to date the position Canada has adopted is one which ought to be commended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, December 2, 197S