1975-10-24

NEW MEMBER

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



[Stage Direction]
Maurice Harquail, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Restigouche, introduced by Hon. Mitchell Sharp and Hon. Romeo LeBlanc.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the extraordinary expense to Canadians because of this grandiose, and semi-obsolete in design, airport at Mirabel, the opening of which has been mercifully delayed following the official opening which featured champagne and lobster for the VIPs and tear gas for the local farmers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Minister of Transport, in view of the importance of the situation, make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity and appear in the same way before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to deal with the many apparent difficulties in the operational capacity of Mirabel such as the problems and deficiencies in the electrical, plumbing and heating systems and to state unequivocally that he as Minister of Transport has been fully briefed on all details relevant to operational reliability for passengers and equipment as well as employee safety and the purchase and appraisal methods and procedures involved in acquiring land for Mirabel which contains some interesting details, and perhaps the most fundamental of all, that the runway conditions and standards are acceptable by ICAO as set out in Annex 14.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a crucial matter.
Considering that the protection of the citizen must be the basic concern of any government, that this basic concern for civil liberties must be evidenced in more tangible terms and that the federal government does not sufficiently endeavour to determine the best means to provide the citizen with the best protection in its relations with the latter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne):
That this House take the necessary action to consider the possibility of creating a position of ombudsman to improve the protection of the citizen in its relations with the state.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF CHEMICAL ADDITIVES TO FOOD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that as many as seven per cent of North American children are thought to be suffering from hyperactivity, and in certain areas the figure may reach 40 per cent; and in view of the fact that not only is hyperactivity a serious social and learning disability for the child, but it often leads to delinquency in the teenager and crime and violence in the adult; and in view of the fact that scientific

October 24, 1975
Oral Questions
research has established a casual relationship between hyperactivity and artificial food colours and food flavours; and finally, in view of the fact that some 1800 chemicals are routinely used in the Canadian food supply, and very few of these have ever been tested for the deleterious effects they can have on human health and human behaviour, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the matter of chemical additives in the Canadian food supply be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for immediate consideration, study and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, before the question period starts, I should like to beg your indulgence for a few minutes and bring to the attention of the House the fact that in my constituency of Lisgar, in southern Manitoba, the post office employees-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that the procedure of the House simply does not provide for the intervention of the hon. member. I have no idea what the point is-


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might raise it briefly by way of a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the Standing Orders of the House under which we have been operating since Easter do not permit points of order or questions of privilege at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I think, Mr. Speaker, I detect a smile on the handsome Irish countenance of the Postmaster General this morning. I do not know whether it results from the demonstration that is taking place in front of the building at this moment by the postal workers who are demonstrating against the strike or the fact that there is some truth in the rumour that a note has been received, in response to the invitation of the minister issued in the House yesterday, informing him that the negotiators from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are ready to return to the bargaining table. If this is true, is the minister able to give a positive response?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there was a letter delivered by private courier from the Canadian Union of Postal Work-
ers sometime last evening which I have not had a chance to study this morning.


Mr. Peters:: Study it. It is two paragraphs.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The reply to the letter will be sent out sometime today after we have had a chance to fully analyze its contents.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-SUGGESTED COOLING OFF PERIOD AND NEGOTIATION OF PROBLEM OF CASUAL WORKERS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in order that the Canadian public might begin to see light at the end of the long tuqnel, I wonder if the minister would accept, in his response, the suggestion that has been put forward from this side of the House that a cooling off period of 90 days be a part of the bargaining process, and that the issue of casual workers be negotiable on the same basis as the very difficult question of technological change which was negotiated and successfully resolved, and in so doing make it possible for the postal workers to go back to work without losing face and ensuring that this essential service is restored in Canada.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I knew I was going to pay very dearly for that compliment. In the negotiations, as the hon. gentleman appreciates, the question of casual workers has been dealt with at great length by the conciliation board chairman. We are prepared to negotiate all issues. I propose to indicate, in a conciliatory tone, to the negotiators for the union that we are ready to resume negotiations almost immediately and it would be very nice if they, as well, would show their concern for the Canadian public by letting workers in their union who want to go back to work go back to work because they are obviously in the majority across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Many locals have gone back to work in Newfoundland and some in New Brunswick, and obviously this is beginning to spread. I think it is time now for the House to have a little patience with me and for the union to extend the same courtesy until my reply in letter form-certainly not by telephone-and then we will see what emerges.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. On Wednesday the Postmaster General said that the postal strike "does not in the slightest add any pressure on the minister who runs the Post Office". While that may be true, I hope the Acting Prime Minister recognizes the hardship, or pressure if you like, that a long shut down of the post office will mean to many groups and individuals in the country. Unless this dispute is settled through the weekend, is it the government's position that in 90 days or a similar fixed period it will bring a back to work order during which time the
October 24, 1975

Postmaster General could pursue some meaningful settlement in negotiations with the union membership?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: There is no change in the government's position. We have no intention at present of introducing any legislation which would require parliament to make a decision as to whether it wanted to interrupt the negotiations that are now going on.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-WILLINGNESS OF GOVERNMENT TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS ON ALL ISSUES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, since the attitude of the negotiators with regard to any potential settlement is absolutely crucial, I should like to ask the minister, in light of his reply to another hon. member in the House yesterday that the government did not provide any ultimatum on the question of wages to the union, whether he stands by that or whether he has checked with the government chief negotiator concerning the conversation he had with the chief union negotiator on Monday night when the union asked for clarification as to whether an ultimatum was involved and the chief negotiator for the government is said to have replied:

You are right, this is indeed an ultimatum, there is no doubt about it.

I am not yet fluently bilingual, but even to me the translation of that means that this is an ultimatum. What I would like to ask the minister, in view of the response to the letter he has received, whether it is his attitude that the government will resume negotiations now and discuss all the questions that concern the union.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. gentleman. He is close to the labour movement. I would hope that the third conversation between our chief negotiator and the union was the one which was revealed. I would hope they have already taped the first two and will release the complete transcripts of them to put all three together to get the proper perspective on the only one they have released.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. He has received by hand a message from the postal workers which is only eight lines in length, and he says he has not yet had time to study it. In that letter they say they are prepared to discuss the very serious matter before the country right now in an open-ended way, and they want the government to do the same thing. I would like the minister to answer this question: is the government prepared to do so or not?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not only are private telephone conversations revealed, obviously, but private correspondence as well, since the hon. member knows how many lines there were in the letter.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister do a service to the House and deal with the questions which are being asked, apart from making snide comments? Would he tell the
Oral Questions
House whether the government is prepared to have open-ended negotiations, or is it laying down some kind of ultimatum as a condition for those negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am more than pleased to answer that. When the question is phrased precisely whether it is the position of the government that a wage package is an ultimatum, period, the answer is no. We will be ready to put a package together and to put it before the negotiating team of the union after we have had a chance to analyse the letter in relation to the press release which was simultaneously released to the press gallery.


HOUSING
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
With reference to a reply the Minister of Finance gave to a question I asked him last week and in which he indicated that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs would be introducing programs aimed at reducing interest rates in specific cases, could the Minister of State for Urban Affairs advise the House to which particular areas these programs will apply and also when the relevant legislation will be introduced?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at liberty to indicate the precise nature of the programs themselves, but we will continue to support low and moderate income families for low-cost but very good housing. I hope to be able to make announcements on the program itself at the earliest possible date in November, but it is taking a great deal of work to pull the program together and to update it. However, I can assure the hon. member that it is proceeding with all haste.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the indications from the government recently that it expected to have a much clearer idea of the attitude of the provinces toward the anti-inflationary program after the meeting with the provincial ministers of finance, which has taken place in the last couple of days, can the minister tell the House how many, and if possible, which provinces indicated they are prepared to go along firmly and categorically with the government's program, and specifically are prepared to enter into agreements with the federal government to put sectors of provincial jurisdiction under the proposed federal administration?

October 24, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think a valid summary of the last two days' discussions would be that while there are certain details of the anti-inflation program with which the provincial governments disagreed, and while there were details which they would like us to change and changes which we are prepared to consider, in general I think it is a fair statement of their position that all governments were prepared to support our program and to co-operate.
There will be certain questions, one of which is the question of the determination of professional income, which was recognized as a difficulty and upon which there will have to be additional work done. It was decided by all the provinces that they would assume exclusive responsibility for the control of rents, although there will be an attempt to develop national criteria, so there will not be any invidious comparison from one region to another. With respect to dealing with the public sector, the government of Quebec made it clear that it would be creating its own regime to deal with the public sector within Quebec. The conclusion I draw from the remarks of Mr. McKeough in regard to Ontario, on the other hand, is that Ontario will be opting into the federal tribunal with regard to the public sector.
I think it is fair to say that most of the other provinces at this moment have not given final indication whether all or part of the public sector would be put under federal jurisdiction. I cannot be clear on their intentions at this point.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-INTENTION OF PROVINCES TO FOLLOW FEDERAL GUIDELINES IF THEY SET UP THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question. With respect to those provinces that have already, or indicate that at some point in the future they intend, to set up their own administration, has there been any commitment from them that they may be considering this line of procedure? Has there been any commitment that they will follow and adopt the guidelines announced by the federal government in administering the program itself?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the most accurate description would be that they all recognize that failure to adopt essentially national standards could result, in appropriate cases, in employee competition between one province and another. In that sense there was a general recognition of the wisdom of attempting to accord decisions on the basis of national criteria rather than purely locally evolved ones. There was recognition of the fact that as time goes on, with two tribunals dealing with the same subject matter but with differences in individual personality and local facts, there could be a divergence. I think it was generally accepted, however, that every effort should be made to try to avoid that.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSITION OF PROVINCES ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION .
Robert Lorne Stanfield: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Minister of Finance indicate whether the provinces accept the constitutional position of the government following these discussions? I ask this question particularly in view of the statement attributed to the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec reported in Le Devoir as follows:

And I quote Le Devoir:
He said that the bill "appears to disregard completely the legal implications of labour legislation".
On Thursday, concerning labour legislation, he also said:
The bill compels Quebec to review its entire legislation governing collective bargaining, unique in Canada, which covers about 250,000 workers in the province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in general, the provinces indicated that there was no contest on their part with respect to the jurisdiction of the government of Canada to put this program forward, and indeed to put forward the bill that is now before parliament. The report the hon. gentleman has referred to does reflect a concern that was expressed, not so much from the constitutional standpoint, but from the legal and practical standpoint of integrating the collective bargaining system which of course will deal with many other things than the compensation level, but which will be importantly affected by compensation levels by adjusting the collective bargaining system to the over-all compensation control program. We recognize that inevitably the judgments of the Anti-Inflation Board, for example in the private sector, are going to have an impact on negotiations within the province of Quebec. We recognize that there will have to be close consultation in this regard. Whether any formal changes in either the Quebec or Federal law, will be required is not clear. It seems to me at this point that the over-all federal administration can effectively be adjusted to the collective bargaining system, whether we are talking about that under the federal jurisdiction or each province.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES TO PLACE MARKETING BOARDS UNDER GUIDELINES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that most marketing boards are under provincial jurisdiction, and in view of the evidence that was presented by the Food Prices Review Board that at least in one area of commodity marketing, the area of chicken broilers, there is evidence of a consumer rip-off, may I ask if the minister has sought or intends to seek agreement from the provinces to place all marketing boards in Canada under the guidelines laid down by the white paper. In conclusion may I ask if he intends to place some restraint on the language of the Minister of Agriculture who described the principal people on the Anti-inflation Baord as a bunch of nuts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. gentleman's final comment, I hope he understands that I should try to confine
October 24, 1975

myself to the possible rather than to the more difficult mission he has assigned to me.
The question of marketing boards was not, I have to say, prominently discussed at the meeting. There is the recognition that there is a difficult interface to be established here and the demand, as suggested by the hon. gentleman, was not made by me. Yes, this is a question on which, very obviously, we shall need to consult closely.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the questionable constitutional jurisdiction in this area, if the government intends to direct the Minister of Agriculture immediately to enter into negotiations and discussions with his provincial counterparts, to ensure that provincial marketing boards as well as federal marketing boards adhere to the federal guidelines, so that some of these consumer rip-offs can be ended forthwith?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's suggestion, that there is any doubt about constitutionality in this particular area. As I say, that doubt was not evinced by any of the ten provincial governments represented at the meeting. With regard to discussions with the provinces, that, as I said, is obviously a matter which will need to be discussed and I think the Minister of Agriculture would be a first-class spokesman in this regard.



HOUSING


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As we have now seen two meetings convened by the present government, one with the premiers and the other with provincial finance ministers, for the purpose of seeking their co-operation for the anti-inflationary program after the program had been decided on- the government did not seek their input prior to its announcement-and as this approach has contributed to public uncertainty regarding the program, will the minister say if he intends to meet with provincial ministers of housing, to discuss his proposed housing measures before they are introduced, in order to avoid further confusions and aggravation in an area of shared jurisdiction.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with all provincial housing ministers, asking if they wanted a meeting in relation to the guidelines. There was no consensus for the holding of such a meeting. Actually, only two ministers wanted it, because they had not attended the last housing ministers meeting. I am prepared to meet with them. I assure the hon. member that the input from the last two or three meetings I had with provincial housing ministers is having a significant impact on new legislation and new proposals which will be presented shortly. I will be pleased to meet with them. Actually, I will be canvassing them again, to see when they wish to have another meeting.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE



PAY INCREASES FOR EXECUTIVE CATEGORY-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement made in the House yesterday, as reported on page 8473 of Hansard, to the effect that cabinet decided on July 24 to accept the new salary ranges for senior civil servants, and in view of the previous statement made in the House on July 28, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, to the effect that the decision had not yet been reached on July 28, can the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the two different dates which were mentioned, and the contradictions, clarify these obvious contradictions for the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister consulted the records and found that on July 24 the cabinet had decided in principle to adopt certain increases in the salary ranges for senior civil servants. We did not adopt fully the recommendations of the Lambert Commission. We made some independent judgment rather reducing what they had recommended. But I understand from the Prime Minister that he did look up the record, and the decision was made on July 24.



PAY INCREASES FOR EXECUTIVE CATEGORY-DATE OF SIGNING OF TREASURY BOARD MINUTES

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that the Acting Prime Minister has clarified the matter, since Hansard for July 28 suggests the opposite. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister the following question. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday to the effect that the government was still slotting senior civil servants into the new salary ranges up until two weeks ago, does that mean that the Treasury Board minutes, or some of them, were not signed until at least two weeks ago? If so, can he tell us the relevant dates on which the Treasury Board minutes were signed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot answer that question. The Prime Minister yesterday outlined the facts, that to the extent these matters are published, they will appear. There always has been a reservation to the effect that the individual salaries of senior civil servants should not be published, but simply the ranges themselves within which their salaries are determined. I do not think there is any contradiction. I think the hon. gentleman is trying to create dispute about nothing at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? Does the Prime Minister's statement made in the House yesterday, to the effect that the final slotting for senior civil servants was not completed until two weeks ago, not mean that the
8522

October 24, 1975
Oral Questions
Prime Minister really said that the final slotting of civil servants and the signing of the minutes did not occur until after the cabinet had agreed on wage and price guidelines for Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is a process for the determination of the salary ranges of senior civil servants and the process was explained by the Prime Minister yesterday. The cabinet decides as to the ranges. One must look at the record of the particular individual, to determine whether he is at the bottom or top of the range. It is a process which continues every year. There was no variation in it this year and there was no need to vary it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When was it decided? That is all I am asking.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: -first, may I thank you for your courtesy and thank all hon. members for the courtesy they showed me this morning. May I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? Could he inform the House if it is still federal government policy that DREE money expended on highways in New Brunswick should, as a matter of priority, be spent in northern New Brunswick?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his election and also for joining us in this House. I want to assure him of my full cooperation and of the special consideration I will give his representations.
As for the particular subject of his question, it is with pleasure that I can assure him that it is precisely one of the concerns and priorities of the government and of my department to see that access ways and highways in northeast New Brunswick be improved as rapidly as possible. To this end, we are currently pursuing intensive negotiations with the government of that province to sign an agreement for carrying out the project that is of concern to you.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-ADEQUACY OF DEVICES TO MONITOR POLLUTION

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he satisfied with the adequacy of the devices used to

monitor pollution around the Syncrude project in the Athabasca oil sands?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. gentleman asked me whether we are satisfied with the pollution devices around the Syncrude project?


James McPhail Gillies: That is right.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to check into this information. I am not familiar with the pollution problem around the Syncrude project, but will check and obtain the information for the hon. gentleman.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the minister is unable to receive more than one bid on various dredging jobs, in particular at lie d'Orleans, Cape-de-la-Roche and South Baymouth, and since the bids which he has received are away out of line with departmental estimates, does the minister plan to nationalize this particular industry? If not, why not?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of alternatives which we will want to examine thoroughly. One is the opening of dredging to more extensive competition than has existed in the past. We will, of course, have to look at the alternative of doing some of the work ourselves if we are not satisfied with the results that can be obtained otherwise. I would not rush to that solution if other solutions were more satisfactory.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the intention, for example, to make Public Works the prime contractor and then sub-contract these particular dredging jobs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to say who will do the job until we decide whether the job will be done at all.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Transport. On October 16 I asked the minister whether he would investigate the proposal to discontinue CNR rail service between Liverpool and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. He promised to investigate this matter. In view of the public interest shown along the south shore, can the minister now reply to this question?
October 24, 1975


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the procedure provided for in the legislation for a railway to obtain subsidies is a procedure whereby the railway first applies for abandonment. That is the procedure being followed at this time. Therefore, the question of actual continuation of the service is one that will be determined in the ordinary course by the Canadian Transport Commission.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the importance of the CNR connecting link between Liverpool and Yarmouth and the fact that the railway has indicated it must discontinue this because it is operating at a loss, will the minister investigate the proposed action and inform me of the amount of the stated loss on the operation of this service, the charges made against the service which led to this loss and whether, in light of the economic effect upon this section of Nova Scotia, he will recommend to the CTC the continuation of this service.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the suggestion about representations under consideration. I will attempt to obtain the figures as quickly as possible for the hon. member. I would, however, like to again emphasize that it may be wise for us to look as well at the legislation and the terminology. It might be better if we can provide for an application for a subsidy instead of having to go through the form of application for abandonment which always causes undue concern.



EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION GUIDELINES ON EXPORT AND DOMESTIC PRICES-PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF INCREASE OVER DELIVERED PRICE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as head of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a very serious question in light of the fact that this is a $2 billion industry and the world market price for wheat is now over $5. a bushel. What effect will the anti-inflation program have on two factors; first, the export price of grain which of course is set by contract with the Wheat Board and, second, the domestic price of grain sold in Canada which was previously fixed during this or another session of parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board markets wheat and barley abroad. It does so at world prices. As a result of current prices, it is probably more like a $3 billion than a $2 billion industry. Those prices will continue to be set by the world market. They will be unaffected by any action we have taken. In the case of wheat domestically, there has been a fixed price in terms of the consumer in Canada since the adoption of the two price wheat policy a couple of years ago. As a result, there has been no effect upon the price of bread due to changes in wheat prices in that period. There is, of course, a partial payment from the treasury to the wheat producer which offsets some of the advantage the consumer receives in the lower price for grain. In the case of feed grain, there is basically an open market situation.
Oral Questions
There, the ordinary supply and demand forces will be allowed to work. That is the implication of our statement that the guidelines do not apply in such a highly competitive area as that of farm products.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At the time of the combining of grain in western Canada, which used to be referred to as threshing of grain, the country elevator price for wheat was set at approximately $2. I believe that price has now increased to three something. Why was it set at $2? Will those who received $2 when the delivery was made now receive cheques for the increase to $3.50,1 believe it is?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The setting of initial prices for the last five years has been done initially on March 1 for August 1 and the subsequent period. In the last three year at least, we reviewed that when more up to date information about marketing conditions was available. We have in each of the last years increased the initial price at that time by an amount of the order of magnitude to which the hon. member refers. Those who delivered grain between August 1 and the time of adjustment receive a payment for the difference as soon as feasible. I should emphasize that this is all the grain producers' own money in the sense that it is anticipated proceeds from the sale of that grain into the market.



FISHERIES


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State (Fisheries) a question.
In view of the constant uncertainty felt among fishermen who go in for seal hunting in Canada, particularly in eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, and in view of the study undertaken by scientists in his department and by the committee on seals and seal hunting, could the minister tell the House whether he might announce a new policy in this area in the near future?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed new scientific data indicate that the stocks of seals are seriously threatened. Yesterday, I met Professor Keith Ronald, chairman of the committee, and some of the fisheries scientists, who confirm that we will have to consider reducing drastically our catch in the coming season. We undertook a series of consultations with all the interested parties, and in particular with the fishermen, the industry as a whole, and two other countries concerned, namely Norway and Denmark, and I can assure the House that, to the extent where we can protect the interests of our fishermen, we will do so eagerly.
29669-56)4

Oral Questions



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The white paper provides within it certain exemptions for wage contracts, one being historical relationships and the other contracts signed prior to January 1, 1974. Will the minister clarify whether they are all or nothing exemptions. In other words, will a contract be totally exempt or not exempt or will the board have the discretion to give partial settlements above the guidelines but below any agreed or negotiated settlement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most helpful way to answer the question is to point out the difference in terminology. The white paper does not indicate exemptions. What it does indicate is that the Anti-Inflation Board may take account of special circumstances and may decide, notwithstanding the guidelines, that those special circumstances dictate different treatment. Having put it in that context, I think it will be obvious to the hon. member that the board can determine that the different treatment might be to go totally to whatever the negotiated level is or to some intermediate range. It is totally the discretion of the board, not only as to whether it should depart from the guidelines, but how far they should depart.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the discretion the board will apparently have, will the government give consideration to the fact that where the board decides to grant a partial settlement, a strike may result following that with both the employer and employee agreeing there will be a strike, not against the employer, but against the government, similar to the post office situation? Was that possibility given consideration in terms of the mechanics of the legislation?
[DOT] (U50)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I would agree with the hon. gentleman's analysis. The strike, after all, is against the employer. The full range of economic pressures which can be brought to bear on an employer, namely a withdrawal of services, still exists under either the provincial or the federal law, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I do not think the hon. gentleman's analysis is correct.



AIR CANADA


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since it appears that he has the Estey report in his hands at the present time, can he inform the House when the report will be translated, if it has to be, and when it will be

tabled in the House of Commons so that the Canadian public can see what the report contains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any precise timing for the publication of the report. It is a very lengthy one and therefore translation and printing will take a considerable period of time. I would not want at this point to give a rough estimate of how long.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I have an assurance from the Minister of Transport that when the Estey report is translated and made public, hopefully as soon as possible, the government will agree to allow officials of Air Canada to be brought before parliament for a thorough investigation of the air line?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the intention certainly is to ask parliament for a very full examination of the issues involved. Indeed, I want to assure hon. members that in the interval between receipt of the report and its publication the government will be taking certain action which will permit the putting of proposals before parliament.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Following yesterday's security council vote regarding the United Nations force in the Middle East and also the requirement for augmented forces consequent upon the Egyptian-Israeli Sinai agreement, can the minister indicate whether a request has come to Canada for an increased commitment to this force, can he indicate the response to such request and what is to be the extent and type of our enlarged involvement?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal request from the United Nations for an enlargement of our contribution to the emergency force.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister had any indication that members of the public service alliance in UIC offices are bound by union policy and are not prepared to assist in the distribution of UIC payments? If this is the case, what steps is the minister's department taking to have UIC payments distributed to Canada's many unemployed?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no indication of this in any information I have at this moment. I hope this
October 24, 1975

Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT
will not be the case because the measures we are taking are the same as those we have taken quite successfully in the past under the circumstances. I have every anticipation that things will continue normally.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, and I should like to congratulate him on his shift in portfolio. Moving from justice to transport, he is uniquely situated now to answer on a topic that has been raised many times in the past year both by myself and other members. On October 14 the Minister of Transport stated that the report on the crash of a Panarctic plane in the Arctic would be released some time this week. Can the minister now produce the report, or have some new forms of obstruction prevented its completion? I would remind the minister that by the end of next week we will have reached the first anniversary of that sad occasion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his kind comments and assure him that in my new office I will try to leave the old one behind and seek legal advice from other quarters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to confirm to hon. members opposite, who seem not to understand, that the lawyer members of this government have long found that to be a desirable principle to follow, one, to which we all try to adhere. I would tell the hon. member that the release of the report is imminent.



DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION

Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the CBC program on the subject which graphically illustrated the confusion surrounding the attempts to investigate this unfortunate crash, can the minister tell the House when he will be bringing forward legislation to implement the independent accident investigation commission which was promised in the Speech from the Throne?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, work on that legislation is going forward and I am looking forward to bringing it in, though the House is preoccupied with many things thqse days. At the same time, we have been taking steps to look at and review our regulations touching this area, and some improvements in that regard will be forthcoming as well.



EFFECT OF REFUSAL OF BID BY WHITE CONSOLIDATED TO TAKE OVER WESTINGHOUSE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT JOBS-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF DEADLINE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on a matter that is of some urgency to Canadian Westinghouse. Can the minister advise the House whether the government has made any progress toward the solution that I believe is required prior to October 31, which is the deadline? Has the minister anything to report to the House today?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad to be able to tell the hon. member and the House in general that I met this morning with a number of the principals of one of the companies concerned. I think the hon. member will appreciate that at this moment in time, due to the delicacy of the negotiations, I would prefer not to be too specific. However, I can say that the meeting has resulted in a commitment to a further one within a week. In addition, the principals of two other companies involved will also be consulted by me during the same period.
I would not call this morning's meeting definitive-that is, that there were firm proposals put forward-but I certainly conveyed to all concerned the determination of the government of Canada to ensure that the 2,300 jobs, and incidentally several more ancillary jobs as well, will not be jeopardized and that we will see, to the best of our ability, that they are protected.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The date of October 31 seems to be quite important to General Steel Wares Limited since that is the expiration date of their contract. Will the negotiations be able to meet this deadline or are we talking of an extension of the time? Has the minister any information in that regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I inquired this morning whether or not the October 31 date was the finishing date for any options and no positive answer was available at this time. This is one of the questions my officials are now seeking an answer to, namely whether an extension is possible or there is some other means of keeping the application to buy open. I hope that early next week I will be able to provide the hon. member with more details in this connection. At the moment, the information available to me appears to be somewhat vague.



POST OFFICE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the present impasse in our postal system, and in view of the fact that contingency plans have been implemented by the government to ensure delivery of cheques by various means to recipients of CP, OAS, GIS, UIC and other benefits, may I.

October 24, 1975
Oral Questions
ask the Postmaster General whether he would take the necessary action to ensure that United States social security and civil service pensions will be made available to southern Ontario residents, bearing in mind that many pensioners rely heavily and sometimes solely on these cheques for their livelihood?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that representation and see what can be done, but there is already an embargo on mail coming in from the United States. However, I will inquire.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have served notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege, regarding whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may be misleading the House in respect of the dates when the agreement was reached in cabinet about senior civil servants' salaries. In view of the statement of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) that the Prime Minister had checked into this, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is not here, I should like to defer this matter until Monday when the Prime Minister is back in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly have no objection to the hon. member deferring it. I do have some advice for the hon. member in respect of the content of his notice which is as follows:
I hereby give notice that I intend to raise a question of privilege today regarding the inconsistency between statements made by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, and in the House on July 28, 1975, regarding salary increases for senior public servants.
That notice, if it accurately describes the question of privilege, would fly directly in the face of precedent which is, of course, that an inconsistency in a statement made either inside or outside the House is a matter of debate and not a matter of privilege. Therefore, I would caution the hon. member that when the point does arise, I would expect him to be able to persuade me very quickly that there is something distinctive about the question of privilege which he proposes to bring forward.


Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order involving a question raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He made a statement about a comment I had made, stating that I referred to the present Anti-Inflation Board. I referred to the past Food Prices Review Board, and I stand by what I said, that the report was a kooky report. The report contained some facts but omitted many other important facts, etc., and until the board submits a report with everything in it, I will still call it a kooky report, or a kooky board, too.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to the attention of the House the fact that in my constituency in . southern Manitoba the Post Office employees in three towns, being Morden, Winkler and Altona, have refused to go on strike. Consequently, the local mail in these areas is still moving. In view of other action that has been taken in the past few weeks generally by Post Office employees, I feel that in this situation this action by these people in southern Manitoba is very commendable. I would hope the House would agree with me
[Mr. Wise.)
that this is a very commendable course of action for these people to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['1.\t(a) Since January 1, 1972, what contracts were let and to which firms, by the Department of Public Works for maintenance and cleaning services in (i) Halifax (ii) Quebec City (iii) Montreal (iv) Ottawa (v) Toronto (vi) Hamilton (vii) Winnipeg (viii) Regina (ix) Saskatoon (x) Calgary (xi) Edmonton (xii) Vancouver (xiii) Victoria (b) what was the value and duration of each and the wage rates paid under the contracts?\n2.\tWho are the principal owners of each of the firms?\n3.\t(a) Which of the firms have received, or are currently receiving some form of government grant (b) how much is each such grant (c) for what purpose was it granted?\n4.\tWhat has been the total cost of advertising by the Department of Public Works of tender calls for the purpose of letting all cleaning service and maintenance contracts throughout Canada in the fiscal years (a) 1969-70 (b) 1970-71 (c) 1971-72 (d) 1972-73 (e) to October 1, 1973?\nReturn tabled.']
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,014, a corrected question, 3,042, 3,079 and 3,163.



[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3,014-Mr. Huntington: (Corrected)
Since 1968, has Mr. Louis Desmarais, Director of Power Corporation of Canada Ltd. been or is he a member, officer, director or in any way whatsoever associated with (a) a Crown corporation (b) the government (c) a department, agency, advisory board, council or committee and, if so (i) what position did he or does he hold (ii) with what corporation, department, agency, advisory board, council or committee (iii) between what dates (iv) was the position attained by appointment, contest, promotion or through a personnel agency (v) if by appointment, by whom or by what authority was he appointed?
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: (i) Member, (ii) Montreal Port Authority, (iii) December 15, 1971, to date, (iv) Appointment, (v) Minister of Transport, Vice-Chairman, Canada Development Corporation appointed by Governor in Council (see sections 4 and 5, CDC Act).


SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What progress has been made in the Small Craft Harbour Programme for 1975-76 with regard to the following projects in Western Newfoundland (a) Port Saunders (b) Castor River North (c) Port aux Choix (d) Crabbe's River (e) Fishels (f) Old House Rocks (g) Fox Island River (h) Bank Head Cove (i) Flat Bay (j) Daniel's Harbour (k) Stephenville Crossing (1) Trout River (m) Forrester's Point (n) Rocky Harbour (o) Cow Head?
2.	Will any of the projects not completed or in process be delayed as a result of budgetary restraints?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: 1. (a) Service Center Wharf, 100 per cent completed; (b) Wharf Extension, 80 per cent completed; (c) Longliner Wharf, 20 per cent completed; (d) Dredging, Contract awarded May 27/75; (e) Engine & Winch, Deferred; (f) Engine & Winch, Deferred; (g) Landing Wharf, 100 per cent completed; (h) Engine & Winch, Deferred; (i) Engine & Winch, Deferred; (j) Fishermans Wharf, Deferred; (k) Engine & Winch, Deferred; (1) Breakwater Repairs, Contract awarded June 26/75; (m) Wharf Repairs, Deferred; (n) Wharf Repairs, Will be done this summer; (o) Breakwater Repairs, Contract awarded June 25/75.
October 24, 1975

2. Projects in process will not be delayed. Other projects not yet begun will be deferred as indicated in Part 1.


COST OF FESTIVAL CANADA '75 PROGRAM
Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total cost for the (a) preparation (b) performance of each opera (i) The Magic Flute (ii) La Belle Helene (iii) La Traviata presented by the National Arts Centre during the Festival Canada 75 Programme?
2.	In each case, what was the total cost of (a) salaries and wages paid to (i) cast members (ii) musicians (iii) technicians (iv) supporting personnel (b) construction materials (c) costume materials (d) other costs attributable to the preparation and presentation of each production?
3.	In each case (a) what were the total (i) material (ii) labour expenditures on costumes (b) what proportion of total expenditures was attributable to total expenditures on costumes?
4.	In each case (a) what were the total (i) design (ii) construction (iii) labour expenditures on the sets (b) what proportion of total expenditures was attributable to total expenditures on sets?
5.	In each case (a) what were the total (i) materials (ii) labour expenditures on properties (b) what proportion of total expenditures was attributable to total properties costs?
6.	In each case (a) what were the total costs of salaries for (i) musicians (ii) cast members (b) what proportion of total expenditures was attributable to total expenditures on performers' salaries?
7.	Did Mario Bernardi receive payments for the Festival Canada 75 National Arts Centre opera programme that were in addition to his regular salary as musical director of the NAC and, if so, in what amounts?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: The total cost of the programs presented by the Centre during Festival Canada 1975 is estimated at present at $775,000. The Centre deals with many unions, professional associations and artists' agents and operates in a highly competitive field. If it were to be the only theatrical/musical producer in Canada to have to reveal detailed costs of individual productions it would be placed in a position of considerable disadvantage vis-a-vis other producers.


LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Reynolds: For each (a) department (b) Crown corporation, how many employees were away in 1974 and for what period of time, to learn to speak (i) English (ii) French?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) See Questions No. 46 and 49 of September 30, 1974, 1,454 of February 3, 1975, 2,106 and 2,107 of March 20, 1975, 2,373 and 2,374 of April 24, 1975. (b) The information requested is not readily available to provide an accurate answer to this question. In order to answer this question, it would be necessary to review the personal file of every individual who was away on language training. In view of the workload involved the government does not feel justified in undertaking such a review.
Anti-Inflation Act


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,779 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING SERVICES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	(a) Since January 1, 1972, what contracts were let and to which firms, by the Department of Public Works for maintenance and cleaning services in (i) Halifax (ii) Quebec City (iii) Montreal (iv) Ottawa (v) Toronto (vi) Hamilton (vii) Winnipeg (viii) Regina (ix) Saskatoon (x) Calgary (xi) Edmonton (xii) Vancouver (xiii) Victoria (b) what was the value and duration of each and the wage rates paid under the contracts?
2.	Who are the principal owners of each of the firms?
3.	(a) Which of the firms have received, or are currently receiving some form of government grant (b) how much is each such grant (c) for what purpose was it granted?
4.	What has been the total cost of advertising by the Department of Public Works of tender calls for the purpose of letting all cleaning service and maintenance contracts throughout Canada in the fiscal years (a) 1969-70 (b) 1970-71 (c) 1971-72 (d) 1972-73 (e) to October 1, 1973?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by stating my support for this bill, its purpose being to legislate the controls segment of the government's prices and incomes policy. I think this policy is on the right track. The House knows that in saying this I speak as someone who, while a supporter of the government, does not always give it blanket approval no matter what it does or fails to do. I state my support for the bill as someone who is willing to speak publicly about the government he supports, at times in critical but always constructive ways. Therefore, while I say that the bill and the policy it reflects deserve the general support of Canadians today, I will be raising some questions which I think should be answered by the government and I will be

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
pointing out some areas where I think the bill could be improved as it moves through the legislative process.
I believe these kinds of questions and areas of concern should be dealt with during our parliamentary consideration of the bill in order for it to have the fullest possible understanding and support of all segments of the Canadian people. This understanding and support is essential if the prices and incomes policy and the government's attack on inflation program as a whole are to succeed in their objectives of protecting the real incomes of Canadians and our competitive position in world markets.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the prices and incomes policy basically involves a set of guidelines for restraining prices, profit margins, dividends and wages, backed up with a selective enforcement mechanism, that is, a mechanism for selective mandatory controls. I believe the program is on the right track because it reflects the kind of approach I have been advocating for the past 15 months. It is the approach of the anti-profiteering bill. This bill was a key part of the government's election platform and I believe this fact was a major reason for the public's decision to re-elect the government with a clear majority. I believe the voters wanted this measure and voted to re-elect the government in the expectation that it would move promptly after the election to have the anti-profiteering bill made into law.
This was something which, unfortunately, did not happen. I say "unfortunately" because it could well be that if the bill had been presented again to parliament by the government shortly after the election, it might have been possible to have a guidelines program in effect with the mandatory selective controls applying only to prices and profits and not to wages and salaries as well. Some 15 months ago, it could be argued, wage demands had not yet begun accelerating at quite the same rate as appeared to be the case some months later.
Also, the House will recall the government's effort prior to the June 23 budget to have a consensus program for restraint of prices and wages agreed to and followed on a voluntary basis by labour and business. This effort was not successful. However, it might, and probably would have succeeded if the government had been able to assure labour that the burden of restraint would not have fallen unfairly on its shoulders and that there would in fact be an effective means of restraining unwarranted price and profit increases. In other words, I think the program could have worked if it could have been backed up with the anti-profiteering bill.
The NDP is now concerned that not only the new restraint program, that, is, the guidelines, but also the mandatory controls set out in Bill C-73 will apply to a large segment of the labour force. In my view, the NDP bears some responsibility for this state of affairs, and leaders in the labour movement who are NDP oriented should recognize this. I say this because if the NDP has supported the anti-profiteering bill when it was originally presented, the bill would likely have been on the statute books for the past 15 months. As a result, certain elements in the labour sector might not have begun to show a tendency to go beyond even catching up with inflationary price increases and to anticipate the most hypothetically extreme future price increases in their wage demands.
In other words, the NDP, in refusing a year and a half ago to support a bill which would have permitted selective controls only on prices and profits, helped create a situation in which there is a case to be made for applying selective controls on part of the wages and salaries area as well as to prices and profits.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) spoke in the House during the special debate on the government's white paper on Tuesday, October 14, he attempted to answer the contention that-
-in some quarters, both inside and outside the House the government should have taken action long before now to establish some form of prices and incomes policy.
He pointed out-correctly, I think-that "the proposal for imposition of comprehensive, mandatory price and income controls that some urged on us 2Vi years ago was very much the wrong policy at the wrong time." Of course, the government is not now proposing that kind of comprehensive, mandatory control. It is not now proposing a total freeze, followed by mandatory controls on every part of the economy as were urged by the Conservatives prior to and during the 1974 election.
The minister went on to present arguments against this kind of comprehensive wage and price control program, but he did not attempt to show there was no case at all, as I understand his argument, for a more limited form of controls over a year ago. In fact, the government itself made the case for it when the government presented the anti-profiteering bill to parliament just before the election. It did so again when it later asked the public to re-elect it so that it could pass the bill into law, something it said during the campaign it had been prevented from doing only by the irresponsible action of the two opposition parties in forcing the election.
The cost of living figures were similar in their doubledigit rate of increase in most of the last six months of 1974 to the rate of increase over the past several months. One difference today, of course, is that unemployment is considerably above the level it was a year and a half ago. However, the government now has taken new action. I think it has shown the kind of leadership it promised during the election, by setting out a special economic program it thinks necessary for the well-being of the country at this time and then by proceeding to go out and sell it to the country to mobilize wide public support. It is doing this rather than simply waiting for that public support to develop solely of its own accord to the point where the government is carried along by it in a passive and responsive way.
I believe the government does deserve credit and support for the act of leadership reflected by its attack on inflation program and Bill C-73. However, I want to suggest some areas where improvements could be made in Bill C-73, which does follow the approach of the anti-profiteering bill except that it applies to incomes as well as to prices and profits. I am basing my suggestions on some of the techniques set out in the anti-profiteering bill.
There has been concern expressed in the House that Bill C-73, unlike the anti-profiteering bill, does not provide that before a firm can increase its price it must first give

October 24, 1975

advance notice a substantial period before that increase would go into effect, the result being that for the period of notice the prices in question are frozen, so that there is time for the authorities to see whether the proposed increase might be contrary to the legislation and guidelines. However, there is in fact a clause in the bill before us which, in my view, could be used by the Anti-Inflation Board as authority to require firms to give notice before they increase prices. This is clause 13(2) which says, in effect, that the board can publish a notice in the Canada Gazette requiring all firms or individuals to which it is directed to provide it with certain information.
However, I can see why some speakers feel that the pre-notification provisions found in the anti-profiteering bill are absent from Bill C-73. The language in clause 13(2) is rather obscure. I think, therefore, the clause should be redrafted to follow the clearer and more precise wording of clause 51 of the anti-profiteering bill, to make certain that the board will be able to require a substantial period of advance notice during which prices cannot be increased without the assent of the board.
The anti-profiteering bill provided that the government would have the authority to bring its provisions into effect by declaration to apply to all the firms in the sector named in that declaration. While the application of Bill C-73 is not limited to specific economic sectors as set out in declarations or guidelines, it applies only to private sector employers of commodities and services of more than 500 employees. However, the situation in a particular sector of the economy may be such that a case can be made for applying guidelines and selective mandatory controls, if not to all firms in the sector then at least to firms with a specified number of employees, but fewer than 500. In fact, the guidelines already provide something like that for one case by indicating the rules will apply to all firms with 20 or more employees in the construction industry.
There may be some sectors in which most of the firms have less than 500 employees, and therefore the effect of the prices and incomes guidelines and the mandatory controls would be more limited for them than for other sectors. Or some sectors may be of such importance and significance that all, or most firms in them should be covered in any event.
Bill C-2, the stage one competition policy bill, though approved by this House has not yet been adopted by the Senate. It is still not certain when the second stage bill dealing with the key area of mergers and monopolies detrimental to the public interest will be presented to the House, much less fully approved by parliament. Therefore, the bills are not yet available to assist competitive forces to operate in the economy. As I have said, a whole sector of the economy may be made up primarily of smaller firms. Market imperfections may mean that smaller firms may not, in fact, always face competitive pressures from larger ones covered by the mandatory controls. I doubt if consumers always will be satisfied by an answer that compulsory aspects of the program cannot ever be applied even where a price clearly exceeds the guidelines, simply because the firm has less than 500 employees.
Also, should all firms with less than 500 employees always be able to increase their prices or wages above the guidelines whenever they believe they can do so in the
Anti-Inflation Act
light of the market and competitive situations they face, and because they are not subject to the mandatory controls? Therefore, I think there is room for consideration by the government as to whether it should use the authority of clause 3(2)(v) of the bill to extend the guidelines in some of the ways I have mentioned. If so, I think the government should give its views during the course of the debate. The anti-profiteering bill provided that a declaration applying it to a sector would be in effect for up to 18 months. Bill C-73 will apply for up to three years, initially: it can apply for a longer period with the approval of parliament.
It seems to me that there is an argument for a form of parliamentary review of its application through a special debate in the House or, preferably, through committee hearings once every 12 months. The act provides for a report by the administrator to be tabled in the House annually. I think a similar report by the Anti-Inflation Board, whose terms of reference cover a much wider area than that of the administrator, should also be required. Both such reports could be a suitable basis for an annual committee study of the operations of the act.
The anti-profiteering bill said it would be an offence to withhold goods from the market in order artificially to enhance their price. I can find no similar prohibition in Bill C-73. Its absence, I think, should be explained by the government. What about the procedure for enforcing the guidelines? At first glance, the procedure under the antiprofiteering bill appears to be somewhat simpler and more direct. Under it there is no board which first must try to get voluntary compliance before enforcement action can be taken.
Instead, the director of combines, or in fact a special deputy director, would have had the authority to launch an inquiry any time he had reason to believe there had been a breach of the act, or the act was about to be breached, or any time he had been directed to do so by the minister. He could then bring the matter before a commission. The commission, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard, could make the same kind of order as is provided for in Bill C-73.
Bill C-73, however, says in effect that before compulsory enforcement action can be taken, the Anti-Inflation Board must seek voluntary compliance with the guidelines. Who can say how long that will take? There are no time limits provided for this step. If this procedure did not work, the board could then refer the matter to the administrator. The administrator cannot take action on his own initiative; the matter must first be referred to him by the Anti-Inflation Board or by the minister. However, once the matter is referred to him he has very wide powers to carry out an investigation to determine whether the guidelines have been contravened or are likely to be contravened. If this is his conclusion, he himself could issue an order that the unlawful conduct cease and the improper gains be paid back. Bill C-73 makes no provision for a hearing of any kind before such an order is issued.
I believe the administrator should have wide powers to carry out his investigations to determine the facts of the situation, especially so that corporate sleight-of-hand will

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
not be able to disguise price and profit margin increases which are contrary to the guidelines; and, of course, decisions must be made swiftly.
However, when the matter moves from investigation to deciding that an order should be issued, I question whether the law should appear here to exclude all of what the lawyers call the principles of natural justice. These involve the right to a hearing, with the right to hear the evidence against you, the right to call evidence in reply, to cross examine and to be represented by counsel. The anti-profiteering bill used words which enabled these rights to be available before the commission decided on whether an order should be made. These rights are a fundamental part of our judicial system and our democratic tradition. It is true that the administrator's orders can be appealed to an anti-inflation appeal tribunal which can hold sittings across Canada. But one would expect there would be delays before appeals could be heard. Also, it is likely there would be additional expense, which could be a burden, especially where the appeal is on behalf of a worker or a group of workers.
It is interesting to note that the proceedings of the appeal tribunal itself must, according to the bill, be carried out in line with the principles of natural justice. However, the focal point of the enforcement procedure appears to be the making of the order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They would never get a conviction, otherwise.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: One wonders how often the appeals procedure could be used. The government bill should spell out more clearly the procedures which the administrator has to follow in making an order. Perhaps it could provide that the administrator could appoint hearing officers to hold brief, informal hearings before orders are made. Strangely enough, although the powers and the authority of the administrator appear to be very extensive, the words in the bill creating them seem to provide for an escape hatch which could make his enforcement activity meaningless.
Clause 20 of the bill says that the administrator does not have to make such order as he deems otherwise appropriate if he is satisfied that there are, or are likely to be circumstances which, based on the particular facts of the situation, would justify the person's contravention of the guidelines. But what could these circumstances be? The bill itself does not say. These words could enable the administrator, in effect, to create his own set of guidelines totally different from those set forth by the government.
This kind of escape hatch did not appear in the antiprofiteering bill. The anti-inflation bill provides that an injunction can be obtained to prevent a breach of an order of the administrator. However, it has no provision in it for the obtaining of an interim injunction. Such an injunction could be used to prevent the carrying out or continuing of action contrary to the guidelines during a study of the matter by the board and the later investigation leading up to the making of an order by the administrator. In contrast, the anti-profiteering bill provided the authority for the Attorney General to obtain such interim injunctions.
It would seem to me that there is equal, if not greater need under the anti-inflation bill, with its conciliation procedure preceding any enforcement action for the Attor-

ney General, to be able to obtain an injunction to restrain the commission of what could turn out to be breaches of that law. Otherwise, throughout what may be a lengthy procedure leading up to the making of an order a firm could continue to exact what later could be found to be an improper price or profit.
I think the government should provide clarification as to the extent prices received by farmers and fishermen are intended to be dealt with under the prices and incomes program. There should also be similar clarification as to the manner and extent marketing boards are to be covered by this program. On October 16, it was reported in a Canadian Press dispatch that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said in St. Jacob's, Ontario, that while farmers would be exempted from the controls, the government "expects everybody to voluntarily apply the law to themselves". But last Tuesday he said in the House:
Some hon. members have been critical of the program. They ask how can farmers and fishermen be exempt from the guidelines when the operations of marketing boards must obey the guidelines.
He went on to say:
There is a simple explanation for having marketing boards under the guidelines and not the farmers.
A Canadian Press dispatch the day before yesterday reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in Assiniboia:
The controls will not apply directly to farmers, small businessmen and others who could only be controlled by a vast bureaucracy.
He went on to say:
We are going to trust the farmer and fisherman.
These words, like those of the Minister of Agriculture in St. Jacob's, Ontario, could imply to some at least that the guidelines-that is to say, the rules for acceptable price and salary increases-would apply to farmers but would not be enforced against them by the compulsory selective controls provided for in Bill C-73. However, what do the guidelines set out in the white paper actually say about this? On page 18 we see the following, "prices received by farmers and fishermen are exempt from the guidelines". You can see why I say some clarification would be helpful so that we would know whether the words of the Prime Minister in Assiniboia reflect current policy, or whether the words I have quoted from the white paper still apply.
Also, the Minister of Agriculture appeared to say in the House on Tuesday that marketing boards are covered by the guidelines. He also said at that time:
They cannot inflate prices beyond a fair level because the National Farm Products Marketing Council is the watchdog over national marketing boards and there are representatives of consumers, producers and business on the present council which demands that prices paid to producers be based on the cost of production and the reasonable return for their investment.
The fact is, however, that members of the council who are not linked with the producer interest are only a minority of its membership. One can ask: does that council therefore, have the necessary balance in its membership to provide the reassurance to the general public on this that is necessary? Also, the council deals with only a handful of boards set up under the federal National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. There is a much greater number of boards operating solely under provincial jurisdiction. The white paper says only that their operations will be
October 24, 1975

discussed with provincial governments to ensure they are consistent with the guidelines. It is not clear whether this discussion will be undertaken by the government itself or the Anti-Inflation Board.
Surely, the marketing boards should be subject to the guidelines, and the monitoring of their adherence to them must be handled by the Anti-Inflation Board in the same way as any other segment covered by these guidelines. If marketing boards are subject to the guidelines, they could increase their prices only to the extent necessary to pass on actual increases in cost. But the major cost to them is the price they pay farmers for the product in question. A major factor in such a price is the return to the farmer for his efforts and his investment, and not just the cost of inputs he has to buy, such as the purchase of machinery and seed. This is how the cost of production formula used by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is structured to determine egg prices across Canada. One of the costs permitted in that formula is a return to the egg producer which some say could, under that formula, exceed $42,000 a year.
A requirement that a board's price-setting must be consistent with the guidelines would be meaningless if the board could always pass on any increase in the farmer's profit margins as one of the costs which the retailer could then include in higher prices for the consumer.
The Food Prices Review Board was dissolved and disappeared as the Anti-Inflation Board was set up. The latter board is operating temporarily under the authority of the Inquiries Act until Bill C-73, giving it more permanent status, has been adopted. The public may well believe that the Anti-Inflation Board has, or will have all the powers of investigation, report and recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board. However, I submit that this does not appear to be the case when it comes to food prices.
The Food Prices Review Board could get at all the facts behind food prices and could look at any part of the food chain from farmer to processor, to distributor, to retailer. It could look at prices charged by farmers and the inputs that went into them to see whether those prices were justified. However, it would appear that the words of the guidelines, taken together with the words of Bill C-73, mean the Anti-Inflation Board cannot look behind the prices received by farmers and fishermen for their products in the same way as could be done by the Food Prices Review Board.
According to Bill C-73, the Anti-Inflation Board can only look into matters, and I quote, "in relation to the guidelines." These guidelines do not cover prices received by farmers and fishermen. In fact, one could ask why the guidelines should not be applied on a voluntary basis to farmers and fishermen in the same way as for everyone else. This would permit the Anti-Inflation Board to carry out the same kind of study of food prices at all levels, in the same manner that the Food Prices Review Board had been able to do effectively in the best interests of consumers and Canadians generally.
I think farmers themselves would want to be able to confirm to the rest of the Canadian people, through the studies of the Anti-Inflation Board, that they are doing their part in the restraint program and that they are
Anti-Inflation Act
following the price guidelines even though they are, understandably, exempt from the compulsory features of the program. However, the government appears to be saying not only that farm prices should be exempt from the guidelines, but it also seems to be saying in the chapter of the white paper entitled "Structural Policies" that there must be allowed potentially open-ended price increases to farmers for their products, including increases in profits, in order to ensure an adequate supply of food.
On page 10 of the white paper we find this statement:
-to ensure adequate supply of food, farmers must be assured of a rate of return commensurate with the large investment of labour and capital essential to agricultural production. This return should come from the marketplace, but producers must be given some protection against large losses arising from highly variable and uncertain markets.
Of course farmers must receive a fair rate of return, but so should workers and small businessmen. Where is the evidence that ever increasing farm prices are required to ensure an adequate supply of food in Canada? The problem, instead, is to have an adequate supply at prices which are fair to both producer and consumer. There is no evidence that there are basic shortages of foodstuffs. The evidence is just the opposite. If we were facing such shortages, why would current government policy provide for cutbacks in production, in other words, for quotas of less than productive capacity for eggs and dairy products?
The fact is that there was such a sizeable production of eggs, even at the lower prices which prevailed some months ago, that the government marketing scheme was amended to reduce quotas for egg production, for example, to only 62Vi per cent of capacity in Ontario. A recent press report said that there has also been such a sizeable production of industrial milk products at current prices that the government is likely to reduce existing quotas for industrial milk production.
Also, why should the return come entirely from the marketplace? Do these words mean that the government will be phasing out its present subsidy on powdered milk and the other subsidy it pays to farmers on industrial milk? In other words, is it intending to eliminate them as it eliminated the subsidy on fluid milk in the fall of 1974? Having farm prices come entirely from the market means that the burden of higher food prices will fall particularly heavily on lower income Canadians. They pay a higher proportion of their income for foodstuffs than Canadians who are better off. I believe there continues to be a place for properly constituted subsidy programs, since they come from government revenues which are raised through our tax system, which is based on the concept of ability to pay.
Also, what is the rate of return to the farmers the government is talking about in the white paper? How will the government ensure that it is fair to the consumer as well as the producer? It does not say so specifically in the white paper, but surely this is a job for the Anti-Inflation Board. This key section of the government's white paper makes no reference to fair prices for consumers at all. The word "consumer" does not appear anywhere in any of the portions of the white paper dealing with food prices. Does this mean-I hope it does not-that the government has abandoned the commitment on food policy it gave in the throne speech just before the last election and which formed part of the program on which the public based its

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
decision to re-elect the government? This commitment was that it would develop a food policy, the objectives of which would be neither "unduly low prices for farmers" nor "unduly high prices for consumers," and those I think are the exact words. Also on page 10 of the white paper it is stated:
Many non-food prices may have become unduly rigid as a result of government policies. The federal government intends to focus with some urgency on identifying ways in which supply bottlenecks and price rigidities in its own areas of responsibility can be reduced.
Why does the government express concern only about undue rigidity of non-food prices? What about the rigidities in food prices caused by the government's own policies? The rapid increases in egg and dairy prices over the last several months are considered to have been one important cause of recent increases in the cost of living. This is the very situation the government is now trying to deal with through its anti-inflation program. Still, I am glad the government is presently recognizing the need of having policies to deal with structural problems in the economy which contribute to inflation, as I called for this kind of action in a speech in this House over a year ago.
Why does the government apparently consider higher productivity important only for the agricultural sector, so that to get it the government will allow farmers any return they can extract from the marketplace? Surely, it must also be concerned about maintaining and improving the productivity of other sectors of the economy as well. How does the government intend to encourage and maintain productivity in the non-farm portions of our economy?
I suppose one argument which could be made for exempting farm prices even from the voluntary application of the guidelines and the review procedures of the Anti-Inflation Board is that farm prices are affected, and in many cases set, by international factors. It is argued that, being internationally determined, there cannot be lower prices for many farm products in Canada than those one could obtain for the same products in the United States or elsewhere on world markets. However, farm products are not the only ones produced in Canada which trade internationally and for which Canadian prices are therefore the same as world prices. The guidelines state generally that Canadian prices of such non-agricultural products should conform to the price guidelines, and export prices should be at world levels. In other words, there should be a two-price system, and if a two-price system is not practical, then the guidelines say the government will impose a levy to the extent the Canadian price would be in excess of the price permitted by the guidelines.
Why should there be a two-price system for non-farm products traded internationally, and not for foodstuffs? Further, if farmers increase their Canadian prices to match international prices, why should they keep the entire gain any more than the producer of a non-farm commodity whose goods trade internationally?
The government has not made a definite statement in its white paper as to its objectives for reducing the rate of inflation over the next three years. One could say that these objectives are implicit in the wage targets of 8 per cent for the first year, 6 per cent for the second year, and 4 per cent for the third year. However, there is no definite statement that these are also the government's over-all

objectives for reduction of price levels. In fact, if the wage targets are reached, it will not necessarily be the case that the cost of living will decline to the same level. The government admits this in saying that where the cost of living exceeds the basic protection factor in any year, the excess will be added to the basic factor in the next year.
The government intends to exempt increases in the cost of production of energy and some aspects of housing, as well as farm prices, from even the voluntary application of the guidelines and the monitoring which this would entail on the part of the Anti-Inflation Board. This implies possible rises in the cost of living and price levels generally, in spite of wage restraints. It could be argued that inflation was running at only some 7 per cent for several months earlier this year, and that it was government policy which brought about increases in energy costs and in the prices of certain agricultural products which helped to lift the cost of living to double-digit levels once again. A statement of the government's target for the general level of prices over the next three years would help reassure workers that the government is as interested in dealing with prices as it is with incomes.
As I have said, to be successful, the attack on inflation program and the prices and incomes policy requires the support of all Canadians. This means, in particular, that they must be equitable and must be seen to be equitable by wage earning Canadians. It has been suggested that the poverty line for a family of four today is at least $7,000 annually. I think it would be fairer for low income Canadians if the floor below which wages could be increased without reference to the guidelines were raised in a fairly substantial way and the income level to which the floor applies raised as well.
The enforcement of the legislation must be even-handed when it comes to its application to prices and profits and to wages. It cannot be administered in a way which appears to be severe when it comes to wages, and lax when it comes to prices and profits. I think the government could argue that the guidelines themselves are tougher when it comes to prices than they are for wages. The guidelines spell out the percentages by which wages will be allowed to increase. The basic rule for prices, however, is that they can increase only by the amount required to cover actual increases in costs. There is no automatic percentage increase allowed for prices, as for wages. But to make this concept meaningful there must be as strong an enforcement procedure on the price and profits side as on the wage side.
There will be transitional difficulties to be dealt with in administering and applying the controls program as it gets under way. I think that with the application of common sense, sensitivity and good will, these difficulties can be worked out and the program successfully applied. But the program must deal adequately with major areas of expenditure for the average Canadian, including food, housing and energy. So far, the government's program does not appear to reassure individual Canadians to the extent I think it must that the government will do what it reasonably can to restrain price increases in these and other key areas of costs for them.
October 24, 1975

The government must also be even-handed in its efforts to deal with inflation and recession. Both of these problems are still with us. It would be wrong to overlook the fact that we still have 600,000 Canadians out of work. We must have programs that deal at one and the same time with inflation and recession. Measures to increase production and productivity help solve both the inflation problem and the recession problem, since they touch on a fundamental cause of inflation, an imbalance between the supply of goods and services and the demand for them.
Ultimately, it is more productivity, rather than controls and restrictions, that will get us out of our present difficulties. Controls can, at best, give us a breathing space to take steps to restructure our economy, to take steps to deal with unreasonable expectations, and to take steps to deal with blockages and rigidities whether they are in the private sector or in the public sector.
Let me say that our aim should not be simply to tighten our belts to limit our demands to the capacity of a stagnant economy. Our aim must be to get our economy moving on a path of real growth, and thereby enable all Canadians to share in the increased prosperity that would result. The government's prices and incomes policy is a key part of such an effort. It must be balanced by effective programs to deal with unemployment and slack in the economy. This is what the public expects in terms of leadership from the government. The Canadian people will do their share when motivated by the kind of leadership the government pledged in the last election.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73 deserves the approval of this House on second reading. With the improvements and clarification that can be provided in committee, the bill will also deserve the final approval of this House and, what is more important, the final approval of all Canadians.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my speech I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I think many of his comments and suggestions are valuable, useful and correct, though I do not share his enthusiasm for the anti-profiteering bill-now, happily, defunct. I can understand his view-he being the author, or father of it to some extent in the last parliament-but it was not much of a bill. I do not think we should spend time arguing about that, however.
I think I heard the hon. member correctly when he referred to the fact that certain details of the enforcement procedure made enforcement ineffective. In my view, the enforcement provisions are an absolute key to the efficiency and effectiveness of any legislation, more particularly this sort of legislation. If you do not have effective enforcement, if you have long delays, if you have inadequate procedures to institute the necessary actions, the whole scheme is bound to collapse.
I would have thought the logic of the hon. member's remarks would bring him to what might be a painful conclusion for him: even that he would be bound to join those in this House who say that an ineffective bill is no solution to the inflation problems of this country, and we should vote against it unless and until we have a bill with adequate enforcement provisions in it. That seems to me
Anti-Inflation Act
to be the logical conclusion, rather than starting with high praise for the bill and its excellent intent, saying he is going to support it, and then giving what I think are effective reasons why we should not support it.
I agree with my colleagues who have said this is basically a wage and salary control measure. I agree that it does provide some pretence of control of profits and prices, but I think it is fairly ineffective. The pretence that there is effective price control in this legislation, or spelled out in the government's white paper on the subject, is completely without foundation. I, personally, would like to repeat the view which I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) expressed, that the scheme is unfair and inequitable on the one hand, and unworkable on the other.
1 do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have been made to support this proposition which was very clearly spelled out by my leader and other colleagues, but I want to deal with one subject. I think we are being asked, when presented with this bill for second reading, to give a blank cheque to the government to abdicate our functions. There is practically nothing definite in the legislation. It is just a framework within which we tell the government to go ahead and prepare a scheme. I do not think it is good enough that parliament should be put in that position. This is an extremely important matter and we are considering extremely important legislation. I think we should have a very clear picture of some form of draft regulations, or at least an understanding that until the regulations, which are the key to the scheme, are ready, the bill would not be proclaimed.
This paper "The Attack on inflation," vague as it is in spots, while it is helpful, in my view is not law at all. It is just a statement of the intentions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on the matter. Until we have some indication of what is going into the regulations, we will not know what we are imposing upon the people of Canada; we will not know what we are legislating about.
Certainly the crisis of inflation is no surprise. It is not something that loomed on the horizon a few weeks ago; it has been well known for years. It is worldwide. I would have thought that in the interval the government could have worked out prospective regulations to enable it, when it became necessary to come before the House and ask for this power, to explain clearly the power it was seeking. In my judgment, it would be irresponsible for parliament to pass this bill in its present form.
I now come to the second part of my argument. The major shadow overhanging this bill is the constitutional issue. It has become fashionable to treat the constitution as something which interests lawyers, as something about which the law officers of the Crown consult when the government wants to do something in order that they may assure the government that it can do as it wants. But we live under a constitution. We live under a federal system in Canada which spells out the functions of various governments. The courts have determined questions of constitutional jurisdiction. In the final analysis, the assessment whether this legislation is constitutionally valid or otherwise will depend upon the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that the constitutional arguments have not been answered adequately.

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
There are serious reasons for concern. I will not say what the Supreme Court of Canada may or may not decide. No one can possibly know. The court itself will not know, I think, until confronted with the legislation and the necessity to decide. As I say, there are serious doubts about this bill. Any lawyer, any sort of constitutional expert, will be aware of what happened after the First World War. The federal government of the day passed legislation which had a serious impact on prices. It was known as the board of commerce and fair prices act. The government enacted this law which dealt with prices in a way not altogether dissimilar from what is being proposed today.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision approved over the years by the judicial committee and referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada on many different occasions, reaffirmed that there was no right of intervention by parliament in something which was prima facie within provincial jurisdiction under section 92 of the British North America Act merely because there was some declaration that the bill was for the peace, order and good government of Canada. That is the sort of language one reads in the preamble. The federal act was struck down by the court. I do not say that decision is necessarily final, as circumstances may not remain the same, but the decision has been reaffirmed and is a major obstacle to this bill.
I am aware, as others in the House are, that the tendency has been to interpret section 91(2) of the British North America Act, dealing with the regulation of trade and commerce, in a much broader way than was the case some years ago when the judicial committee was our only court of last resort on constitutional issues. I know that the provision may be expanded, and I am sure excellent arguments can be put forward to justify the law we are considering under the regulation of trade and commerce head. But the constitutional validity of this bill is by no means clear or certain.
I find particularly distressing something the government has not done. In the preamble to the bill there is no indication that the government treats this situation as a national emergency. It is well recognized that if something imperils the future of the country, that matter comes under the peace, order and good government provision of the act and would transcend purely provincial regulation. That is well known. It is also well known that the courts looks at the preamble to a bill to determine whether it was enacted in response to some dire emergency. What do we find when we look at the preamble to the bill now before the House? I think the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) touched on this point.
The first paragraph beginning with "whereas" speaks of inflation. It says it is contrary to the interests of all Canadians, that the containment and reduction of inflation has become a matter of serious national concern, and that therefore it is necessary to restrain profit margins, etc. But there is no word of an emergency in the preamble. It so happens that such words, or words similar to those in the preamble, have been considered by the courts and the courts have decided that they do not justify federal intervention into the provincial domain. You cannot say that a great many Canadians are concerned, or that something is a matter of serious national concern, or that if affects all Canadians, and bring it within federal competence unless

it is within one of the specific heads of section 91. If the matter is within section 92, Canadians must expect the provinces to have authority with respect to it.
The question is, is there a clearcut case of emergency? I am not saying there is no emergency which would justify government intervention. I think the ravages of inflation are so serious and so pervasive that they threaten our whole economy. I argue strongly that there is power to act under the peace, order and good government section. Yet I regret very much that the preamble to the bill, a preamble which the courts will examine, does not indicate that the government itself is treating the situation as a national emergency.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this would be a good opportunity for me to abandon the party line for a little while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: However, I really do not intend to do so. I was pointing out before lunch that one of the troubles with this legislation is that it envisages a total abdication of parliament's control over highly important legislation. The only serious thing there will be is regulations passed by the governor in council. We do not have any draft regulations; we are asked to say, "You have authority to handle this in any way you like." That is just not good enough. Some draft regulations should have been prepared which would fill in the substance of the legislation we are being asked to pass. It is not healthy for parliament to give blank cheques to the government on a matter of this sort.
The second point I was trying to make is that there is a serious cloud over this legislation by reason of the question of the constitutionality of the bill. This is not just a superficial matter to be shrugged aside or passed off by saying, in a vague way, that some of the law officers think it is all right. There is a formidable case for doubting the validity of the bill. It is not only a question of the final decision; it is the effect on the whole process of effecting the purpose of the legislation.
It is fairly obvious that ordinary wage earners and small businesses are not going to run to the courts to seek delays or to get involved in constitutional issues. That is a much too expensive business for them. However, the attack may well come from some interests who are dissatisfied with the guidelines as a whole and can use the courts and the constitutional issue that is involved for postponing the effective application of the act in their particular cases. It is one more instance where, unwittingly no doubt, the bill leans in favour of those who are in a strong position and against those who are in a weak position.
October 24, 1975

Apart from the constitutional issues, there are reasons for doubting the effectiveness of the legislation. Before I pass from the constitutional issue, I would say that in a matter of this sort which is seriously in doubt, the government should have referred it-and, indeed, still should-to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to set aside these real doubts as to their powers. They have not done that. They have not drafted the legislation or its preamble in a form to indicate there is a real emergency. That will seriously affect the act as a whole.
There are many other reasons for doubting the effectiveness of the provisions, particularly as they purport to apply to price control. First is the uncontested fact that instead of a direct control over prices, which might be enforceable even though it is not particularly easy, we have some indirect formula of controlling prices through the control of profit margins. In my judgment, that is not the way to control prices: it brings into the equation a lot of highly obscure and difficult accounting questions. Again, it is an opportunity for those who are well organized to get the best accounting advice to escape the provisions of the act.


John Edward Broadbent: Not to mention lawyers.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not mention lawyers because in this field the accountant is vastly superior to the lawyer. There may be a few lawyers who are up to accounting standards. I was a little shocked to hear one of my colleagues in the House the other day say that any lawyer worth his salt would know how to falsify the books. Having practised law, I knew quite a few lawyers who were certainly worth their salt, but at no stage of their career did they ever dream of stooping to the practice of falsifying books. However, there is the question of effectiveness by reason of the failure to deal directly with price controls. I know they are mentioned in the bill. However, in the white paper we received it is fairly clear that the present intention of the government is to deal indirectly with prices through the attempt to control profit margins. There are many difficulties involved in that.
In order to initiate any sort of enforcement proceedings, as I understand it there must be an investigation by the Anti-Inflation Board, and I think it will be a miracle if they are not soon swamped with a tremendous backlog of cases. This would be another cause of delay. The individual consumer or citizen, or group of consumers or citizens, has no power whatever to initiate proceedings. The administrator, who is given the main function for enforcement, can act only on advice or on a report by the AntiInflation Board or the minister. That is wrong. Even under the old combines investigation acts-although they were not too effective-there were provisions for groups of citizens to initiate proceedings. Experience has shown that to be absolutely necessary. Such a provision should certainly be in this bill. In addition, after the administrator has acted on the advice or report that is made, no doubt after fairly lengthy investigation, he is given certain powers. When his powers have been exercised, they are subject to appeal to an anti-inflation appeal tribunal. Following that procedure, if that is not enough, there is a possible review by the Federal Court.
Anti-Inflation Act
All of these weapons are weapons of delay, and they are all available to those with the means and the will to try to disrupt enforcement of the act. The machinery that is provided invites delay and obstruction, and this will lead to the ineffectiveness of the whole scheme. I am not saying that there should not be some form of appeal procedure, but I am saying that the procedure is unduly elaborate, quite unnecessarily so, if you really want effective enforcement.
Unless people have confidence that these measures will effectively control prices, they will not get very much public support. I do not think wage earners will be enthusiastic about supporting the measure when they see inflation creeping on notwithstanding the legislation. There are so many exemptions and potential exemptions in the proposed legislation, some inevitable perhaps, that one has serious doubt whether anyone could honestly say that they believe the legislation could be effective.
First of all, I gather that firms with less than 500 employees are not covered under the mandatory provisions of the bill. Secondly, farm and fisheries products are exempted from the provisions of the bill-and this will affect food prices. That may be inevitable, as it may well be inevitable with the provision exempting imported products. When the government says it cannot, or will not control food prices directly, I am afraid we are getting into a situation where confidence in the measure is almost impossible.
As for energy, my understanding is that the federal government proposes to allow the price of oil to rise toward the international price by reason of the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act. This is another huge gap in the effectiveness of anti-inflation legislation. For example, Ontario Hydro has asked for and received approval of a 27 per cent increase. I understand that this increase is under review by a committee of the Ontario legislature, but nevertheless there is the real prospect of Ontario Hydro receiving this increase. This is one of the organizations that has great influence on prices. Both industrial and consumer use of energy is vital to the maintenance of stable prices, yet the exemption is provided.
There are other exemptions. One group of teachers is covered, another not, by accident of date when the last agreement was signed. During the first day or so of this part of the session we were told by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) that the postal workers were not really covered by the act, though I think other members of the government said that they were. In addition, interest rates and financial institutions generally, such as banks, are more or less exempt from the act. A large field of insurance is exempt.
As for rents, I understand the provinces are trying to work out a joint method of controlling rents. The government proposals will allow some flexibility, which perhaps is necessary and right. But if this flexibility varies from province to province, it will just be one more inequity. As for new structures the rents of which have not yet been established, these will be exempt for five years after date of completion; that is, if rent controls last that long.

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
There is one clause in the bill which I do not know how to properly interpret. It is the clause which refers to the historic relationship between closely related groups of workers or employees. They are not affected by the legislation and an increase can be given under the guise of historic relationship. I do not know how many historic relationships there are, but I would think there are very few employees anywhere who are not historically related to some other employees in a closely related field. The extent of this gap in coverage is not made clear.
The coverage of the legislation, the scope of the exemptions, and all other matters which presumably will finally be written into the guidelines are not made clear. Even if they are clear, I suggest that no firm over-all plan to stabilize prices is proposed. If prices are not stabilized, we cannot expect wage earners to accept wage controls. These controls would hit particularly hard at people like pensioners, those not earning an adequate minimum wage, those who have no union to bargain for them. These are the real victims of inflation, yet apparently there is no measure in the legislation to assist them. In my riding there are many old age pensioners who will be asking me, while prices continue to rise, as undoubtedly they will, what protection they have. I know there is a cost of living escalator; my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has frequently explained this and I am not going to take the time to detail the matter.
Looking over all these different points, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the government has come up with an inadequate measure to tackle the evil at which it is aimed. I am afraid there is no clear plan to enforce price control to balance attempted enforcement of wage control. As a result, I believe that the longer we pursue this matter, the more dissatisfaction there will be. It is fine to talk about consensus, and it would be nice to have consensus about what we should do to combat inflation, but we cannot have consensus on the basis of a lopsided control that benefits one group and punishes another.
Lastly, let me mention the positive aspects to which reference has been made previously. If we are to deal with inflation, should we not do something about the scarcity of housing? In my constituency, escalation of rents is the most serious concern of many elderly people and people on fixed incomes. A tragic situation has developed, the solution to which is not controls. With a shortage of accommodation within the price range that people can afford to pay, whether by way of rent or mortgage, controls will be evaded. We saw this during the last war when under-the-table payments were made to get people in or out of accommodation. All sorts of indirect methods were devised to extract higher rents from people who were desperate for housing because of the shortage.
One thing we must do if we are really going to solve this problem is provide more housing, and a large portion of that must be public housing because the private system of providing housing is not meeting the needs of the Canadian people. I know the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) says he has some great scheme up his sleeve, and I will be interested to hear what it is, but if it is anything on a par with what he has produced to date or, indeed, what was produced by his predecessor, it will be just another scheme for giving a little bonus to the people

in the top one-tenth of the income scale in order that they may buy houses that are far too expensive for the average Canadian to have any possible interest in.
[DOT] (M20)
I believe that to produce an unworkable and unbalanced scheme today is a sham and a fraud perpetuated on the people of Canada. We have a real problem that must be solved, but we cannot solve it in the way this bill suggests. It is for these reasons, and the many excellent reasons advanced by my colleagues in the course of the debate, that I say the only proper thing to do is reject this bill and try again.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) spoke on television on October 13, 1975 to announce that the following day he would ask Parliament the authorization to set strict controls on price and income increases, we have heard many comments which were not always very favourable.
The next day, on October 14, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) introduced in the House Bill C-73, An Act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada. This legislation, which I would say stems from forced voluntarism, has given rise to various reactions throughout the country. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) explained at the beginning of the sitting on October 22 that the absence of a few ministers was justified because they were travelling throughout the country to explain the provisions of Bill C-73.
I hope they will be welcomed everywhere, since sacrifices must be generally accepted by the people in a period of inflation created by a financial system which does not properly take into account the economic conditions of the time.
A Montreal newspaper reported on Wednesday, October 21, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) had launched a crusade to explain the new restraint program and that on his arrival at the meeting place in Winnipeg, he had been received by demonstrators who seemed more or less prepared to listen to his explanations. It must be added that on that occasion he met more than 750 workers who were concerned about the probable loss of their job.
On Tuesday, October 21, La Presse published an article headlined this way; Anti-Inflation guidelines generate serious injustices. Here is the comment that followed:
Union leaders seem to recognize the need for restraint one way or another to fight inflation. However, they are concerned about the injustices that the ceiling on wage increases will generate.
Here are a few examples: Chefs working for the federal government can be grouped either with hospital employees or with general services employees; the former have obtained last spring a salary increase of 21 per cent but the latter are negotiating a new contract and thus will not be able to obtain more than 12 per cent.
Forest workers with the International Woodworkers of America in British Columbia have just signed a collective agreement which provides for a 30 per cent wage hike over the next two years; their, friends of the paper industry refused to sign their collective agreement because they hoped to obtain still more. Now, they will have to be satisfied with 12 per cent.
October 24, 1975

Postal workers have just turned down the conciliator's recommendation for a 38 per cent wage boost over a 30-month period, the equivalent of the increase postmen obtained last spring.
Very often, groups of workers have been without collective agreements for many months; the postal workers' agreement expired at the end of 1974, the nurses in Quebec have been without a contract since June and the social workers in Alberta have been expecting higher pay since March.
The October 20 issue of the Montreal daily Le Devoir mentioned, on page 6, that the General Council of the National Federation of Quebec Teachers had decided last weekend to ask the CNTU to organize, together with the other trade unions, a counterattack against the anti-inflation measures.
In an atmosphere such as this, one can easily imagine the problems the chairman of the new board and his assistant will have to face. A final decision apparently is still pending on their respective salaries, but I have great reasons to believe that both will have a lot of work to do. I have no doubt about the competence of the chairman who has to his credit a lot of experience in the business field. I hope that his generally smiling approach will survive the inevitable problems which will certainly arise during his term of office. In his televised speech, the Prime Minister mentioned that people all over the world are caught in the grip of the revolution of rising expectations.
We have come to the point where we think that, by virtue of some magic formula, we can provide ourselves cheaply and in plenty, while constantly improving our standard of living, with food, energy, housing and government's services. We feel that all that is due to us without any respect for the collective increase in goods and services. That is the point the Prime Minister made after having advised every Canadian to live within their means.
However, I share the opinion put forward by newspaperman Normand Girard who wrote on October 18:
Mr. Trudeau, it appears, has overlooked in his guidelines one of the most important factors responsible for the cost of living hike in Canada: publicity.
How could such an exhortation by Mr. Trudeau, be it televised across the country, compete with the constant exhortation to spending imposed on Canadian homes by the manufacturers of everything consumable?
At one time we are shown the most beautiful car, at another time we are shown the biggest car. Later we have the latest in furs before our eyes;
Department stores go as far as offering consumers credit cards by telephone. In short, everything in our society of consumerism encourages people to live beyond their means.
Therefore, would it not have been consistent for the Canadian government to include some restrictions on advertisement which encourages spending?
The "ordinary people" who will choose not to abide by the anti-inflation measures will be put in prison, but television, radio, newspapers and magazines will be allowed to continue in all impunity to encourage them to do so.
Is not the ordinary person sometimes right to question the consistency and seriousness of his governments?
On October 14, here in the House of Commons, my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) quoted the definition of the word "inflation" given by the Larousse dictionary at page 543:
Anti-Inflation Act
Inflation: Desequilibre economique caracterise par une hausse gene-rale des prix, et qui provient de l'exces de pouvoir d'achat de la masse des consommateurs (particulier entreprises ...) et des services mis a leur disposition.
And he added this:
As members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves very seriously, not facetiously, but as responsible people, if there is really inflation in Canada. Is there an excess of services offered to people, is there an excess of potatoes, tomatoes, pork, milk, butter, cheese?
In the same speech to the House, the hon. member for Bellechasse pointed out the increase in the national debt since 1867: $30 billion to October 1, 1973, and $58 billion to July 1, 1974. Realizing that situation of constantly heavier indebtedness, one can easily understand that the problems which confront the government are mostly money problems. This makes it that much more difficult to understand why supposedly competent administrators are still hesitating about making the required changes in the monetary system which is the cause of most of the difficulties we are encoutering.
Repeatedly, at the House, I have said that any progress in our productivity should bring in dividends to the shareholders of Canada, the Canadians. To that end, the government should, on behalf of the company, issue and distribute new money to finance new activities.
But when the financing of progress is left to the banks which loan with interest, the credit so created, progress, can do nothing other financially than become a debt.
We have reached the stage where we no longer hear of the possibility of paying back the debt of the country, too high a percentage of the incomes being used to pay off the interest that amounts to over $1 billion a year.
The government of the country does exactly what the law normally prevents any citizen from doing-not to pay his debts. Our learned politicians can claim they are knowledgeable but they seem to forget that the modern monetary system is first a system of accountancy and that the first quality to be expected of it is the exactness of the volume of credit in circulation. Since this credit is the means of payment, it is clear that it must bear some relation to the goods available. We borrow in 1975 to pay for debts made several years ago. Of all the dictatorships enumerated in history, of all those at least which have effects today, the most important is certainly the dictatorship of money. The moment a country enters civilization, it comes under the domination of the financial dictator. And this kind of dictatorship made more victims, imposed more deprivations, caused more sufferings, washed away more talents and broke more homes than any other.
It caused more moral and material ruins than any war, however disastrous in history. Parties that follow one another to power do not change the situation. The government seems to exist for the sole purpose of enforcing taxation, restrictions and hardships, even though our country has all the required resources for everyone to live at ease.
The same monetary policy is imposed by the same system to the leaders of whatever party. It does not mean that financiers invented political parties, not at all. But once political parties were established with election funds, meagre at first, then replenished by the proteges of public contracts financiers saw this as an excellent means to

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
control public matters. Election funds took tremendous proportions, but they also created obligations. Any financial credit originates from the bank by minting national credit, on behalf of government, on debentures; the bank makes the government-whatever its color-a perpetual debtor. By minting the capacity to produce of big companies to which it advances credit created in this way the bank joins those who feed the election funds to get the protection of the law. We see that directly or indirectly the banking system places the government under trusteeship; it would be time I think for people concerned for the good of this country to find other ways of doing things.
The media inform us that the city of New York is threatened with bankruptcy because of a system of this kind. It is serious enough to think about it. We heard here in this country the words "economic crisis" brought about by financiers through the stock market. We had deflation, inflation, regression-and I forget some-but in the final analysis it is always a money problem. The demoralizing situation that prevailed in 1929 left unforgettable traces which have repercussions today. Politicians of all stripes can no longer count on people resigning themselves to accepting their unforgivable negligences; they will have to realize that the present financial system is obsolete, that it must be replaced with a system aimed at serving and not enslaving the human being.
Yet there is a way to foresee a logical solution with simpler methods. Unfortunately, our politicians are looking for complications; with a multitude of means available to them they multiply difficulties, no doubt to show the flexibility of their imagination.
However, we are facing all kinds of problems: poverty, strikes, bankruptcies, thefts, crimes, unemployment and our leaders continues to grovel before financiers, the masters of this unthinkable situation: wealthy country, poor inhabitants.
Last October 17 my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) submitted to hon. members of this House practical suggestions based on a retail discount formula. He said:
Our industrial system rests on work already done by a number of generations. We, as inheritors of that complex system of production, can view it as our real credit.
Unfortunately, we cannot produce at full capacity because of the credit formation monopoly held by the banks. The real credit must be "monetized", so the people can reap now the benefits of their inheritance. It must achieve the growth needed to produce the maximum amount of goods and services required.
The instrument capable of monetizing our real credit is the people's bank, that is, the Bank of Canada.
Why should we pay in 20 years from now three times the value of what we received only once? Why should we pay $1 million 20 years hence for a school that cost us $500,000 when it was built? Is it because financiers wish to make us work 75 per cent of our life just for them? We build a school that costs $500,000 and we pay back to banks the value of more than two schools. One school for us and two schools for banks, one mile of sidewalks for us and two miles of sidewalks for banks, one water supply system for us and two for banks: 40 to 70 per cent of municipal budgets are used to pay interests to banks. Banks are

growing bigger every day while people are growing thiner. Financial institutions are gnawing at them like a cancer.
I take this opportunity to quote here the founder of the economic philosophy of Social Credit, Major Douglas:
Social Credit is a new strategy for an old battle between the will of the tyrant to dominate and the will of the individual to be free.
The government should by all means aim its decisions at altering a system under which we are constantly running into debts-


Mr. Boulanger:: In what year did he say that?


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Major Douglas started saying that over and over from the moment he understood the shortcomings of the present system. However, should I repeat that 25 times, I don't think the hon. member would understand. It would take him 100 times to understand.


An hon. Member:: He is too thick-headed!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Otherwise we will find ourselves in the midst of a bureaucratic nightmare which will bring about more nuisances than positive results.
We have just realized that four new members will assume full-time responsibilities on the Anti-Inflation Board. Two chartered accountants, one of which sat on the committee on Bankruptcy... He in the right place: if things do not work out he will at least know what it is all about. Another one was a member of a royal inquiry commission. He is probably quite experienced in the matter of bureaucratic procedures. The third one is a former minister of social affairs, a Liberal well used to putting social welfare recipients on short allowances. The fourth was born and studied in Britain. He has already dealt with working class activities, and he will hopefully remember that when it is time to make practical suggestions about workers wages.
The salaries of those people will probably not be affected by the restrictions of the new anti-inflation plan. They will feel quite comfortable to determine the levels of food prices and workers wages in Canada as they pave the way for a type of socialist economic dictatorship.
In an excellent speech on October 22, the Social Credit member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) called the attention of hon. members to the disastrous results of controlled policy experiments by different countries and outlined clearly the causes of inflation. There are enough examples of all types of events elsewhere for us to be able to do something different before it is too late.
The common sense and the logic of the Social Credit may put to shame those who have always preached the opposite. They can hurt those who have noticed the weakness of the system but who lack the courage to denounce it. But the pride of these people does not make the Social Credit ridiculous. Any citizen who examines the proposals of the Social Credit can easily judge for himself if it is ridiculous or logical to want as we do that people eat their fill of the products which are placed in abundance before them. He can also judge if it is ridiculous or logical to give like the Social Crediters more importance to food, clothing and housing than to the figures written on pieces of paper.
October 24, 1975

Social justice does not consist in taxing the honest man for the benefit of financial interests. As long as we believe that production is aimed at consumption, this inevitably implies that we have a duty to find a way to give the consumers access to our abundant products. Since the child when he is born is naturally entitled to live, it is not normal to burden him with debts caused by the financial system of the country. Instead, he should be entitled to the heritage left to him by the previous generations.
It is unthinkable that people who believe themselves to be serious can assert that good results can come from wrong methods, that freedom can emerge from bureaucracy or regimentation or that our abundant production can be distributed through a short money supply system. All types of boards have been established, which enables the government to protect its friends. I would not be surprised if one day one of our politicians, of whatever party, makes a suggestion that he will undoubtedly find brilliant, that of establishing another board to study the role of the numerous boards already in existence. What we should really establish is a monetary board which would enable Canadians to get out of this ridiculous social situation which allows poverty to exist in spite of abundance.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had heard the persuasive speeches of members of the NDP, it would not be necessary for me to make this speech. But the jolly green giant of the cabinet apparently is not persuaded at this stage, and therefore it is necessary for me to make my speech. In all the speeches that have been made during this debate, and in the discussions that have taken place across the country, there has been one common trend throughout; that is, agreement that Canada is in its worst period of inflation, recession and unemployment since World War II.


Mr. Baldwin:: And bad government.


John Gilbert: I think this is the reason we have to address ourselves to this problem, which is not only a national problem but an international one. When you think of the low inflation we had in the 1960s, 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent, and the high inflation we are having in the 1970s, 11 per cent to 12 per cent, the enormity of the problem becomes clear.
With regard to recession, we have not been able to gear our productive capaticy to a point where we are meeting the needs, demands and expectations of most Canadians, and therefore we are in a recession period. We are also in the highest unemployment period that Canada has experienced. I notice that one of the Ottawa members nods his head. I thought he was going to say it is even higher than during the Conservative regime form 1958 to 1962.
At the end of September we had a seasonly adjusted unemployment figure of 732,000, indicating a 7.2 per cent rate. When you look at the distribution of the unemployment rate, you find that in the province of Newfoundland it is 18.8 per cent; in New Brunswick it is 10.4 per cent; in Quebec, 9.3 per cent; and in British Columbia, 9.6 per cent. This underlines the problem of unemployment across the country. If there is anything that the former minister of
Anti-Inflation Act
finance bequeathed to the present Minister of Finance, it is that today we have the highest unemployment ever, the highest food prices, the highest interest rate and the highest rate of inflation.
Hon. members may recall that when the former minister of finance resigned, the question in the minds of many Canadians was who would replace him. Now we have the present Minister of Finance. His was an unexpected appointment, for most Canadians, although I might say it was probably a good appointment when we consider the other cabinet material which was available. The Minister of Finance has come forward with his own and the cabinet's solution to the problems of inflation, recession and unemployment. We in the New Democratic Party have said that his response to these problems is both unfair and unworkable. We have said that it will not build any new houses, it will not provide reasonable food costs, it will not combat the shrinking purchasing power of those on fixed incomes, it will not increase production, and it will not put Canadians back to work.
There have been many analytical reasons put forward as to why we have inflation, but I think we are all agreed that ours is not the traditional supply and demand type of inflation. It was rather interesting to glance at Walter Gordon's book in which he says that inflation today is not caused by the marketplace machinery, but by monopolies which set the price of most consumer goods. In his recent book "Storm Signals" he sets forth his reasons for saying that Canadian consumer prices are set by monopolies which operate in the marketplace. They are not concerning themselves with the problems of supply and demand but, instead, with the demand for their particular products, and setting prices not in relation to the cost factor but in relation to their administered prices of which profit is the foremost factor.
I was interested in what Mr. Gordon said with regard to the monopolistic companies which control the Canadian economy. I will list a few of them to indicate the strength of his reasoning. The petroleum field is not controlled by Canadian companies but by monopolistic foreign companies. The companies are Imperial Oil, Gulf Canada, Shell Canada, Texaco Canada, and BP Canada. When it comes to mining, again there is monopolistic control by companies outside Canada which operate the firms of International Nickel, Falconbridge Nickel, Noranda Mines, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, and Rio Algom.
With regard to forest products, again we have monopolistic companies the ownership of which is outside Canada. Those companies are Canadian International Paper, Abitibi and its subsidiary, Price Company, MacMillan Bloedel, and Crown Zellerbach, Canada. We know that the automobile industry is controlled by General Motors of Canada, Ford, Chrysler and American Motors. With regard to computers, there is IBM. When it comes to aluminum, there is Alcan Aluminum. The liquor industry is controlled by Seagrams, Hiram Walker, Godderham, and so on. Beer is controlled by Labatt's, Molson's, Carling and O'Keefe. With regard to tobacco, we have IMASCO, MacDonald's Tobacco and Rothmans. That is just a short list of the control which monopolistic companies have with regard to consumer products which Canadians must

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
have to enjoy a certain quality of life, and this indicates the problem the government is facing in controlling these multinational companies.
I usually analyse the shortcomings of a bill before giving the New Democratic Party remedies to the problem, but this time I will reverse the order and give the remedies of my party to the problems of inflation, recession and unemployment. I will capsulize them for reasons of time, and I hope for the persuasion of hon. members. The first remedy of the New Democratic Party would be to impose selective action to stop unnecessary price increases. The first prices all of us can think of would be oil and gas. We would pass legislation rescinding the 10-cent excise tax on gasoline. With regard to the oil and gas industry, the zooming profits of recent years should be brought to the attention of hon. members. With regard to Imperial Oil, Gulf Canada and Shell Canada, there are figures available on their profits and their percentage of return.
In the years 1970 to 1974, Imperial Oil had a net income increase of 176 per cent and a rate of return of 22 per cent. Gulf Canada had an increase of net income, in the years 1970 to 1974, of 313 per cent and a rate of return up to 20 per cent. Shell Canada had an increase of net income from 1970 to 1974 of 178 per cent and a rate of return of 16 per cent. These figures indicate the necessity of controlling oil and gas companies across the country. Their profits are unconscionable and the government has done little or nothing to stem that tide. I might say that this bill will do little or nothing to control the rate of return of oil and gas companies.
This pattern applies across the board and includes financial institutions and the large corporations which operate in Canada. Recent figures for banks have shown very sharp increases in profits in the past few years. The same is true for large corporations. Therefore, to combat this problem we would set up a prices control board with power to investigate and roll back increases which are not justified.
The second approach would be this. We would make sure that the impact of inflation on those who suffer the most from its effects would be cushioned. I am speaking of people on low incomes and fixed incomes. We would increase old age pensions and veterans allowances so that the recipients could meet some of the high costs they are experiencing today. It is not sufficient to say that a cost of living increase is part of their pension. What is necessary is a pension which is adequate to meet the demands of the day.
The federal government should give leadership by amending the Minimum Wages Act. This would benefit people on low incomes in that they would have sufficient money to provide necessities for their families. Over and above that, there are people who have personal hardships. We must devise programs which will meet these personal hardships. With the extra money they would have, we could increase the demand for goods and services, which would have the effect of helping the unemployment problem and also the problem of production.
Our third method of solving the problems of inflation, recession and unemployment, would be to have a massive housing program. I am looking forward to the programs the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) now

has on the drawing board. I hope he will bring them forward very soon. The programs he has brought forth have had a little effect but not a substantial effect on this problem. In the final analysis I think the federal government has to give the initiative and leadership to parliament to control housing and earnings across the country. We have suggested that the government should increase its allotment of money for land assembly and direct construction and, more directly, with regard to the control of mortgage rates.
Neither in Bill C-73 nor more especially in the white paper has the government taken the real initiative with regard to controlling interest rates. It has stated that it will let them fluctuate because of the international demands for money.
I hope that I can persuade the Minister of Finance that there are three types of interest. There are consumer loans which have a particular rate of interest, business loans which have a particular rate of interest, and mortgage loans which have a particular rate of interest, and they are all different. There is no reason why the government cannot direct the financial institutions to set aside a certain allocation of their investment moneys for housing at a particular, low interest rate. This is a social responsibility and it is up to the government to direct the financial institutions to take this action.
We have said that the interest rate should be fixed at 6 per cent. Of course 6 per cent would operate to the detriment of the profit and loss statement of the banks, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to combat the high cost of housing and high rents that prevail. There is a certain persuasion in the suggestion of the members of the Conservative party that an income tax allowance be made concerning the high interest rate after a maximum of 8 per cent, but in the ultimate analysis if we are going to talk about a reduction in the cost of housing we have to strike the main components, land and interest. Interest is the most flagrant abuse of the profit power. Therefore I think the government has to take the initiative. I am rather disappointed that the white paper did not spell out the necessity of controlling interest rates at a moderate figure.
Those are the three main approaches that the New Democratic Party would take on these vital problems, Madam Speaker. My colleagues have done an excellent job of analysing the shortcomings of Bill C-73. I would only remind the House that the Liberal response to inflation was set forth by the Minister of Finance, who said that we must distribute the burden equally across Canada. This is an attempt to perpetrate a cruel hoax on Canadians. The minister knows that the weight falls heavily on people with low incomes.
When I was younger I remember reading the works of George Bernard Shaw. He said there is one thing about rich people, they will do anything except get off the backs of the poor. I think it is the same today-they will do anything except get off the backs or out of the pockets of the ordinary working people.
The philosophy of the minister's approach is wrong. He comes from the riding adjacent to mine so we have many things in common. There are working people, and people
October 24, 1975

of many different ethnic origins, who are attempting to develop a quality of life of which they can be proud. He and I have a certain consensus on what should be done regarding housing and so forth, so I hope he will take note of what we are saying and take some action. But I see no sign of it in this bill and I am not the only one who cannot see it.
When I see the minister's approach to profits, limiting them to 90 per cent of the average net pre-tax profits over the preceding five years with special exemption for export products, then I look at the oil companies-Imperial, 176 per cent in the last five years; Gulf, 313 per cent; and Shell 178 per cent. They will continue to enjoy the high prices and profits they have enjoyed in the last few years; they have the strength, the power, the corporate sleight of hand to protect themselves fully. This also applies to banks and large corporations. There are too many exemptions, too many loopholes with regard to the profits of corporations across the country.
It has been announced that wages will be restricted to an 8 per cent increase in the first year 6 per cent in the second year, and 4 per cent in the third year, with a minimum of $600 and a maximum of $2,400. I am sure most Canadians feel this should be reversed so that people on low incomes should get $2,400 and people on high incomes should get $600.
I notice the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) is in the House. I want to congratulate him on his appointment; it is an excellent one. I believe he is a man of competence, ability, and compassion. I would hope he will find a way to reverse that approach of $2,400 for people on high incomes and $600 for people on low incomes. How can people even get the $600 if they do not belong to a union? How can people on low incomes attempt to get it? What bargaining power do they have? And what about pensioners, what about veterans? There is no assurance that the Minister of Finance is going to make a statement that these people will get the minimum of $600.
We have had a statement about rents. Following the meeting of the provincial ministers of finance the Ontario treasurer, Darcy McKeough, stated that the Ontario government is going to wait to impose rent controls. I am sure that the Minister of Finance wants the Ontario government to move, and move quickly, because there are many people within his riding, and all Ontario ridings who have been directly affected by high rents. I hope he will take his usual strong, tough, attitude which he displays at times, and tell the Ontario treasurer that his approach is not good enough and that these measures must be taken immediately to give protection to the people of Ontario in regard to high rents.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I should like to refer to the board itself. It is a very difficult and cumbersome board to operate. I am sure the chairman and its members are going to encounter real difficulties in regard to appeal board procedure, going to the Federal Court and then to the cabinet. This just means it will be cumbersome and complicated, and cause delays. It does not give me confidence that it can solve our problems.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, from the Prime Minister's statement one could take it that it is possible that changes will take place. I suppose this is as a result of his dialogue and the speeches he has made across the country.
Anti-Inflation Act
Most of his speeches have been made to high income groups. Every time he goes to a meeting where trade unions are involved he is rejected.
Speeches which members of the New Democratic, Conservative, and Creditiste parties have made across the country will, no doubt, influence the Prime Minister, to make changes. But I can just hear what he will say-"We will increase the minimum exemption for wage earners from $600 to $800, and we will not impose heavy restrictions on dividends, as the corporations are exerting pressure." Really, that is not good enough. I hope the Minister of Finance will not adopt a sphinx-like attitude and say, "That is all we can do now; when times are better we shall make changes." He may suggest amending the Income Tax Act just before the next election in order to help people. I hope that will not be his attitude. I hope he will take positive initiatives and will not do some of the things he suggested he may do. As I say, I hope he adopts some of the remedies the NDP has mentioned. I say that because I am sure all Canadians agree that only by working together can we make this a better country, a country where all Canadians can live a better life.
Members of the NDP, in common with many Canadians, feel that Bill C-73 will not be adequate for dealing with the problems of inflation, recession, and unemployment. That is why we will not hesitate to vote against this bill as it stands. We hope the minister will introduce changes which will incorporate some of our ideas, and thus make this a better country in which to live.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it was appropriate for this bill to be introduced by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Finance, as I think it reflects the thinking of people who are fortunate enough to live in affluent parts of the country, like Rosedale.
I am not from Rosedale, Mr. Speaker, and I want to bring to the government's attention the thinking and concerns of people who are not lucky enough to live in affluent places like Rosedale or Mount Royal. I shall take my examples from the north, but what I am about to say will apply equally to the Maritimes or the east end of Vancouver. In those areas few will need to worry about the government's ceiling of $2,400 on raises. Not many people in those areas make that kind of money.
The average income of most working families in the Northwest Territories, my part of the country, is around $8,000 per year. Most of us are used to the idea of buying gasoline at a high price. The average price of gas in my part of the country is just about $1 per gallon. It is not at all unusual to pay $1 for a quart of milk. So you might say that we knew about inflation long before the word became fashionable in Montreal or Toronto. Therefore, when I talk to the government about these problems, I sometimes feel tempted to charge consultant's fees.
We in the north have spent a lot of money learning about inflation and should be given special consideration, possibly in the form of special tax concessions. For instance, people who live north of the sixtieth parallel should be allowed special allowances. These might induce more physicians to practice in the area. I suggest that

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
there should be more adequate recognition of conditions in the high Arctic, especially economic conditions which are not the same as in the rest of the country.
The government has created many of our economic difficulties. It has proposed wage and profit controls as a solution to these difficulties. In its wisdom the government has lumped all our economic problems under the catchword inflation. It has said that we should now knock the wind out of inflation, and it proposes to attack inflation by controlling our wages.
What is the government doing to solve other problems like unemployment, monopolistic market structures, and in housing and transportation? Housing and transportation, particularly, are important matters for my constituents, as well as for many others in this country.
Over and over again you hear members of this House talking about the problems in housing and problems in transportation. I tell them that transportation is one of the big problems in my area. The high cost of transportation has led to the very high cost of living with which people must cope in the part of the country I represent. Even though the government refuses to acknowledge these problems, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they exist. The white paper which preceded this legislation touched, at one point, on these problems. It is too bad that the concern shown was not translated into legislation. The part to which I refer was near the beginning of the white paper, in that section dealing with the infrastructure of our economy.
The job market is one of the structures of our economy. What is happening in the job market? The national rate of unemployment is over 7 per cent; in some parts of the country it is over 20 per cent. Statistics show that the unemployment rate for native people in northern Alberta is about 65 per cent. I guess unemployment is not much of a problem in constituencies like Rosedale or Mount Royal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Or Broadview.


Walter (Wally) Firth: What about the housing problem? One can see many problems in the housing part of our economy. Housing costs take a big chunk out of peoples' take home pay, and the percentage lately has been getting bigger, faster. I suggest that these increased costs have nothing to do with the wage demands of a tin bash or of a swamper. No, Mr. Speaker, high costs have much to do with high mortgage rates.
In Yellowknife a house costs almost twice as much as a comparable house costs in Edmonton, although the two centres are only 1,000 miles apart. In Rankin Inlet, in the Northwest Territories, the problem is even worse. People who do not have a government job cannot buy, rent, steal, or borrow a house. I guess hon. members opposite and to my right would explain this in capitalist terms by saying that in Rankin Inlet there is a seller's market. Anyone who manages to put up a small, poorly insulated house in Rankin Inlet could ask for the price of the moon as rent, and get it. That will show you how bad things are in Rankin Inlet. As I said, we in the Northwest Territories know about inflation. That is why I say this bill will do little or nothing to solve the problems I mentioned, problems existing in my part of the country.

Transportation is another part of our economic infrastructure. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that the Northwest Territories are served with bus lines. The bus provides a cheap link between Edmonton and Yellowknife. It moves people and goods cheaply between those two centres. Actually, most of us in the north depend on air transportation, although merchants use the bus system to ship small items from the south. The price of shipping by bus recently rose by 30 per cent. As the increase took place on October 1, this legislation will not roll it back. That 30 per cent price increase will be borne by people like Jerry Rieman who runs the camera store in Yellowknife. Jerry will pass the increase on to his customers, and they will pay it. We shall see increases in the cost of aviation fuel, and other increases in transportation costs. We know they are coming. This legislation will permit them and they will be passed on to the consumer. Those increases will be inflationary. This bill will do nothing to stop them.
This bill does not stop the inflation problems of the ordinary consumer. It does stop the inflation problem of those who live in places like Mount Royal and Rosedale. What is that problem? The problem is trying to stop paying more and more for wages. People who live in places such as Rosedale and Mount Royal are more likely to be employers than employees.
The government has solved one inflation problem for a few people. However, when prices go up because of higher transportation costs, higher housing costs, or anything else that will fit through a loophole in this bill, other people will pay. They will pay for it out of take home pay that has been frozen, frozen because the elected representatives from Rosedale and Mount Royal think that controlling wages is the only answer to inflation in our economy. As I said, some people in other parts of the country do not agree with them.
I am sure some members opposite are about ready to tell me that the price controls outlined in the bill will stop inflationary price increases. Before they do that, let us look at what will happen when the price of gas will again go up.
Pacific Western Airlines, which operates out of British Columbia and Alberta into the western Arctic, will be forced to increase its rates on merchandise being shipped to a wholesaler in Yellowknife. That wholesaler will have to raise his price on goods going to Snowdrift, Fort Simpson, or wherever. Retail outlets in these places will have to raise their prices and the consumer will have to pay the increase out of his controlled wages. That is just a simple example.
Into the picture comes the Anti-Inflation Board. Let us say they get there three or four months after the initial increase and their investigation goes on for a month. After that time they may decide the airline was not justified in increasing its freight rates. Is the board going to see to it that the consumers in smaller communities, who for months have been paying five or ten cents more for items will be reimbursed? I seriously doubt that.
The board will not be able to stop all the other five and ten cent increases that are bound to occur, not even if they had 5,000 employees instead of 500. They will not be able to do that because this bill only stops increases in wages.
October 24, 1975

To sum up, I wish to emphasize that the inflation problems of most Canadians are not solved by this bill. They are caused by a limited supply of housing, trends on the international commodity markets, and the concentration of market power in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations. These problems are also caused by the inability of the government to show any economic leadership.
I hope that the leaders of the business community who live in places like Rosedale and Mount Royal are happy with their elected representatives. I know that people in many other parts of the country, especially those in the Northwest Territories, are not happy with such members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), I must advise the House that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before I start on the substance of my report I wish to refer to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) who on half a dozen occasions chose to refer to my constituency as being particularly affluent, and indicated that therefore I would bring to this question a rather narrow viewpoint. I think it is unfair to put to the hon. member for Northwest Territories the requirement that he know in detail all aspects of the country. He has a lot of ground to cover himself.
I can understand that the hon. member might not know my constituency very well. But he obviously was not listening to his colleague the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), who spoke just five minutes before, pointing out how similar his electorate was to mine, that is Broadview and Rosedale. I am going to say about the characterization that if I am a fat cat, I guess the hon. member for Broadview is as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Northwest Territories does not have to listen to me or visit my constituency, but he should listen to the hon. member for Broadview. He is a man of excellent spirit and sentiment, even if from time to time I disagree with some of his judgments.
In reply, I would like to state that since I last had an opportunity to participate at second reading I have discussed the white paper and Bill C-73 with the provincial governments in the two-day federal-provincial meeting. I wish to refer briefly to that meeting and also to some of the points made during the debate.
With regard to the federal-provincial meeting, the provinces really agreed on three essential points. First, they agreed with our expression of concern about the current economic situation, in particular with regard to the trend in the rates of inflation as requiring special action; second, that the initiative for this action must appropriately and properly be taken at the federal level and by this government; third, that while there may be certain details of the program we put forward with which they disagree, and upon which they would like to see changes-as I said in question period today, we will certainly consider changes and I will refer to those in a moment-in general they are
Anti-Inflation Act
prepared to support and co-operate with these particular proposals.
One of the points that emerged at that meeting and which should be pointed out in this debate is that a policy with regard to prices and incomes, by definition cannot possibly deal with all of the economic issues in Canada. There are many serious questions with which we have to be concerned. The question of regional disparity has been referred to by a number of my colleagues on this side. There is also the question of range of incomes within the community in a vertical sense, and the kinds of changes we should have particularly when dealing with those on fixed income.
The first point is that we cannot and should not by this policy alone try to overcome the problem of regional disparity. We should continue to try to improve the policies that have been and are being followed by my colleagues in that area. On the other hand, we should not by this program seek to make the disparity any worse. It is for that reason I have to reject, for example, the suggestion of the treasurer of Ontario that there should be cuts in the DREE program. This is a question which has also been raised in the House.
With regard to government expenditures, obviously there will have to be some hard decisions taken in connection with the 1976-77 estimates. There will have to be some cuts which will be painful in certain parts of the country. However, with regard to certain policies, Regional Economic Expansion is one we should seek to make more efficient, but we should certainly not make it a particular victim of our inflationary concern.
The second point is that over the years there have grown into our economy and society inequalities in incomes. Some of these have come about directly as a result of collective bargaining. Under our system the trade unions have been in a position to bargain for more favourable treatment, not only to create difference as between different worker groups in our community, but within the structure of a union itself, a scale of compensations. So one cannot hope to overcome by a prices and income program alone differences in economic return to various people in Canada.
Governments in Canada essentially over the years have assumed responsibility for providing basic standards of income for the unorganized, for example through the minimum wage laws both at federal and provincial levels. As I had an opportunity to say in this House yesterday, my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), had the opportunity yesterday afternoon to continue the federal-provincial discussion of the minimum wage in Canada.
It is a fair observation that in the past there has been a certain ambivalence among the various provinces in regard to this matter. On the one hand there is the very legitimate concern of people elected in public life to try to divert their efforts specifically at those at the bottom of the income scale. There has been the equal concern often expressed at these meetings that a too rapid increase by the federal government will put pressures on those in certain of the provinces who are not under federal jurisdiction. My colleague will be in a position to report on

October 24, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
these discussions in due course, but the question of the minimum wages is one that has been covered during the last 24 hours at the federal-provincial meeting.
In addition to that, as I have said to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, under the old age security plan, the guranteed income supplement, the Canada Assistance Plan, and now under the new and more recent provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act we have provided for other groups in our community that are not in a position through economic power or through collective bargaining to take care of themselves.
After all of these speeches in this debate are in, however, the basic problem will still remain, and that is the one with which I started off the debate, namely that if those with economic power can obtain higher and higher levels of compensation, then there are two inevitable results. In the first place, given that the quantity of additional resources in Canada is finite, there will be less and less available for those who are without economic power. Secondly, higher returns for those in a position of economic power, whether you talk about doctors or lawyers, corporate executives or public servants, steel workers or auto workers, landlords or corporations-those increases have to be paid for by somebody in the community. They are in fact paid for by everybody. They become a net cost increase for all of us in the community. When that occurs and they become a net cost increase, they therefore, in part at least, become the responsibility of those at the bottom of the income scale, among others, to have to pay.
It seems to me that those basic facts are ones that we as a nation have to come to terms with in this proposal. As I said in opening, we are not going to join in the argument about whether or not the wage increases and catch up increases of the past are responsible for inflation. We are insisting, however, that if all major groups with power insist on big increases, or on leap frogging ahead for the future, in the long run there will be a net cost for all of us to pay which will have to be passed on, and in due course it will be borne by the economy and will result in another inflationary increase.
During the course of the federal-provincial conference a number of problem areas arose, and I will refer briefly to them. Reference was made this afternoon to rents. May I say in fairness to the provincial treasurer of Ontario that he was not averse to taking early action on rents. However, he did accede to representations made by other provinces that the provinces as a whole should proceed together on the basis of national criteria. The fear, of course, was that if there are different regimes from province to province, this could have an adverse comparative effect with regard to investment in new accommodation. In fairness to Mr. McKeough, he was not the dilatory person in this particular discussion. I think it can be said that no one was. But there was a basic problem of trying to get some national standards followed by each of the provincial governments in carrying forward this part of the price control program which will be carried out under provincial jurisdiction.
The second point that was difficult and which has been much raised in this debate, for example by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) last night, is

that of professional income. This is one of tl-*s most difficult of the questions that were raised. I do not think that anyone would claim that those of professional income who, relatively speaking in terms of numbers, are not a substantial percentage of the work force, are alone responsible for dramatic increases in incomes. Rather there is the comparative problem that if they do not seem to be covered by this program then the program looks unfair. It would want that quality of equity in which all appear to share in restraint.
In this discussion we recognized a lot of the frailties put forward by the hon. member. I think, without coming to any final conclusion on this, that there was a recognition yesterday that possibly there would have to be in the first place, between the federal and provincial governments- particularly with the provincial government participation since the concept of a self-governing profession is established under provincial law-some agreement on appropriate fee schedules, and possibly, to reinforce this question and the equity of the matter, a surtax might have to be considered and perhaps imposed at the federal level.
With regard to the medical profession-not the profession of the hon. member for New Westminster or my own-we recognized that in some ways we would be working against some of our other objectives in public policy if we were too restrictive in terms of what we did. If we said that there would be limits on income from the existing level of effort but that for additional hours put in, or additional patients seen, there could be a further increment, we would run into financial problems, to say nothing of a health and safety problem with a practitioner who sees half as many patients again as he saw last year, which would likely mean he would not do as good a job for his patients as he should.


John Edward Broadbent: In case of lawyers it would be good if they stopped working.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Additional work for lawyers would seem to suggest that there would be a rampant crime wave in this country, but I will be objective enough not to wish that upon the country in the interests of my own profession.
The third element that was much discussed in this debate, one that has been discussed in the Liberal caucus and was very effectively referred to by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae), is the appropriate maximum level for those at the lower end of the income scale, the $600 limit. It appears both from the federal-provincial meetings and from the debate here that there is some consensus that the $600 limit is not appropriate. What is lacking, however, is consensus on an appropriate alternative method. On behalf of the government obviously I will have to pursue this question with my colleague to see whether we can find some satisfaction in this respect, particularly in light of minimum wage discussions.
As for prices, it has been asserted long and repeatedly that there is no way that prices can be effectively monitored and controlled.


John Edward Broadbent: Or accurately controlled.
October 24, 1975


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, accurately controlled. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) feels that in my new character I should not get involved in debate and I am trying to reform, but may I remind him again very gently of what I said on second reading, namely, that those in the group he now leads did not always think it was impossible to control prices.
I think it is fair to point out that many prices can be controlled in advance. Indeed, the chairman of the AntiInflation Board has set about doing just that by requiring notification in advance of a price increase, and by requiring justification before any price goes up. That is the kind of regime that we had over the past two years with regard to petroleum pricing in Canada at the crude level. With regard to certain other products, particularly with consumer durables, automobiles, household goods, white goods and goods of that kind, the cost factor is such that it is reasonable to expect that justification will be required first.


An hon. Member:: Is that going to be the case in respect of automobiles?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The price justification in that particular case would present no difficulty, and I think that should be done. I see no difficulty in doing that, nor with regard to certain services such as those covered by bank charges, once again there seems to be no effective argument against requiring justification in advance for that kind of change.
On the other hand, a real problem arises in a sector that affects every family in Canada every week, and that is, of course, with regard to the marketing of food products through the supermarkets. In this regard, as I have said elsewhere, it is not possible to have a policeman behind every bottle of marmalade, so there will be difficulties involved in the change of basic food prices from week to week. It will be very hard to have this kind of justification. We would try to control that in respect of gross profit margins by applying the same kind of test that this industry applies to itself for its own purposes.
Finally, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in his speech said the banking and financial institutions would not be dealt with in this measure, but I would point out that they will be dealt with and in fact are covered in the white paper, and I include the insurance companies and chartered banks. The same cost pass through formula I just mentioned a moment ago would apply to them, therefore they would be restricted in respect of their increases in rates in the same way.
Before taking my seat, Madam Speaker, there were several questions of a legal nature raised which I should like to deal with now if I may. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised a question as to whether the Canadian Bill of Rights would apply to this particular bill. The answer is that indeed it would as there is no provision in here exempting the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is because of the obligation under that Bill of Rights not to deprive a person of property or liberty without due process of law that the formula covering,
Anti-Inflation Act
first, the appellate review, and then a judicial review of the work of the administrator is provided under this particular bill.
The question was raised at several points, by the hon. member for Peace River 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.
Having regard to the reports, I would think one of the essential elements of the work of the Anti-Inflation Board would be that there should be an extensive public report of its findings, and I am sure the board and the chairman will seek to do that. In addition to those reports there is a provision in the bill that reports from the administrator are to be made from time to time to the minister, and they are to be put before parliament. In conclusion. Madam Speaker, that deals with some of the broader questions on the implications of the program.
A number of serious questions as to detail were raised. I would be pleased to attend with legal counsel at the committee proceedings to discuss these questions. I have in mind the constitutional question raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. I would be prepared to discuss some of the other legal questions raised by hon. members, particularly the one raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I agree it would be desirable to have other officials, in addition to legal ones, on the financial side appear to answer questions both as to the bill and as to the concept of its administration.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a very simple question? He referred during his speech to the question of cuts in government expenditures for 1976-77. To make it plain, does the minister mean there will be actual cuts below the present amounts of money being spent by the government, or simply reductions in the rate of increase?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, in the estimates process the proposals for the coming fiscal year are already before the Treasury Board and there will be cuts from those particular proposals. Whether there is an absolute decrease will depend on the depth of the cuts.
While I have the floor might I say that I think there has been some agreement that, if it is decided the House should divide on this question, the actual taking of the division should be postponed until eight o'clock on Monday next. If it is appropriate perhaps I might recommend a House order to that effect.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
8546

October 24, 1975
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour 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.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the wish of the House that the members be called in now or that the vote be deferred?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if the House might agree that the vote should be deferred until eight o'clock on Monday night.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the vote be deferred until Monday night at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (for the Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill S-27, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-23, to provide for the payment of superannuation benefits to Lieutenant Governors, reported with amendments by the Standing Committee on Miscel-leaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to advise the hon. member, but at this stage of the report, no debate is supposed to take place. A debate can be allowed only on third reading.


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-23 be read the third time and do pass.


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure my colleagues, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the House leader, that he does not have to take a pill, I will be brief and his bill will be passed shortly.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat what some of my colleagues and I have already said during the consideration of the bill in committee. We pointed out to the President of Treasury Board, mainly responsible for the introduction and passage of that bill that in our opinion, he did not go far enough as far as the pensions of Lieutenant Governors are concerned.
In committee, we tried to convince the President of the Treasury Board to change the text of the bill itself to take into account the particularly difficult circumstances under which the lieutenant governors of Quebec and their families took over the functions they now assume.
But the bureaucrats won that inning and, unfortunately, the President of the Treasury Board refused to follow the advice shared by most of the members of the committee. He won. But I am giving him another chance, and urge him to reconsider his position, Madam Speaker, because of the unfairness of the situation. Of course, I am speaking in relative terms with regard to the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick who fills his post, in some regards, at his own expense. He has to dig in his pockets to pay some of the expenses incurred in the course of his duties, duties which he has to perform and which he is expected to perform in view of his position.
I should have been remiss in my duty had I not pointed this out today. I know that several of my colleagues from New Brunswick on the other side support the stand we have taken, and I think it is most unfortunate that the procedure should not allow us to amend the bill as we would have wished with regard to the lieutenant governors of New Brunswick and Quebec.
One of my colleagues may wish to add to what I have said. That is why, Madam Speaker, I now bring my remarks to a close.


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


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I will speak without the sound system operating. I wish to concur in the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), and say I too regret that the bill has not been amended. I think the incumbents of the positions to which he referred have given over a long period dedicated public service, and I regret that the amendments are not made.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
October 24, 1975


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I thought I should let the House know, now that we have given second reading to the bill on the anti-inflationary measures, that on Monday we will be beginning the debate on Bill C-69 dealing with unemployment insurance.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Clark:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I say there have been some discussions between the minister, myself, and others in the House relative to some of the amendments which appear on the order paper, commencing with that in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), who unfortunately is absent delivering mail in that constituency. My understanding is that the minister has some comments she would like to make. I simply rise on a point of order to ask the unanimous consent of the House to make some amendments to the amendments which appear on the order paper. The minister will deal with the first of those. I make this request now on a point of order in order that I might retain my right to speak after the minister has spoken.


Jeanne Sauvé: Indeed, Madam Speaker, we have had discussions on the amendments proposed to this bill. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) has consulted his colleagues and we both agreed that I would accept one of the amendments he proposed, the one appearing as subparagraph (6). The hon. member for Rocky Mountain himself would withdraw subparagraph (5) and subparagraph (6) would be amended as follows in accordance with the hon. member's views and mine. Therefore, this subparagraph would read as follows:
(5) A committee appointed pursuant to subsection (4) shall make public its reports and recommendations and the reasons that justify them and by renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.
You will note that the word "inquiries" has been deleted and that the words: "and the reasons that justify them" are added.
Environmental Contaminants Act
Therefore, if the hon. member agrees, I would move this amendment as I have just read it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I agree with the amendments moved by the hon. minister. I hope this House will find it possible to support the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This, of course, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed that the amendment proposed by the minister carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mrs. Sauve) agreed to.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) I would request the unanimous consent of the House that I be allowed to withdraw amendment No. 2 standing in his name.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Wenman) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 3.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder, Madam Speaker, if I might call it four o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is the motion allowed to stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: All parties of the House have agreed to proceed with motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard).
29669-57%

October 24, 1975
Railways Safety RAILWAYS


SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION STUDY TO IMPROVE SAFETY OF PASSENGERS AND EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from October 28, 1974, consideration of the motion of Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should study the advisability of establishing a Royal Commission on the notable shortcomings of Canadian railways and in particular CNR to increase the protection of the public in general and that of the employees in particular and to eliminate accidents and derailments of freight or passenger trains.
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I seem to be once more on familiar grounds


Mr. Blais:: I rise on a point order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the floor is being sought by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), whose particular motion this is.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. We are resuming the debate from last October 28 at which time the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) had the floor.

So the hon. member has the floor.
We resume the debate and when it was interrupted, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) had spoken to the bill.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Madam Speaker, I seem to be once more on familiar grounds, or should I say familiar rails, in rising to speak again on this motion brought before the House by the hon. member for Rimouski. I am very much aware of the deep concern expressed by my worthy friend, but again I must answer him as I did last October 28 when he brought the matter before the House in practically the same words.
This matter of railway safety which the hon. member has brought up for discussion, continues to be a principal concern of the government, particularly as rail transportation received strong emphasis in the new transportation policy tabled in the House last June. However, it is still our position that the way to improve the safety performance of the railroad is not to appoint a royal commission, as the hon. member for Rimouski has suggested.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) has pointed out, royal commissions take a long time to prepare their reports, and their recommendations are seldom implemented. When they are included in legislation or regulations, which is a rare occurrence, this usually happens some years after a report is brought down. No, I do not think a royal commission would expedite what the hon. member is suggesting in his motion, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should study the advisability of establishing a royal commission on the notable shortcomings of the Canadian railways and in particular of CNR to increase the protection of the public in general and that of the employees in
particular and to eliminate accidents and derailments of freight or passenger trains.
Rather than wait for lengthy reports and studies, it is our view that specific and immediate steps must take place to improve safety on the railways. The key channel to which such improvements can be made is, of course, the Railway Safety Advisory Committee.
The committee's most recent progress report contains several specific decisions made with respect to resolving the difficulties related to rail accidents. It has, for example, established an improved system of disclosures of accident information to the Canadian Transport Commission for analysis and action. All railway accidents are now reported directly to the Canadian Transport Commission which is responsible for follow-up investigations and for public reporting. A "tighten-up" program with regard to the fitness of operating employees reporting for duty a result of CTC order 20191-is proving effective. This involves stricter surveillance procedures by supervisors whose responsibility it is to ensure that operating employees on duty are fit, able, and alert.
A signal training program has been developed for signal construction, maintenance and operating personnel. Through on the job training, classroom instruction and home study, the program covers many areas, from general knowledge of train operation and railway signalling to studies of specific topics such as track circuits and railway highway crossing protection circuits. Employees must pass both written and practical examinations.
Minimum track standards and standards for operating rights of way are being developed. A special subcommittee was established to this end. They have to date defined specific priorities and have the agreement of Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways to submit standards to accomplish these priorities. The CTC will also carry out research and furnish draft standards. A study for test rules improvement and signal inspection is also under way.
This is the type of positive action that is necessary. We do not need more studies or a royal commission. We need to move on the studies that have already been made. In fact preliminary figures supplied by the major railways for 1975 show to date an improvement over 1974 statistics. Crossing accidents continue to be the most serious problem. Money and research are continually going into development construction of better signal and protective devices for the safety and convenience of the public at level crossings.
The accident level to date is about the same level as in 1973 The very fact, however, that statistics do exist indicates that steps must be taken to ensure safety on the railways We must ensure that the good working relationship between the Railway Safety Advisory Committee, which includes the unions, and the CTC and MOT officials continues, and that improvements in railway safety continue to be the result.
The Canadian Railway Labour Association is also actively interested in the work and suggestions of the Railway Safety Advisory Committee. The priority matters they have indicated for the committee's working groups include the construction, maintenance and inspection of track standards; a revision of the air brake inspection and

October 24, 1975

maintenance rules; the development of a uniform code of operating rules; and regulations governing minimum training standards for those railway employees whom the RTC has designated as having duties which affect safety in the movement of trains. The hon. member for Rimouski has brought up that matter in the past. The union has also asked for a review and updating of the RTC operations, engineering and general orders, and for a review of the sections of the Railway Act having to do with the safety of operation.
I might draw to hon. members' attention the on-going improvements that are being made in the CN system as a result of maintenance, installation of new facilities, and research. New rail is being installed, and a lot of work is being done in northern Ontario and in the western provinces. In order to improve safety and capacity, CN is installing new signalling and communication facilities. Radio communications continue to be improved. As well as being active in its own search for new and improved techniques and solutions to its operating problems, it is involved in joint programs to these ends with the Department of Transport and CPR.


Mr. Oberle:: Who wrote that for you?


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: I did.
I can assure hon. members that the government and MOT will continue to strive to reduce the number of accidents and to improve the safety and standards of our railways. It will take a good deal of money to renew, rebuild, and expand the rail network to accommodate the larger, heavier type of equipment that will be required in the next 10 or 15 years, but it must be done with an eye to the safety of people, both those operating the railroads and the general public. We recognize that there is much to do and that human error will always be with us.
I support the intent and principle of the motion, except that I believe we now have the necessary procedures in operation. We have only to ensure that they are working. I do not feel that a royal commission at this time would in any way help to resolve the problems which have been so well outlined by the hon. member for Rimouski.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter into the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) with regard to the shortcomings of the Canadian railways. I welcome this because for many years I have been involved in the frustration of trying to deal with the freight rates of the Canadian railways, especially in the interior of British Columbia, whether it be in the south central interior or the northern interior.
One of the reasons why we are debating a motion that we should have a royal commission is that there is a lack of direction coming from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), from his office, and from the federal government. This has been especially noticeable since I have been here, which now has been three years. We know that the minister came in, threw up his hands and said that the government did not have a transportation policy. It would not be difficult to deduce from that that the railways are not paying any attention to the Minister of Transport, his
Railways Safety
department, or the federal government, and that there is really no control.
Who is running Canada, the railways or the federal government? When we consider freight rates, especially in my area, and try to understand them or to be even remotely familiar with them, we have great difficulty because the Department of Transport is very complex.
It is not difficult to understand that over the years the railways have been taking whatever the traffic will bear, especially when there is little competition. Between my riding and Vancouver there was a time when there was no competition, and it was very costly to send our apples and soft fruits to Vancouver. Then there was a highway built connecting my riding and Vancouver, and there was competition from trucking. However, it was not very long until the large railway companies were able to buy out the major truck organizations, and then the competition was more or less stunted.
We gained much experience in hauling our produce into the United States, putting it on a railway car in the United States, shipping to a point south of Regina and Assiniboia, unloading the car, putting it back on to a truck and taking it to Regina. That was cheaper than sending it by a Canadian railway. I notice that the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin Mr. Pearsall is paying a great deal of attention to what I am saying, and what I am saying is factual.
We were at one time able to bring about competition, and then we were able to come to an agreement with the railways to have a competitive price. I remember that at one time we could load a can of apples in Kelowna, send it to Winnipeg, take it off the car, put it in cold storage, take it out of cold storage, put it back on to a car, ship it to Florida and obtain a rebate on our freight rates.
Hon. members may wonder why I am citing these examples of what used to happen. I am doing so because it is happening again today. One can send a box of apples from Washington state, which is just south of the Okanagan valley, into the eastern markets of Toronto and Montreal for 43 cents a box less than one can from Kelowna to the same markets on Canadian railways.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George H. Whittaker: We are asked to buy Canadian. We are considering an advertising program in Canada to promote the sale of Canadian apples, but how on earth are we to compete with this kind of competition, which is mainly generated by our own railways, when they demand and take more money than competitive lines in the United States to haul the produce of Canada from one area to the other? Forty-three cents a box may not sound like very much money to hon. members, but it is a lot of money to the producer. The person who must absorb this amount of money is the producer. No one takes any less in Canada, and it goes right back to the producer. He has to take less for his product.
I used the examples of apples and produce, but those are not the only commodities involved in the interior of British Columbia. Commodities can be shipped from eastern Canada to Vancouver and then into Prince George for less than it can be done on a direct line which runs from Edmonton to Prince George. Someone must explain why

October 24, 1975
Railways Safety
these things happen. The ordinary layman does not have the opportunity to find out. The Department of Transport throws its hands up and says transportation policy is a mess. The department does nothing. It is time there was a royal commission.
Imagine the advantage the railways in Canada are taking with their freight rates. It does not cost the railways any more to ship commodities to these interior points, and it is not more difficult to do so. It is not any farther, but this happens because of some philosophy that it is competitive. Is this the way we are to build Canada? This is the way we have been trying to build Canada. This is the way we have been trying to have secondary industry, and this is one of the reasons why we are drawers of water. We do not have a transportation system which gives us the opportunity to compete within the framework of Canada itself. You can find all kinds of examples in Ontario especially. In Coast Chilcotin and the Prince George area many job opportunities have been lost because plants have closed.
In my riding in the interior of British Columbia a company got an area intensive grant from the federal government through DREE and established a plant which was competitive in every way. Their product was good, but they found that a large part of their market was in eastern Canada. Gf course we know that is where the population is, and we know we get discriminated against in many instances.
Because of the change in freight rates last jear this company could not compete with the American markets and so lost business. There was a stipulation that they must have so many pounds per car of a certain type of product, and so on, yet the COMINCO smelter at Trail, which is a subsidiary of the railway, was charged less. The company I speak of did not get the lesser rate because it was too small and it is not a subsidiary of the railway. There was a danger that they would have to go out of business and the DREE moneys would be lost, but luckily the market improved and they were able to pay the extra freight. They are at the mercy of these freight rates set by the railways who do not worry if somebody loses a job or goes out of business.
The former minister of transport said the department is in a mess, but we have a new minister now and I wish him well. He has a parliamentary secretary who has the interests of western Canadians at heart, but I do not think either he or the minister can do too much because they belong to a government that is not strong enough to bring the railways into line. They do not want to do it, they do not have the strength to do it, and I do not believe they are able to do it. In my opinion the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) is a good one and I hope the government will support it.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to support the motion of my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) concerning the establishment of a royal commission on railways. If I remember correctly, Madam Speaker, on January 4, 1974, the hon. member for Rimouski requested the unanimous

consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to discuss this motion.
As usual, his motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 did not receive the unanimous consent of the House. In spite of this, he noted with great pleasure that March 21 of the same year was set aside for the long hoped for railway improvement study. Taking the first opportunity to urge again the government to try and find answers in order to reduce the number of railway accidents, especially in view of the many derailments in the last few years, the hon. member for Rimouski even suggested that a royal inquiry be made on the railway administrations in an attempt to solve the problems caused by the shocking deterioration of this vital and nationally important service as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the matter was forgotten as soon as it was raised. However, my colleague for Rimouski made a fresh attempt on October 28 of the same year by asking-as I have done many times with regard to the railway service in the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean area that an inquiry be made into the activities of the national railways.
Once again, I should like to ask all the hon. members who are here this afternoon to listen very carefully to what I will say during the few minutes allotted to me, so that I may state the reasons for my request and for supporting my colleague from Rimouski. Undoubtedly, Madam Speaker, the main reason for this request is that, as the member for Roberval, I have been aware throughout the years of many railway accidents, including derailments. In addition to those in my own riding, I could mention those which occurred in the riding of one of my colleagues from the Eastern Townships, in the province of Quebec. I intend to deal with the accidents in the passenger and freight transport services, without omitting necessarily all those which may have occurred throughout Canada.
I feel therefore it is my duty to ask again the House of Commons to set up a royal board of inquiry into the administration of our national railways, an inquiry which would certainly come up with adequate means to patch the many faults which now exist in this service of prime necessity and public interest.
In spite of all the studies which have been carried out to date, Madam Speaker, I am still convinced that such a royal board of inquiry is necessary, for such an inquiry, as I see it, would recognize the need to provide more safety and protection to passengers and railway workers alike.
At present I consider that the Transport and Communication Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission did not put enough emphasis on the inadequacies of the security standards set out in the railway area.
Referring to the report released following the 1970 general survey of railway tracks and prepared by the railway transport committee on can read the following on the first page of appendix 3:
The number of derailments in 1972 caused by the condition of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific tracks tripled since 1969, and nearly doubled since 1970.
It is easy to verify that the situation is not that bright because if one refers tothe 1959 figures one sees that there were 40 derailments, 69 in 1969, and 132 in 1972. That gives
October 24, 1975

an average increase for the three years of 90 per cent. What a shame!
I continue quoting from the same report:
Because of that continued increase in derailments it must be concluded that in a near future the number of derailments caused by the condition of the track will continue to increase as will the number of dead and wounded unless immediate steps are taken.
And those immediate steps would be to set up a serious royal inquiry that would no doubt enlighten us about the faults of the present administration and bring in corrective measures.
It is very important to know how to distinguish between accidental and localized administrative faults which can be corrected on the spot, and structural, basic faults which would require a complete overhaul of the organizations involved. So, Madam Speaker, this is a matter of momentous importance which deserves all our attention and all our energy if we want to get in line with current and future requirements and restore to our railways their reputation of yesteryear which was recognized throughout the whole world. Because we know that for a long time our railway were the pride of Canadians, financiers, administrators, employees and all the external traffic. But today, instead of boasting a futuristic railway network we make do with a very poor system. We were unable to maintain our railroads and the rolling stock. I should like to quote some examples of derailments that occurred, mainly in Quebec as I cannot mention all the derailments that were reported throughout the country. I should draw to your attention several derailments that occurred in my area last year, about 70 miles from Mont-Joli and more precisely in Routhierville, where about twenty cars loaded with oil and several other goods ran off the line. There was also another derailment within the same year between Mont-Joli and Rimouski, several cars loaded with passengers. Fortunately there was no fatality but it was a pity to see so much material damages. And I remember the accident I already mentioned to this House: between Montreal and Chambord during the winter a train with almost 100 passengers left the tracks at three o'clock in the morning. The passengers had to stay in the train without anything to eat and I had to phone Montreal to get the authorization to give some food to those people and to call for buses that arrived only at two o'clock in the afternoon. Can you imagine all those people waiting in the train? Madam Speaker, when such derailments happen the passengers are not ready to take another CN train the day after. They always say never again!
Madam Speaker, the accidents I just mentioned are rather important. And in the long term, they are vey costly if you consider the large number of derailments in Canada in recent years.
Finally, hon. members will agree that if the Canadian Transport Commission has found it wise to recommend to the Canadian National Railways to reduce the speed of passenger trains to 40 miles an hour, and often to 20 to 25 miles an hour, all year long yet, it was to bring down as much as possible the number of accidents on their railways.
I can then say that this coincides perfectly with the aim of this motion, which is simply to find serious solutions to that great number of derailments. For I remember that not
Railways Safety
so long ago, derailments could be counted on the fingers of one hand, whereas now they can hardly be counted with a calculating machine.
No doubt, Madam Speaker, accidents used to be less frequent, quite simply because tracks were well-maintained. In fact, for every seven miles of railway tracks, there were four employees responsible for maintaining and looking after those tracks.
Moreover, tracks were inspected everyday and frequently after the passing of passenger or freight trains. It has now been thought wise to increase sections to about 20 miles, while at the same time reducing the number of personnel in charge of the maintenance and surveillance of those tracks.
Funniest of all about railroad inspection, employees and maintenance crews most of the time travel the section they are in charge of by car on the highway. And they claim they have inspected railway tracks. I would rather say they go for a Sunday drive.
Madam Speaker, it is my sincere belief that utter mismanagement of the Canadian National results in undue expenses and shameful waste.
Think also of CN senior executives who are provided with company cars and credit cards with unlimited coverage. I think I am justified in requesting in my own name and in the name of my colleague, with respect to the activities of the national railways, the institution of the famous royal inquiry commission.
Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I wish to remark that before engaging into secondary ventures as the building of towers, the development of shopping centres and real estate such as luxury hotels, our railways should first give an assurance they will adequately maintain facilities and services and also, since we are on this matter, keep a large number of cars and locomotives in railway service.
Let me speak of what happens and the noise that surrounds the trains. Doing repair work in a milk car, which is very often the case, on the heating system that is always out of service or the brakes that do not work most of the time, it is very complicated matter. Repairs used to be done locally. In Chambord, there was a repair shop. But today, if a button does not work, if there is a power failure, if there is no heating in some car, the latter must be sent to Montreal for repair.
In the meantime everybody gets cold in the train, and that is the kind of service we are getting in our trains. For this reason, I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague, and I hope the government will take good note and attempt to give the CN the men or technicians needed to guarantee better service to the people.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I wish to emphasize the importance that we place on the matter raised by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), and we thank him for his efforts and appropriate comments.
Before going any further I should make it clear that if anyone is waiting for the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) to start handing out plaudits and bouquets

October 24, 1975
Railways Safety
to either of our national railway companies, they are going to have to wait for many a moon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: Many people in my area, as well as members from my area, saw the railways fold up their cabooses and all other facilities about five or six years ago. They simply removed them from my area. It might be very proper for those who have passenger trains to talk about them and their safety. However, we do not even have passenger trains.
It is of the utmost importance that safety be maintained throughout our rail transportation system. However, I am concerned. I feel that asking for a royal commission, as my colleague has stated, will not result soon enough in specific and decisive action which is required to ensure safety on our railway system or to improve the very poor system we have at the present time.
In addition, a royal commission at this time would cost $1 million, $2 million or $3 million. What is the price of a royal commission? What is the length of time it will be in effect? Will it be one, two, or three years? There are many programs that should be in effect now. In fact, many of them were needed a year ago or even before that.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the Minister of Transport.


Crawford Douglas: Let us wait and see what will happen with our new Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I believe he is a sincere person, one who will do his level best to ensure that Canada has the best type of freight or passenger service, whether it is by air or water. If we get a train in Wiarton, I will invite the hon. member to be the second man on, because I am going to be the first!
One member spoke earlier about the respect and admiration the railways had at one time. I agree that at one time the railways did hold the respect and esteem of people right across this country. However, I ask hon. members; who was it that lost that respect and esteem? It was the railways through actions such as we saw in our part of the country when passenger service was taken out without sufficient reason for doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: I do not think that a royal commission will bring back that respect. It is something that has to be undertaken by the railways, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and every man Jack that works for them. They are the people who provide the service and the safety.
I am sure that every member who represents a rural area has received complaints from farmers in his area about bush and brush growing along the sides of railway tracks. This is not cut back. Therefore people driving along our highways and byways cannot see when a train is approaching. There have been numerous instances in my area, particularly since the beginning of the oil train runs from Montreal to the Douglas Point nuclear power development, of trains travelling late at night and early into the morning. People have driven right up to these railways crossings only to find suddenly there is a train on them. They cannot see far enough down the track to have an
adequate stopping distance when traffic is on the line. The railways could rectify this by simply getting the crews out to clear the brush, fences, and waste that are piling up along the rights of way. I am not sure this will come about even with a royal commission, but members of parliament must let the railways know the feelings of the people they represent.
With regard to the runs from Montreal which carry bunker oil to the nuclear power station, I was surprised to find that the railways supply the lines and the engines, but somebody else supplies the cars. I have been successful with regard to having the oil cars marked. When I tried to pursue this further as to who was responsible, I found out that it was not the railways that are responsible for marking the cars, but those who own them. You must go through a devious route to find out who owns the cars and who is responsible for marking them. This is something the safety people should look into.
There should be better illumination of the markings, particularly on the black oil cars that travel the width and breadth of this country, so that during the dark hours those approaching a crossing will have their lights reflected and know that there is a moving obstacle. In many cases people have driven right into the side of a moving car.
I think that positive steps are being taken by the railway safety advisory committee, and this is the route we should continue to follow. The Ministry of Transport, however, sees the railway safety matter as necessitating a multi-faceted program of which this committee is one part. We are thus presently pursuing many other programs which will lead to the improvement of safety on the railways.
It is on these other programs that I wish to take a few minutes to elaborate. There is the transportation policy on rail system development and financing. The transport policy which is now being prepared for legislation provides for ongoing financing to ensure that a viable railway system is available for Canadian transportation.
We in this House talk about the improvements we would like to see. We talk about brushing, a new road system, overpasses, underpasses, and tunnels. However, we must realize that this is going to cost money. The money must be provided for this type of safety endeavour before it can be put into effect.
The program will ensure that ongoing financing is available to that sector. This naturally provides for a high level of maintenance which leads to improved safety of operations. The Hall and Snavely Commissions are assisting us in our program on the whole matter of grain transport with the objective of providing a high quality rail transportation system.
Many people travel throughout the world and see a number of different railway systems in Europe and in England from which we can learn many things. I also think we can learn of some of the pitfalls and problems.
Often not enough consideration is given to railways in rural areas. I think members from rural areas will back me up in that. People used to see the 9.20 train going through at 9.20 in the morning and returning at 8.30 at night. The action really started when the railways stopped running

October 24, 1975

on time. People in the area knew when the train went through, and then they started running late and everyone became confused. The first thing you knew was that people along the track thought the 9.20 had gone through, perhaps they could not see down the right of way as far as they should, and the next thing is it is 9.45 and they are hit.


William Herbert Jarvis: The roadbed is so bad they cannot keep on running.


Crawford Douglas: Well let us talk about roadbeds for a moment. Anyone who was present near the end of the transport meetings last year will certainly have seen some of the roadbeds in western Canada and in eastern Canada which need upgrading and which are not fit for the type of traffic they are expected to carry. Let us do something about them, but setting up a royal commission which might take three years to report is not going to do much to solve the problem right now.
Purchase of railway cars for grain is also something we can talk about, as well as grain transportation generally. The government has either ordered or purchased 4,000 covered hopper cars for the transportation of grain. This, in addition to providing capacity for the movement of grain, I believe leads to a safer operation in grain transportation. Any kind of operation that must be speedy leads to danger somewhere along the route. The covered hopper cars are easily loaded at the elevators and unloaded at the terminals without the use of shovels, grain doors and so on, and they certainly upgrade the system.
In addition to this improved safety factor by the terminal operators, there is a rail operational consideration whereby these cars lead to the displacement of some of the obsolete boxcar type of equipment. One covered hopper car replaces two of these obsolete cars. The latest design provides for a much safer train and yard movement operation. I am sure many hon. members realize, if they see some of the 100 and even 200 car trains travelling through cities and across Canada, that if these trains are cut in half safety factors will be improved, whether these trains are carrying grain, oil, or any other type of material.
With regard to providing more money for capital acquisition of necessary equipment for upgrading railway lines, this to some is one of the top priorities that should be undertaken at the present time. In the analyses of CN budgets great consideration is given to the financial resources needed to ensure that CN can maintain the system they have. It may not be very good, but they do at least want to maintain what they have. This ensures that they have the capability to operate in a safe manner. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring that railway yards and facilities receive maintenance on a regular basis
Railways Safety
and that funds are made available for the purchase of equipment to replace obsolete equipment and the maintenance of railway equipment on hand.
With regard to development of a railway monitoring system to identify specific problems and develop reasonable solutions, as an ongoing program the CNR has been making progress in the use of hot journal box detectors. At one time this was one of the primary causes of derailment and other troubles, particularly with passenger cars. These detectors can do much to assist in making rail stock safer so far as passenger and freight trains are concerned. They now have these sensing devices on main routes across Canada, as hon. members probably know. The railways are now experimenting with 24 detectors reporting to a computer via Bell telephone, and the results are so favourable that they are progressing with this program on the rest of the route and it is expected to be completed by the middle of next year. During the balance of this year they will be refined even further. The computer has been found to be much more critical and thorough in its reading of the situation than any manpower.
As for joint participation of rail capacity development, the ministry of transport is taking the lead in working with the railways to develop programs and alternatives to provide for an orderly development of rail transportation infrastructure in Canada. Through these programs we are able to ensure that new rail lines and improvements to existing routes as well as terminals are planned and developed in such a way as to give the best possible system for the funds that are applied.
Once again I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski for raising this very important item this afternoon, particularly since it concerns so many of us. But I should have liked to see the matter go even further, as we must also take a look not only at rail transportation but at all facets of transportation in this country, including air and sea. We must examine every alternative so as to develop a better rail system.
I agree with what the hon. member said earlier that the development of this country has depended, during the century that we have been in existence, on our railways. It is on this type of service that we can build and make Canada a much better country for all to live in, one of which we will all be justly proud.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The private members' hour is now over. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
8555

Monday, October 27, 1975