1975-11-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of recent reports of gassing and beating of inmates at Millhaven penitentiary and in view of the fact that this was not an isolated incident in our penitentiary system and that.the Solicitor General has neglected or refused to make public the report by the Canadian Penitentiary Service on the said gassing and beating allegations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Solicitor General to immediately make a report on motions on the gassing and beating incident at Millhaven Penitentiary on November 3, 1975 and to advise the House on this government's policy with respect to publication of findings by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries of guard brutality.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: 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 matter.
Since the federal government has decided not to give any financial aid to the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976 and that Quebec becomes solely responsible for the costs of those games as well as the expected deficit, since most Quebecers do not really consider Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen and since also the people will massively object to the official opening of those Olympic Games by the Queen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That no invitation be extended to the Queen to open officially the 1976 Quebec Olympic Games and that if steps have already been taken, they be cancelled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Solicitor General be requested to advise the House immediately as to whether records of the Liberal Party of Canada showing donations received during the period of January 1, 1968 to July 31, 1975 have been turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with the current investigation concerning Senator Giguere and matters related thereto and, if not, whether the Solicitor General will forthwith instruct the RCMP to obtain a warrant to seize such documents in order that actual amounts of money received by the Liberal Party of Canada can be compared with amounts showing as having been collected for the Liberal party by Senator Giguere, and finally, fn order to compare names appearing as Liberal party donors solicited by Senator Giguere for any similarity to the names appearing on the guest lists of the Bonaventure Golf and Country Club in Fort Lauderdale and the Indian Creek Country Club near Miami.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
9406

November 25, 1975
Finance POST OFFICE


SUGGESTED INDICATION OF APPRECIATION OF EFFORTS OF EMPLOYEES TO DELIVER MAIL IN LIGHT OF STRIKE CONDITIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the fact that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is unwilling to take a poll of its membership by secret ballot on the government's final wage offer, which in fact takes freedom of choice away from its members and therefore causes undue hardship to all Canadians by resulting in the continuation of the postal strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House records its appreciation of the efforts of all those postal workers who are presently taking the initiative and the primary responsibility in delivering the mails to the public under extremely difficult conditions, and this House is assured thereby that the demonstrated ability of these postal workers to assist the public will attract other colleagues to their cause, and this House directs the Postmaster General to make known this record of appreciation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In the light of the fact that we are going through a critical period due to inflation that reduces constantly the true purchasing power of Canadians;
That this serious situation should not allow financiers to take unfair advantage of underprivileged Canadians and that the lending institutions called "finance companies" make the most of the economic crisis at this time by using misleading advertising, trying to make people believe they will be able to solve their problems by borrowing money at high interest rates;
Seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) I move:
That the House consider as soon as possible the possibility of abolishing all advertising by finance companies so that they can no longer entice Canadians to borrow beyond their means through misleading solicitation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to our Olympic games, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek):
That the President of the Treasury Board or the Solicitor General report at the earliest opportunity, perhaps on motions today, as to persistent and, it is believed, reliable reports that the headquarters of COJO in Montreal have been raided by the police.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Apparently the chief negotiator of the postal union met this morning with the Postmaster General. In order that this House can know whether there is any basis for the resumption of serious negotiations at this time, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Canadian Union of Postal Workers bargaining committee has accepted in principle the fact that the government's total monetary package is final and that no further increase is possible?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of that question and refer it to the minister.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SECRET VOTE OF UNION MEMBERS-POSSIBILITY OF RESIGNATION OF POSTMASTER GENERAL IF GOVERNMENT OFFER REFUSED
John Allen Fraser: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Over the weekend the Postmaster General said that if there were a secret ballot and he lost, he would resign.


Mr. Broadbent:: That is not what he said.
November 25, 1975


John Allen Fraser: Was that just an idle threat, or does the government intend to hold a government supervised vote under the authority of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, or otherwise by special legislation, and can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Postmaster General will stand by his commitment to resign if the union members support the union executive and not him?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question was dealt with in previous circumstances. With regard to the first part, I heard hon. members on the other side saying that the hon. member is badly interpreting what the Postmaster General said. I, personally, did not hear him.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF DAMAGE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
John Allen Fraser: A further supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. member for York East, speaking for the government a few days ago, said:
You can talk about small business over there as much as you like but they are learning to adjust.
And in view of the fact that the Postmaster's repudiation of this position in a speech yesterday when he said "small businesses go broke during postal strikes", can the right hon. Prime Minister advise the House whether the Postmaster General's statement was based on information being received by the government and if so, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell this House just how damaging the strike is for small businesses and other people and organizations in Canada?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: How is the campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly take note of the question, Mr. Speaker.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF IMPORTANCE OF EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in a speech the Postmaster General referred to the loss of farm income and export sales caused by strikes at grain elevators, docks and railways. In view of the fact that strikes in these areas have led to prompt legislative intervention, is it the view of the Prime Minister that bankruptcy and layoffs in small businesses is of no comparable importance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION IN VIEW OF EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question. Have any efforts been made by the government to assess the hardship and outright damage created by the five week postal shutdown and if so, how would such information affect the Prime Minister's statement that
Oral Questions
parliament would intervene at a time when the public disservice outweighed the right to strike itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I answered to the previous question, I do not have any precise information on that. Some may have accumulated in the Postmaster General's office or other offices.


John Allen Fraser: We are getting it on our side.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member has the information he should not have asked the question.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Maybe it is good to get you on the record.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and arises from the speech the Postmaster General made yesterday at a Rotary Club which included some highly disturbing comments, if accurate. I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following. The Postmaster General is reported as having said:
-the union member today is fighting the ordinary citizen, he's fighting the nation-It's no longer a labour-management conflict where management loses when labour wins, it's a labour-nation conflict-
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Postmaster General was stating official government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is obviously a rhetorical one. This is not government policy. This is obviously an opinion but the opinion of a minister who is highly respected by Canadians in general, by many labour representatives in particular. I think the Canadian public, and probably most members of the House, would welcome the minister expressing his concern in this way. It is certain that the labour movement has cause to consider its future in this country in the way things are evolving. I think it is a very important question that all members should be asking themselves.


INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CHANGES IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEM
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. It was suggested by the Postmaster General that to be opposed to the government as a member of a trade union movement now was to be unpatriotic which goes a little far for a man who believes in civil liberties. I should like to know if it is government policy as expressed by the Postmaster General when he said that the free collective bargaining system in Canada was conceived in a simpler kind of society and requires basic change. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if that is the government's policy and, if so, what kind of basic changes in the
29956-43)4

November 25, 1975
Oral Questions
free collective bargaining system that we have in this country does the government have in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should make it clear that he is not quoting the minister when he used the word "unpatriotic". This seems to be a circumlocution and perhaps a fabrication by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the question of the labour movement, and its leadership, I think all concerned citizens are entitled to ask those questions just as the labour movement asks itself questions constantly about the leadership the government is giving. I think any citizen and particularly those interested in the future of the labour movement should be asking themselves these questions. They are not right, ex cathedra, because they are doing something. I think the country is evolving, institutions are evolving. The government has indicated it has certain studies under way to try to better understand the way things are evolving. I see nothing wrong, on the contrary, with the minister saying that in so many words.


POST OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General's words were "fighting the nation". When a critic of a government is said to take an anti-nation stand that amounts to saying he is unpatriotic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Given this attitude on the part of the Postmaster General, and the crucial importance of having a fair-minded person conducting negotiations with the postal workers so that the postal service can be restored, will the Prime Minister, in all seriousness, not consider reverting responsibility for these negotiations to where it belonged in the first place, to the President of the Treasury Board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assert again that the government has entire confidence in the abilities of the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since he is not here, since I have not read his speech but heard the hon. member quoting and read some quotations, I think the minister might be given the chance to send a copy of his speech to the hon. member. I repeat: in a society in which every day the labour movement and, indeed, the NDP can criticize the government of

the country, I see nothing wrong with another citizen talking about the future of the labour movement-


John Edward Broadbent: Not even when he says they are against the nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and asking himself if the course they are on is a productive one for the future of this nation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday, in reply to a question I directed to him, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggested that I should advertise to convince Canadians to drink more milk. I wish therefore to respond to his invitation by directing a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Considering that our milk powder surplus may result from our fluid milk surpluses being channelled towards milk-processing industries, may I ask the minister whether he is willing to suggest to his Cabinet colleagues to restore the grant on the quart of fluid milk, in order to increase milk consumption and reduce the amount of milk channelled towards processing plants?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
As his answer was very short, I should like to ask the minister if, given the fact that this policy has been applied for two years and that the government has thus paid $108 million to the consumers, the government considers it has made a mistake at that time and does not want to repeat it today?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that policy was initiated two years ago when we had not adopted social services more advanced than those of any nation in the world. Those services were adopted after the policy was announced.


CONGRATULATIONS TO EDMONTON ESKIMOS ON WINNING GREY CUP
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, may I congratulate both teams for their gentleman-like and sporting manner of participating in the Grey Cup classic last Sunday, particularly my old team, the Edmonton Eskimos, who again distinguished themselves in a manner worthy of the great teams of the past, and you, Mr. Speaker for your attending with Mrs.
November 25, 1975

Jerome and adding luster to the occasion. Fortunately, no points of order required your intervention. Also, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has a report for the House on the athletic and political disaster which overtook his team last Sunday? Would he accept this suggestion: that next year he stay home and send Justin alone? Before the Prime Minister replies, I would like to remind him, speaking of Polish Canadians, of the well-known Polish proverb which I will translate into French, "Demandez un boeuf pour avoir un oeuf."


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must join the hon. member in congratulating the Edmonton Eskimos for a very fine performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly cannot conceal that I was slightly disappointed with the result. I can tell the hon. member that I hedged my bets because my son Justin, who had the good fortune of sitting in the lap of the queen, drew conclusions. First, he was shouting for the Eskimos; second, he seemed very enthralled with the monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apart from the Polish proverb, which I did not quite understand, my only puzzlement is why the hon. member for Edmonton Centre did not show up yesterday in the House of Commons.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Solicitor General. Is he aware of the fact that the offices of the main contractors of the Olympic Games were raided this morning by the RCMP and other police forces, and COJO files with regard to the Olympic village were taken. Will the minister advise for what purpose these files were taken and whether he was aware of this?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned over and over again, we do not discuss criminal investigations in the House of Commons.


Otto John Jelinek: Is' the minister aware that Joseph Zappia, one of the men involved in the consortium of the Olympic village and who also had contracts for the packaging of Olympic coins as well as the packaging of the new postal stamp memorials, is involved in this and possibly Senator Giguere as well? Is that the reason-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to have a lot of information with respect to these cases. If the hon. member has some additional information, he should see the police privately, rather than raising this in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the minister is about to meet with the provincial finance ministers and, we understand from the press, that one of the subjects to be discussed is the inclusion of marketing boards under the legislation now before the House, will the minister advise what position he intends to place before his provincial counterparts? I ask this in view of his reply when the bill was before the committee that the present legislation cannot in fact force marketing boards to roll back prices if they cannot be justified.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to suggest to the provincial governments the same manner of control that we have suggested with regard to the two or three federal marketing boards which are in a position to set prices. While the Anti-Inflation Board will have the responsibility of monitoring increases in prices of particular products and making reports on them, the provincial agencies, which I understand exist throughout Canada for the purpose of monitoring the work of the marketing boards, should have responsibility for rolling back any prices which are in excess of the guidelines'. As the hon. gentleman knows, I have suggested that the National Farm Products Marketing Council, in the case of federal marketing agencies, should have that responsibility, in the light of appropriate reports from the Anti-Inflation Board, to roll back prices which exceed the cost-price pass through factor proposed for other prices.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture who answers for the National Farm Products Marketing Council. It arises from the letter written by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency to the Anti-Inflation Board in which the latest increase in the price of eggs is justified on the basis of an upward change in feed prices in one major province. Is the minister satisfied with this rationale, has he discussed this matter with the National Farm Products Marketing Council and does he intend to instruct the Council to determine to its satisfaction whether such an increase in the price of eggs can be justified at this time?


Eugene Whelan: I am
meeting with the Farm Products Marketing Council later this day to discuss that matter.

November 25, 1975
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


STRIKE OF PULP AND PAPER WORKERS-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO HAVE NEGOTIATIONS RESUMED
Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the paper mills in the Niagara Peninsula have been on strike since the beginning of July, and bearing in mind that no meaningful negotiations have taken place for weeks, would the minister advise the House whether he proposes to take any action to get the employers and the strikers back to the negotiating table?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Technically, of course, this dispute falls within provincial jurisdiction. However, I have urged the employers in this particular case to desist from their present destructive strategy which is hurting the economy and sit down with the employees in question in an endeavour to arrive at a resolution of this issue, arrive at a collective agreement, and if necessary submit it to the Anti-Inflation Board.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services? In view of the fact that family allowance cheques-namely one cheque for November and December-are said to be in the various provincial capitals, could not arrangements be made for those cheques to be delivered right away, and an order be given to the banks that they could be cashed right away, thus avoiding the danger of scalpers exploiting the recipients of these cheques?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we had of course provided for the distribution of those cheques on December 4 in the whole country, except in Toronto where this distribution would take place on December 5. However, I will certainly look more carefully into this problem, in light of the hon. member's remarks.
From the administrative point of view, it would be extremely difficult to distribute the cheques earlier but I will surely look into it with sympathy.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Statistics Canada having just reported that the index of industrial production took another sharp drop in the third quarter, and that in the last month of that quarter the index declined at an annual rate

of 23 per cent, would the minister advise the House when he will be announcing to this chamber the steps he and his department are planning to take to reverse this serious, and, now, longstanding trend?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I do not know of any specific statement I will be making in the House. With regard to the most recent figures, though, the hon. member will appreciate that while I do not quarrel with the premise of his question, namely, that industrial production is not what it should be, the most recent figures are, I believe, a result of the very lengthy shutdown in the pulp and paper industry. I am considering a number of productivity proposals and I have been meeting, as the hon. member may know, with various business groups-there is to be another meeting tomorrow evening-and out of this will hopefully come some indication as to means of improving productivity. The real answer, of course, would be a major upturn in the United States market which would be of substantial advantage to us in enabling us to sell more to that country.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance arising from the question asked by my hon. friend from St. John's East. I gathered from the minister's answer that the provincial marketing boards will be asked to assume jurisdiction to roll back any price increases but that the AntiInflation Board will be carrying out the monitoring. Could the hon. gentleman tell the House whether there has been any agreement entered into with respect to this matter, and could he also inform us whether the same principle would be applied to the provincially-operated utilities- hydro commissions, telephone companies and so on- which are engaged in the marketing business in the provincial sphere?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
hon. gentleman did not understand me correctly. The suggestion has been made by way of a document which they will be considering tomorrow, that in the same way as the governing or parent body for federal marketing agencies, the National Farm Products Marketing Council, will have the responsibility at the federal level of carrying through effective decisions with regard to a marketing agency, the same kind of parent body should take similar action where it exists in a province, or there should be action by the provincial government itself. In addition, we have proposed to the provinces that goods and services supplied by provincial agencies should be monitored in the same way, for example, Ontario Hydro or the Ontario Liquor Control Board. I would have to say there has been some discussion between the provinces and the federal government as to the manner in which these agencies should be monitored and restricted. This will be another subject for discussion at the meeting tomorrow.
November 25, 1975


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last week I asked him whether he was prepared to consult with the House leader and refer the annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board, for consideration by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Is the minister in a position to answer that question today?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am, to the extent that I have discussed with the House leader the business to be conducted before, hopefully, we rise on December 19. I think it was generally concluded we would not be able to deal with the matter of the report before that time, but I will be glad to ensure it is referred to the committee in the New Year as appears to be sensible and appropriate.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the war on crime and accidents in general, he would consider the 6,000 people who were killed on the highways of Canada last year and the 160,000 who were maimed or crippled for life, and advise us whether a survey might be made to identify the killer strips which account for most of these accidents in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the question has a great deal of merit but I am not sure whether such a survey could be conducted by the federal government even under the umbrella of the war on crime. I will certainly discuss the suggestion with my colleagues and see whether there is something the federal government could be doing. If not, perhaps it is a suggestion which the provinces will co-operate in implementing.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the House if he has been able to check with the government of Quebec whether Bill 64 makes the marketing boards of that province subject to the guidelines and, if so, does he intend to make representations to the government of Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, tomorrow we shall urge the provin-
Oral Questions
cial governments to set their own control over the boards, much as we propose to control federal boards.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: I thank hon. members on both sides of the chamber for their good wishes. My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is on the very important question of France-Canada relations. Could the minister advise the House of the latest progress concerning the cooling of heels by our ambassador to Paris; and would he also add whether we should expect, as a result of the forthcoming visit to Paris of our very responsive Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that the disgraceful situation will be settled once and for all?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would want to assure the hon. member that there is no disgraceful situation. The Canadian ambassador to the French government has not yet presented his credentials. The.proposed date for the presentation of credentials by Mr. Pelletier was postponed, as it was in the case of several other ambassadors who were expected to present their credentials on the same day, at the request of the President because of administrative responsibilities both within and outside France. I would ask the hon. gentleman not to draw any unwarranted conclusions from this postponement, which is quite normal in the circumstances.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister kindly advise the House whether the credentials will be presented prior to a settlement of the postal strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON BROADCASTING POLICY AND DELETION OF CABLEVISION COMMERCIALS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received a request for government to government talks with the United States concerning Canadian broadcasting policy in general and the commercial deletion policy of the CRTC specifically?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Dr. Kissinger's visit to Ottawa some weeks ago the deletion policy was discussed. At that time it was agreed that talks between Canadian and United States officials would be

November 25, 1975
Oral Questions
held, subject to the condition that the question was before the courts. These talks have not yet taken place.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister been advised through his Washington ambassador or otherwise of the possibility of economic retaliation against Canadian economic interests by the United States in the event that the broadcasting issue is not resolved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, no such view has been conveyed to me.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. Prime Minister, who knows that I do not ask unreasonable questions or make unreasonable demands upon him. Would the Prime Minister tell the House when we may expect the appointment of a Minister of Communications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made a very reasonable request and I will attempt to satisfy him in the very near future.


URANIUM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF EXPORT CONTRACTS- ASSURANCE OF FUTURE SUPPLIES FOR CANADA
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the minister's announcement of yet more uranium export contracts brings the total of low-cost Canadian uranium being sold to foreigners to about one-fifth of Canada's total supply, will the government table specific details of the contracts governing these exports?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, these are commercial contracts entered into between exporters and purchasers abroad. They were screened by the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure that several particular points in our policy were met; first, that the prices met world prices; second, that this uranium was surplus to Canadian needs and that Canadian policy was fully met; and third, that satisfactory safeguard arrangements would be negotiated.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister, therefore, give his assurance to the House that these massive commitments in no way jeopardize Canada's future supplies of uranium?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
|Mr. MacEachen.]


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Is the minister planning an amendment to the National Film Board Act which would delete sections 9 and 11, and does he not think that a 30 year monopoly for the National Film Board is enough to establish it and to let it compete openly with the film industry in general?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have had these representations made to me by a variety of sources within the industry. I have promised to look into them, but I am not sure that is the remedy.
He *	*


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As huge quantities of salt have been discovered in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and as there seems to be a shortage of salt in Canada, can the minister tell the House whether steps have been taken to exploit those salt mines and make up for the present shortage of salt in this country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any initiative along these lines. May I take the question as notice so I can inquire for the hon. member and reply to him later.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question regarding the Northern Canada Power Commission. On Thursday I asked a similar question and I am sure that today the minister realizes that I am talking about the proposed increase for November, 1976. In view of the fact that wages will not be allowed to increase beyond 10 per cent under the government's anti-inflation program, what steps will the minister take to protect consumers in Yellowknife from this 113 per cent increase; and has the minister considered a freeze or a subsidy on public utility rates until the wage controls are lifted?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, after the question
November 25, 1975

was posed by the hon. member, I checked into it and found that the increase which was proposed for February has been cancelled. But he is quite right in indicating that an application has now been made for an increase in November of next year. I have asked that the increase be examined very carefully and that it be submitted to the AntiInflation Board. In addition, the parliamentary Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development of which the hon. member is a member, will have the opportunity to examine the Northern Canada Power Commission on estimates between now and the time that the increase comes into place.


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Headlines were focussed upon the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency last week, emphasizing the one cent increase in the price of a dozen eggs, but the news media did not see fit to inform the public of any possible reason behind a price change at this time. No mention was made of the large increase in the price of heating fuel, which among other things is a major contributor to the cost of production. CEMA was referred to as representative of all marketing boards, which according to Mrs. Plumptre are price setters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, would he put it.


Mr. Andres:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the minister could inform the House how marketing boards actually negotiate prices for their commodities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


PROPOSED GRANTS TO HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE CHRISTMAS APPEALS HAVE BEEN HURT BY POSTAL STRIKE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government giving consideration to special hardship or ex gratia grants to the Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, UNICEF and any other group whose Christmas appeals have been literally devastated by the postal strike?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I deplore the impact of the postal strike on the organizations concerned, and I merely hope that the conflict will be settled as soon as possible; however, I am not, for the time being, consider-
Oral Questions
ing the possibility of adopting special financial measures in that regard.
sfc *	*


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Would he advise the House and the people of Canada how much more time he needs before he will recommend that this House move by way of legislation to require a resumption of postal service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On a previous occasion I have ruled that it was in perfect order to ask whether or not plans were underway or under consideration in regard to taking such a step, but a question asking how much time is going to elapse before certain other events take place has a large hypothetical measure to it and in my view is not permissible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then would the minister advise whether he has now reached the stage where he is prepared to recommend to his colleagues that legislation be introduced to see to it that a resumption of normal postal service is at hand?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Well, the hon. gentleman makes his question difficult to answer since he has not specified what type of legislation he has in mind.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I resent the Postmaster General playing footsie with a very important subject. He is well aware of the type of legislation I am discussing. It is back-to-work legislation. Would he now answer the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the question in all sincerity was that there are two types of legislation, one asking the government to legislate its own employees back, which normally is reprehensible legislation. The other is legislation which I thought was advanced the other week in a very serious manner which would recommend to the Public Service Staff Relations Board that they hold a secret ballot for the union members which would be much more acceptable in light of the fact that the board is superior to both the government and labour. Probably that would have happened by now if the NDP Party had not in turn stymied us and recommended a 52 per cent increase as basis for a settlement.
9414

November 25, 1975
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance as soon as the chorus had died down. Having in mind the interpretation placed on statutory instruments by officials of the Privy Council, will the minister affirm the fact that orders of the AntiInflation Board and the administrator will in fact be considered as regulations and as such subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Regulations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could refer the hon. gentleman to the rather extensive answer I gave on that point to the standing committee when Bill C-73 was before it in response to the hon. member for Halifax who is the joint chairman of the committee. There were some very precise questions in this area and I sought to answer them with the same precision.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Because of the time I will add a supplementary. Would the minister indicate to the House the present status and nature of the conversations between his department and the province of Nova Scotia with regard to the container pier facility proposed at Navy Island Cove and as well whether or not the government has determined, in respect of these same discussions, whose ultimate responsibility it is for safety measures and the whole question of the proximity of the proposed development to the naval magazine.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know the provincial government has a plan to construct a container facility. One of the possible sites was Wright's Cove in the Bedford Basin. We have indicated to the government that the Canadian forces naval magazine is in that area and that it would therefore not be a practical place to build. I understand the provincial government is now considering other locations.


PENITENTIARIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the Solicitor General either has neglected or refused up to now to give us a full report on

the Millhaven incident of November 3, can he now advise the House whether he can now give us a full report and tell us what the government's policy is in respect of making public the findings of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries in cases of proven beatings or gassing of inmates by guards.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, to begin with there is no written report of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries in respect to this incident. It is true there was an incident a short while ago when a guard is alleged to have used gas contrary to the regulations of the penitentiary service. When the officials of the penitentiary found that out they immediately suspended him from duty. He appealed the suspension. That appeal is presently awaiting hearing. We will have more to say once the hearing has been held. It is true that a gassing did take place contrary to the regulations and that one of the inmates was injured to a certain extent as a result of that. There were some other incidents related to that happening.


POSSIBILITY OF PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO GASSING AND BEATING OF INMATES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General advise the House whether or not the news report over the weekend to the effect that the Commissioner of Penitentiaries will be conducting public hearings is correct and if, in fact, that will be the case with regard to this incident and other incidents of a similar nature in penitentiaries across Canada.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, what we are considering is an investigation by the correctional ombudsman. She is presently away from Ottawa. I have tried to reach her by phone. I had some preliminary discussions with her. That may be possible.


MANPOWER
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some days ago I asked the minister what steps his department was considering taking to assist the Essex Packers workers in Hamilton who face the loss of their jobs. I wonder if the minister is now in a position to report any progress in providing assistance in this sorry situation.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable consultation with the representatives of the firm and the union, particularly on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour who has a special interest in it. I believe there are some potential offers in the state of development now and I think we will have some news within the next few days.
November 25, 1975


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the reported increase in the number of escapes from penal institutions in my riding, including three from Agassiz prison on November 3, two from Matsqui Institution on November 8, one from Agassiz prison on November 21 where a dangerous sex offender escaped in a late model truck carrying the insignia of the Solicitor General and three from Matsqui on November 22 involving one convicted rapist and murderer, one habitual and dangerous criminal, and one habitual criminal, what steps is the Solicitor General taking to deal with these inexcusable situations and to provide security for the communities?


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear about these escapes and I will check into them immediately. All I can tell the hon. member is that in the last two years we have considerably increased our security in the penitentiaries by putting in double fences, new outlook posts and so on, with the result that over the last year and a half our escapes from the penitentiaries have decreased by about 50 per cent. Whether there is a particular problem in the Fraser Valley, I will check that out, but I am very surprised to hear this information.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lack of security and resultant danger to citizens, will the minister reconsider his policy of concentrating these institutions within a relatively small geographic area?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is our policy now. One of the difficulties is getting consent or agreement from other municipalities in British Columbia to accept some of our institutions. We would gladly spread them around the province.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendations contained in the 1966 report of the Advisory Commission on the Development of Government in the Northwest Territories, commonly known as the Carrothers report, to the effect that there should be a decennial review of the political, economic and social development in the Northwest Territories, can the Prime Minister advise whether or not he is planning such a review in the immediate future?


J. Judd Buchanan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just caught my eye. I missed the first part of the question.
Order Paper Questions


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am referring to the recommendations contained in the Carrothers report regarding a decennial review of the government in the Northwest Territories. Is the minister considering a review at this time?


J. Judd Buchanan: We have been looking at that report and giving some consideration as to whether we should be establishing a similar commission or exactly how we should approach the matter. As you know, the report suggested a decennial review and re-examination of the division of the territories at the time of that review.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies of the terms of reference of the Panarctic air crash inquiry dated November 25, 1975, as well as the name of the commissioner of the inquiry.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,173, 3,178 and 3,302.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Did the Minister of the Environment offer to enter into contracts with all Canadian paper companies regarding pollution abatement technology cost sharing arrangements so that all paper companies can install facilities to permit recycling of process effluents similar to its contract of $1,158,000 with the Great Lakes Paper Company Ltd. of Thunder Bay and, if so, were offers made to Bowater's Nfld. Ltd., Price Bros. Ltd., and Labrador Linerboard Ltd.?
2.	If offers were not made to these companies can they qualify and, if so, what are the terms of reference?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. No. The DP AT Program covers development of new technology and the demonstration of that technology to show that it can work under Canadian industrial conditions. The new technology, once demonstated, precludes entering into contracts with other Canadian companies by the Department of the Environment (the new technology will be freely available to other Canadian companies). Contracts with respect to the Program are awarded as a result of industry initiating action through the submission of a proposal.
29956-44(4

November 25, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	As the contract for this particular type of technology has been awarded to the Great Lakes Paper Company Ltd., other companies would not qualify for financial assistance. However, should any company in the paper industry submit a proposal pertaining to new pollution abatement technology that could be developed an demonstrated, that company would be eligible for financial assistance through the DPAT Program, given a favourable technical assessment.


Mr. Marshall: What is (a) Canada's position (b) the meaning of the application of fundamental means to apply "State of the Art of Knowledge" to the management and protection of the marine environment as stated by the Minister of the Environment at the opening session of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in Montreal on September 29, 1975?


George Baker: Canada's position is that effective management of the living and other resources adjacent to the shores of a coastal state requires that the coastal state have the right and jurisdiction, clearly detailed in international law, which will enable it to manage and protect the marine environment and the resources therein, on the basis of the most up-to-date current information and techniques.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandinavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The federal government has a 45 per cent equity participation in Panarctic Oils Lts.
3.	Prior to any decision on the marketing of oil from Arctic Islands sources a thorough appraisal will be made of all transportation possibilities, with full regard to the capabilities of the Canadian ships-building industry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this stage of Bill C-73 I would like to raise a point of order, as I did the other day, regarding the technical relationship of the recommendation with the contents of the bill. I need not repeat what I said the last time with the exception that on the occasion of second reading of the bill on October 22, I raised the question as to clause 26(2) and clause 46, particularly clause 46(2) and what follows, in that they did not conform with and went beyond the concluding words of the recommendation "and to provide for the measure to expire on December 31, 1978". We know that these words are clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. They limit the power of spending money, the application of the act and all those things that flow from it.
Mr. Speaker agreed with me with respect to clause 26(2) but may I point out, with respect, that the Chair said nothing about clause 46(2). I do not have to quote the words with regard to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and the appreciation of the situation by the government House leader, but we did have the undertaking then, at my suggestion that we would rather have the bill amended to conform with the recommendation, or vice-versa; that in any case we would not see the bill withdrawn. The minister thought he was introducing amendments at the committee stage to make clause 26(2) conform in this way. However, I would indicate that the mere use of the words "three years" as against "four years" is not sufficient because contingently, as it is quite easily understood, appointment of the officials concerned who are the ones who offend under clause 26(2) could be made after December 31, 1975, and therefore offend under the Act.
Mr. Speaker, there is such a hubbub in the House that it is difficult to get my voice across to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to clause 46(2), may I say that the offending portion consists of all the words after the words "This act expires on December 31, 1978, or on such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation". At report stage of a bill the only Standing Order that deals with an additional recommendation is 75(6). I quote that Standing Order as follows: When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least 24 hours' written notice shall be given of the said recommendation and proposed amendment.
However, that provision applies only when there is a government amendment, and that requires a further recommendation. There is on the order paper no amend-
November 25, 1975

ment proposed by the government to clause 46(2). Consequently, the only alternative is that you, Mr. Speaker, should find that your ruling on clause 26(2) that all the words after "proclamation" in line 9 of page 33 offend against the recommendation is applicable and I ask that Your Honour direct that they be struck out.
Additionally, the continuing defect in clause 26(2) should be corrected by limiting the terms of the chairman and the members to the date in the recommendation. In other words, the amendment should not have been for a period of three years as against four years, but the appointments should be limited to the date December 31, 1978. After all, the recommendation is in the clearest possible terms, in the last words, "to provide for the measure to expire on December 31, 1978". There is no mention in the recommendation of a provision for an order in council to be passed prior to that date and that the order in council be debated in the House.
There is now on the order paper, as motion No. 6, a proposal that proceedings before any board or in the courts should have been initiated prior to December 31, 1978, can continue to their termination. That is a new recommendation, but it applies only to court proceedings. Motion No. 6 reads in part:
-any inquiry, investigation, examination, audit, search or proceeding ... that was instituted before the expiration of this act-
That is, before December 31, 1978, that arises out of any other such inquiry, investigation, examination, audit, search or proceeding that was instituted before the expiration of this act. Of course, included are the powers and the duties of the chairmen and members of the boards in order to deal with the matters referred to. But there is absolutely nothing in the recommendation which authorizes an order in council to continue the act beyond December 31, 1978, and there is nothing that cures the defect in clause 46(2). On that basis, I ask that the Chair examine my proposals. I do not know what the government wants to do on this occasion, but I and my colleagues will be prepared to listen to what they have to say. However, at the moment the bill is really hung up. The ministry have had full notice of the defects. They have missed out on it, in my submission. I have no desire to hold up the bill, but we must have a bill on which we can proceed properly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to clause 26(2) I suggest that there is no difficulty in that regard and that quite clearly the bill does provide for a time-frame in which it can receive royal assent. I think there is some expectation that that will happen, so very clearly the maximum period stipulated there is one which would take place within the time-frame set out. Of course, it is not a minimum time-frame but it is a maximum time-frame, and if, as the hon. gentleman says, in the year 1976 it is desired to make an appointment in that particular area, then of course to comply with the statute the appointment would have to be made for a period of less than three years.
My understanding is that the amendments were put in after conversations among the legal advisers of the executive in the Department of Justice and the Law Clerk advising the table. I will be glad to take the direction of the
Anti-Inflation Act
Chair in this regard. I do not intend to offer my own legal opinion on the question but, as Your Honour knows, this was a matter of some consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to deal definitively with the point at the moment. I would rather reserve it for some time and see if the matter can be resolved. The fact is that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has made reference to the fact that steps were taken in the committee to clear the difficulty in so far as clause 26 is concerned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they did not.


Mr. Speaker:: That was my understanding of the remarks this morning. A problem remains, however, in respect of clause 46 which was alluded to briefly in the original argument by the hon. member for Edmonton West in addition to the very direct argument he made about the problem contained in clause 26 and its conflict with the recommendation. As reported at the top of page 8452 of Hansard for October 22, 1975, the hon. member said the following:
Incidentally, clause 46(2) authorizes this House, by regulation prior to the expiry of the bill in 1978, to continue the measure in force as specified in the order of the House. But that provision is not in the recommendation.
That provision remains in the bill at the present time and is not in the recommendation. It would appear, therefore, that the same kind of conflict which exists or existed in respect of clause 26(2) remain in respect of clause 46. However, the manner in which that question might be resolved is perhaps one for discussion. Obviously, the recommendation says that the bill must expire within a specific term, at the end of 1978; leaving in the bill the power by order in council to extend the bill beyond that time certainly would appear to be in direct conflict with that provision. Perhaps I could leave the matter because there are several motions to be discussed. Report stage has already been called for this day and it would seem to me nothing would be lost by carrying on with the several motions on the order paper at this time, in the hope that a resolution of the problem will be made.
In terms of the motions themselves, I would say that consideration has been given to the six motions which are outstanding to be considered at report stage. Only one appears to the Chair to be out of order, and I would be prepared to listen to discussion and argument on it. I refer to motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Perhaps I could simply indicate the difficulty the Chair sees with that motion. Motion No. 1 proposes, basically, to introduce into the bill an obligation or an element of control of government spending. However laudatory that concept or control may be, the question is twofold. First, is this a bill to control government spending, or to control wages and prices, and is it the introduction of a new concept into the bill to extend to the board the obligation, indeed to put a specific control in percentage terms or in dollar terms on government spending? It would seem to the Chair that that is the case. Second, even it were possible, without going beyond the provisions of the bill, to introduce a new concept into the bill, would it be proper and appropriate to do so by way of the amendment to the particular clause-which is what

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
the hon. member is moving-relating to the application of the bill? Again, it would seem that there is difficulty here.
Contrast that motion with motion No. 2, which directs the board in a particular or specific way to direct its attention toward government spending and to make public its findings in respect of the tabling of estimates. What, in fact, is being suggested in that amendment is not that the board take on the obligation of controlling government spending, but simply that in the powers already given it- which are to make public, or make information known about government spending or policies open to government, among other things, and their effect on inflation, or failure of the government to take advantage of those policies and their effect on inflation-the hon. member proposes to add a specific responsibility, within a certain period of time after the tabling of estimates, the board must make a public declaration in respect of those estimates and the failure or the success of the government in taking advantage of whatever policies were open to it in respect of those estimates.
That directs the board's attention to making public information about government spending and therefore I would submit it is an amendment which the House must consider. Whether it favours it or not is the question the House will decide, but at least it flows from the powers and duties which are placed in the clause which is sought to be amended and does not introduce a new concept. However, simply a statement or a publication about government spending is an extension of the board's powers. Extending it to the point in motion No. 1 where the board would be obligated in fact to control government spending seems to me to be an introduction of a new concept into the bill, and in any case ought not to be introduced under this particular clause. The hon. member for York-Simcoe may want to argue the point.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear your reasoning with respect to motion No. 1 and in due course I should like to reply. I was wondering whether the ruling on motion No. 1 could be deferred until later in the debate.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think there is any objection to having a deferral. The problem is that if Your Honour decides that perhaps there ought to be argument presented at a subsequent time, I direct the attention of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to the matter of motion No. 2. I argue that that motion is out of order as well and ought not to be dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The intention of the Chair at the present time certainly would be to accommodate hon. members by deferring argument on motion No. 1. However, because of the remarks I have made, I would prefer to hear argument now on motion No. 2. If I cannot be persuaded otherwise, I think the question of motion No. 2 ought to be discussed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: My argument with reference to motion No. 2 could apply as well to motion No. 1. It is that the hon. member for York-Simcoe, in his motion, seeks, in effect, to delegate powers to the board which presently rest with the House. It is not only a question of a new concept

in this bill but it is a whole new concept in our constitutional process.
With regard to motion No. 2, the hon. member wishes to have estimates, when they are tabled in this House, reviewed by the Anti-Inflation Board. There is no greater power or jurisdiction which is protected by this House than that of granting supply, and if we read Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice at page 676, he deals quite extensively with the question of financial procedure. He sets out that the House has an obligation, and indeed a right, to review supply if it is being submitted to it by the Crown. In effect, what the hon. member for York-Simcoe wishes to do by his amendment is to have that particular responsibility removed from the House of Commons and placed with the Anti-Inflation Board.
I can understand that the hon. member for York-Simcoe is rather busy and perhaps would like to see that particular power delegated, but unfortunately there are other members of the House who do not feel that it is one of the prerogatives we should remove from ourselves. When we look at the motion, it is quite clear what it sets out. It says that the Anti-Inflation Board, on top of the other powers it might have, shall-
-make explicit such implications of the failure of the federal government to co-operate in combating inflation by monitoring the respective main and supplementary estimates of expenditures for each fiscal year of such government and publicly commenting, within 21 days after any such estimates are made public, upon any failure, disclose in such estimates, by such government to combat inflation.
Evidently the hon. member for York-Simcoe does not understand the purpose of estimates. Estimates are submitted to this House in order to secure, by the approval of the House, supply for the government. It is the responsibility of this House to review those estimates and dispose of them by approving or withholding supply to the government. By delegating that particular responsibility to the Anti-Inflation Board which is responsible indirectly to this House, the House would be delegating its responsibility to that board. That would not only introduce a new concept on this bill but would seek to amend our constitution by that fact. I would suggest that this particular argument could apply as well to motion No. 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to your decision to defer debate with regard to the procedural acceptability of motion No. 1, but in case it is deferred until a time later this day when I might be in committee, I would say briefly that although I do not agree with the substance of motion No. 1, it seems to me there is a good case for its procedural acceptability. What the hon. member is trying to amend is a clause which provides:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada-
It seems to me that all he is trying to do in motion No. 1 is to spell out the way in which the act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada. I will say no more on that point, however. I have put in my nickel's worth in case I
November 25, 1975

happen to be tied up in committee when the deferred debate takes place.
With respect to motion No. 2, again I am not in sympathy with the substance of the proposal, but it seems to me that the hon. member's right to make the motion should be defended. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) suggested that motion No. 2 would delegate from the House of Commons to an outside body certain responsibilities that belong to this House of Commons. I do not read the motion that way at all. As I read the motion, what the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is seeking is to give to the Anti-Inflation Board, amongst the studies that it can carry on, amongst the reports that it can make, the right to make a report expressing its opinion on the extent to which the government may be failing to live up to its own anti-inflationary precepts.
It is the responsibility of the government and parliament to make the final decisions. This motion does not give the board the power to make any decisions; it simply expands on the power of the board to make reports expressing opinions. I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that already in clause 12(l)(e) permission is given to the board to comment on-
-the role to be played by businesses and groups of employees in combating inflation and the implications of the failure of governments, businesses and groups of employees to co-operate in combating inflation.
Mr. Speaker, all the permission does which is already there is to give the Anti-Inflation Board the power to comment on what it believes to be governmental failures. The hon. member for York-Simcoe wants to go on and give it the power to monitor the estimates, main and supplementary, and issue its views as to the extended failures of the government. I agree in practice with what the hon. member for Nipissing is saying, that these are things we should be doing here and that we should not delegate this responsibility-even the right to make these comments- on to someone else. This is parliament's job. But at this point we are not dealing with the acceptability of the substance or the merit of the motion; we are simply dealing with the question of whether it is procedurally acceptable. I think that motion No. 2, even though I am against it in substance, should be allowed procedurally.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I need trouble the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on motion No. 2. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I were saying the same thing, I think, in different words. After consideration, it is the opinion of the Chair that what is set forth in specific terms in motion No. 2 is already possible under clause 12 of the bill. If it is an unwarranted delegation of authority to have the AntiInflation Board comment publicly on the failure of the government to take advantage of whatever policies it has- such as control on government spending certainly would be-then it seems to me that power already exists in clause 12(1 )(e) on page 12. Simply to go on and say the board ought not only to have the right, but ought to have an obligation, within a certain period, to address itself to the question of government spending as contained in the esti-
Anti-Inflation Act
mates, seems to me to be an amendment that is procedurally in order.
The fact is, however, there is one other point that was made by the parliamentary secretary that would turn around the word "monitoring". If, in fact, monitoring by this board meant the kind of legislative control that exists in the standing committees of the House and, in turn, in the casting of votes in this chamber, that would certainly be a valid argument. It would seem to me, however, that "monitoring" in the terms of this legislation would simply mean that the board had to address itself to the contents of the estimates before making a public comment on them. In any case, it seems to me that the motion ought to be put and considered, and therefore, I would call motion No. 2 for discussion.
It being 3.30 p.m., I wonder if it would be appropriate to address ourselves to argument on the procedural acceptability of motion No. 1 at five o'clock? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling motion No. 2 and proceeding at this time, may I indicate that it would appear that motions Nos. 4 and 5 can usefully be grouped for debate. I think, therefore, that all motions except No. 1 are procedurally acceptable. Motion Nos. 4 and 5 might be discussed together, while motion No. 2 is being discussed, hon. members may want to comment on and consider what I am about to suggest, but it would appear to the Chair that motions Nos. 4 and 5 might be discussed together. An affirmative vote on No. 4 would be taken, I think, to be an expression of opinion on motion No. 5, but I would be prepared to hear comments on that matter.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree that we should consider motions Nos. 4 and 5 together. I wonder, however, whether motion No. 3 should not be included since it is, in a sense, consequential and relates to a particular aspect of the limitation of the duration of the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we would be agreeable to having Nos. 3, 4 and 5 debated together. I share your view, Mr. Speaker, that Nos. 4 and 5 are one subject matter for the purpose of debate, but it seems to me that No. 3 should be put in with them. To bring Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together would, I suggest, facilitate debate in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been persuaded while I have been listening. It was to have been my suggestion to put Nos. 3 and 4 together and let No. 5 go by itself, but if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) does not mind No. 5 being put with the other two, we will not object but that grouping is for debate only.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will be grouped together for debate. Motion No. 3 will be voted upon separately. Hon. members might consider whether an affirmative vote on motion No. 4 might constitute an expression of opinion, obviating the necessity for a vote on motion No. 5. Perhaps this can be left for later, if necessary. Certainly, votes can be taken on each motion.

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a vote on motion No. 4 is necessary. If the vote is carried, we should need to vote on motion No. 3. If it is defeated, there is no point in voting on motion No. 3. The vote on motion No. 5 might be separate.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps after the motions have been discussed there might be agreement on the manner in which the votes shall be taken. The House will now consider motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be amended in paragraph 12(l)(e) by striking out line 28 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"ting inflation and, in particular, shall make explicit such implications of the failure of the federal government to co-operate in combating inflation by monitoring the respective main and supplementary estimates of expenditures for each fiscal year of such government and publicly commenting, within 21 days after any such estimates are made public, upon any failure, disclosed in such estimates, by such government to combat inflation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, much of what I wish to say on motion No. 2 was said in the debate on the form of the motion and whether it is suitable for debate at this time. We feel that an essential ingredient in the federal government's proposed anti-inflation program is restraint in government spending at all levels, particularly the federal government level. We think that the government during the last eight years has demonstrated a surprising lack of restraint over its own spending. The federal budget in the year before this government took power stood at about $10 billion. The current budget calls for federal spending of about $30 billion, or $20 billion more than the government spent in the 1968 fiscal year.
It took 100 years for federal government budgets to rise to $10 billion, yet the present government, in only eight years, has tripled its budget. In the last two years the federal budget has shot up from $20 billion to $30 billion. The government has been on a spending spree, increasing its spending during the last eight years by 25 per cent per year. This is alarming. Most economists in the country agree that government, particularly federal government, spending has contributed to inflation. Another consequential cause is the deficits which have been incurred. The net result has been an excessive increase in this country's money supply.
No controls program will work effectively unless there is restraint in government spending and a more responsible approach taken to the printing of money and expansion of the money supply. That is why we bring forward the present motion for consideration. If the government is sincere, if its anti-inflation program is to be credible, surely it will not object to the Anti-Inflation Board commenting on federal government spending programs. We suggest that within 21 days of the tabling of the main or supplementary estimates in this House, the Anti-Inflation Board should be asked to comment on whether it feels the government is adhering to its own anti-inflation program.

We think this provision is justified in view of some alarming information which came to our attention in committee. We learned that in the 1976 fiscal year government spending will increase by slightly less than 16 per cent over last year's figure. When we attempted to learn how much the government will spend in the 1977 fiscal year, we were given an estimate. Apparently the increase is to be slightly less than 15 per cent. The position is ludicrous. The federal government asks wage earners to restrain their wage demands to 8 per cent, businessmen to restrain their profits and prices, and shareholders to accept lower dividends. But the government will not adhere to its own guidelines when increasing its own spending. Government spending will increase by as much as 14 per cent, although possibly less than 15 per cent.
Figures to be produced later this week will indicate that in the first six months of this year all governments took for themselves an amazing 44 per cent of our gross national product. Contrary to what the government says, the evidence shows that federal government spending has been rising more rapidly than the spending of any other level of government in Canada. That is why we think that a public body like the Anti-Inflation Board should "call it the way it is," especially if the government persists in its spending spree.
Surely the very board charged with monitoring the antiinflation program should comment on the government's own record? That is all this motion says. I hope that motion No. 1 is procedurally admissible, as its passage would put a cap on government spending. The government claims it will spend $30 billion this year. If the motion passes, government spending will be contained to an 8 per cent increase, or to $2.4 billion more, compared with $4.5 billion more which the government apparently envisages spending in the 1977 fiscal year.
Motion No. 2 simply asks the Anti-Inflation Board to comment on the main or supplementary estimates within 21 days of their tabling. In no way does it detract from the rights of parliament. It simply asks the board to comment on government spending. This is to be a public process which will help the public and hon. members when they consider estimates and the government's spending programs. Surely the government is not alarmed at what the Anti-Inflation Board may find with respect to proposed spending increases. After all, governments now take 44 per cent of the gross national product, an alarming percentage. Other nations have followed the same course, to their detriment. It is time for the government to restrain its own spending and forgo a spending spree that except for wartime has had no precedent in Canada since confederation.
In short, the government must be less secretive and more open with the public concerning its spending. Such frankness on the part of the government now in power would be of wholesome benefit to all Canadians.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I have some difficulty following the logic of hon. friends on my right. As I recall their participation over the years, they have been against boards and against anything being taken out of the jurisdiction of parliament and
November 25, 1975

turned over to those faceless, irresponsible creatures who do not have to answer to anyone. Now they want a board.
I listened very closely to see if I could understand the argument for the board. I do not know on what basis the Conservative party has more confidence in this particular board than in parliament. I do not know whether Jean-Luc Pepin has acquired more wisdom now that he is being paid twice as much as he was as a member of the House of Commons. I do not remember the opposition being particularly enamoured of him at that time, listening to everything he had to say and agreeing with it. He is a fine man and I have no reservations in saying that; however, I cannot understand this new-found total confidence in Mr. Pepin's wisdom and competence, something the conservatives did not accord him when he was a member of this House.
Is Mrs. Plumptre to become all-prescient now that she has been appointed to the board? Does she have a prescience she did not have when she was chairman of the Food Prices Review Board? In other words, does the waving of this magic wand of the government over their heads, and telling them they are now appointed to this mighty board which the government are going to put in place, give them all-wisdom, a kind of superknowledge they did not possess before, more than that of the 264 men and women sent here by the people of Canada? I have been looking for those kinds of geniuses all my life and I have had some difficulty identifying them. I am pleased that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has finally found two people in whom he can place absolute trust and confidence. It is a delight to see that this has happened.
The difference between the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party is very fundamental. It comes out in this kind of debate. We agree that inflation is a serious problem and important measures have to be taken to contain it. In contrast with the position of the Conservative party, we do not believe that inflation is the only problem facing our society and that it has to be handled without regard to any other problem. In our view, there are two problems equally as serious, if not more serious, and equally as damaging, if not more damaging, to our society. Those two problems are the unjust distribution of income and our abysmal record of unemployment.
This board is being set up for the sole purpose of dealing with inflation. It has no other responsibility. It was not elected by the people. Its mandate is not broad. It is not to do anything except look at inflation. If the board takes its responsibility seriously, which I presume it will, what kind of judgment will it make on these other matters? For example, will everything that is referred to the board be looked at in only one narrow way? Is this country going to be guided just by that?
When you say you want some measure of control over a federal budget, you cannot give the power to a board to decide what kind of social and national priorities are going to be set. This is what a budget is all about. Are we going to turn over to a board with a narrow term of reference a power that is the right of parliament? I ask hon. members in all seriousness if that is what they want.
Let us take a hypothetical problem which may not be hypothetical. The government, for argument's sake, has seen the light; it has listened to the NDP and has lowered
Anti-Inflation Act
the pensionable age from 65 to 60. In other words, the blandishments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have got through to the government; the government has seen the intelligence of the proposal and agree with it. The consequence is that more taxes would have to be raised and the budget would have to be increased. What would the board say to that? If this amendment is passed, the board will say that goes beyond the guidelines, there will be no change in the social programs of this country, regardless of the merits, and there will be no income redistribution. We have enough reservations about the legislation as it now stands, without taking additional power away from parliament and giving it to the board. This is essentially a political question. Income distribution is not a technical problem, it is political: who pays the taxes and who gets the benefits? Surely we are not going to turn over that power to a board. Furthermore, I do not think a board would want that kind of power.
The hon. member reminds me that we have had some difficulty with auditors general in the past because they have tended to assume political rather than auditory functions. There was some criticism about that. We would go beyond anything ever contemplated when parliament was set up to take what is the prime responsibility of parliament, the setting of social priorities and dealing with the multitudinous problems in our society, and turn it over to a board. My leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), said he is aghast that the great Conservative party would even countenance such an idea. They pride themselves on their respect for and duty to parliament, yet this motion would emasculate this great institution of which we are so proud. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby feels so strongly about this measure.
Because of the vast cost and the great contribution that unemployment is making to inflation, the government may decide, or be persuaded to bring in measures to do something about it. After all, the costs of unemployment are severe; they are a major contributor to inflation and loss of productivity in this country. For every 1 per cent of unemployment above the 2 per cent or 3 per cent that is acceptable, it costs this country $2 billion or $3 billion in GNP, by various estimates. We are talking of a loss of $20 billion over-all. Suppose the government becomes wise, or something persuades them into a form of wisdom and they want to do something about unemployment. The only way to handle that is to increase expenditures and stimulate the economy. Are we going to leave it to a board to say that that kind of parliamentary decision is not acceptable because it exceeds the 8 per cent guideline? The board may decide it is for them to make those kinds of policies, not parliament.
I could go on and multiply the examples. I have given but a few to illustrate the inherent difficulty and the impossibility of the kind of concept being put forward in this amendment. I can appreciate one thing about the amendment: I am sure it is put forward in good faith. On the surface, the argument is very beguiling. If everyone else is to be restrained, why not the government? However, everyone else is not charged with the same responsibility as the government. Those of us who are being restrained are making essentially private decisions. The government is making what amounts to a public decision.

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
It is important to note that the government is answerable and the board is not. The board is set up; it does not fall; it does not get defeated. You cannot even filibuster or talk against the board. But the government is here and it can fall. At the moment it looks unlikely, but it could fall. Governments have fallen and found themselves obliged to secure a mandate from the people. It is the right of the public to judge the conduct of the government, not of Jean-Luc Pepin or Mrs. Plumptre. That is the greatest danger in the incomes policy. We agree that an incomes policy is important, and we do not oppose it in principle. We oppose the kind of legislation before us and we oppose the type of amendments which are being tacked on to it because we are not dealing here with the type of legislation which is capable of being improved by such amendments. We oppose it because what we are looking at is a technical arrangement. The government looks upon this legislation as relating to a technical issue. It uses devices such as a 10 per cent cut-off. It does not care what happens to the other things, or if it does care, it says; "We really haven't got the mechanism for handling them."
In fact, income distribution is a political question. That is what politics is all about. That is what we are fighting for in this party. We are fighting for people at the lower end of the scale. How can members opposite say we have solved our political or our technical questions when one-fifth of our people are getting 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the income and another fifth is getting 42 per cent of the income? That is what politics is all about-resolving these differences in income distribution by the arguments we present to the people and then by the degree of support they accord to various political parties. It would be a grave mistake and a terrible disservice to the country and to this institution to turn decision-making over to a body with narrow terms of reference and without any mandate from the Canadian public.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: In speaking to this motion, I think a word from this side of the House, in clarification, would be in order. I have never seen such a twisty, writhing individual as I do at this moment in the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). I think he would be well advised to stay with his crossword puzzles because he cannot even seem to listen to an intelligent speech and comprehend what was said.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) expressed in simple terms exactly what we on this side wanted in this amendment, which was that an outside body should not have wadding placed in its mouth and be limited in what it has to say. It is of fundamental importance to the Canadian people that an outside voice should portray to them exactly what is happening in the field of government spending. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge expresses the opinion that maybe politics does enter into it. Certainly, when the Canadian people hear a message from the House of Commons they do on occasion have misgivings about what is being said in case this political aspect is entering into what is being said. Therefore, if the government believes this review board is to serve a useful purpose in the Canadian scheme of things, it [Mr. Saltsman.)
should surely be subject to the board's observations and criticisms in the same way as the rest of the economy.
Maybe members of the NDP are prepared to elevate government above all the other sectors, business and so on, but I certainly am not of that opinion and I am sure my colleagues do not agree with it, because of the fundamental importance of the proposition that government should serve the people. Never should we allow government to be a dictator to the ordinary people. When the day comes that a government cannot accept criticism from a body set up by itself, we are getting ourselves into a deplorable situation.
I hope the Canadian people recognize the danger of the message given by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. We on this side feel the review board, with all the integrity it has, and with all the responsibility it has been given, should at least feel free to criticize the government if, in its opinion, the government is wrongfully spending the taxpayers' money. Certainly, if this program is to work it will need the co-operation of all sectors of the economy- business, labour and government included. If anyone wants to exclude the government from the criticism the review board will be handing out to labour and to other people, there is no way in which the program can work; the government is signing the death warrant of the whole scheme before it even gets off the ground.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Looking at the amendment before us, Madam Speaker, I can feel some sympathy with the underlying principle of putting forward that kind of amendment by the Conservatives on my right. Certainly it is a concern, and it ought to be the concern not only of the government but of opposition members and, indeed, of the Canadian people with respect to the manner in which the government is spending the taxpayers' money. Surely that is the function of parliament. We have set up a structure. There is an Auditor General who is supposed to look at the way in which the government operates its various departments and how it spends the taxpayers' money in those departments, and then to make recommendations to the appropriate committee of parliament with respect to what he has discovered in his review of a budget or the estimates.
We on this side of the House have taken the position that that kind of board is not necessary and that the kind of program the government is bringing in is misplaced at this time. It seems to me that here they go again, starting to build a bureaucratic mulberry bush. It seems to me now you have them looking at prices, you have them looking at food, you have them monitoring prices, so-called, and now you are handing them the budget and the estimates to look at. Soon they will be saying they do not need 200 people, but 500 people, to work for the board. When they started out they were going to monitor 1,500 corporations; now it is up to 2,700. They now talk about monitoring 10,000 contracting firms or 5,000 contracting firms. I see this thing growing like a great big monster, like any other department.
Anyway, it seems to me that is an expenditure the taxpayers can do without. Certainly the government has a responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely, and the points have been well documented in this House that they certainly can be castigated for some of the exotic
November 25, 1975

expenditures they have embarked upon, expenditures which make very little sense with respect to improving the lot of the Canadian people. Indeed, it only goes to improve their own lot. We have seen, for example, such expenditures as the opening of Mirabel airport. It cost the taxpayers of this country and the Quebec government-the same taxpayers-$500,000, and $20,000 of that was for booze. Visitors did not pay anything at all for it. We have seen other kinds of expenditures by this government which the taxpayers of this country would be very upset about. This is the same government that asks the Canadian people to tighten their belts and to live within their means.
Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that the government has the responsibility for setting a budget and the estimates. I do not know whether this monitoring board is going to examine the budget and the estimates and make public its comments on them, but it is not going to change anything at all. Since I have been a member of the House I have been a member of committees dealing with estimates, and the committee system is so structured that no one can block the passage of the estimates. As a matter of fact, if the estimates do not pass committee by a certain date, they are deemed to have been reported and spent anyway.
There has been no effective control by parliament, through the parliamentary committee system, over the expenditures of government. It seems to me that parliament has had very little effect in terms of braking government expenditure. Therefore, I hold out very little hope that this monitoring board or Anti-Inflation Board, having pontificated upon the government's estimates and budget, will be able to apply the brake. The government is going to go ahead and spend drunkenly what is not theirs, without regard for the people who earn them the money.


An hon. Member:: That is always the socialist approach.


John R. Rodriguez: That is not always the socialist
approach, may I say to my hon. friend on my right. We respect the way that a dollar is earned. This has always been the very core of socialist thinking. The gentleman on my right has always been one of those who are loth to have the government interfere in the marketplace. They say that government should keep out of the marketplace. They are prepared to support the Liberals in pushing through this wage and price control bureaucracy that we are creating with an Anti-Inflation Board that has powers exceeding those of the Almighty. These are the guardians of the so-called free enterprise system which, incidentally, has failed miserably, so much so that the government is now rushing in to prop it up with wage and price controls. That is a miserable admission, Madam Speaker, to hear from these great defenders of the mythical free enterprise system and its attendant capitalist approach to the economy.
Be that as it may, we in this party cannot support this motion. As a matter of fact, there is no way we can support the bill or any part of it as it presently stands. We intend to oppose this motion as vigorously as we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?
Anti-Inflation Act


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division stands deferred. In accordance with the decision reached today, motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will be grouped together.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be amended in subclause 26(2) by
(a)	striking out line 38 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"behaviour for a term not to extend beyond April 30, 1977"
(b)	striking out line 42 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"term not to extend beyond April 30, 1977.".
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be amended in clause 46 by striking out subclauses (2), (3), (4) and (5) at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) This act expires on April 30, 1977, or on such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be amended in clause 46
by
(a)	striking out lines 9 to 11 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"proclamation or a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons that is approved by the House pursuant to subsections (6) and (7) unless, before December 31, 1978 or any earlier date fixed by proclamation or any such motion for the consideration of the House that is so approved by the House, an order in council is made to the effect"
(b)	adding the following subclauses immediately after line 40 at page 33:
Procedure	"(6) Where, at any time after March 31, 1977 and before
where	July 1, 1977, a motion for the consideration of the House
motion filed Qf Commons, signed by not less than 50 members of the with Speaker House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that this act shall expire on a date before December 31, 1978 that is specified in the motion, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, this act expires on the date that is specified in the motion.

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Time for decid- (7) All questions in connection with any motion taken ing questions up anc) considered by the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (6) shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered."


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) briefed opposition party leaders about the anti-inflation program on the evening of October 13, I expressed my concern about the duration of the program that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said they were bringing in. That was not, of course, the place to present a detailed argument or even specific proposals, but I did express my concern as an initial reaction when I was first told about the program. Later in the evening when I was invited to make a public comment, it was the duration of the program to which I principally devoted my attention and expressed my concerns. The following day, October 14, when the government presented its white paper for discussion in the House, I dealt with these concerns at some length, as recorded at page 8199 of Hansard. At that time no bill had been presented. We were discussing the white paper before presentation of the bill and therefore we did not know precisely what the bill would contain.
During discussion of the white paper on October 14, I said we supported the general intentions of the white paper. I also said that further support for the actions of the government would be a matter of judgment based on the government's response to our concerns and observations. In the meantime, having expressed our concerns about the program we said we would wait to see the bill. Bill C-73 was presented for first reading on October 16. On Friday, October 17, debate on second reading commenced and my party's House leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), led off our participation in the second reading debate.
Again he dealt with the duration of the government's program as well as the duration of the bill. The hon. member for Peace River put the argument in very strong terms. He did so because, having then seen the bill, we realized that we were not just dealing with a longer term program than we felt proper, but that we were in fact dealing with an open-ended program. It was clear from the bill that the government was not limiting itself to 314 years, but was setting up a mechanism that would enable it to extend the bill almost indefinitely, or certainly for a substantial period of time, simply by presenting to the House and having carried after very limited debate a resolution extending the term of the bill. So in that sense, as I say, we discovered that the term of the bill was virtually open-ended.
In this regard, the hon. member for Peace River, as recorded at page 8314 of Hansard, said:
-this aspect is totally unacceptable-
The hon. member for Peace River served notice that we would present an amendment at the appropriate stage of
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
the committee hearings and later to deal with this concern. I ask members of the House to bear in mind just how easy it would be for a government to extend the length of this program by a simple resolution. My remarks of the same nature, expressing concern about the duration of the bill, were subsequently carried on network radio and television. I stressed that while we in the official opposition continued to support the necessity for a program to deal with inflation and to break the inflationary situation which exists, we simply could not support on third and final reading a bill incorporating the time-frame the government proposes.
I ask members of the House to bear in mind that the government's wage and price control program and Bill C-73 are not the same thing. Bill C-73 does not define or describe even the government's wage and price control program. It does not set out a wage and price control program. Bill C-73 simply delegates sweeping powers to the government, the administrator and the Anti-Inflation Board. The government itself, through the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other ministers have outlined in the House and to the people of Canada in a somewhat uncertain way, perhaps, a price and wage control program. But with the powers in this bill, if it becomes an act of parliament, the governor in council can change that whole wage and price control program any time they choose to do so.
They are seeking these powers for a period of 3 14 years, plus. Spokesmen for the government say they hope to terminate the program before 3 !4 years run out. They may or may nor terminate this particular program which they put before the people. They may terminate the program, but even if they terminate it they will keep the enormous powers they are asking to have delegated to them through this bill. We are not being asked to consider in the House, and we certainly are not being asked to vote upon, a specific price and wage control program. We are being asked to vote upon a bill which would give the government enormous delegated powers for a period of 314 or more, years. If one needs an example, the history of the Defence Production Act shows how loth governments are to give up powers that have been granted to them.
It is important to distinguish between a wage and price control program such as has been outlined by the government, such as it is, on one hand, and the bill before us because they are not the same. We are not being asked to vote into effect a wage and price control program for a period of six months, a year, a year and a half, three years, 314 years, or longer; we are being asked to give the government the authority to write its own wage and price control program, an anti-inflationary program, or to exercise these powers in any way it may see fit. If the bill should pass, there is nothing to prevent this government changing the program beyond recognition without any further reference back to this parliament. That in itself is sufficient reason for limiting the life of this bill to a period not in excess of 18 months.
The last time prior I spoke in the House on the duration or life of this bill was during the debate on the NDP supply motion of November 14. I shall read some of the comments I made at that time to remind the minister and members opposite that I am not raising these objections this after-
November 25, 1975

noon for the first time. I expressed my concern the first time the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance described this program to me and the leaders of the other opposition parties. I have expressed these concerns many times since. On the afternoon of November 14, if I may be forgiven for quoting myself-even if I am not forgiven I shall do so-I said:
I say this parliament ought not to be asked to grant to the government the extraordinary powers it is seeking for virtually an undefined or very ill-defined period of time, subject only to a relatively ineffectual period of review involving a debate in the House for three days-
In my view, the bill should be amended so it will terminate in 18 months. Just before the expiry of the 18 months, if the government felt it could make a case for the extension of the program, it could bring in a bill for that purpose.
Later I said:
How could we willingly grant such powers for so long to any government, let alone a government which has such a record for opportunism as this one?
When the Minister of Finance spoke later in the debate on the afternoon of Friday, November 14, he did not even acknowledge he had heard what I had said in this regard. He did not even acknowledge it, let alone respond to it in any way. We stated our position clearly and unequivocally in the House committee. I stated it again in a letter to the Prime Minister last week, and we are stating it again in the House today.
The belated response which the government finally brings in is embodied in the review amendment put forward by the Minister of Finance which is reflected in motion No. 5. My first encounter with the proposal for a review of this kind, as a government initiative, was when I read it in the Prime Minister's reply to my letter of November 20. I wrote back to the Prime Minister to say that the government's proposal did not meet our concerns. At the finance committee meeting of November 3, the Minister of Finance suggested that my party might wish to put forward an amendment along the lines of the one which now stands in his name. At that point we realized the government was up to its old game of speaking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. Only minutes before the minister made his remarks in committee about the possibility of a review amendment, he attempted to defend in logic the need for the program to run over three years. This is what he said:
The program is posited on the guideline proposals of looking at three successive years, by which one would hope that the basic protection factor could in effect go from 8 per cent to 6 per cent to 4 per cent, so we are talking in a three-year time framework and therefore it seemed to have some logic.
In the next breath, having said that, he outlined how we in the official opposition "might consider formulating an amendment" if what was desired was "a parliamentary occasion to discuss the issue." We have been seeking something beyond a future occasion to discuss the issue, and the minister knows that. I submit that all he engaged in on November 3, and all that the government has engaged in since, on this matter can be summed up under the general headings of flank-covering and bone-throwing.
The minister says that the government, in its own logic, is convinced of the necessity of a program running at least
Anti-Inflation Act
3 '/ years. Again I remind the House that we are not being asked to vote on a program. When the bill is passed and becomes law, the government can change the program beyond any recognition without any reference back to parliament. The minister, having said that he was convinced that they needed the program for 314 years, then said, in effect, that if we wanted to discuss it after the passage of 18 months the government could entertain provision for that.
It is a sham for the minister to suggest that this represents any kind of meaningful review, with no outside witnesses, no representations, no means of forcing information from the government, none of the other procedural arrangements involved in the procedure of a bill passing through the House, and no possibility of amending the act. The only question before the House on that review procedure is a yes or no. The only question for the House, and for a very limited time, is whether the government's program should end as defined, if it were defined in the present bill, or should terminate earlier. Such a debate, when the government sits in majority, would represent nothing more than a progress report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the bone he throws on a "take it or leave it" basis. Bear in mind that once the government has passed the review period which is under this proposal-the question of review could be raised only at some time, I think, between March 31, 1977, and July 1, 1977-there is no further provision for any parliamentary review. The government could do anything it liked with the program, without any possibility of a discussion of what it is doing unless the government graciously provided it, or unless we have the sort of discussion we are able to have on opposition days in parliament.
When it became clear to the minister that the official opposition was not of a mind to grab the bone in committee, he retrieved it himself as something to throw our way again at report stage. He said he would present "an amendment with regard to an interim debate on the measure". That is what he has done now.


Walter David Baker: There is no meat on this bone now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No meat, no bone, so far as I am concerned. I refer the House to two other statements made by the minister during consideration by the finance committee. These serve to illustrate the tangled web which the government has woven regarding the duration of the AntiInflation Act. On October 13, the minister was asked to comment on the Prime Minister's speculation that the period might be shorter. He donned his optimistic cap and said:
Really, if after a period of 18 months, and I would be happy to see such a result, there was a significant reduction in the rate of inflation in Canada, it is quite possible that we could end these inflationary controls, in view of such an improvement in the economic situation.
They might end the program they have launched in recent days, but that is a very different thing from surrendering powers which, I venture to suggest, they would reserve unto themselves and exercise from time to time in any manner that suited their purposes. On November 20,

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
the minister took quite a different tone as he attempted to make an argument regarding the rough justice inherent in the bill. On this occasion he said:
-we have set out the guidelines and they could be much tougher, you know. If you were seeking to carry the reduction through guidelines of the inflation rate in 18 months instead of taking a longer period of time they would have to be very much tougher than this.
I remind the House that they are not set out in the bill, of course; they are in the program which the government can change any time it sees fit. One has to wonder in how many ways the minister and the Prime Minister want to have this thing. The Prime Minister toured the country running both hot and cold. One day there were threats of heavier intervention, and the next speculation that we might be finished with a very easy exercise at the end of 18 months. Sometimes he says, as he did at the outset, that the primary purpose of the exercise is to break inflationary expectations and change attitudes. He implies that when this is done, the control will be lifted, and if it does not happen the controls will get larger in scope and longer in duration, with stiffer and stiffer penalties. At other times the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance talk of reducing the rate of inflation over a defined period of time.
I submit that a short-term exercise aimed at breaking inflationary expectations is quite different from a longer term incomes policy which attempts to contain the rate of inflation through an institutionalized process of government intervention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not like to see these two concepts mixed as they are in this program and as they have become in the government explanation of the purpose of this bill. In regard to the originally stated purpose of breaking the inflationary psychology, there can be no question that my party and I endorse a short-term program with this aim. We have said so in the context of an election campaign. I will not ask the House to remember what my friends opposite were saying at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They don't want to remember, either.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have enough respect for my friends opposite to think they would like to forget what they said then. We are now discussing the bill in the context of 1975, almost into 1976. We said, in the context of an election campaign, what we would do. We would favour a shortterm program with the aim of breaking the inflationary expectation. We continue to say so today. We suggest a bill with that stated aim for a period of 18 months. We would support such a bill and be prepared to accept the many imperfections in it, and we would accept our share of responsibility for the rough justice involved in it.
We believe the government should be focusing its attention on this objective. We believe that a bill and a program of this nature limited to 18 months would be less divisive in the country and less susceptible to dogmatic, negative reaction and rejection. We believe these considerations are important. We even believe that the government is smart
enough to know this, and smart enough to know that if we do not break the psychological aspect of inflation in 18 months we are not likely to make much headway under price and wage controls after that in a further 21-month period, when all the imperfections and problems inherent in controls programs are really coming home to roost and really reinforcing resentments.
In accepting that the government is smart enough to know these things, we get very nervous about the other purpose which the government has been flirting with in its pronouncements-long-term controls to institutionalize a process of ongoing intervention in the Canadian economy. If this form of controls is intended to stay on until it is successful in relation to a stated aim for the rate of inflation, I am afraid we will be into some form of controls as a permanent feature of our country. I know there are members of this House who would like to see this happen, but I also believe there are many hon. members, even on the government side of the House who, like me, do not want to see this happen. I hope they will give this matter serious thought before the vote comes on our amendment.
We are saying that the government approaches the House with two clearly different purposes expressed in relation to this bill. One we buy-the purpose of deflating inflationary expectations through a program of price and income controls for a short term-and we say that our amendment would clarify that this is indeed the sole purpose, and this would be the sole effect of the act. The other aim which the government has in mind we do not buy, that of longer term controls. We cannot support that aim. We do not like wolves in sheep's clothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We want to make this point of differentiation and emphasize how important it is to the future of our country. We are prepared to vote against the bill on third reading if our amendment is not accepted to demonstrate how important we believe it to be. The Minister of Finance is reported to have stated that terminating the controls program in 18 months would mean unacceptable rates of unemployment because termination of the program in 18 months would involve harsh use of monetary and fiscal policy and harsh use of monetary and fiscal restraints to control inflation.
I agree with the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) who expressed concern and stressed the importance of the problem of unemployment in our country, but I say, with respect to the Minister of Finance that his statement that the termination of this control program in 18 months would mean unacceptable rates of unemployment is nonsense. First, as of now he does not know what the inflationary pressures in Canada are going to be in 18 months' time. He does not know what the inflationary situation is going to be in 18 months' time. Second, I do not say for a moment that the war against inflation will be over in 18 months. I do say that we have no reason to believe that general price and wage controls would be effective or desirable in our economy beyond an 18-month period.
Third, I say that if the government is going to continue a controls program beyond the point of 18 months, but change substantially the scope and nature of controls from

November 25, 1975

the program put before us in recent weeks, this government should have to come to parliament to get parliament's permission to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What right has the government to ask this parliament for a blank cheque?


An hon. Member:: It's only three years instead of 18 months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, and any program you want to write in the meantime. You can fool the people some of the time, but the government is going to find out that it cannot keep shifting positions all the time. I also want to emphasize that there is nothing in what I am proposing-that is, the termination of this program in 18 months-which would put the government in a strait-jacket. If the government wants to continue controls beyond 18 months, it could introduce a bill in this House for that purpose-for example, after the expiration of 15 months-in which a specific controls program could be discussed in light of conditions which exist at that time, and not conditions which we guess about now which might exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Much can change in 15 or 18 months. If the government is concerned a fixed expiry date of April 30, 1977, and if it is concerned that unions might just hold back until the controls are off, or that business people might hold back until they are off, I would have no objection to a provision extending the bill for a further period of three months, for example, upon the government presenting to the House a resolution to that effect with a limited time for debate of three days in order to provide some degree of flexibility about the termination of the program. However, the government has not seen fit to discuss any such proposal, or any proposals at all. It has known for weeks of our concern about this. If the government thinks our support of its bill is important in terms of public acceptance, why has it not responded at all to any initiatives we have taken to try to produce a bill we could accept and support in this House?
We have tried to be constructive in dealing with both the white paper and the bill. We have not hidden anything. We tried to show our good faith by our vote on second reading of the bill and our vote on the November 14 supply day motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. We indicated that we were open to be consulted by the government on this matter. No consultation was sought. My invitation for consultation was not acted upon. If our support of the bill is important, why has the government not responded to our concern and to our overtures? I want to say very clearly that if, despite our objections and despite our concern, this bill becomes law in its present form, without our amendment having been adopted, we will certainly urge the Canadian people as forcefully as we can to co-operate with the government and to comply with the law adopted in this House.
Even before the program was announced, the Minister of Finance described the program as frightening. I therefore do not apologize for expressing my very grave concern
Anti-Inflation Act
about the powers parliament is being asked to delegate to the government and to the creatures of government for such an open-ended period of time. Without acceptance of our amendment, I must say that the minister's first impression was correct, as far as I am concerned. The implications of a bill with these powers and of this duration are frightening and they are unnecessary, Madam Speaker. These implications are unacceptable to me and to my colleagues.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has what one would have to concede is a difficult task in this situation. We are debating a program which earlier in this debate, on second reading of the bill, he said was virtually his program. We are debating a concept which he said basically was his idea, namely, the imposition of mandatory controls on wages and prices in Canada. We are dealing with the bill which he voted for at second reading stage and in respect of which he also voted on an opposition day.
Now he finds himself in the situation where he undoubtedly has decided that in the future he will want to oppose the government's initiative in imposing wage and price controls at this particular time. He will now want to define a position for himself to be able to repeat to the public that he was against this program, a program which it is conceded will be difficult in the years and months to come in terms of the impact it will have on individual groups in Canada. Therefore, he has had to construct, for the record and for the House, a rather indignant declamation of the government and myself for having failed to respond to the initiatives which he had put forward in this regard.
Let me just deal with that one point right away, because I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition has perhaps been badly served by his research staff. He made the assertion that it was not until late in the game, well on into the committee sittings, that I gave any response whatsoever as to my willingness to respond to amendments with regard to having a parliamentary review of the bill. Perhaps I could quote to him-I will take the same stand about quoting myself that he took about himself-and refer him to my remarks on reply in the second reading debate, as reported at page 8545 of Hansard. On October 24, in closing debate, I said:
The question was raised at several points by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) as to whether it would be proper at some interval before the termination date of the bill to provide for a fresh parliamentary opportunity, perhaps by way of an affirmative resolution, to debate the matter. For my part I would have no difficulty in accepting an amendment of that kind.
I would just remind the House that we were then at the sixth day of the second reading debate. After my speech in introduction on second reading, I had had no further opportunity to participate in debate, but in reply at the first opportunity after hearing the hon. gentleman opposite, and in particular the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who had seen the bill and responded to it, I indicated my willingness to provide the kind of amendment which I referred to in committee. I repeated the offer again in committee, and when nothing further was forthcoming I put it forward at report stage, at this time. I hope the

November 25, 1975
Anti-In flat ion Act
Leader of the Opposition will go back and read the record again. He will realize that perhaps he has been less than just in the assertion he made that there had been no early attempt on my part to respond to what the official opposition had said in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What had they said in this regard in the debates that had taken place? The Leader of the Opposition has referred to his own participation on October 14 in the special debate. I would quote from page 8199 of Hansard when he said that the government should-
-be prepared to make provision for a parliamentary review of the controls and how they are working, providing an opportunity of parliamentary recall, say at the end of 18 months or two years.
The Leader of the Opposition said that he had not seen the bill at that time. He had not been able to formulate a judgment from the white paper, which he had seen at that time, as to what was the appropriate course of action, and it was for that reason that he used those terms on that particular day. Several days later, the hon. member for Peace River had seen the bill, he had been able to study its provisions and to look at the white paper. At that time he spoke in words which were virtually a paraphrase of what his leader had said a few days before. I would refer him to page 8314 of Hansard on October 17, where he said:
We will propose an amendment, which will provide that at an earlier date during the life of this legislation, this House will have, as it must, the right to decide whether under the circumstances which then exist the extension of the legislation is warranted.
In the debate which occurred at that time, Madam Speaker, in full knowledge of the bill, full knowledge of the provisions that we have here, and in full knowledge of the white paper, the number two member of the official opposition, undoubtedly speaking on behalf of his party, said they would be coming forward with an amendment; an amendment, may I say, substantially in the terms of the one that I have put forward. He said that they would be proposing an amendment for the purpose of having this kind of consideration. May I remind the House that in response to that particular speech and the passage which I have just read, I said, and I quote myself again at page 8545 of Hansard:
For my part I would have no difficulty in accepting an amendment of that kind.
There are going to be some difficulties about this program. There are going to be some difficulties about the impact it will have on the economy and individual groups of Canadians. Let us talk about it in terms of the real problems, however, and not try to create little parliamentary games of quoting here and there and neglecting to quote oneself earlier on or explaining what he really meant at the time he said it, and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to change his stance with regard to mandatory controls in Canada, he is entitled to do so. He can dream up phrases-this is undoubtedly the new catch phrase that is going to be used-like "institutionalized process of government intervention". He can dream up that kind of phrase if

he likes, but let us face the fact that whether it will be of value to him politically or not, he is now proposing to change the stance that he took before, and I think the house should recognize that.
The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to the fact of the 18-month period being a matter of principle for them, something that they were absolutely dead set on. I have just read a passage where the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the program ending after 18 months or two years, so there does not seem to have been any magic or principle involved there. Nor earlier did there seem to be any magic or principle involved when the Leader of the Opposition was stumping the country referring to the kind of program that, if elected as prime minister, he would put forward, and the timing of that kind of program.


Mr. Muir:: You said it would not work for 90 days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you for mentioning the 90 days. The Leader of the Opposition proposed to launch an initial freeze for 90 days, followed by the imposition of the mandatory and comprehensive controls for a period of up to 24 months. At that time, Madam Speaker, it seemed to be sound to be talking about 27 months. Where is the great principle involved? Do I detect a kind of quibble, or is this another parliamentary game that is involved here as well? What is now a matter of principle, termination after 18 months, is really at odds with the positions that the Leader of the Opposition had previously taken, which seemed to regard a period of 27 months as the optimum for the operation of the program. To do him justice, shorter if it could be achieved, just as we have said, but to try to set out a substantially longer period under which time the program could be carried into effect.


Mr. Whiteway:: Was he right that it would work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it would be of greater service to Canadians who are interested in this matter if I were to talk about the merits of the program put forward, the kinds of problems we shall face in dealing with it and the kinds of responsibilities which will devolve on the Leader of the Opposition, his followers, and others, in the time the program is outstanding. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) accurately described parliament's responsibilities for scrutinizing and, indeed, dealing with the program. As I indicated and as is indicated by the record, there will be full opportunity for parliament to debate and make a decision on whether the program, in the words of the hon. member for Peace River, should be extended for a further period of time. We have provided for that kind of extension which, I remind the House, was suggested first by the hon. member for Peace River.
The bill itself requires the Anti-Inflation Board and administrator to report to the minister and for those reports to be tabled in the House. As time goes on and the administration does its work, the detailed operation of the program will come before parliament in the way of information. As I responded to the hon. member for Peace River, who asked a question today, in the statutory instruments committee there will be substantial opportunity to review the regulations as made under this program and
November 25, 1975

bill, and to review the statutory instruments by which this law will be carried into effect.


An hon. Member:: What about the guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member will
read the bill, he will find that the regulations put the guidelines into effect. Under the provisions of the rules of this House governing consideration of the spending estimates of government bodies, the House will have full opportunity to scrutinize the work of this federal body being established, and of every other government body, and to examine members of the Anti-Inflation Board. There will be full opportunity, as the Leader of the Opposition admitted, under the provisions of the rules governing supply procedures in this House, to debate on opposition days questions which may arise and be of interest as disclosed by reports made available to the House.
Therefore, an alert, able and responsible opposition will have no shortage of information. There will be full opportunity to bring into this House for debate the operations of this particular program, and to subject to scrutiny both myself and the appointed officers who will be charged with carrying it out. The cries concerning difficulties and suggestions that for the first time we are establishing some new kind of tyranny in Canada must be considered in light of the very substantial parliamentary opportunities which will be available even before the end of the 18-month period for the purpose of screening the operation of this program.
Let me turn to the merits of the question. What is the appropriate period for which one should design a program like this? The program we set out in the white paper, together with the proposals we brought forward, is designed to end the deep seated inflationary psychology which had seized all aspects of the Canadian community. Yet we recognize at the same time that Canadians inevitably will need to bear certain costs, no matter how successful the program may be in restricting other costs and other claims in other parts of our community. I mentioned these costs previously.
We shall have to pay higher prices for energy and sustain higher prices for the many thousands of commodities we import every day and which contribute to our standard of living. Indeed, there are at present substantial increases which have been built into the Canadian compensation system which will be passed on and make themselves felt in the form of higher prices for the goods and services we consume. We pointedly set out to make the system flexible in this regard. We wanted to avoid the injustice which would be occasioned by putting the brakes on too sharply, so that those who have not had the opportunity to catch up would not be treated unjustly and so that Canadians who have borne real cost may be recompensed. We wanted to avoid the situation in which the American program found itself. In that program, these kinds of increases were dammed back for a period of time; after that they had the explosion of wage claims and price increases which occurred at the end of the program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about conversion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have set out to elaborate a means for slowing the impact of inflation on Canada by
Anti-Inflation Act
deliberate steps, setting as our basic protection factor 8 per cent, hopefully to be achieved at the end of the first year, 6 per cent at the end of the second year, and 4 per cent at the end of the third.


An hon. Member:: Dreamer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There will be a slow decline in the rise of the consumer price index for which Canadians, I think, can legitimately look. An hon. member opposite called me a dreamer. Perhaps I am. If achieving this end will be difficult in 36 months, I suggest it would be even more difficult in 18 months, without the heaviest cost. It could not be done in that time without at the same time imposing very great injustices on those who have not had the opportunity to catch up, and without imposing restrictive fiscal and monetary policies which could have no effect but increase to a substantial degree the rate of unemployment in Canada.
I suggest to the hon. member that it is possible, with the application of very strict measures under this program, together with supporting economic policies, to bring about a drastic reduction in the rate of inflation in the country. Yet to do so would not only impose hardship and unfairness on those who have not had the opportunity to catch up, but would bring the risk of very much higher rates of unemployment in Canada. Then, instead of facing an unacceptably high rate of inflation we should face an absolutely intolerable rate of unemployment.
It is for that reason that the program, by design, has been set for a period of three years, with the expectation that although prices may go up, we shall not persist in our present rate of inflation and that we shall bring the rate of increase down slowly. As I said in committee, if after 18 months we find that inflation in Canada has been dramatically reduced, no one would be more delighted than I. But I say that for the sake of justice and to avoid increasing unemployment in this country, we must embark on an elaborately slowed program, one which will bring inflation down by stages over a period of time. We suggest that any other program would bring far more hardship to Canadians and far greater difficulties for the Canadian economy, which is what would happen under the program of the Leader of the Opposition who would try to beat inflation in an 18-month period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: But that period, after all, is involved in his proposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I did not say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition can argue as he likes; but does he, or does he not, mean to beat inflation in 18 months?


An hon. Member:: No.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He does not mean to beat inflation in 18 months. He would have the program continue for 18 months and then let it go-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The House heard what was said. I think it is entitled to have a little more responsibility from the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have twisted his meaning.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If he has some distinct proposal different from that which he put forward in the election campaign with regard to the inflation problem, I think the House is entitled to hear it. Until such time, I think the House is entitled to support the carefully articulated program I have laid before the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. 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 Elgin (Mr. Wise)-Trade-Request for reduction in cheese import quotas; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay-Mirabel-Request for tabling of data on which Sky Shops awarded franchise; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Finance-Suggested withdrawal of tax concessions to Falconbridge Nickel on operations in Namibia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I said earlier that I would come to the House at five o'clock to hear further argument about the procedural regularity of motion No. 1. Do hon. members wish to make any submissions?


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing further to say at this time about motion No. 1 as all the arguments were made in the debate on motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further discussion on motion No. 1, let me say that the opinion of the Chair remains the

same, namely, that motion No. 1 would propose to include in the legislation an entirely new concept, outside the scope of the bill, and is therefore procedurally unacceptable; particularly, I might say, in relation to the particular clause it seeks to amend. It is out of order, therefore, on two procedural grounds.
In so far as motion No. 2 is concerned, I previously indicated that it is in order. It has already been discussed. That, I would think, settles those procedural points. However, today a much broader point was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I indicated that I would allow some time to elapse in order to see whether there might be a resolution. I understand that this measure will not be called tomorrow. If there is agreement or an understanding in the House that, in any circumstances, all votes on the report stage amendments will be deferred until the next day that this measure is called, that will allow discussion to continue. It will perhaps allow time for further discussion to resolve the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is only one difficulty that might arise out of that. That is the existence of Standing Order 75(6) which would have to be waived by unanimous consent. It states that if there is to be a recommendation referring to an amendment in a bill- in other words, an amendment to the recommendation-24 hours' clear notice must be given in writing.
Therefore, if you, Mr. Speaker, were to defer your ruling until Thursday, and if it were to be favourable to my proposition, the government would then be forced to put in the amending recommendation. There would be a 24-hour wait, which would carry into Friday. I rather suspect that proceedings would effectively be stopped. On the other hand, if Your Honour were able to give a ruling today, we could possibly get together and work out a satisfactory amendment to the recommendation. This would allow the proceedings to go forward on Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: I prefer not to give a definitive ruling because the ruling I come down with may be as a result of some discussion. I thought I made it clear that I fail to see much of a defect in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I do not want to go into details that might necessarily tie the hands of the parties in attempting to come to a resolution. I thought I had made my sentiments clear. Let us hope that the matter may be resolved in some way.
Is it agreed and so ordered that at whatever point the discussion might terminate tonight, the votes on the motions will be deferred until the next day that this measure is called on government orders, which under no circumstances will be tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I was a little surprised at the rather discourteous response of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to the central thrust of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in favour of his amendment. The minister suggested the
November 25, 1975

Conservative party had done an about-face on its attitude with regard to the question of controls. For some reason, he found that inappropriate. I do not like to use the metaphor, but it is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. The Liberals seem to have done an about-face on the question of controls. Therefore, it would have at least been courteous for the Minister of Finance to recognize the right of the official opposition to take a similar somersault in regard to its position.
In terms of the logic of the argument, I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Finance. I refer to the logic of his case against that of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not questioning the purpose or motives behind the motion presented, namely, motion No. 3. However, it seems that the whole case of the official opposition ought to be concerned with whether this program is acceptable. That is the fundamental question. Do we, or do we not, have a just approach to dealing with inflation, or an incomes policy? Instead, a rather spurious argument has been raised by the official opposition. They say that the longevity of the program is at question here.
I listened with care to the Leader of the Opposition. His entire speech was devoted to whether this program would be good for 18 months or should go beyond 18 months. He stated that a period of 18 months would make it acceptable, but beyond that time it would not be acceptable. Frankly, that type of logic escapes me and my party. Rather than seeing this bill as the official opposition does and as the Minister of Finance described it, namely, as constituting rough justice, the NDP sees it as one that constitutes no justice at all. From our point of view, that is fundamental to the question of whether we can accept the program for 18 months, 3 years or 30 years. The issue, surely, has to be faced. It has not been debated in parliament either by the official opposition or in the response of the Minister of Finance. The issue is whether the program we are being asked to accept for 18 months or beyond is fair and workable.
As we said on Thanksgiving Day after the meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and after having had a chance to look for some hours at the white paper, this program is, first of all, unfair and unworkable. Second, it fails to present a broad approach to the economic problems facing this country. From the point of view of the New Democratic Party, both these issues constitute reasons for voting against it.
I wish to deal, in passing, with the latter point, the lack of breadth or lack of scope of the economic policy. I refer the Minister of Finance and the House to an article by two York University economists that appeared in the business section of today's Globe and Mail. They pointed out-and we said this some weeks ago and last spring at the time of the budget-that there will be record levels of unemployment in this country. This article was not written by two socialists, but two orthodox, competent economists. They made forecasts in conjunction with an analysis of this program that the government has presented. They pointed out that it is a possibility that in 1976 there will be a rate of unemployment of 9.5 per cent. That is something that should cause chagrin to any Minister of Finance. It should cause concern to the official opposition.
Anti-Inflation Act
We are debating the most comprehensive economic policy that any government has brought in since World War II. However, it is a policy that neglects in any detail to take a positive approach in dealing with unemployment and inflation. In terms of its implicit message and its restrictive approach to monetary and fiscal policy, it will positively contribute to unemployment. As I said on the day we first learned of the program, it is unfair and unworkable within its own terms, that is, in terms of dealing with inflation. It is unacceptable to the New Democratic Party because it wrongly restricts itself to dealing with inflation, totally ignoring the fact that within a year or so we are going to have the highest number of unemployed Canadians since the depression.
Our spokesmen in the committee played their full part. I was not there, but I read the reports. All the points we made on second reading, the effects of the bill on the poor and on the non-unionized workers, its unfairness in terms of permitting professionals to escape the controls, the loopholes which exist in the area of price control, the loopholes which exist in favour of multinational corporations, were raised by members of my party. I might add that the points raised by members of all parties in the committee met with totally unsatisfactory answers from the Minister of Finance. Every skeptical question we raised was answered in committee by Mr. Pepin or Madam Plumptre in a way which confirmed our worst apprehensions.
What we have in this proposal is a bill which will control salary and wage earnings but will not control prices at all. At the time it was announced, Mr. Pepin said it contained 111 loopholes. He did not use the word "loopholes"; he said there were 111 ways of getting round these proposals. What he did not say was that these loopholes were for the benefit of the banks, the food chains, industry and professional people. There are no loopholes for the average income earner. To our minds, this does not constitute rough justice; it constitutes no justice at all. Therefore, we cannot accept it even as an anti-inflation measure, lacking as it does an equitable approach.
I was dismayed to find that in the debate on second reading no minister made any real attempt to justify the program embodied in the bill before us. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in speeches made by the Prime Minister beginning about a year ago now, the right hon. gentleman was talking about the need for an approach which would deal with wage and salary increases. The then minister of finance and the then minister of industry, trade and commerce were taking a similar line. Wages, according to their argument, were the principal source of inflation in the economy.
We have not heard, either in committee or in the debate on second reading, any evidence to support that general claim. Indeed, any evidence which the general public has is on the other side of the argument. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, said in a speech at Saskatoon that it was not the case that wage and salary increases had caused inflation. He pointed out that such increases had followed increases in the cost of living; they had not caused those increases. The moral is that one should deal with the more direct causes of inflation after which a fall-off in wage and salary demands could be expected; and

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
that is precisely what has been happening in terms of wage demands.
The second argument advanced by the government was that we were pricing ourselves out of our trading markets. This, if true, could be serious, particularly in view of the unemployment which looms ahead. Here again, though, the evidence was not presented in committee. The most recent evidence to come to hand was provided by Statistics Canada yesterday in the trade figures. If those figures supported the government's opinion that we were pricing ourselves out of trading markets, we in this party would be bound to look at the argument very seriously. But they do not. The information provided yesterday by the government's own agency shows that in the first ten months of this year Canadian export over all increased by 1 per cent but our exports of finished goods, goods with a high labour component, rose by 9 per cent. This is, surely, of fundamental relevance to the government's argument.
Members opposite were saying a year ago that export markets in 1975 and 1976 would be affected because of disproportionate Canadian wage increases. Well, the figures are in and for the first ten months of 1975, rather than experiencing a decline in our exports we have seen an increase, particularly in those in which there is a high labour content. However, the government does not seem to be concerned about this argument. It is not troubled by the facts. I would draw it to the attention of the House that with one exception wage rates in the countries with whom we trade are running well ahead of those in Canada. The exception is the United States, but as we all know, our trade with the United States consists basically of raw materials, where there is little labour content. Therefore, the labour component in relation to total cost is really negligible- In light of what I have just said, the two principal arguments used by the government to justify its present approach to inflation fall to the ground.
What about the price loopholes? I should like to have heard the official opposition express some concern about the lack of an effective mechanism to control prices.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did.


John Edward Broadbent: The Leader of the Opposition says he did, and I will take his word for it. I did not hear him do so in the debate in the House. I assume, then, that other members have said something about it. I should have thought that the Conservative Party, had it'favoured an approach which was fair to all, would have zeroed in on the loopholes which the government has specifically provided in the legislation for the benefit of corporations and others. For instance, just in case a corporation should have a problem in getting accountants to disguise its profits, just in case there should be some loss of ingenuity by the corporation in devising ways of getting around the price control mechanism, the government has provided substantial loopholes to work with. If a corporation can show that its productivity has increased, it is exempt. If it experiences favourable cost developments which had not been anticipated, it is exempt. If it cleverly transfers the profits of its operation back to a parent firm in the United States it will, in effect, be exempt.
I remind the House that two weeks ago the chief accountant in the Department of National Revenue estimated that at the present time we are losing revenue amounting to $2.75 billion annually because branch plants in Canada are transferring their real profits to the United States disguised as costs. That Mr. Speaker-$2.75 billion- ain't chicken feed. This was before the present program was brought in.
Now imagine the pressure put on branch plants in Canada. As I have said, some 60 per cent of Canadian industry is foreign-owned, which largely means United States-owned. If the government is supposedly going to have some control over profits in Canada, the incentive for these branch plants to disguise their profits will be there as never before. They will be using every loophole to avoid paying tax in Canada as a result of intercorporate transfer pricing. I suspect that the annual loss of $2.75 billion will rise in excess of $3 billion, if I may give a conservative estimate of the revenue we are going to lose under this program.
This is why our party cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition to terminate the bill after 18 months. As I say, we cannot accept the bill beyond 18 months, and because we find the bill unjust beyond the period of 18 months we find it equally unjust for any period up to 18 months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What logic.


John Edward Broadbent: The Leader of the Opposition says "What logic." I say to him, what logic is there in his decision to vote against a government bill that takes over his program holus-bolus, but because it does not restrict the program to 18 months they will not support it? I ask the Canadian people to judge who is being logical about this, the New Democratic Party which has consistently opposed this bill whether for 18 months or three years, or the Conservative position which says it is all right if the bill lasts for 18 months but not if it goes beyond that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not what we say.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the logic of your position. The fundamental fault in the bill is this lack of control over the price sector, this lack of any serious attempt to keep down prices. The government could have imposed a freeze. It could have accepted the proposition that the New Democratic Party has been advocating for some years now, namely, dealing with inflation in the non-competitive sector by freezing prices and requiring corporations to justify any increase. Instead, the government has turned that idea upside down and permitted corporations to increase prices, putting the onus of proving unjust price increases upon the public.
The government's program is riddled with loopholes. It does not control prices and therefore is one we cannot accept. The government is not controlling professional incomes, either. The only effective way to hold down the incomes of professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants is to apply a 100 per cent tax on all income exceeding the $2,400 increase. I know that a number of New Democratic Party governments have made this pro-

November 25, 1975

posal to the federal government. They maintain it should be a national policy. But the Liberals have rejected it. In short, the Liberals have a program that will control only the average person's income, whether he be salaried or a wage earner. It does not control the income of professionals and it does not control prices.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I shall have to ask a colleague of mine to deal with a matter I had hoped to raise concerning a specific and major loophole in the program, in a sector that has a major impact on inflation, namely, the oil industry. There have been questions and answers in the last two days in the House which clearly demonstrate that the government has no interest in putting effective controls on the oil industry, but my colleague will be dealing with this shortly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Take more time, if you want. I am sure the House will agree.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not want to abuse the privilege of the House. I conclude by saying that the amendment proposed by the official opposition is unacceptable to us, because what is not acceptable and just in the long run is certainly not acceptable for 18 months. We intend to vote against the motion, as we intend to vote against the bill as a whole. This program is unfair. It does not deal directly with inflation, with housing, energy prices, food costs. It does not deal with the kind of specific instruments that are needed to fight inflation in those sectors outlined by members of my party in a special debate a week ago Friday.
I regret to see that the reason the official opposition is going to vote against this bill is simply that it did not get an amendment passed within their time framework. I should have liked to see them join with us in voting against the bill because it is the unjust package that it is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the minister this afternoon reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who moved this motion, which in its narrow terms merely seeks to bring this program to an end by April 30, 1977, rather than giving the government the powers it seeks until December 31, 1978. That is the sum and total of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition and it is entirely in keeping with what he has been proposing. It is consistent, as he has pointed out, with his comments made at the time of the white paper and also when the government introduced the legislation on October 14.
I must say I was rather amused to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) dream on, trying to put some sort of coloration upon the stand taken by the opposition on this bill. With regard to the question of controls, in February of 1973 the Conservative party proposed an incomes policy as one of the tools for fighting inflation and an election was fought over that issue. As any member of this chamber knows, the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party, each for its own particular reason, opposed controls as a tool to fight inflation. That was their stand in 1974. The former leader of the New Democratic Party spent the first three or four weeks of the election campaign attacking the conservative proposal as though it were the only proposal in the armoury of this party for dealing with inflation. Up to that point a good part of the press just
Anti-Inflation Act
ignored inflation. They just carried on as though everything was the best of all possible worlds, at least according to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Benjamin:: They were wrestling inflation to the ground.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No mention was made of wrestling inflation to the ground; that came later. They scared the voters in Ontario and in Quebec, as though controls were the only tool to be used to fight inflation, but the voters in the rest of Canada thought otherwise. What happened in Ontario with the New Democrats? They had controls as well. They had a prices review board with powers of roll-back. It only takes seconds of consideration to know that is a full, mandatory price control of wages, rents and everything in the armoury.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) says "just prices". What holds up prices? What is one of the chief constituents of any price-wages. Wages come in heavily in any element of price, as do rents and profit. In any consideration of price one must consider all the elements. The net result, we know, is that the former leader of the New Democratic Party did such a good job of hoodwinking the Ontario voters that when it came about that there would be a prices and review board, the voters saw what it was. What did they do? They said they would not have either. They took the position that the Liberals had told them everything was going fine and that they would just be fed dollars, that the program would be upped; there would not be too much indexing, but the government would give so that the people would be compensated for inflation.
We know what they did with the money supply. Be that as it may, I want to deal with the point the Minister of Finance was trying to make, I think quite wrongly, namely, that the purpose of this amendment is somehow to cut back the program of controls, that the 90-day freeze, plus up to two years of controls was 27 months, and how far is that from 42 months as is now proposed; therefore it is really not very much different. That is not the purpose. The minister should have quoted fully what was said by the House leader of the official opposition the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I underline that sometimes it is very dangerous to quote out of context. Let us look at what the hon. member for Peace River said on October 17. I shall put it all on the record so there will be no ambiguity about it. I shall quote from the first column on page 8314 of Hansard for October 17. The hon. member said:
To begin with, I am simply appalled at the effrontery of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government in asking this House to grant to it the unique, extraordinary and terrifying powers, to use the minister's words, which are asked for for an open-ended period of time. I would protest if my own party asked for those powers. Despite the respect and admiration I have for my leader, I would oppose him if he introduced legislation of this kind, although I could never see him seeking to do so in these terms. Let me put it simply in this way: the legislation as it presently stands would permit this government, some time in the late fall of 1978, to put forward and ram through motions which could extend for another two, three or four years the kind of legislation which we are considering. I am not prepared to entrust this power to any group of people, and certainly not to this government.

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
The hon. member continued:
I repeat, that as far as we are concerned, this aspect is totally unacceptable and simply will not wash. We will be proposing an amendment at the appropriate stages of committee and later to deal with this, and in our view failure to provide something to cover this problem, so that we will not be in a position-
Here it is, Mr. Speaker:
-where we sit here until 1978 waiting for the government to decide whether to extend the legislation, is unacceptable. We will propose an amendment which will provide that at an earlier date during the life of this legislation, this House will have, as it must, the right to decide whether under the circumstances which then exist the extension of the legislation is warranted.
We are not attempting to shorten the program. We say the government is asking this House to wait a long time to decide on extending the program, and we say this cannot happen in light of the powers and the circumstances of this legislation. The minister himself said this legislation was most terrifying.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Frightening.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, frightening. I quite agree with him. This afternoon I had occasion to reread the proceedings in 1955 dealing with the Defence Production Act. I do not know whether the father of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) was then a minister of the Crown. He had been shortly before. But we all know about the Defence Production Act debate in 1955, when this House refused to give consent and the government acceded to the opposition in the House in respect of granting absolute powers to the governor in council and giving the government a completely blank cheque.
What is the House asked to do in Bill C-73? Under clause 20 (8) there is granted to the administrator the power to make any order which can contravene any and all acts that this parliament has passed or is likely to pass during the duration of this legislation. Someone in the New Democratic Party said that they were rather disappointed that the official opposition opposed this bill only for the reason of its duration. Somehow or other-and I am surprised at this-they have missed the implications of clause 20 (8). I recall the absolute indignation, in fact the violent protest, of the former leader of the New Democratic Party when he saw the provisions and what was meant by the War Measures Act in October, 1970, and how civil rights were forgotten. Let me read what appears on pages 21 and 22 of Bill C-73:
An order of the Administrator made pursuant to subsection (1), paragraph (2) (a), (4) (a) or (5)(a) is binding on the person against whom it is made notwithstanding any agreement that was entered into after October 13, 1975 (whether before or after the order was made), notwithstanding any other Act or law enacted or made before or after the coming into force of this act, and notwithstanding that the order conflicts with anything that was established in accordance with or approved pursuant to any such other act or law.
Is that not the biggest blank cheque that this House had been asked to write in favour of an official named under this legislation? It is not a blank cheque to the governor in council, the governor in council being responsible in theory, at least, to this House. But we being asked to approve a provision stating that an appointed official, whose acts are barely reviewable except perhaps in law,

can make an order that is contrary to all acts that have been passed, save one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then why would you want him for 18 months?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That shows how slow the hon. member is because an amendment was put in committee to eliminate that section and to provide for the protection of civil liberties. Unfortunately, when the vote came, there was no representative for the NDP there to support that amendment.
The only exception is the Canadian Bill of Rights which states in clear and unequivocal terms that for it to be set aside there must be a specific provision in a subsequent act which says that the Canadian Bill of Rights is set aside. That is not done in this bill and therefore the Canadian Bill of Rights will stand. But that is all that stands. Strangely enough Bill C-72, the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is on the order paper, is excluded because I am sure government members hope that the House will pass that bill. But why pass it? They will have passed Bill C-73 which sets it aside.
We are asked also why we oppose this bill. We accepted in principle the question of controls, but our leader has indicated the conditions on which we accepted the government proposals. We do not write a blank cheque from the very beginning and say that we will accept government proposals and explanations sight unseen. I agree that we also have some reservations with regard to some of the loopholes and difficulties we see in the bill, but we admit also that a system of controls is difficult and, as our leader has said, there are some elements of rough justice. But, my goodness, surely the cancer of inflation which has moved on to the Canadian scene has been growing over these past many years with no intervention from the government.
Inflation is continuing notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in 1970 that they had licked inflation, and on a subsequent occasion said they would wrestle it to the ground. The only way in which they have done any wrestling with inflation is to take something partly from somebody else's program and to show that it is imperfect and creates more rough justice than it should-and I put the emphasis on the word "rough". There were other statements by the chairman and vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board that if they had had their preference they would have preferred a 90 day freeze.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbot) made that statement in a partisan manner because, after all, I am sure he has great respect for the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board. The transcript will show that both the chairman and the vice-chairman said that if they had had their preference they would have preferred a freeze on prices and incomes because, as the chairman said, he now has nightmares thinking about the problems that are growing with prices creeping up and wage demands continuing.
It will take some time to get everything into position. I would have expected it, and personally I would have felt

;;
November 25, 1975

that the minister would have had a great deal more acceptance of this program from the public. After all, we do not hear too many howls from British Columbia where another opponent of price controls, one of the arch disciples of the NDP, has seized upon full controls to deal with food prices, rents, and some other aspects of inflation, although not all of them.
I will not talk about fiscal and monetary policy, and I will not talk about the control of government expenditures within the framework of this bill. We are merely talking here about a system of wage and price controls. I will emphasize again that we find it impossible, notwithstanding that there is sympathy for controls, to accept the request of the government for a blank cheque until December 31, 1978. If after 18 months, on April 30, 1977, we fully understand the motive for these controls, which are to nullify, to affect somehow the inflation psychology which has been rampant in this country for years but which the government stubbornly refused to recognize-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their indulgence. I will not abuse it.
As I was saying, the government steadfastly refused to recognize that this inflation psychology existed in the country. I do not know where the Prime Minister read his book on present day economics, but at least now he has come up with the idea of controls. Certainly we agree that something has to be done, and that the inflation psychology has to be operated on within 18 months. Surely to goodness if the program is working, then the government can come back to parliament with a bill to continue or to modify the program. If the government is accomplishing what it has set out to do with regard to inflation-not licking inflation, because this program alone cannot do it- then I am sure the government will find the members of my party fully in support.
However, on the other hand, if the program is failing to accomplish its job, the country should not be saddled with a monster until December, 1978, and potentially beyond. After all, under this program there will be a massive intrusion by government into the economy. There is the potential of forever, shall we say, putting government into all aspects of the business of the country, particularly if it is there for a period of almost four years, and certainly if it is continued beyond that. That is what the minister should have said is frightening. He should have said that clause 20 (8) is frightening.
It is for those additional reasons, among others, that the Leader of the Opposition, consistent with the views he expressed right at the very beginning and all the way through, and the members of this party insist that with regard to this proposal dealing with income controls it should be for 18 months, and 18 months alone.
Anti-Inflation Act
That is the amendment we are now considering, but we could have had additional amendments. I did propose one, which I am concerned about, in addition to that which particularly bothers the Leader of the Opposition. I put my amendment in committee. We were faced with some zero amendments, nondescript amendments dealing with marketing boards and runaway amendments from government members who took up the balance of the time, under the guillotine, and of course the net result was that there was no opportunity to debate either the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), or the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, or mine.
I thank hon. members for these additional minutes, and I hope the arguments we have made with regard to this bill will commend themselves to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asks that this program not last longer than April 30, 1977. I fail to understand the logic behind a motion of this sort after listening to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the Leader of the Opposition, and other members of the Conservative party because they have now taken the position that they are condemning the program.
It seems to me that if they condemn the program so strongly they should be interested in making sure the program does not come into effect, using whatever parliamentary power and muscle they have unless of course the government is willing to amend the program to make it more acceptable to them. It strikes me as very strange that they would move a motion which would accept the program for 18 months while still condemning it loudly from the other side of their mouths.
All along our party has taken a very clear and consistent approach in the debate on this bill. We have been saying that this legislation is not fair, not equitable, and will not work in Canada at this time. It will not have any real impact on making a more equitable and just society or economy than we have today. We said at the outset that this program is essentially a wage control program. It will not be concerned with controlling prices or profits in a serious way. When it comes to controlling prices, there are many loopholes.
The government says that it wants to control profits at the end of the year, but it will control profits at 95 per cent of their level over the last five years. This strikes me as rather strange, particularly when wages will be controlled at a level whereby the rate of increase will go progressively down from 10 per cent to 8 per cent to 6 per cent, if workers receive their 2 per cent productivity increase. At the same time the profit level which is to be controlled will actually go up because it will be 95 per cent of the last five year average, and in the last five years profits have been very high.
However, if we go back five years, profits were at a lower level as they went through the regular business cycle. As we move along, the profit average for the last five years will be higher next year and the year after than it

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
will be this year, which means that prices will be allowed to increase, according to the government's own guidelines.
Then, to make it even more difficult for us to buy this bill, in terms of its being equitable, corporations will have exemptions for non anticipated costs. What does that mean, and how is that defined? We will not know that until the regulations come in. There will be an exception for an unusual productivity gain. Again what is meant by that? We will not know the answer to that question until the regulations are brought before the House.
This leads me to another point which is objectionable about this bill, and that is the immense power we will be giving the Anti-Inflation Board, the administrator of the board, the chairman and the vice chairman to draft regulations, to interpret them, to make judgment on various cases, be they cases of wages or salaries, or be they anything which comes under the general purview of the AntiInflation Board.
I have been here only seven years, and with the exception of the War Measures Act I have never seen such an immense amount of power go to one agency or board without any direct input from parliament itself. It seems to me that parliamentarians in this House should demand to look at the regulations before we allow this bill to pass. The Conservative party is beginning to talk about these things, but at the same time it is willing to accept the bill if there is an 18 month time limit placed on it. If the bill is so bad, how the devil can they possibly accept it for 18 months?
This amendment is just one of the devices the Conservative party is using, in terms of its strategy, to work on an excuse to oppose the type of legislation that we have before us today. For that reason and others I cannot support the amendment before us, and I urge hon. members of the House to vote against the amendments which have been introduced by the Conservative party.
As we in this party have said, we have opposed this bill consistently from the beginning because we do not think it is fair. We think it is a wage control bill. It is easy to control the wages of working people. They are out in the open and under contracts, and they can be controlled very effectively. However, on the price side, we have said many times that there are so many possible loopholes that we do not think the government is going to be serious about controlling prices.
As a matter of fact, I believe the other day the vice chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, Beryl Plumptre, along with some other members of the board said that the government should not be too tough when it comes to controlling profits and prices. After all, both Mrs. Plumptre and Mr. Pepin believe in the so-called corporate enterprise system. They believe that there should be profits and competition in our economy if it is to be healthy. If there are people with that type of bias drafting the regulations, interpreting them, and applying the law, I am sure they are not going to apply the law in a way which really restricts corporations, their price mechanisms, and the way they make profits. That is the kind of background from which those people come.

Mr. Pepin comes to the job after resigning directorships in seven corporations. He comes to the job with a record which is clearly biased on the side of business and big corporations. That is his business and I am not complaining about Mr. Pepin. But I am saying that he is going to have a clear bias when he makes decisions concerning profits and prices that come before the Anti-Inflation Board, and when he makes decisions concerning workers' salaries and wages that come before the Anti-Inflation Board.
Another reason why our party is not supporting this amendment is that we do not see any control of professional salaries like the controls that have been imposed on the lives of working people. The only way that there is going to be any serious control over professional salaries is to have them controlled on a national level and taxed back at a rate of 100 per cent of any increases above the $2,400 level. That is the only way to do it, but as far as I know the government has rejected that proposal which was made by many people, including several provincial governments.
Another question that was referred to by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was that the government is not going to put controls on the price of energy or oil at the wellhead. It seems to me that if you want to control the price of gas and oil, that is where the controls should be applied. If the price increases at the wellhead, the cost is going to be felt right through to the retail level. Anyone who purchases gasoline, for an automobile or farm machinery, is going to have to bear the increase.
We have said consistently in this party that gas and oil should be publicly owned and treated as a public utility. I am sure the minister is aware of the latest Canadian public opinion poll issued a few days ago which showed that 51 per cent of the people in this country want gas and oil under public ownership. That industry should be developed as the government of Saskatchewan is going to develop to potash industry, as a resource that belongs to the people, with the profits to be shared by the people and not the multinational corporations. We have consistently taken that position. If the industry were under public ownership it would be possible to keep prices down. It could be developed in a way that is good for Canada, or the resource could be conserved for all Canadians.
There is no guarantee that if the wellhead price increases any of the money will be used for exploration and development in Canada. If the government is not going to nationalize the oil industry surely it should make sure that any increase in the price of oil will be used for exploration and development. Any increase in the price of oil is inflationary and should come under the purview of the Anti-Inflation Board.
I have here some statistics from Statistics Canada which prove the point that, as the profits of gas and oil companies increase, they do not necessarily spend more on exploration. In 1972, for example, the book profits of petroleum corporations in Canada were $393 million and in that year they spent $512 million on exploring for gas and oil in Canada. In 1975 the profits of oil companies had gone up to $845 million and the amount they spent on exploration was $577 million. They spent very little more on exploration
November 25, 1975

when their profits increased by well over 100 per cent. There is no direct relationship between spending more on exploration and development and what their gross production revenues may be. I appeal to the government to control the price of oil at the wellhead.
These are things that are not going to be done under the bill as it is constituted. These are reasons why we cannot accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition that the bill be limited to 18 months. If it is going to be a bad bill for 30 months or 40 months, then surely it is a bad bill for 18 months. If it is bad bill for three years it is a bad bill for a year and a half. If the Conservative party is going to complain about it for three or 314 years, I do not see how it can justify using the same powers for a year and a half. I do not see the logic of its position.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) stated earlier, in the election campaign of 1974 the Conservative party was talking about legislation which, if you combine the freeze part of its proposal with the controls part of its proposal, would last as long as 27 months.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Possibly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That's what I said, it would possibly last as long as 27 months. I think they are just trying to jostle a bit, politically. I think they are a little bit embarrassed by what has happened.
We have had one of the greatest turn-arounds in Canadian politics over this issue. In the 1974 campaign people were going around this country saying that controls were bad-they were of the Liberal party. A few months later all of a sudden the Liberal party made a complete somersault. It has promoted the idea and has brought legislation into the House that is essentially the same-with the exception of the 90 day freeze-as what the Conservative party was offering in that campaign. Again all of a sudden, then the official opposition is doing the same kind of somersault.
It is our party that has been consistent throughout the whole debate. When we talked about inflation, when we talked about a controlled program, and when we voted in the House. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, under no circumstances can I consider the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as one that warrants my support and my attention.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak in opposition to motion No. 3 and I will have something to say on motion No. 5 put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).
It is possible that the NDP might owe some apology to the Progress've Conservative party because during the 1974 election we did such a good job in shooting down their wage and price controls that no doubt a lot of people were scared into voting Liberal in order to protect their
Anti-Inflation Act
incomes. This hurt us as well as the Conservatives. We may owe them a bit of an apology, but that does not mean we were wrong in the position we took then, which is the same position we take now on the legislation that the government proposes.
I want to repeat what I have said before. The question is not whether we should have a program to contain the rate of increase of inflation or lessen it. The question is not what the government is proposing to do, but how it is proposing to do it.
I say the official opposition is in the same boat as the New Democratic Party-its members are also unhappy about how the government proposes to fight inflation. I would feel more comfortable if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) were prime minister and implementing a program to fight inflation. I would be more inclined to trust him than the government across the way. A government that can make the switch that it has made in the last 15 or 16 months is just not to be trusted in carrying out a program to fight inflation.
There is an additional reason why it is not to be trusted. In its fight against inflation in 1969 and 1970 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in his Christmas broadcast that we had inflation licked, we all remember that that fight against inflation was carried out as this one will be, on the backs of the wage and salary earners. There was some lessening in the rate of inflation and the government of that day had some modest success, but at the cost of a much greater rate of unemployment. I submit that was a higher cost than the cost of the rate of inflation that we were suffering at that time. This legislation proposes to do exactly the same thing but on a more extensive scale and in a much harsher way.
It has been said many times by the spokesmen for the NDP that the legislation is unfair and inequitable. Shortening the program to 18 months from 36 months will not lessen the injustice. The program is still unjust and unfair, still unworkable in a fair manner.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke about fighting the inflation psychology. If this legislation were to fight inflation on the backs of those who cause it, my party might be inclined to support it. But it chooses to fight inflation on the backs of those on fixed incomes, pensioners, those earning minimum wages, and the unorganized who earn low incomes and lack protection. For the benefit of that hon. member, there is no inflationary psychology in the minds of old age pensioners, those earning minimum wages, the unorganized, those who cannot protect themselves, and those who earn $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000 a year. They are the majority of our population and there is no inflationary psychology in their minds. They make desperate attempts to catch up, to avoid Ijeing even worse off because of inflation.
This legislation will not affect those who cause inflation, the finance institutions which, even as this bill was being discussed in committee, were allowed to raise interest rates and further sweeten their profits from money lending. I thought the money lenders were chased from the Temple 2,000 years ago; but they have since "snuck" in the back door. They are partly responsible for inflation.
9438

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
And what about those who are to escape the provisions of this legislation, those whose increased earnings come from so-called increased productivity, the doctors who see more patients in less time, the architects who design a greater number of office buildings, and other professionals. They will be able to claim their productivity has increased and evade this legislation; but they contribute to inflation. Those with incomes as large as we earn as members, and larger, are imbued with inflation psychology. Such people take more from the economy than they put into it.
Do members of the official opposition think for a moment that people on minimum wages, on pensions, and on fixed incomes are taking more from the economy than they put in? If they think so, let them work a few days for the minimum wage and see how they feel.
Further, we feel we cannot support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition as we do not think prices and incomes legislation can effectively combat inflation by itself. You cannot do it in isolation from other things. By itself such legislation will not work, as you must consider all the other factors contributing to inflation. A program of income and price controls should be an essential part of an over-all economic plan. You cannot have one without the other, as the song says. If you are to control or restrain prices you must, it seems to me, control production. In other words, you need mandatory production controls, as C. D. Howe realized during World War II. He knew that without adequate production controls some companies would hold production back for better prices. Therefore we need measures to control production.
I suggest that the proposed regulations for controlling prices will, in many areas, be ineffective. How will they work in transportation? In short, we must arrive at a consensus or, in the words of Harold Wilson, a social contract which includes all segments of society, workers, businessmen, farmers, consumers, and federal, provincial, and municipal governments. We must arrive at a consensus. There must be an overwhelming desire on the part of the majority of the population to be involved in the program. That is not the case at present. This consensus is not an element in this legislation.
There is a third reason for our not supporting the amendment. Although I am not an economist or expert it seems to me that deadlines have their limitations, as the shorter the period to the deadline the greater is the likelihood that those who can afford to wait for the expiration of the program will do just that, sit back and wait for it to end. The Minister of Finance mentioned the experience in Britain and the United States where there was an explosion of price increases immediately after the expiration of price and income control programs.


An hon. Member:: Both countries were under Conservative ^governments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Those governments were headed by Mr. Heath and Mr. Nixon, both Conservatives as the hon. member says. Those governments served notice on those whose prices and incomes were to be controlled. Those who could afford to, sat back and waited for the controls to end. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, with all respect, that his 18-month proposal would suit ideally every major corporation which could adjust its production and inven-
tory and wait for the arrival of April 30, 1977, after which there would be a price explosion. But the ordinary person cannot do that, if the experience of the United Kingdom and United States is any guide.
It seems to me that a lesser evil would be no deadline at all. Why should not the government be required to come to parliament every 12 or 18 months with a report, which parliament could debate? If the government were to feel at any time it no longer needs the program, it could say to parliament, "We want to repeal part or all of the program." There would be no need for any deadline. Then those who want to evade the controls, particularly on profits, professional fees, interest income, and so on, would not know how long they must wait before exploding upward their prices or profits. It seems to me for that reason that the Conservatives' amendment to reduce the period to 18 months will merely increase the likelihood of evasion.
Let me refer to something that happened not long ago to show why this program is misconceived and why the fight against inflation cannot be isolated to one program. Last week the "Big Six" met in France, and Canada cried like a child refused an invitation to a birthday party because our government was not invited to attend. I am glad it was not invited because, judging from the attitude of our government, it would have contributed nothing to that conference. One of the main items discussed at the conference was the fight against unemployment. It was held that the industrialized nations of the western world should put a higher priority on the fight against unemployment than on the fight against inflation.
Since the government has no program to fight unemployment with an equal priority to inflation, its representatives would have had no contribution to make had they been invited to sit in with the "Big Six". Instead of being one of the "Big Six," they would have been the little seventh. That is all they could have done. They would have had something to say about inflation, but nothing about unemployment.
The concern has to be more about recession, unemployment, and other ancillary problems such as housing, as much and more as it is about inflation. From what I have been reading the last few weeks I understand that the trend around the world, without this phony program of the government, is deflationary. The problem that we had a few months ago is not as severe now, and will not be as severe in the coming months.
I want to say a few words about what the spokesmen for the Anti-Inflation Board and the government have been saying with regard to marketing boards. I remind the members of the official opposition of the position they took and with which we agreed, the protection of the primary producer at the farm gate and of the fishermen at the dock.
I ask hon. members in the official opposition whether they do not find it passing strange that, at the very first press conference of Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plumptre, of all the areas of the economy there are to be looked at with regard to inflation, such as financial institutions, professional fees, wages and salaries, and so on, the one they chose to zero in on and attack was marketing boards.
November 25, 1975

I remind the members of the official opposition that marketing boards are right beside the farm gate and on the dock beside the fisherman's boat. Controlling the ability of marketing boards to provide stable and reasonable incomes, having some relationship to cost of production to primary producers, negates entirely the principle held by the official opposition about protecting the primary producer at the farm gate.
This morning's Globe and Mail adds further to my fears about how this program will be operated under the tender mercies of Jean-Luc Pepin and old Ma Plumptre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That should be sufficient for members of the official opposition to agree with us that not only is 36 months no good, but neither is 18 months. The program designed by the government will not work. It is unfair and unjust. For that reason, it is worthy of opposition.
I appreciated and admired the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition at the outset, during the debate on the white paper, and at second reading when his party was prepared to support in principle a program to combat inflation, a program of prices and incomes control. However, he left the door open and reserved the position that, if the government did not bring in sufficient improvements in committee and at report stage, his party would not support the legislation. Lord knows the government needs all the support it can get from all sectors and all political parties if it is going to have any success in fighting inflation.
Surely reducing the length of the program from 36 to 18 months is in no way sufficient to satisfy the leaders and members of the official opposition. Surely it cannot be sufficient. Surely there is more than that which they wanted at report stage. Surely they cannot have decided that cutting the length of the program in half is sufficient. If so, I state quite frankly that that is a sell-out of the principles they stuck to very firmly in the 1974 election campaign, something that I admired. If they now believe that 18 months is sufficient, I say that is a sell-out.
I notice my time has almost expired. I will use my remaining few minutes to say a few words about motion No. 5 moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). It provides, and I quote:
Where, at any time after March 31, 1977 and before July 1, 1977, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than 50 members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that this Act shall expire on a date before December 31, 1978-
My quarrel with the minister's amendment is the 50 members provision. I remind the minister that we have argued this before with regard to other items of legislation. On some occasions we persuaded the government, and on others we did not, with regard to setting a much more fair and reasonable figure as to how many members of parliament are required to bring such a motion into effect.
I submit that the number 50 was either thoughtlessly arrived at by the government, or deliberately arrived at to prevent at least two political parties in the House of Commons from bringing such a motion into play. I choose to believe the former, that the figure of 50 was thoughtlessly
Anti-Inflation Act
arrived at. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Motion No. 5 be amended by deleting therefrom the phrase "50 members" and by substituting therefor the phrase "20 members".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It
being 6:30 p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6:30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 6.30 p.m. we were considering the report stage of Bill C-73 and, in particular, motions 3, 4 and 5, together with an amendment to motion No. 5 which had just been moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). The debate is open on those three motions and also on the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the purpose of our putting forward our amendment to the motion is to impress further upon the House our opinion that the soomer we can bring these so-called wage and price controls to an end, the better. In other words, the sooner we can rip away this sham anti-inflation program the better the Canadian people will be served.
I say this as I rise to speak upon the sub-amendment because I feel the control program is nothing more than a wage control program. We in this party have no objection to an incomes policy, no objection to an anti-inflation policy which is universal and which contains elements of justice. But the program which has been placed before us is, as I say, nothing more than a plan for wage controls.
I might point out that whenever similar plans have been put into operation in countries abroad they have almost always resulted in high unemployment. It is no accident, I feel, that concurrent with the program we are considering today the government should be promoting a bill entitled Bill C-69, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, a measure which in a very real sense redefines the acceptable rate of unemployment in this country. Whereas in the past 4 per cent was said to be acceptable, after the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act have been passed the acceptable rate is to be 5.6 per cent, liable to upward adjustment.
Let us consider what has been happening in relation to collective industrial power in the hands of the workers in this country. It seemed to me we were just about to turn the corner as far as the redistribution of profits in the direction of wages and salaries was concerned. In 1969 the government set up the Prices and Incomes Commission. I have been looking recently at a statement by one George Haythorne, a member of that ill-fated Commission in which he explained why they were attempting to set up a commission to inquire into prices and incomes:
From 1957 to 1963 the share of Canada's national income going to profits and capital had risen steadily. That situation was reversed in 1964 when labour's share began to rise. The trend continued until 1970.
29956 - 45 Vi

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
Given these conditions, action to stabilize the economy was clearly required.
That statement is to be found in Prices and Incomes Policy-The Canadian Experience 1969-72-International Labour Review, Volume 108 No. 6, December 6, 1973.
There we have it. There was a reason at that time for the government to try to bring in an incomes policy based on the fact that labour was finally succeeding in using its organized power to get a bigger share of the national income pie. However, shortly after that policy was embarked upon unemployment began to rise and the share of the national income which went to the working classes fell from 72.8 per cent in 1970 to 67 per cent in the first half of 1974. From mid-1974, labour's share increased to 69.4 per cent and by the end of 1974 it had risen to 70.8 per cent. Big business profits and interest fell to 21.1 per cent by the end of 1974 and to 20.1 per cent in mid-1975. So it is fairly obvious that the lines were drawn, that what was happening was that finally labour was starting to get a share of the national income pie. This was due largely to the better organization of the trade union movement and to the militancy they were exhibiting in terms of getting a better share of the pie.
The corporations convinced the government that there would have to be a turn around, and that if the corporations could maintain their high profit this would somehow ensure there would be jobs and a very buoyant economy. Largely to protect their own profit margins they convinced the government that it ought to apply some form of wage controls. This was evident when the former minister of finance tried to get a consensus on wage controls.
During the election campaign of 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to my neck of the woods and made a speech near Timmins on June 28. During the course of his speech he said this:
You can't freeze executive salaries and dividends because there are too many loopholes to squeeze through.
Then he went on to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had already said he would not freeze prices of farm produce and fish, that he could not freeze the prices of U.S. imports and Arab oil, and that he admitted that he would exempt housing prices. So the Prime Minister shouted:
So what's he going to freeze? Your wages. He's going to freeze your wages.
Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister correctly identified the problems with wage controls, or an incomes policy, call it what you will. It is very easy to control wages. As a matter of fact yesterday the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) castigated the unions, saying they were unpatriotic in not supporting the government's wage controls. Are we suddenly to assume that International Nickel, Falconbridge Nickel Mines, and a host of other large corporations in Canada have become very patriotic when they are telling their workers they will give them 10 per cent but not to ask for more? I think it was Samuel Johnson who, in speaking about patriotism, said it is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was Lyndon Johnson.


John R. Rodriguez: In any event, when Falconbridge and International Nickel begin to be patriotic, I begin to worry.


Mr. Darling:: You would worry a lot more if they were not in your riding.


John R. Rodriguez: Falconbridge have just laid off a thousand. They only stay in my riding for what they can get out of it. It is obvious that these controls will very effectively apply to wages. Wages will be limited to 10 per cent-8 per cent plus a further 2 per cent for productivity__but prices will rise under the cover of increased costs,
whetever that means. Rather than hold down prices and let wages adjust, the government has found it convenient to hold down wages and hope that prices will adjust.
It is clear that the government has assured the corporations that their real profits will not decline under this policy. The workers will have to buy a pig in a poke. They have to accept a ceiling on their wage increases, hoping and praying that the 8 per cent will be enough to cover any increased costs in their living expenses. In addition, the government is exempting from the controls energy prices, food prices, interest rates, and the cost of land.
Yesterday the Toronto-Dominion Bank, I think it was, said that its profits after taxes were something like 27 per cent. Having heard that report, keep in mind that they hanged Dick Turpin. The banks will just walk away from these controls, yet bank interest rates touch the lives of every Canadian. That is free enterprise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The banks never lose.


John R. Rodriguez: The banks never lose. It seems to me the ability of the government to make even those prices that are to be controlled relate themselves to costs is limited. Wherever workers are engaged in collective bargaining, the negotiations are open. Everyone knows what the collective bargaining process involves. Everybody knows what the postal workers are after; it is open and on the table. They know what the negotiations are going to result in. That strike is all above board. But the pricing decisions and the profit structure of corporations are not open to public scrutiny. The reason for this is, they say, that they do not want their competition to know what their pricing and profit structures are. This is why these negotiations take place behind the closed doors of the boardrooms.
To illustrate how involved is the process upon which the government has embarked, at first the controls were to apply to 1,500 large corporations. I understand this figure has now risen to over 6,000. The government is going to hire 200 bureaucrats to monitor these 6,000 corporations. Regional offices are going to be set up to monitor prices. It is frightening to think that we are now setting up a new bureaucracy, a kind of bureaucracy where corporations which can afford to hire high priced accountants will certainly find ways to escape.
Another avenue of escape, of course, lies with the multinationals. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was in the committee I asked him about a matter that some of my consumers were reporting to me, namely, that Canadian clams and salmon caught off Canadian coasts were being shipped to Japan for packing and then brought back to the Canadian market for sale. Under the guidelines
November 25, 1975

these products would be exempt from price control. These clams and salmon were packed for George Weston Limited, and in effect we have a price transferral system which can only result in the multinational corporations escaping from these controls. Yet the government asks the people to accept its program as fair.
The people have reason to be skeptical of the government's proposal. The government has said that a limited number of price increases will be submitted to the government before they take effect. How can the Anti-Inflation Board which will consist of 200 persons be able adequately to determine the intentions of the corporations in this regard?
The British experience shows that a similar system was in operation there between July, 1967, and June, 1970. Despite the British government's own estimate of three million price changes being made a year in Britain, only 2,162 notifications were received by that government over the whole three-year period. Of these, 1,807 were accepted as notified. This meant that out of 3 million price changes the government price control machinery either modified or rejected a grand total of 345, or .0004 per cent. If the British labour government's price control was as empty as this, it is easy to imagine how our government's price control will be under its program when we consider the close financial, personal, and idealogical ties it has with big business.
One reason why this party has rejected either an 18 month, a three-year or whatever it may be period for the program is highlighted by the policy in respect of wages. So-called price controls have grievous implications for workers who are subjected to the policy's wage guidelines. As we said, the maximum allowable will be 10 per cent, 8 per cent plus 2 per cent for productivity.
It seems to me there are two particular problems. The first is that the 2 per cent growth rate figure is a low estimate and runs the risk that actually the economy will grow faster and that the excess growth will go to profit, which the guidelines specifically allow.
Secondly, and even more important, the present rate of inflation is 11.3 per cent, not 8 per cent. If there is no change under the weak price controls, the real income of the workers, even including the 2 per cent for productivity, will fall by 1.3 per cent and they will get no share of the growth in output of the economy.
Who benefits in this program? The way the government has made it look it is as if the worst off will benefit, and that if you can put the cap on the top somehow or other, by some means of osmosis, those who are the worst off will benefit. That is the kind of impression they have tried to leave. This policy our party has said, and says again, is not designed to redistribute income but is designed to freeze the present distribution of income. Since everyone is to get the same percentage increase, whether their income is high or low, this means we will create a situation in which the top 20 per cent of the income recipients will get 50 per cent of the total income while the bottom 50 per cent will get 30 per cent of the total income, and the lowest 20 per cent will get 2 per cent.
In effect it is not only a freeze but, as my leader points out, it evens widens the gap between the top and the
Anti-Inflation Act
bottom. So we are not talking about a program of redistribution of wealth which this party for years has told the government and the Canadian people is needed.
The government permits a pitiable, minor amendment allowing low income Canadians to get $750, while the top group is limited to $2,400. It seems to me that if it were really serious about this kind of proposal it ought swing it around so that the top would get the $750 and the bottom would get the $2,400. Even with the proposals it makes there is no power for the low income earners. They have no opportunity to obtain even that $750. They have to have some process through which to approach their employers in order to get the $750. They have to have some structure which they do not presently have. In effect they depend on the largesse of the companies for which they work to give them even the $750. As we know, there are people-


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


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak, this evening, to Bill C-73, and more specifically to the motions now before the House, which motions stem from the work done in committee. Through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the government put before the country a program to fight inflation. About that program: the Prime Minister turned it down during the last election campaign because, he claimed, the time was not yet ripe to fight inflation. At that time, whatever we may say, the government, as repository of the truth, claimed that the time had not yet come for it and that, consequently, the market should be allowed to work freely. Now, this year, early in the current session, the government, in dramatic fashion, announces an all-out fight against inflation, saying salaries will be controlled, unacceptable price increases will be prevented, and suddenly, the government centres that fight on a voluntary basis, which means that according to the government members the program will be efficient only to the extent where Canadians are willing to co-operate in the fight against inflation.
Some fine day, the government decided to launch an attack against inflation after having-it will be recalled- consulted businessmen, labour leaders, and asked their participation, even before passage of the bill. It will be remembered that at the time, the reiterated appeals for voluntary co-operation went to no avail. That means that the government was aware, that it knew, when it introduced the bill, that voluntary co-operation had, if any, very little chance of success, since the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other ministers had already strongly urged the business community and labour to co-operate. Before this famous fight against inflation was announced by the government, the latter had been assured there would be no co-operation on a voluntary program, if not been told so categorically and almost unanimously.
Therefore, Bill C-73, intended to launch a fight against inflation is based essentially, and here I refer to the statements of the members of the Anti-Inflation Board-on the willingness of the people, big and small business to co-operate.

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
This bill is meant for companies with 500 employees or more, but it asks all other small businesses to abide by it voluntarily. This legislation does not control imports nor exports. It does not deal either with collective agreements signed before October 14 or during the last fiscal year. This legislation indeed is voluntary.
There is much confusion about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and now we see it. Judging by the reaction of unions, without approving that reaction, it remains that we can take for granted that the main unions are not willing to co-operate with the government.
Mr. Speaker, I wished to point out tonight that if a voluntary anti-inflation program is to succeed it must obtain the approval of a majority of Canadians. Now under the present economic and social circumstances, inflation has already claimed its victims. Mr. Speaker, the government is simply too late. Like many others, I wonder if Canada will be the fourteenth country to fail in its fight against inflation. First, the government does not deal at all with the banking or monetary system. Not at all. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) even admitted several times in the House that he has no control over interest rates.
I refer here to a document published by the government and entitled "Highlights of the Anti-inflation Program of the Canadian Government". On page 17, we can read the following:
Even though it is impossible to control interest rates set on financial markets.
Mr. Speaker, who then controls the economic blood of the country? Who controls the purchasing power of the citizens if the Minister of Finance himself, in his official documentation, admits that he has no control over interest rates? In that case, Mr. Speaker, whether the anti-inflation legislation of the government lasts two months, ten months, eighteen months or thirty-six months, in its fight against inflation to protect individuals and businesses from this monster that we call inflation, the government must strike at the root of this evil, namely our economic system. Someone laughed. Some believe that the Social Credit solutions are not valid, that they are only for show, but the present situation has made thousands of victims, and the government is establishing a restriction program which applies precisely to the less-favored people. People who earn $24,000 a year will be entitled this year to a $2,400 salary increase thanks to the anti-inflation program of the government. People who earn $7,000 will be entitled to a paltry $700 increase. That is the justice, or the fair treatment of the government as concerns certain citizens. It allows those who are highest paid to obtain more and those who earn less to obtain less, while inflation affects everyone, whatever their financial situation, their job, the area or the country where they live.
Mr. Speaker, this fight against inflation is a joke because it does not attack the real problem which is the economic system. The minister said in his speech of October 14, and I quote:
If we do not succeed in working together in a firm spirit of national determination, our situation will only get worse.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is really serious in inviting Canadians to support the anti-inflation program, he himself and the government will have to take measures or introduce proposals to the House with a view to dealing fairly with all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Dominion and Steinberg, two very big food chains in Canada, have been conducting a colossal advertising campaign in the newspapers in the last few days, saying that all their prices are frozen except those of perishable products. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was boasting yesterday that that meant a first step towards the success of his program, which is entirely false. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not know that Dominion and Steinberg find it an advantage to refuse to negotiate now with the leaders of their employees' union, under the pretext that Bill C-73 has not yet been passed and thus setting the atmosphere of negotiation or intimidation to their employees. I know people who work for Dominion and Steinberg, two giant food products chains that practically control food marketing in Canada, one of the vital sectors of our economy. I once showed in a speech I made in the House all the ramifications of the Dominion and Steinberg empire, shopping centres, real estate and so on. Dominion and Steinberg refuse to negotiate with their employees, preferring to hide behind the government's legislation to force them to accept a 10 per cent hike. Mr. Speaker, there are threats of strikes in both these chain stores now, and the government wants us to believe it is serious. In its fight against inflation, the government is siding with the minority in Canada and wilfully turns its back on the majority of the poeple by supporting the banking establishment, the major chains of food supply and marketing. That is the government's scheme. It is based on voluntary restraint, but it does not rely on the good will of all Canadians which make up the larger part of the Canadian population. It merely calls upon the richer to set the example, which is easy for them, after having been the main beneficiaries of inflation for the past three, four or five years. But it is the small-wage earners working in plants who are imposed a maximum hike ceiling of 10 per cent today. In my city of Victoriaville, where the average salary is between $7,000 and $8,000, the average worker will be entitled to an $800 hike this year.
But they have been the first victims of inflation for the past five years. The government always refused to act, and it will be remembered on this side of the House that the government always replied that inflation in Canada was beyond control because it was imported by foreigners. This government kept repeating that there was nothing it could do about inflation since it had no control over it. They said it was imported from England and any other country, particularly Europe and the eastern bloc. Well, Mr. Speaker, lo and behold all of a sudden Canada can fight, calls on the working force, and to convince them, does not touch the banking system of the minimum wage and gives no measure of protection to small wage earners. It is going after big corporations. But, Mr. Speaker, we see the result of that. Dominion and Steinberg used that to continue to oppress their own employees. That is what I call intimidation. That is what I call rubbish. And then the minister tells us in his motions that it is very important to know how long those measures will last. Mr. Speaker, I think
(Mr. Fortin.]
November 25, 1975

they should have never been adopted for the simple reason that it is a joke in the sense that they have no effectiveness whatsoever. The main victims of that fight are small businesses which in the game of competition can no longer face big businesses and wage earners.
Mr. Speaker, I would have several things to add but since we are at the report stage I will restrict my remarks to this point. I want to say in concluding, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is not so much a matter of dates, of knowing when it begins and when it ends. A legislation is passed because it is good, or it is rejected because there is no faith in it. And in my mind that fight is not serious because the government admits it is powerless in front of the banking and monetary system.
I know what the members on the government side will say. They will say that we must be reasonnable in our demands. Did the government dare ask Canadian banks to be reasonable in raising their interest rate? Did the government authorize, or was it consulted about the latest rise in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada? Was the minister consulted about that?
The government tells us that it wants to encourage building during this fight against inflation and that it is going to eliminate unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, in Victoriaville a textile plant has just been closed, which means about 150 layoffs. I remember hearing the minister say in this House that the Textile and Clothing Board would protect these jobs. A hundred and fifty employees have just been laid off in Victoriaville. We are fighting inflation, so what are we going to do to protect these workers.
Mr. Speaker, the banking system continues to "gnaw", since it has the power in fact.
In the House of Commons we do nothing but speak, we adopt words. Real power in Canada lies first in the banking system which does not need Parliament; it only needs tentacles. The second power is bureaucracy. In both cases, the main inflation sources, and I conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, are the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, which are the main employers in Canada, and we have no control over their expenditures. Then, there is the banking system, and the government itself recognizes they cannot control it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that with Bill C-73 the government is politicking and the sooner this legislation will be abolished, the less the government will be able to play with the goodwill of the Canadian people.
I would not be so surprised to discover that Canadians do not respect this act, since the struggle against inflation is being waged on the backs of workers and low income people.
Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to see the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) explain those things to workers who are working in Victoriaville for salaries averaging $7,000, ask them to tighten their belts further, be reasonable and be satisfied with a $700 yearly salary increase, whereas a board has been created to fight inflation and, as a matter of example, its chairman, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin is paid $54,000 a
Anti-Inflation Act
year. Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful to tolerate such a scandal in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Laval is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that if I were to be issued with such an invitation, I would be delighted to visit those people and explain the government's policies to them.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The liberals are waiting to be invited before meeting the public, but the Social Crediters as well as the opposition members meet the people directly.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on Thanksgiving Day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the policies which supposedly would be included in these wage and price controls, or this anti-inflation program, members of this party rejected the proposals, not because we are opposed to an incomes policy which would treat all the people of Canada equitably but because we realized from the beginning that what the Prime Minister was proposing was a policy of freezing wages with no intention of freezing prices, profits, or the incomes of self-employed people.
However, the people of Canada are concerned about the problem of inflation and about the rapid increase in the cost of living. People from all the various sectors of the economy and from all parties expressed general support for an incomes policy. The NDP premier of my province, Mr. Schreyer, expressed general support for an incomes policy. We have had close to six weeks of twisting, turning, and evading the most simple questions on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), so much so that when he held his press conference on Friday the premier of Manitoba was no longer saying he supported the government's program, or even an amended program which might be proposed by the government. The premier of Manitoba said on Friday that he was coming here tomorrow with 150 questions he wanted answered before he could say whether he would support this program.
We have said that we know this program and these proposals will not work. It is obvious that the government is really saying to the people of Canada, "Do as the government says and not as it does." If we consider the policies and the actions of the government in the last three, four or five months, there is not the slightest indication that it has any intention of showing restraint for itself, its civil servants, its friends, or its supporters at all. Let me remind hon. members that as of September 4 of this year, just five weeks before the Prime Minister announced his program, the government approved increases for the top 1,100 senior public servants of between $2,000 and $6,000 per year retroactive to April 1 of this year, including 350 at level 2, and 140 the next highest group who will get an increase of anywhere from $2,000 to $6,500. So we can see that there is certainly no restraint for senior civil servants working for the Government of Canada.
The Finance Committee had the honour and the privilege of hearing the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and he gave us a lecture about the need for restraint. One can
November 25, 1975

Anti-Inflation Act
take a five minute walk from here and see a brand new, large and very fancy office building going up.


John R. Rodriguez: $35 million.


David Orlikow: My colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), says $35 million. Who is going to use that building? The Bank of Canada. There is not very much restraint there. I would bet that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has an office almost as large as this chamber. There is no restraint for him. One can go across the river and see the beginnings of another government complex. Let me read from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune yesterday. The Tribune is certainly no friend of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Just listen a few minutes, and then get up and speak. The editorial reads in part:
Some time ago, the federal government had its eye on a one-block area in downtown Hull, but was outbid for the property when a private development firm offered more than the government thought the land was worth. The successful bidder, the Campeau Corporation, plans to start construction next year on a complex containing two or three office towers of between 18 and 27 stories.
One of the several curious aspects of this project is that the office space is to be used by the federal government and will provide room for 5,000 civil servants . .. The government will lease space for $14 million a year on a 35-year contract, after which it will have an option to buy the building for between $50 and $60 million. That's $490 million in rent, topped off by the purchase price.
Who is Campeau Corporation? I think it is not without some significance that one of the directors who just resigned about two weeks ago was the same Senator Giguere who was involved in that somewhat shady deal at the airport in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: It may just be a coincidence, but these coincidences happen too often to be accepted as coincidence when we have a Liberal government.
Just yesterday that so-called friend of the working man, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), was lecturing the working people of Canada and saying that they were unpatriotic and	un-Canadian-shades	of Senator
McCarthy of the United States. Why? Is it because workers were saying that with this type of inflation they are entitled to a decent increase in their wages? It may be that they are asking too much. If they are, they deserve to be chastised, but where was that so-called friend of labour, the Postmaster General, during the last few years?
In 1972 corporate profits increased by 21 per cent over 1971. In 1973 corporate profits increased by 35.7 per cent over the same period in 1972. In 1974 they increased by 33 per cent over 1973. I challenge the Postmaster General or anyone else opposite to show me a single group of workers in this country which was able to obtain wage increases in those ranges, or even half those ranges. Where was the Postmaster General? He was conspicuously silent in those years.

An hon. member of the Conservative party criticized the hon. member for Nickel Belt for saying certain things about International Nickel and Falconbridge. The former Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Eric Kierans, published an article in the Regina Leader Post of August 9, 1974, in which he said:
Inco's profits after taxes in 1972 were $110 million and in 1973, $227 million. This year-
Meaning 1974.
-they will exceed $300 million after taxes. Is this being taxed to death?
Noranda's profits after taxes in 1972 were $64 million; in 1973, $121 million. This year, they will approach $200 million after taxes. Is this being taxed to death?
In light of these profits, is it any wonder Canadian workers are now asking for large wage increases, increases the Prime Minister and others say are too high?
Experience tells us one thing: those whose income consists entirely of wages or salaries cannot avoid paying the government every cent of income tax they owe. Revenue Canada insists on collecting. Can we say the same about corporations? Not likely, Mr. Speaker. According to the Globe and Mail of October 31, 1975, James Gourley, Director General of Audit for Revenue Canada said:
... some of the multinationals use their intricate corporate structures to minimize the taxes they pay.
The Globe and Mail reported that:
He said he had no idea how much Revenue Canada is losing through tax avoidance by multinational corporations. He guessed that missing revenue from all sources-including multinationals-might be 10 per cent of total revenue.
I note the former minister of national revenue sitting in the House. I continue quoting:
... it is difficult for Canadian tax officials to decide whether the costs being charged by subsidiary companies in Canada are fair or are being inflated to boost costs and lower taxes.
A subsidiary in Canada may be supplied with products or services by its parent in another country. The subsidiary would write off those costs against its profit.
But, Mr. Basford said, when tax officials try to find out whether the parent is charging a fair price they may be told that the subsidiary has 'no access to pricing information concerning sales of their foreign sister corporation.'
Is it any wonder ordinary people cannot accept the government's program which attempts to control wages and salaries but not prices and profits?
Any who wonder what the program will do should read the report of the speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) in Calgary. The Globe and Mail of October 30 carried the following report:
Federal guidelines on corporate profits may contain provisions to ignore excess profits if they are re-invested in capital facilities to increase production within a company, Industry, Trade and Commerce minister Donald Jamieson has indicated.
Alternatively, a company could be given assurances that current excess profits may be used to offset future losses .. .
I have never heard it suggested that if working men received lower increases than they anticipated, or increases limited to 10 per cent or less, they can make up their losses at a later time. It is not surprising that ordinary citizens are questioning this program. Their doubts must be reinforced when they note the makeup of the

November 25, 1975

Anti-Inflation Board, that so-called quasi-judicial, impartial board which is supposed to protect the interests of all Canadians. What are people to think when they see the sort of speech made by Mr. L. J. Biddell, as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 19, 1975? He said:
The regulations are likely to be too restrictive and inflexible ...
On whose behalf was he speaking? Certainly he did not speak for ordinary workers. The report continues:
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.'
Naturally he would say that. If he ever was a wage or salary earner, it was a long time ago. Today he is part of the corporate set-up which runs the country. Naturally he will not worry about the ordinary working man. He worries about the corporations. Neither will the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board worry about the working man. He really has a tough time, with a salary of over $1,000 a week. When he leaves the board he can go back to what he has done so successfully, that is, looking after his big business corporate clients. In the circumstances I suggest that our fears about the effectiveness of this program are well founded. Our fears began on October 14, and all that has happened since then has merely reinforced our fears.
We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance what are the reasons for this proposal, as never before in the last 100 years, with the exclusion of wartime, has the government attempted this kind of interference in the lives of ordinary Canadians. We know that the inflation rate last year was 10.5 per cent, but what do government economists or experts predict for next year? We have asked such questions repeatedly. What will be the inflation rate? Will it be 25 per cent, as in Great Britain, or 200 per cent, as in Argentina? The question affects all Canadians. The people are ready to make sacrifices and restrain their demands, if the situation is really bad. But we want to know how bad the situation is. What do the minister's experts say? To our questions the minister has repeatedly answered that he is not in the business of forecasting and guessing, and cannot tell us.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is in the business of governing.


David Orlikow: We live in a democratic society and, fortunately, some experts and economists work for organizations other than the government. We were able to get forecasts from a reliable source. This evening I want to put on record forecasts made by a group of experts who are part of a non-political, academic organization with an extremely high standing among economists in this country, the University of Toronto Institute of Quantitative Analysis. We asked some people who have worked with that organization to ask its members, "What are your estimates? You have a model of the economy and access to computers. What do you estimate will be the rate of inflation next year? What would inflation have been if the government had not implemented this wage and price control program? What would inflation be next year without the program, and what would it be with the nrnaramJ"
Anti-Inflation Act
This past year the inflation rate was 10 Vi per cent. What would it have been without the controls? It would not have been the 25 per cent about which I speculated or the 200 per cent which they had in the Argentine. Without controls, according to the Institute of Quantitative Analysis, it would have been 11.3 per cent. In other words, it would not have gone up even 1 per cent more than it was this past year.
What will the rate be with the controls? Will inflation be cut by 3 per cent or 5 per cent? In other words, will it be worth all the effort? There is bad news again. The University of Toronto Institute of Quantitative Analysis estimates that in 1976 with the controls, and this is assuming full compliance even though they say there is only a 50/50 chance, the rate of inflation would only be cut to 9.6 per cent. In other words there will be a reduction in inflation of less than 1 per cent.
We know from the late but not lamented days of John Young that the government's programs of restraint usually bring more unemployment. We asked about unemployment. What did the Institute of Quantitative Analysis say? We know that we have had a rate of unemployment of around 7 per cent for the past six months. They say that without controls the unemployment rate for 1976 would be 6.9 per cent and, with controls, 7.1 per cent. Another group predicts over 9 per cent.
Russell Bell, who is a good enough economist to have held a senior position with the Economic Council of Canada before he went to work with the Canadian Labour Congress, estimates that unemployment will increase by at least a full percentage point over what it has been this year. And we are going to have a very little decrease in the rate of inflation. There will probably be another 100,000 unemployed.
By the time the Prime Minister completes his ten years in office in 1978, the rate of unemployment in this country will have increased by about 150 per cent. That is not a record of which any Prime Minister can be proud. It is a record which the members of this party have no intention of supporting. We intend to oppose this bill as we have from the beginning. I say to the Minister of Finance that our opposition to this bill will be very much strengthened, and our questions much more pointed, after he completes his meetings with the provincial ministers of finance in the next couple of days.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the country is watching with great interest the positions being taken with regard to this bill. People are probably confused, but hopeful. Most people were pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) state over television that something was going to be done, because there is nothing worse than inactivity. The activity suggested that at least there would be some interest.


Mr. Woolliams:: Not all the time.


William Arnold Peters: There was some desire for this kind of activity. This has been the result.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You woke up Eldon.
9446

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act


William Arnold Peters: I never like to do that. When that happens, it produces all kinds of results.
Whether the anti-inflation legislation before us is successful will to a large extent depend on two major factors. The first is the ability of the average person to maintain his position with the increasing cost of living. Second will be the quality that will be established by those who have to participate.
In comparison to 20 years ago, the number of people supporting the government in making it possible to provide benefits to all Canadians through government assistance and direction is becoming less and less. The amount they have to pay is increasing proportionately with the demands that society is making.
One segment of our population is in the organized labour field, the salary field and allied fields. They pay the bulk of the income tax. There are two other segments that are dependent upon the government to a great extent for their ability to exist in relation to and in conjunction with that group that pays the taxes, those who are fully employed. These people are the poor of this nation. In many cases they work at the minimum wage.
We often hear complaints about those who are working and paying the largest share of taxes in this country. They are always accused of not pulling their load. But those who are fully employed often earn less than those receiving unemployment insurance. When the minimum wage across the country is less than that paid in unemployment insurance benefits, obviously some change must be made. This is one field the government will have to consider if the anti-inflation legislation is going to work.
The government has said that the minimum increase will be $840 and the maximum $2,400. Those receiving the minimum wage will not receive the $840. They will need it, but they will not get it. Controls are being put on those who previously made it possible to pay for the cost of living increases made necessary by inflation. We are now curtailing that by saying they cannot work.
My colleagues have to a large extent documented the ways and means to escape for the top segment of our economy, the corporations, persons in industry, and others who will not be subject to the controls. They will be able to cook the books and will not really be penalized in any way by this legislation. I feel sorry for some of them. I understand that last year International Nickel paid less income tax than I did. They have a multi-billion dollar enterprise so it is stretching a point to think that they can be hurt.
One large segment of our economy is closed down 60 per cent in a strike which they precipitated. Sixty per cent of the pulp and paper industry is closed, but there is a year's supply of pulp sitting in yards in Canada because the price went down and the companies decided to hold out. They did not need their workers so they did not negotiate with them. In answer to a question today the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) indicated that this is one of the factors that has had a secondary effect on the unemployment level in the forest industry which is not directly related to the problem.
We are not doing anything about the bottom level. We are not raising it to the minimum that we said would be allowed, because we really do not control that. We would have to get an agreement with the provinces in order to do that, and I understand there is very little agreement with them on the anti-inflation legislation. We are not doing anything about the top either-all we have done anything about is the middle.
In the last few years organized labour has been able to play a role quite successfully in the so-called free enterprise system. People in organized labour have been able to maintain their position, and have received a COLA clause in many cases. There is no doubt that this has cost money, but they have been able to maintain their standard of living despite the fact that food costs, energy, rent and housing have gone up rapidly. Now they are told they will not be able to get a raise beyond the guidelines of 8 per cent and 2 per cent, and that is below the cost of living increase last year. Their COLA clauses will give them that much. I guess we are saying that they are no longer going to have the money to pay the taxes, so there is going to be increased unemployment.
The government has done absolutely nothing about getting into the tax structure at the top level, where companies are not making any contribution to our economy and, without a doubt, are the biggest welfare bums the world has ever known. We noticed this last night in a statement submitted by the oil companies on their expectations and what they would need if they were going to participate in the development of new oil reserves. They indicated their profit structure on their gross had to be 8 per cent to 20 per cent to allow them enough profit to convince their shareholders that they should plough some of the money back into exploration. We are not doing anything to get that kind of money out of the top structure in the nation, nor are we doing anything to provide equality in our structure, which is what this party has always been in favour of, Madam Speaker.
One of my colleagues has presented an amusing amendment asking for a reduction in the government's proposition of 50 opposition members being required to ask for a review during the months of April, May or June in 1977. He proposed the number should be reduced to 20. I find this amusing because this party does not have 20 members. If we were going to do it on the basis of simple politics it would be logical to reduce it to 15 or 10. But we are a very broadminded and generous party, Madam Speaker. The motion says 20, and I hope members will see fit to support that rather than the 50. I will vote against it anyway even if the change is made, Madam Speaker. I will vote against the bill, so it is really of no consequence.
But the review might serve some purpose and it behooves the minister to provide for that review in 1977, without these games. By then the government will either be able to curtail labour costs to a point where it will have balanced the cost of living on the backs of the organized workers, or it will have caused so much unemployment that we will be embarked on a totally different operation. I think if the minister made an effort to provide this mechanism he would probably get more kudos than he would out of offering it to the official opposition or, if the amendment were carried, offering it to 20 members of the House.

November 25, 1975

The necessary motion could not be moved by either party at this end of the House, of course; it would take a combination of this party and my friend to the left, or a number of others.
If you ask the average Canadian today what caused inflation I think he would tell you-credit. Credit is really a major problem. It is much too easy to get credit. In the past when governments wanted to slow down the economy they made an effort to do something about credit. But we have built into this nation the credit card syndrome and it has been accepted as a way of life.
It does not matter how much interest is involved. It does not matter how much a car costs, whether we need it or not. As our folk singer says on the consumer program, we run out and buy bargains with "money we ain't got". That is one of the problems we have in this country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) should look at the way we handle credit. I am pleased to see that some government economists are saying stores should not go into the food business selling on credit. If consumers did I think we would eat our way to death rather than driving into it.
The minister should also look at interest rates. If you buy an automobile on credit with the lowest down payment possible, you will probably find when you pay the car off in 48 months that you have paid as much interest on the car as the actual cost of the car. And the car was over priced in the first place-probably inflated to double its worth. Yet that is doubled again with the interest, and the minister has not done much about that.
There are certain fundamental things that must be done, and no one in this House disagrees that we should do something about inflation. We have said so on previous occasions, but we are well aware of the previous occasion when the Liberal government tried to do something about inflation; it created an immense amount of unemployment and then it came out and said that inflation was licked. It did not take very long for everyone to find out that inflation had not been touched and that we had better do something about employment or we would find ourselves in a position where we could not support our people.
I suggest the government, might have done better to accept holus bolus the Conservative idea. If it had taken off the limit and put on price and wage controls, I think people might have supported that. I think we might have been able to live with that. But when it only controls wages and salaries and does nothing about prices in the store, the prices people are interested in, the price of a can of beans, the price of milk, the price of eggs, the prices of other commodities, we must be very naive if we think the working man is not going to continue to fight for his way of handling inflation, the same way as free enterprise and big business use-they raise their price and somebody has to pay.
There are two classes which are particularly heavy consumers. They are the farmers, the highest consumers per capita and, second, the working people. The wage-earner is the highest taxpayer in the nation. Every time we ask the government to raise the personal exemption we are told what a terrific blow it would be to the tax structure even if
Anti-Inflation Act
the exemption were raised by only $100 or $200. Yet we give away millions of dollars at the top end.
To the class which has been making such a large tax contribution, we have said. "Far from being able to keep up with the cost of living, you cannot expect more than a set amount". This has meant, because of the confusion, that with respect to most of the strikes that have taken place prior to the introduction of this legislation very few of them have been settled. The board is not willing to give permits saying "You have the historical right to a larger wage increase than the board recommends as general." The board has not been willing to do this, so most of the unions and most of the companies will not bring these strikes to a conclusion and the responsibility, in my opinion, rests squarely upon the government.
I know that in my own area a number of strikes would have been settled had this been done. The individual company agrees it should settle, knowing the terms have to be in keeping with wages paid to its competitors or it would not have any employees. It is willing to make a settlement. The union is willing to settle. But the company and the union agree they can only do so if they have permission.
I would like the government to accept the "20" amendment, and then I would like the opportunity to vote against the whole structure.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-73 is another example of arbitrary and dictatorial types of legislation interfering with the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Although the guidelines purport to be on a selective basis, the legislation is broad enough to extend to each and every citizen, either directly or indirectly.
The proposals set out in the legislation and the guidelines are in no way likely to halt inflation or even to alleviate inflation. They will cause greater inflation. It is another attempt to grind the middle class worker and small businessmen between excessively high taxes and inflation, and along with increased unemployment it will bring about greater bureaucracy and a greater dictatorship.
There are palatable alternatives to wage controls and price controls. One is to reduce government waste and unnecessary spending programs. Industry is successful when it is productive and efficient. The same philosophy should be followed in the business of government operations.
I have already suggested in previous debates ways in which the government can show restraint and thus reduce inflation, and I do not intend to list them again tonight. There are other items which could legitimately be used to halt inflation. They were not used. The government seems instead to be bent on obtaining absolute control of all fields of endeavour. This is dangerous, and I fear that if this legislation goes through our children will suffer for many, many years to come.
If the government is not prepared to clean house here in Ottawa and reduce ridiculous and wasteful programs, duplication, and overlapping, it is absurd to enforce controls of any kind on any Canadian.
The question of wage and price controls was one of the issues in the 1974 election. No member of parliament, no party in this House, has any right or any mandate from the
9448

November 25, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
nation to support the type of legislation contained in Bill C-73, and in the guidelines and controls contained therein. The people wanted alternatives, a reduction of government waste, not an increase in government controls.
The legislation before us, Madam Speaker, really commits a grave offence against the democratic system and traditions of this nation the consequences of which will be eternal. The legislation and the guidelines were announced and ordered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not by approval of parliament, not by a vote of the people but by television edict. This type of order is in itself dangerous, and if it continues our nation is headed in a very dangerous direction, a collision course with the political death of democracy, the death of government of the people, for the people and by the people.
In no way can I support this legislation because it interferes with the rights and the liberties of individuals. I do not favour controls over prices or wages. There are alternatives, and the government ought to get off its backside and follow decent suggestions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division stands deferred.
All those in favour of motion No. 4 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division stands deferred.
All those in favour of the amendment to motion No. 5 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
I Mr. Jones.]


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it. The amendment is negatived.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There were not five members who rose from their seats, so the amendment has been negatived.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, and with respect, I believe there were well over five of us standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When I called for the members to rise I saw only three, perhaps four.


John R. Rodriguez: There were many more than that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I distinctly saw more than five members of that party get up on the amendment. Could the question be put once more?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That can only be done with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 5. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


An hon. Member:: How can you do that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: November 25, 1975

Motion No. 6
That Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be amended by adding immediately after Clause 46 at page 33, the following Clause:
Transitional "47. The expiration of this Act pursuant to section 46 does not affect any inquiry, investigation, examination, audit, search or proceeding, whether before the Appeal Tribunal or any court of law, that was instituted before the expiration of this Act or that arises out of any other such inquiry, investigation, examination, audit, search or proceeding that was instituted before the expiration of this Act and for the purpose of carrying out or completing all such inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, searches and proceedings, the Chairman and other members of the Anti-Inflation Board, the Administrator and the Chairman and other members of the Anti-Inflation Appeal Tribunal who hold office on the day immediately preceding the day on which this Act expires continue in office and may exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Anti-Inflation Board, the Administrator and the Anti-Inflation Appeal Tribunal respectively.".
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendment for which a royal recommendation has been sought, and which is included at page 10 of the order paper for today, is to make certain that if there be investigations under way, or indeed further action by way of prosecution which has been carried on pursuant to the statute when it becomes law, it will then be possible for those investigations, proceedings or acts of litigation to be carried through to a finish, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings may themselves have been brought to an end. If there is some prospect toward the end of the period of the law being brought to an end that some persons would decide not to comply in the hope of being able to evade legal sanction, this motion is to make certain that, notwithstanding a proclamation by the governor in council that it ceased to be in effect for general application, any outstanding proceedings may be carried through to a conclusion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I find this type of recommendation to be a real limper. In saying that I do not want to be overly critical, but may I point out that Mr. Speaker has ruled that clause 46 is deficient. When a proposed clause is contained within the terms of a recommendation, and therefore forms part of that recommendation, what sort of limper have we? Section 46, referred to in the recommendation, has already been ruled by the Chair to be deficient. Frankly, this motion is leaning on a broken crutch. Section 46 is dead until we make a change. Yet this motion is providing that when the act comes to an end, pursuant to a clause that does not exist certain things will flow.
With great respect, the government House leader and others who are concerned with this matter must look into the methods of drafting recommendations and the question of who is making them. Who is making them? Are there really conflicts of interest between those people who prepare these motions without the advice of the law officers of the Crown? I must say I was surprised earlier today when I found that it seemed the legislation came forward straight from the department somehow and bypassed the government House leader.
Anti-Inflation Act
What worries me is to think that within the last 12 months there have been four occasions on which I have raised these points. I have been correct on three of them. I must say that the first motion was not as strong a case as the other three, but I think a 75 per cent batting average within a year in calling the attention of the House to these deficiencies is not bad. I do not particularly care to be on my feet making this type of, shall we say, criticism. It is much like quibbling. However, the House must operate on the basis of its rules. We must be legal and do what we should do. It seems to me on the note I have raised I should make this proposition.
First we should look into the matter of the proposals with regard to recommendations on major bills. Years ago when I came here the recommendation was a very general one. There were never any problems. Then somewhere along the line someone decided it was necessary to dot the i's and cross the t's, so that if there was a little inconsistency in the complicated wording out would go the recommendation. The minister at that time was placed in an embarrassing position. I remember the affair in respect of the income tax changes in 1971. It does not make sense for parliament to operate in that way. I realize what they are trying to do.
I think I will draw the line here and just say that we should not proceed with further debate on this particular motion until it is regularized. On that basis I suggest that the House call it ten o'clock, and retire to repair the damage.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, may I make a rather different suggestion? First, may I say I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). We have been having some discussions among the House leaders which I think will resolve the particular difficulty we face at the moment.
I do not think we should proceed with the discussion on this particular motion until we have clarified the position in respect of the bill by an amended recommendation. It is my understanding there would be unanimous agreement for the substitution to be made of a recommendation that would be in order, and upon which the bill could be firmly based. May I suggest that we adjourn this debate, and proceed to Bill C-61 which was previously under discussion?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we adjourn the discussion on this legislation and proceed to Bill C-61?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I say that having had the floor on Bill C-61, and having been interrupted once already, I would prefer to call it ten o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman might welcome the opportunity to have the floor at the moment. I was very much interested in the comments of his colleague and thought the hon. gentleman might like to conclude his remarks this evening. However, I have no objection, Madam Speaker, if you see the clock at ten o'clock.

November 25, 1975
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that it is ten minutes to ten o'clock I hope I might be allowed a minute or two if I exceed the allotted time.


An hon. Member:: No way!


John Wise: In view of the very limited time at my disposal tonight I want to re-emphasize the need for a reduction in Canada's present import quotas on cheese. On November 18, as recorded at page 9189 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) on this matter. I think it is fair and accurate tonight to state that it gained considerable support among many hon. members, particularly from this side of the House. The minister's reply provided a slight glimmer of hope, but in view of the recent concerns expressed by the dairy industry people, which I share, I felt a sincere desire to explore this issue and raise a couple of other rather interesting matters tonight particularly relating to the ever-increasing difficulties being experienced by Canadian dairy producers and the government inaction in reducing the quotas for imported cheese.
Indeed, we have heard reports from the Department of Agriculture that it at least is considering an increase in respect of this particular quota. I should like to draw attention to page three of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on November 4 in which he indicated that imports will be allowed to increase gradually over the next several years until they reach not less than the equivalent of 10 per cent of manufactured products. The current import quota of 50 million pounds represents 5 per cent of the total Canadian consumption of manufactured dairy products. The size of next year's dairy quota will be established shortly.
Let me make it abundantly clear at the outset that such an action on the part of the government would be intolerable. Not only would it severely hamper the cheese production industry but it would serve an extremely severe blow to the dairy industry as a whole.
I want to note that the dairy industry can be found in every province. In fact 70 per cent of the farms reporting as commercial farms in the province of Quebec are commercial dairy farms. About 30 per cent in the province of Ontario, and about 22 per cent of all farms registered in Canada are commercial dairy farms.

What kind of a case can the government make for its own inaction with regard to this most serious problem? Clearly the only responsible response is a reduction of the present 50 million pound quota, a quota which was arrived at after some fancy government arithmetic that failed to take into account the relevant facts and figures that were and are available.
Importation of cheese has risen drastically from 31 million pounds in 1970 to 50 million pounds in 1975. In arriving at the present quota the department has ignored the traditional method of calculation that is based on a five-year average. Calculated in this manner we would have a quota of 38 million pounds, a limit much more in tune with the needs of Canadian producers.
To compound the difficulties further, we are faced with accepting a quota that is based on import statistics which are uncharacteristically high due to the fact, I have been advised, that the authorities concerned failed to prevent a substantial amount of illegal cheese from entering this country. An example of this is "Podolski", a Polish cheese somewhat similar to our own Cheddar. This cheese has, in effect, been dumped into Canada, most of it being processed illegally, during 1974, because it became impossible for the authorities to police. The processing rule has since been dropped and this cheese is now legal. This does not alter the fact that the 1974 totals for cheese imports still take this cheese into account despite the fact it was illegal at the time. Had this cheese been kept out of Canada at the time, as it should have been, the 1974 quota would not have been so high. It is nothing short of ridiculous to set quotas arrived at in this manner.
The abnormalities, however, do not end here, Mr. Speaker. Another case in point involves cheese believed to be East German which is being trans-shipped via West Germany, and is once again being effectively dumped into Canada. It has not been proven, I admit, that the source of this cheese is East German, although it is highly suspected. We do know that it is not from West Germany though, so something is undoubtedly amiss. There is no way that West Germany could sell cheap cheese at 56 cents a pound when Common Market support prices are close to $1.
Yet another factor which discredits the use of 1974 levels as standard is the fact that more cheese than would have usually been considered normal iyas imported that year due to a shortage of Canadian milk in that particular year.
We are told from an excellent authority, by George McLaughlin, chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, that we will have sufficient production in Canada next year to satisfy Canada's requirement for dairy products including most of that portion of the cheese market which the government has already given away to other countries. If the cheese import quota is increased rather than decreased, it will throw milk from Canadian producers into powder and butter at a very high cost to producers in export levies, instead of allowing that milk to go to cheese production at no increased cost to anyone. Also, it will be a portion of the domestic market that will be forever lost to Canadian milk producers.
If, on the other hand, the cheese quota could be reduced to 40 million pounds from 50 million pounds per year,
November 25, 1975

which would be more in line with traditional imports in the 1970-1974 period, skim milk production in the next dairy year would be reduced by approximately 9 million pounds. This would represent a saving to milk producers of close to $3.6 million at current world market prices. More simply stated, every million pounds of cheese imports results in a loss to Canadian producers of approximately $360,000.
An increase in the quota on cheese imports, indeed the lact of a decrease may well result in what some sources describe as a riot within the dairy industry with many producers simply shutting up shop altogether. The inevitable result of this, of course, would be an increase in the amount of imported milk, butter, cheese, etc., to a level from which we could never return.
The very future of the Canadian dairy industry may well rest on the broad shoulders of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for his decision as to cheese import quotas is going to have far reaching effects within the whole industry, and should he fail to move in the right direction, he will no doubt pay a price for which he will certainly be sorry. The minister is aware of the fact that the dairy industry is to undergo a re-adjustment in April. Milk production in the first half of the year at least increased 11 per cent-


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


Marcel-Claude Roy: Madam Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for raising this very important question, even though I do not agree with all the statistics he quoted. Let me quote some other official statistics.
In the ten year period, 1963 to 1972, Canada's exports of cheddar cheese to the United Kingdom averaged about 28 million pounds per year. With the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community, exports of cheddar cheese have steadily declined due to the high EEC import levy, and only amounted to about 6 million pounds in 1973 and 3 million pounds in 1974.
In March of this year special access arrangements were concluded with the EEC which provide for a fixed levy on Canadian aged cheddar cheese of only 15 units of account per 100 kilograms, or about 8V2 cents per pound. No levy applies to our aged cheddar cheese in the United Kingdom at present, and the full levy of 15 UA does not come into effect until January 1, 1978.
Under the new terms of access, only cheddar cheese that has been aged for nine months qualifies for these special access terms. Exports of cheddar cheese have been slow due to the requirements that the cheese must be aged for nine months in Canada prior to export.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce recently sponsored a study team to the United Kingdom and EEC countries in order to determine the most sound and appropriate manner to re-introduce Canadian aged cheddar cheese to these markets. This five member team consisted of a representative from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Canadian Dairy Commission, and three industry representatives. The members
Adjournment Debate
have just returned and their report should be available in early 1976.

During the same period, imports of various cheeses have increased from 15 million pounds in 1963 to 48 million pounds in 1974.
On June 6, 1975, a global importation quota has been set on all kinds of cheese. This quota has been set at 50 million pounds for 1975, an increase of 2 million pounds over 1974. This quota has been established-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member is now expired.


AIRPORTS-MIRABEL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DATA ON WHICH SKY SHOPS AWARDED FRANCHISE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, in pursuing this adjournment debate I would like to say I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is aware that there are serious flaws in the way that tenders are being arranged and contracts being met within his department. The question is, how did Sky Shops win the bid at Mirabel, and we must look into the background.
I would assume that the minister is trying, if only for the sake of intellectual stimulation, to ascertain what prompted Mr. Peter Thomson to take such an extraordinary interest in purchasing Sky Shops. Either Thomson, through one of his subsidiary companies, P. Lawson Travel Limited, had some truly personal reason for wanting to obtain Sky Shops, much in the same way as a collector of antique automobiles will pay an outrageous price for a vehicle simply to complete his collection, or Mr. Thomson knew very well that Sky Shops had an enormous potential over and above its apparent operational value or worth at the time he purchased it. The question is, was part of the potential, or consideration, a franchise at Mirabel?
Late in December of 1971 when Peter Thomson, in a hand delivered letter, wrote to Gordon Brown, one of the executives of Sky Shops, and outlined his offer, it is obvious that the price per share of Sky Shops at that time worked out to less than $17. A few months later Mr. Thomson was prepared to pay several dollars per share more, despite the fact that in the interim the treasury of the company had been pretty well depleted by the payment of nearly $4 per share in dividends.
Whether one decides to measure the value of a company by share earnings as a ratio to price, or calculate the net worth of the company by subtracting the liabilities from the assets and dividing by the number of shares, one surely does not come up with a figure of $20 per share a few months after one offer of approximately $16.75 per share- taking into account the dividend payment which I already mentioned.
In addition, the renegotiation of the lease of Sky Shops substantially reduced the income available to the company and, as Mr. Thomson noted, his calculations as set out in his offer were optimistic due to the scheduled removal of all international flights in 1975 and the probable winding

November 25, 1975
Adjournment Debate
up of the operations at Dorval before the end of 1979. These are documented in his offer.
Therefore we have a situation where Mr. Thomson personally took the time to work on the acquisition of Sky Shops although he said in his letter "I have not done anything like this personally in a long time". He did this extraordinary thing, to buy what would appear to be a lame duck company in a lame duck airport at a highly inflated price, a company whose directors have forced out the man who had expertise and experience and who built the company, Mr. Andy Anton.
I want the Minister of Transport to find out why bidding procedures for the duty free shop at Mirabel were so manifestly irregular. I should like to know, for example, why Host International was dismissed so peremptorily because it was, among other things, a U.S. controlled company, while other American controlled companies have been and are welcome in similar circumstances, as well they should be, if they can do a better job. If Host had a liquor licence problem it should have been advised immediately and its deposit returned or never accepted. General Aviation, a subsidiary of Hudson General Corporation of Great Neck, New York, is active at Mirabel, and a subsidiary of Allied Corporation was acceptable as a cleaning contractor at Mirabel, although it is controlled from New York. So much for the Canada first argument of Sky Shops or in favour of Sky Shops.
There is no way the Sky Shops bid, on the basis of logic, can be the best for revenue purposes, and I ask the minister to table the entire basis on which the bids were awarded, the calculations and so on. I also ask the minister not to forget about bids like Commercial Caterers Limited and K. S. Kohli who, I understand, sent a telegram to the minister to correct some errors he felt the minister made in assessing his position in a recent speech in this House. I shall quote from an executive of one of the bidders, and if the minister or one of his assistants is interested, I can supply a copy of the document from which I am quoting:
If you wish to use 'the enclosed material without using our name, in view of possibility of further business connections with the present government, please do so. But if you find it absolutely necessary to divulge the source of your information I will not object.
Why are people so afraid to talk? We need an inquiry so they can testify freely. I hope the minister will co-operate in improving the way his department is being administered.
In the meantime I hope he will check carefully on another real problem, the de-icing capability at Mirabel. The tendering procedures there are very current and very irregular, and Air Canada and the Ministry of Transport are, as usual, involved in another weird scenario at taxpayers' expense.
In closing I should also like to suggest to the minister that bright and early tomorrow he read his copy of the Montreal Gazette, one of Canada's great newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to my friend, the hon. member for

Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), this evening. As I begin, let me say that I cannot and do not accept a great portion of the preamble in his remarks this evening. I do not deny that there have been issues raised of importance and of public interest, and I assure the hon. member that the government is clearly aware of its continuing responsibility in public administration, to use an old and somewhat hackneyed adage, to ensure that justice is done and is manifestly seen to be done.
I should like to remind the hon. member of the admonition offered in this House and elsewhere by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and others about certain concurrent responsibilities which clearly bear upon the opposition when it comes forward with allegations and accusations, and that is the responsibility which hon. members opposite must discharge, to be fair, precise and well-founded in what they say, and to be well researched and judicious in matters of this kind.
It is not good enough to deal in a speculative manner with suspicions, accusations and innuendos. It may be politically sensational, but it is not fair and responsible public conduct in the pursuit of justice. In my brief experience in this House I have generally been favourably impressed with the thoughtful approach of the hon. member for Central Nova. I share the disappointment of many of my colleagues in this chamber with respect to certain comments lately which I believe have been somewhat below his normal standards. I hope this is not an established trend for the future but merely an abberration which soon will be corrected.
To deal specifically and directly with his request in this discussion this evening, I shall refer to the comment addressed in this House by the minister in reply to the hon. member, recorded in Hansard at page 8947 on November 7, where the minister said that he would examine what material is available on this subject and determine whether the most suitable approach would be to table the requested documents or open a discussion in the standing committee.
I am pleased to be able to report to the hon. member tonight that the relevant data are presently being assembled, and the minister hopes to be in a position to table the information before the end of this week.


FINANCE-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF TAX CONCESSIONS TO FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL ON OPERATIONS IN NAMIBIA
John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, on Friday, November 7, Falconbridge Nickel Mines announced that approximately 1,000 workers would be laid off by January 1, 1976. This does not include 1,000-odd workers employed by contractors at the Falconbridge properties in the Sudbury basin.
The reason given by the company for the lay-offs and for a cut of $50 million from its capital spending program was "the current greatly reduced demand for nickel in world markets and increased operating costs". It should be noted that a large chunk of the cut in spending came from the company's smelter environmental program, a program designed to increase the occupational health of the company's workers and residents of the Sudbury basin.
November 25, 1975

But since Falconbridge is finding it necessary to cut its capital spending and lay off hundreds of Canadian workers, someone might assume that the other major nickel company in the area would be having similar difficulties. But if you assumed that you would be wrong. The International Nickel Company of Canada has stated it has "no plans to cut production" in spite of any softness in the market.
The president of INCO, a Mr. J. E. Carter, said in New York that while this year's production by the company would be about 10 per cent below last year's, "on the long term basis, we continue to expect that over-all world growth in nickel production will continue to be about 6 per cent a year." He also pointed out that INCO was planning to increase its production in Canada. And even at this time, while Falconbridge is laying off those hundreds of workers, INCO in my constituency is offering its workers considerable amounts of overtime. Mr. Carter is even more optimistic about the prospect of nickel sales in the coming year when he notes that many of the customers for nickel will be making significant capital investments next year.
But even if INCO is not having difficulties, it is perhaps possible that Falconbridge is having difficulties. This might show up if we were to see that total nickel exports from Canada were down significantly, or perhaps if production in Falconbridge's plants in other countries is also down. But instead we discover that both nickel production and exports have decreased very little in Canada over the last year. And we also discover that production in Falcon-bridge's plants in Norway and the Dominican Republic is proceeding with no cutbacks.
The real reason for these cutbacks is, I suspect, not a soft world market. The reason instead is that the government of Ontario last year decided to remove tax provisions which permitted Falconbridge to write off any processing costs it encountered in overseas plants. So, faced with significant tax increases, which would have been used for the betterment of the host country, in this case Canada, the company decided to reduce production instead. This has two effects. First it permits the company simply to switch whatever production it can to cheaper locations. Business analysts have pointed out that Falconbridge is purchasing nickel from foreign sources for its refinery in Norway at rates cheaper than it can produce in Canada.
But aside from any savings in cost, the company has another reason to cut production here. The lay-off of hundreds of people is a form of blackmail against the Ontario government to force it to reduce taxes to the multinational corporation. Even business analysts admit that production cutbacks are an attempt to convince the Ontario government of "the severity of the Ontario tax climate".
So here we have a company that is trying to force a provincial government in Canada to reduce its taxes, and using Canadian workers as pawns to do it. Perhaps it would be useful to have a look at what Canadian taxes have done for this company.
Over the last 15 years Falconbridge and its subsidiaries have received millions of dollars from the Canadian taxpayers in the form of DREE grants, accelerated capital cost allowance programs, plus various other manpower and corporate assistance programs.
Adjournment Debate
But as I have said before in this House, Falconbridge also receives another kind of tax assistance. Under section 126 of the Income Tax Act Falconbridge is permitted to claim a foreign tax credit for its operations in the illegal and racist administration of South Africa over Namibia. Falconbridge owns 75 per cent of Oamites Mining Company, Ltd. which extracts copper and silver from Namibia in Southwest Africa, using all the rotten racist labour conditions allowed by South African law, and for the taxes paid to the South African government Falconbridge gets a tax credit in Canada, a tax credit paid for by the working people of Canada who are being forced in this way to help support both the exploitation of the people of Namibia and the profit-taking of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. The other 25 per cent of that mining operation is owned by the Government of South Africa.
Falconbridge must have found it appealing to work under the kind of government in South Africa which is prepared to condone a vicious industrial system to increase corporate profits. Now it has found another country that is prepared to go far to make corporations happy. Falconbridge is considering a major investment in Chile, a country which is prepared to torture, murder, and take any other steps necessary to ensure a less severe climate for foreign investment.
When I raised the question of Falconbridge's actions in Namibia last spring and pointed out that its actions there were illegal under many decisions of the United Nations, the government had many platitudes about why it could do nothing not even to the extent of stopping the tax credits of money paid to the South African government.
The government spokesman said that it is a principle of the government not to interfere with Canadian companies abroad. The government said Falconbridge was operating in Namibia at its own risk, if high profits made from those kinds of labour practices can be said to be a risk. But now, when the provincial government has tried to get a fair tax return from the company, the company is showing just how Canadian it is by shifting its operations elsewhere. It is now taking steps in Canada which prove it is a multinational company far more concerned with profits than any loyalty it may have to Canada.
I call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Canadian government to amend section 126 of the Income Tax Act of Canada to ensure that Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. does not use that loophole to enrich itself from its Namibian operation at Canada's expense and that of the working class people of the Sudbury Basin.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Madam Speaker, I do not know exactly to what tax provisions the hon. member alluded when he spoke of "tax concessions" with regard to operations in Namibia. I should like to point out to him that our Income Tax Act provides nothing pertaining specifically to Namibia, nor have we signed any tax treaty with that country. The hon. member may have been alluding to the tax allowances provided in the case where income tax is paid to foreign governments, or again to the tax treatment

November 25, 1975
Adjournment Debate
granted by Canada to dividends paid to companies residing in Canada.
When a Canadian resident has commercial operations abroad, through a branch office, for instance, the income derived from that source may be taxed by the foreign government concerned. Such income would also be subject to Canadian income tax. When the income is thus made liable to both foreign and Canadian income taxes, our legislation provides an allowance on the basis of the income tax paid a foreign government. This allowance is intended to minimize the possibility of double taxation. Those provisions on tax deductions apply to all income earned in foreign countries.
When operations are carried out abroad through a foreign affiliate instead of a sudsidiary the income they produce would normally come back to Canada in the form of dividends from the foreign affiliate.
At present, as has been the case for a long time indeed, the Canadian tax scheme provides that dividends received by a resident corporation of Canada from a foreign company in which it held a substantial percentage of votes- over 25 per cent-were exempt from Canadian income tax. That provision actually allowed the repatriation of gains made abroad without submitting them to Canadian income tax in addition to foreign income tax.
The tax reform included a major revision of the tax treatment of dividends from foreign corporations but until the new provisions become entirely applicable in 1976, dividends representing gains made abroad before 1976 may be earned by a Canadian corporation without being subject to Canadian income tax.
As of 1976 the tax-free repatriation of gains considered to be dividends from foreign corporations will be subject to a number of restrictions. One of the determining factors concerning the application of those restrictions will be the position of the particular country where the dividends come from, that is whether that country is one of those with which Canada signed an overall tax agreement. As I said already, Canada did not sign any agreement of this kind with Namibia. So, whatever might be the Canadian tax benefits to be drawn from dividends of another country that signed an agreement with Canada, those benefits will not be applicable to dividends coming from that country unless the agreement in question becomes effective.
The provision dealing with abatements for foreign taxes paid on income from a foreign source is not deemed, generally speaking, to be a tax concession in its nature. Abatements for foreign taxes are not unusual at all in the area of international taxation. In Canada, they have been an integral part of our tax system for many years.
The various modes of taxation provided under international tax agreements are not usely considered to be tax concessions either. Those agreements are the result of separate negotiations undertaken with each particular country with which an agreement is concluded, and they include what both countries arrived at under common agreement in the form of a compromise.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, November 26, 1975