1976-02-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It is prompted by a press release of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) in which he instructs Commissioner Smith of the Yukon, in his capacity as Chairman Smith of the Northern Canada Power Commission, to conduct an investigation into certain cost overruns in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The minister then instructs Commissioner Smith to convene the public utilities boards of each territory to require Chairman Smith to report to Commissioner Smith as to the investigation and report to the minister. That is like asking the Mafia to audit its own books.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That a full and independent public inquiry be established pursuant to the provisions of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the entire operations of the Northern Canada Power Commission with full power to call for persons, papers and things and to report its findings and recommendations to this House within three months of its establishment; such findings and recommendations also to be submitted to the legislative assemblies of the Yukon and Northwest Territories respectively for approval, adoption or otherwise by those elected assemblies on behalf of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the report of the unique and incredible decision of Mr. Justice Belanger in the case of Dr. Henry Morgental-er, which prevents a Canadian citizen, as a condition of
bail, from speaking, not merely about his pending trial, which would be unusual but not unique, but goes further and prevents a citizen of this country from speaking on a subject of general interest and importance. This is the only case of its kind in the history of Canadian jurisprudence and a clear violation of the right to freedom of speech which is guaranteed under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House go on record as deploring this judicial decision and that this matter be referred to the Minister of Justice and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for recommendation of changes to the Bail Reform Act so that freedom of speech may receive the protection in this country guaranteed under the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can only be debated with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important issue of pressing necessity.
Considering that the sponsors of LIP projects in Quebec experience many difficulties in carrying out their projects as a result of the order governing the construction trades, since those projects are temporary and do not compete with the construction industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House urge the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to have talks with the Quebec Minister of Labour to find a solution enabling the sponsors of LIP projects to carry out their plans without taking into account the regulations of the Quebec Labour Board and thus losing substantial amounts paid by the federal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
11046

February 18, 1976
Income Tax


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF RESIGNATION OF DIRECTOR ' GENERAL OF RESEARCH-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to make a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The Director General of the Health and Welfare Research Branch has resigned because of "intolerable interference" by officials within the department, outside the three level peer review process in selection of applications for grants under the National Health, Research and Development program. Since the minister has refused to meet a request that would put an end to the alleged ongoing interference with the research program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the minister make a statement on motions explaining the reasons behind the retirement of the above-mentioned director general and whether any action has been taken to remove the difficulties that led to his resignation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the government's proposed measures to deal with the housing shortage are inadequate and will not allow every Canadian to buy his own house, and considering that it is urgent and necessary to implement appropriate measures to cope with the housing problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House urge the government to allow any taxpayer to deduct from his personal income tax the mortgage interest paid on his house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning oral question period, I know that all hon. members would want me to call to their attention the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished delegation in the form of some members of the Special Committee on Procedures of the New Brunswick legislature led by their very distinguished Speaker, the Hon. William J. Woodroffe.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the assurance he gave yesterday that he would increase his understanding of the appeal procedures in connection with any operation of the AntiInflation Board. In view of the fact that appeal from a decision or ruling of the board is available only to those who either defy or threaten not to comply with a ruling of the board, can the Prime Minister assure us that he is looking into this problem personally and that a defined appeal procedure will be set up which is direct, which does not require a party to an agreement or dispute to put himself in the position of actual defiance of the law and criminal behaviour?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the economy of the legislation as passed by this House, the way I see it is that the administrator is in reality the person who applies the law with all its teeth and force. The Anti-Inflation Board is the body which is enjoining, counselling, admonishing, advising, or jawboning. They have no power to impose any penalty or any binding order. Therefore, it seems perfectly normal to me that when the Anti-Inflation Board has issued its directives, completed its enjoining, its jawboning, and so on, the parties or party should then decide whether or not to listen to the admonition. If the party does not listen, the matter is dealt with in a quasi-judicial way by the administrator who has effective law enforcing powers. It is at that stage where the parties are more than counselled. It is at that stage where the parties are obligated, under the law, to follow a certain course of action; and, therefore, it is at that stage, properly, that an appeal should lie, and an appeal in effect does lie. Frankly, I cannot see the worry of the Leader of the Opposition about this being against the spirit of the legislation and justice as we practise it in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say, it is an extraordinary misfortune for Canada

that the Prime Minister is not able to see the injustice of this situation. I ask the Prime Minister how employees or groups of employees are to proceed if they consider the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board unjust but do not wish to defy the ruling of the board? How is it possible, under present proceedings, to be in a position to appeal the ruling of the board, without putting oneself in the position of breaking the law, defying the board and being subject to criminal law sanctions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the persons who would break the law would be only those who are breaking it after the administrator has issued an order. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. I do not hear what he is thinking, but I should like him to state how he believes people are breaking the law just because they are not listening to the Anti-Inflation Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am reluctant to interfere with this line of questioning, but it seems to me we are entering two dangerous areas: One, the interpretation of the statute and, the other, the hypothetical area as to what would happen if such and such a thing were to happen. I do not like to confine this. I shall recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a final supplementary question at this stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope others will pursue this question beyond my final supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let me ask the Prime Minister simply if he believes it proper that a party to a collective agreement should be able to appeal the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board without having to defy the board, without having to indicate that it does not intend to comply with the ruling of the board; should a party be able to do that before getting access to the administrator? Is it commensurate with our ordinary considerations of administration and justice in this country that one cannot bring an appeal unless one is prepared to defy the board, or indicate defiance of the board.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, having read Hansard of the day before yesterday, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance dealt with that in indicating that people who are appealing the ruling of the board, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, are those who disagree with the ruling of the AIB. This seems to me to be the normal course of procedure. I am just saying that I do not call that an appeal. I am saying that we are really changing the nature of the operation at that point. The Anti-Inflation Board is not a court of justice; nor is it even a quasi-judicial board. But the administrator is, and therefore an appeal lies from his orders to the appeal tribunal.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO APPEAL PROCEDURE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I find it difficult to believe that a civil libertarian, as he is, does not understand the injustice of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not understand that particular aspect of law? Does it not appear unusual and alarming to the Prime Minister that the situation the Leader of the Opposition has described for two days to the Prime Minister has given rise in this country to an inflammatory situation? Given those facts, which must be apparent to the Prime Minister, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about them in terms of his own program?


An hon. Member:: Arrange to have you deflated.
[DOT] (M20)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is jawboning, but I cannot give a different answer to him than I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up the general line of questioning to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of plans by the Canadian Labour Congress to withdraw its representatives from all government advisory bodies, including the minister's own council on collective bargaining, and what steps is the minister taking to head off this further dangerous polarization within this country?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is doing a service to either the Canadian Labour Congress or this parliament by misrepresenting what the Canadian Labour Congress said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The Canadian Labour Congress did not say they were withdrawing. They said they were reviewing the position with respect to these boards. There is quite a difference.


Walter David Baker: The minister is quite correct. There is indeed quite a difference. Does the minister not see the potential for inflammation of a very serious situation in this country that is now being aided and abetted by the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister who is stonewalling with respect to natural justice in so far as this question is concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it seems that by his unintentional misrepresentation the hon. member is contributing more to an inflammationary situation than anything I have ever seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: Now we are being hit by the jawbone of the minister.
21419-7)4

Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED CHANGE IN APPEAL PROCEDURE TO GIVE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister. It is a follow-up to the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition. In his answer, the Prime Minister said there was the right of appeal after the case got to the administrator. The Prime Minister did not say that in the law, the right of appeal is only open to those against whom an order has been made. Since, as illustrated by the Irving case, this specifically excludes the right of the trade union to appeal such a decision, will the government consider changing the legislation so that the right of appeal is open to both the employers and the employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a different problem. It certainly raises a different set of answers. In view of the fact that the whole purpose of the operation is to get at the causes of inflation, it seems proper to me that the law should indicate that the actions should be against the person who is directly causing the inflation. In this case, if the employer is paying wages that are higher than permitted by the guidelines, it seems proper for the order to issue against the employer, not the employee. Therefore, it is the employer who should have the right to appeal if he does not agree with it. In the case of the employee, he is receiving money. If it is no longer paid to him, he cannot claim there has been an injustice operated against him. He is not the party who, by his positive action, is causing inflation. It is the person who is issuing salaries higher than the guidelines who is the cause of inflation. After all, the whole spirit of the legislation is to get at the causes of inflation and not those who are the victims of it.


John Edward Broadbent: Since in all situations like the Irving settlement, and we are going to get many like that in the weeks and months ahead, it is a fundamental fact that there is an agreement involved to which both parties are signatories, both the union and the corporation, is the Prime Minister saying that simply because of the way the law is now written, it is the corporation that would technically be held responsible and that the employees have no direct interest in the outcome of such a decision? If so, does he think this is compatible in any way with an elementary sense of economic justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me, regrettably, that the hon. member is asking both for an interpretation of the law and for an opinion by the Prime Minister as to a question of legality, both of which subjects ought to be pursued in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Three o'clock!


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell whether there have been new developments with regard to consultations with provincial premiers about repatriating the constitution? Could he also tell clearly what are his government's true intentions in this respect, and whether it is possible that everything be settled on the next visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to look for it, he would find that I have given a detailed answer two weeks ago to a similar question, except as regards his concern for the Queen. Perhaps I might inform the hon. member that the government of Canada and those of the provinces can act on this matter without the presence of the Queen in our country.


REASON FOR ATTEMPTING REPATRIATION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since we are still talking about repatriating the constitution and since several federal-provincial conferences have been held on that subject, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister when was the Canadian constitution expatriated and whether the provinces had been consulted then. If not, why do they have to be consulted now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking an historical rather than constitutional question. If he will refer to the debates that took place in the 1860's, he will see that as a matter of fact the provinces as we now know them did not exist. There was Upper Canada and Lower Canada and other colonies of British North America, and it was representatives of the people and the delegates of that time who decided, for reasons the hon. member may understand, that the constitution should be made in England, rather than in Canada. So, rather than passing the British North America Act in Quebec or in Charlottetown, it was passed at Westminster, where, I think, no representative of the Social Credit Party was sitting at that time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the ill-conceived dairy policy announced by the minister last April resulting in a surplus situation in

Canada today which is proving to be just as costly to the producers of this country as to the consumers-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


James Aloysius McGrath: -I ask the minister what he intends to do about the disgraceful dumping of milk on world markets at prices cheaper than those prevailing in Canada and, further, what he intends to do about the disgraceful waste of powdered milk which is being used for animal food?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As usual, the hon. member is making statements for the sake of sensationalism rather than reality as far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: These facts have been known since last November when I made a statement about the fact that we were facing a surplus milk powder problem-that the dairy farmers were becoming too efficient and producing more than the domestic market could consume. Furthermore, there was a surplus on world markets. For instance, skim milk powder sold in the United States is more expensive than skim milk powder sold in Canada. The subsidy program is actually a subsidy program to consumers, not to producers, to enable them to afford to buy dairy products which, in turn, enables the farmers to stay in the dairy business. The hon. member must understand that before he makes any more of his nonsensical statements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: The real tragedy in this, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that powdered milk prices in Canada to Canadian consumers have risen by 4.7 per cent since last July, and in view of the fact that the dairy farmers of this country are going to have to pay dearly for the minister's mistakes, would he do himself and the country a service by announcing his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the hon. member by saying that I did what the dairy farmers of Canada asked me to do. I developed a policy better than any other nation in the world has. The dairy farmers of Canada are some of the most efficient in the world. They have two million cows now giving the same amount of milk that three million gave only about 15 years ago. The hon. member wants to study the whole situation.
[DOT] * *


POSSIBILITY OF NOVA SCOTIA BEING SUPPLIED WITH ELECTRICITY FROM CHURCHILL FALLS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the president of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has stated that enough water was spilled at the Churchill Falls hydro plant last year to supply 70 per cent of Nova Scotia's total consumption, at a saving, I
Oral Questions
might add, of some 6.5 million barrels of oil, has the federal government made any plans or carried out any studies which would enable these power sources in Labrador and Newfoundland to be transmitted to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, two provinces that share the dubious distinction of having the highest hydro rates in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the government of Newfoundland and had some very extensive discussions about the development of the lower Churchill. More than that, we announced about a year ago a system of grants amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to assist them in the transmission of those new resources by tunnel as well. Unfortunately, the Newfoundland government has not yet been able to put together a composite and viable plan whereby they can bring those resources into production.


CREATION OF AN EASTERN POWER GRID-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for that reply and may I ask a supplementary question. Is the federal government giving any consideration to the creation of an eastern power grid, tying together Churchill Falls output hopefully with Fundy tidal power, providing a power supply that will meet the requirements of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland as well as .Quebec, thereby relieving us from the necessity of being dependent on high priced oil, which is becoming increasingly short of supply every year?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated that one aspect of such a grid has already been taken care of in the proposals we made to the Newfoundland government. We have also made a number of arrangements with the New Brunswick government. I am talking, of course, about the financing of the nuclear plant in New Brunswick. We have worked out an interconnection with the province of Prince Edward Island and we are in discussion with the province of Nova Scotia. We are quite prepared to sit down and try to work out with the Atlantic provinces a system of interconnection and a system that will enable them to lessen their reliance on foreign oil.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Law of the Sea conference is only a few weeks away and that the United States government has passed through two houses a 200 mile fishery zone, would the minister indicate whether there is any planning between the two governments to collaborate on a position at the Law of the Sea conference, and what are the objectives in this regard?

February 18, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government and the United States government are in touch from time to time, both at the ministerial and at the officials level, on questions concerning the Law of the Sea. As my hon. friend knows, it has been the view of the United States administration that the multilateral solution is the preferred one in regard to extension of fisheries jurisdiction.
On the question of extended fisheries jurisdiction the positions generally of Canada and the United States are compatible In the sense that we are both seeking to extend our jurisdiction to 200 miles. We have noted the action that has been taken by the legislative bodies in the United States, but that drama has not yet been fully played out and it is not clear at this stage at what point in time the proposed extended jurisdiction of the United States will become operative. Certainly that time is of considerable interest to Canada.


AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE ON A 200 MILE FISHERIES ZONE
Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister clarify the situation in regard to separating the fishery zone from an economic zone or continental shelf? Is it the objective of the Canadian government to try at least to get agreement on a 200 mile fisheries limit? If the minister has time, would he also reply to the question of the equidistant line between Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon with a view to getting agreement with France on a 200 mile fisheries zone or economic zone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the second point, I know that consultations have taken place between Canada and France. I should like to check the present state of these consultations.


EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OVER MARINE RESOURCES ON PACIFIC COAST
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. I should like to ask him whether he will be making a statement in the House on Canada's stand on the extension of Canada's boundaries, particularly the line A-B in northern British Columbia and the extension through the Straits of Juan de Fuca out to the 200 mile limit, and is the minister aware that the use of the equidistant formula, that he has suggested might be used, would in all likelihood lose Canada a large portion of the salmon catch on the west caost?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may secure your indulgence I should like to answer the question asked earlier by the hon. member with respect to separating out the fisheries aspect of the Law of the Sea conference. Certainly, it would be within Canada's objectives to seek a separate fisheries treaty if other important objectives were safeguarded at the same time.
With respect to the question asked by the hon. member, obviously these matters would have to be finally decided

on the occasion when the Minister of State (Fisheries) and myself actually issue under the law orders in council establishing the extended jurisdiction for Canada. Before doing this or at the time it was done, we would make a statement to the House and clarify this very important point mentioned by the hon. member.


CYPRUS-CANADIAN POSITION ON TURKISH MILITARY PRESENCE
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of meetings which began yesterday in Vienna between Greece and Turkey to discuss the future of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, has the minister expressed Canada's concern at the continuing Turkish military presence on Cyprus and Turkish oppression of Greek Cypriot refugees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am pleased to note the resumption of intercommunal talks between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots which are really the basis of any forward movement toward a settlement. Canada, at the United Nations, has supported a resolution in respect of the continued occupation of Cyprus by Turkish forces.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that an owner of a limited dividend building located at 800 Richmond Street West in Toronto charged tenants of two-bedroom apartments in the building $189 a month in February, 1975, and increased the rent to $205 commencing in February 1976, whereas the rental agreement between CMHC and the owner of the building stipulates that the rent be $173.25, will the minister direct CMHC to have the owner return the over-payments to the tenants forthwith, and not to permit any increase in rent until CMHC and the landlord have negotiated a new rent increase based on actual cost to the landlord?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if it is really envisaged that any hon. minister would have this kind of detail at his command during the question period.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last

Friday the Minister of Finance would not say when the government would discuss and decide what to do with the export levy. Now that the Prime Minister has consented to drop in here for the second day in a row, I wonder if he could tell the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, not that the Prime Minister is required to come in here, but I wonder if he could tell the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House when the whole matter of the export levy will be dealt with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Finance give a very detailed answer to this question, probably in the absence of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to look up the date, but I think it was the Friday before I made that very useful trip to British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is still the same, that we are trying to get the provinces to agree to this voluntarily. At the meeting of finance ministers several of them objected to the export tax and various alternatives were discussed. When I was in British Columbia, we heard briefs from various groups which were suggesting alternative ways of meeting the same purpose as the export tax. We are endeavouring to discuss these with the provinces and with the various organizations involved. I raised the matter at a meeting I had with Premier Bennett of British Columbia and some of his ministers during my very useful trip out there. We agreed together that rather than have the federal government act unilaterally it would be much more profitable to continue the discussion in the way we were.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if those words had been said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-DATE WHEN ALL PROVINCES WILL HAVE SIGNED AGREEMENTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, if the statement had been made in the House rather than outside we all would be better off. If the Prime Minister had been here he would have heard his minister say that no "fresh signatures" on provincial agreements had been made, and he did say there would be several more
Oral Questions
this week. I would, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister whether he now has any firm idea when his program will become nationwide, or whether a special first ministers' meeting is being considered by him or the government to resolve what must be very serious differences between several of the provinces and this government?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You can go away for a month now, Allan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the matter would have to be resolved at a meeting of first ministers, but for the time being I do not think so. The provinces have asked for, and been given, a fair amount of time to work out their reactions in detail to this.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: How long?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks how long. The Premier of British Columbia asked if he could have a little time longer because he had just been,elected, and it seemed reasonable for me to give him that time rather than force it down his throat. I am surprised that the opposition is urging us to act unilaterally in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and has to do with discussions he had several months ago with his confreres among the European Economic Community regarding some formalized form of contractual relations with that group of nations. I wonder if I might ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether in the course of these conversations, either directly or through his officials, the question of acquisition by Canada of military equipment came up, whether this was part of the discussions that followed with officials under his jurisdiction and the several jurisdictions in Europe, and whether in fact if the question of acquisition by Canada of military equipment came up did it in fact involve naval replacement programs or tank replacement programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions of the contractual link or form of economic agreement or exchange with the European Economic Community this matter did not arise, or certainly not in my presence, and I doubt whether it would have arisen directly with officials. Of course, in so far as the application of economic co-operation is concerned, it is possible that certain purchases of military equipment are envisaged. I do not know, but I say they were not discussed in my presence. It might be relevant to the hon. member's question though, if I said I did discuss the question of NATO when I was in Europe, and very often with the same

February 18, 1976
Oral Questions
people with whom I was discussing economic co-operation. It was not in the context of the Common Market, it was in the context of NATO countries. Therefore, there may be some confusion in the hon. member's mind as to the heading under which I was discussing this. I did discuss this under NATO.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might then ask the Prime Minister if I can properly interpret his response, which I appreciate, to cover the proposition that in the eventuality of replenishment for the Maritime command, the likelihood is there will be an opportunity to participate in this replenishment program, and this would first of all be available to Canadian competency and capability?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the talks I had with the leaders of these countries who are members of NATO had to do with the various roles that Canada could perform in a NATO situation. I was telling them that we were reviewing these various roles and, as the House knows, that we had some decisions to take, for instance on tanks, on LRPA's and on anti-submarine warfare and so on. The discussions I had with them were only directed to getting their reactions to various hypotheses that we were envisaging. In other words, did they think that tanks had a higher priority, for instance, than anti-submarine warfare and so on. This kind of question was discussed, but no announcement of Canadian intention was made.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Following the questions that I put to the minister before Christmas, I wonder if he has cleared up the complications to which he referred at that time, and when can the House expect the oil and gas regulations to be brought before it?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I are working very closely on this. I am optimistic that in the next few weeks we will be bringing something to our colleagues in the cabinet.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the vote recently taken by the city council of Saint John, New Brunswick with respect to planning for security prisons in that province, could the Solicitor General inform the 
House what is the present status with regard to the proposed construction of minimum security prisons in New Brunswick?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with the government of New Brunswick, and with the city of Saint John on placing a medium security penitentiary in the Saint John city area. They had indicated a site to us and there has been some controversy with respect to the site, but recently the city council of Saint John voted in favour of that site and agreed that we should go ahead with it. It is likely that we will go ahead with it as soon as possible.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On April 11, 1973 I proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 requesting that all senior citizens be granted free admission to all the national parks in Canada. Would the minister assure the House that every effort is being made by his department to allow senior citizens that privilege?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last summer that we would be making a thorough review of our fee structure this winter, and I expect to be making an announcement in the next two weeks on it. I can assure the hon. member that his representation will be given very serious consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the down-at-the-heel state of the Canadian footwear industry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: -and the minister's recent statement that he will meet with the heads of the industry, will he inform the House if he has met with this group? If not, will he meet with them prior to his departure on his Asian trade tour?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I met with a few of them individually last Friday. While I have not met with the association yet, it is likely I will within the next two weeks, as the hon. member has suggested.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Recently in Burnaby, British Columbia, a rapist was apprehended, brought before a judge and then released on his own recognizance. The young man then went out and promptly committed a second offence. I should like to ask the minister whether the promised peace and security legislation will limit the power of judges to release apprehended rapists on their own recognizance?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I hope the legislation which was passed by the House a couple of weeks ago, and is currently before the other place will be dealt with expeditiously by them, then will become law, so that changes in the Bail Act will become effective as soon as possible. It will be these provisions that will deal with the situation that the hon. member raised.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman inform this House on the progress, if any, that is being made in investigating specific complaints into certain aspects of duty free establishments?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say to the hon. member that even before I received the document he sent to my office, the newspapers were already informed of the matter. This shows that the publicity around this whole issue was more important to him than a real investigation by my office.
In any event, I immediately referred the files to the director of investigations who has the responsibility under the law, to investigate and publish his conclusions only after the investigation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but I was not referring to my complaint but to another one of which, I am sure, he has knowledge.
Will the minister table or state briefly the reasons why he authorized a warning to consumers in the October 1975 issue of his own departmental publication entitled "Consumer Contact" which said in part:
Some articles, like brand name cameras, can sometimes be obtained at Canadian department stores at lower prices than at duty free shops.
On what basis was this done, and was any research done by his department?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: The officials of my department who write articles for this publication do so in good faith and I cannot accept what the hon. member said, which seems to question the good faith and the integrity of those who prepare such articles for the department.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN CONCERNING EASIER REFERENCE OF DISPUTED DECISIONS TO ADMINISTRATOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of a press report this morning which quotes Mr. Pepin, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, as saying that he and the Minister of Finance have "agreed to try to make it easier" to refer disputed AIB decisions to the administrator. Does that statement by Mr. Pepin, which was concurred in by the Minister of Finance, represent government policy and, if so, does this mean that the government is prepared to introduce an amendment to section 17 of the Anti-Inflation Act so that either employers or employees can appeal a decision of the AIB without getting consent from the AIB, or has the government some other procedure which it proposes to follow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What it means essentially is that Mr. Pepin, the Anti-Inflation Board and the Minister of Finance are reviewing this situation with a view to submitting various alternatives to cabinet. There is no government policy on it yet; the matter will have to come to cabinet. Personally, as I think is obvious from some of my earlier answers, I am not inclined to think that there is an injustice here. However, as the hon. member has just pointed out, the Minister of Finance is reviewing that situation and there will be a report to cabinet. If any action is decided upon, we will of course report to the House.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO PERMITTING APPEAL DIRECTLY TO TRIBUNAL
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the government also considering the possibility of amending the act so that an appeal can be made directly from a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to the appeal tribunal bypassing the administrator and letting the administrator later be the person to enforce the decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board as amended by the appeal tribunal, which would short-circuit this prolonged process and also give to both parties who feel aggrieved the right, either jointly or separately, to appeal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a possibility. I think it is obvious that in a country where controls are being imposed there is an evolution of thinking on this matter. I repeat that my own thinking was made clear earlier. I think the law as it is presently conceived is a good way of attacking inflation, with the Anti-
11054

February 18, 1976
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act Inflation Board playing the role of enjoiner, propagandist, adviser, and so on, with legal action then being taken by the administrator and with an appeal from that. This is my feeling, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, the government does not have a closed mind on this. If we find better ways of achieving the result-and I hope we all want to have a lower inflation rate in this country-the government is open to persuasion.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Tomorrow, it will be one week since the promised statement on legislation implementing recommendations of the standing committee. I wonder if the minister can report on what progress he has made with his cabinet colleagues to permit him to announce the introduction of legislation to assist former prisoners of war.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the progress has been very good to date, and possibly consultation will be completed tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Alberta, 1976.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I suspect his point of order pertains to the difficulties about which he posed certain questions respecting the Anti-Inflation Board. I simply ask the hon. member's indulgence and invite him to delay making his representations until the conclusion of routine proceedings.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1976-77 STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a message which Your Honour read to the House and by which His Excellency the Governor General is transmitting estimates for the service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1977.
Mr. Speaker, the main estimates for 1976-77, which I am tabling today, amount to $38.4 billion for budgetary items and $1.1 billion for non-budgetary items. They include for the first time old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments, which in other years were paid out of a special account.
Throughout the current fiscal year, I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel the hon. President of the Treasury Board is making a statement as a minister and this calls for an answer from representatives of all political parties in the House. In addition, there will be a question later. If such is the minister's intention, I urge him to continue, if not we shall have to remain at the document tabling stage.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is also my impression that the hon. gentleman slipped rapidly from the tabling of documents to statements by ministers without Your Honour calling that order of business. I was assuming that was the case and that it would be subject to the usual restrictions and the rights of hon. members on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the indication now from the minister that it is not his intention to make a statement at this time, but simply to table the document.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must make a point clear. I believe it is in keeping with tradition to make a statement under those circumstances and shall do so after meeting with the other parties' representatives. However if it is deemed preferable that I do not make a statement, Mr. Speaker, we can-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is now evident that the President of the Treasury Board seeks to make a statement which, of course, will be replied to by other hon. members and there will be a question period. There are still a number of routine proceedings, not the least of which is the point of order of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Therefore, I wonder if hon. members might agree that the statement by the minister, as has been our recent practice, might be deferred until the conclusion of routine proceedings in order to permit his statement, representations by other hon. members and questions to follow.
February 18, 1976


ELECTIONS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10 I tabled a copy of a report by the Chief Electoral Office of Canada, dated December, 1975, entitled "An examination of possible ways of reducing the electoral period". I have had discussions with the House leaders of the other parties. I appeared before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections yesterday and it seemed to be unanimously agreed that it would be useful to refer this report to the committee. I wonder whether the House would agree unanimously to that being done.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are prepared to agree. Having in mind the way the government is going, it might be a good idea to shorten the period for an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposal of the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,332, 3,670, 3,763, 3,807, 3,998 and 4,016.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Does the government rent space on the top (54th) floor of the Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario and, if so (a) when did it first do so (b) for what is it being used?
2.	What is the present cost per assignable square foot and what was the cost per assignable square foot when first leased?
3.	How many square feet are being rented and how many were rented when space was first leased?
4.	When was the present lease signed and what is its duration?
5.	What attempts were made to secure other less expensive space for this purpose before space was rented on the 54th floor and for what reason was it decided that this particular location would be the most suitable?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes (a)
November 1, 1973 (b) Part by Public Service Appeals Branch (1,798 sq. ft.), remainder by Revenue Canada Regional Appeals Branch (4,500 sq. ft.).
Order Paper Questions
2.	Present cost $12-Cost when first leased $12.
3.	6,298 sq. ft. current-6,298 sq. ft. when first rented.
4.	November 1, 1973-1 yr.-renewed March 1, 1975 with an expiration date of May 31, 1977.
5.	It is a stringent requirement of the Revenue Canada Regional Appeals Branch that it be located in the same building as the Department of Justice, and an equally desirable requirement of the Public Service Appeals Branch that they remain in close proximity to the Public Service Commission. In the past, Justice and Regional Appeals shared space on the 24th floor of the subject building, held under lease terminating on May 31, 1977. Justice needed to expand on the 24th floor which necessitated relocation of Regional Appeals. The Public Service Appeals Branch shared accommodation with the Public Service Commission in space on the 8th floor of the subject building, under lease also expiring May 31, 1977. Both branches of the Commission were experiencing expansion problems which could not be resolved in the existing or adjoining space on the 8th floor, which necessitated the relocation of one to permit the expansion of both. The subject space of this submission, 6,298 square feet on the 54th floor, was originally leased to accommodate the Airport Inquiries Commission (Pickering), the Hon. Mr. Justice Hugh P. Gibson, Commissioner, for a fixed term of one year from November 1, 1973, to October 31, 1974, under Treasury Board Minute No. 725154 dated February 14, 1974. The lease was subsequently extended on a month-to-month basis to February 28, 1975, to provide continuing accommodation for the Airport Commission and the Steel Profits Inquiry Commission, The Hon. Mr. Justice Willard Z. Estey, Commissioner, which by mutual agreement shared a common staff of officers and support personnel. Full consideration was given to the only other alternative means of providing for the requirements which was to relocate the Revenue Appeals Board and the Public Service Appeals Board into new leased accommodation in the immediate vicinity. It was readily apparent that implementation of that solution would have resulted in a much higher cost to the Crown due to the prevailing rental rates and attendant high cost of tenant improvements over a short term.


Mr. Brisco: Are there any legal restraints for the production and sale of replica hand guns and, if not, are any being proposed?
Hort. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice): If a replica hand gun is not capable of being fired or adapted to enable it to be fired, it does not fall within the Criminal Code definition of firearm. There are no legal restraints under federal law concerning the production and sale of replicas and none are being proposed at the present time. There are, however, provisions in the Criminal Code concerning the use of imitation weapons. Under section 83 of the Criminal Code, it is an indictable offence to carry or possess a weapon or imitation thereof for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. In addition, pursuant to section 302(d) of the Code, every one commits robbery who steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
21419 - 814
Order Paper Questions NEHEMIAH RICHARDS


Question No. 3,763-Mr. Cossitt:
Has a deportation order against nineteen year old Nehemiah Richards of Toronto been delayed while the Minister of Manpower and Immigration reviews the case and, if so (a) how long will the review take (b) will the Minister agree to giving at least a minimum of one month's notice if any such deportation order is to be reinstated (c) will the Minister agree to do everything possible to permit Nehemiah Richards to obtain immediate landed immigrant status in Canada so that he can remain with his family?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: A review of the humanitarian circumstances involved in the case of Nehemiah Richards was completed in December 1975. The deportation order against him had to be executed, but since Mr. Richards' presence was necessary in Toronto in connection with the adoption proceedings (since he is over 18 years old) by his father, no immediate enforcement action was taken. Nehemiah Richards departed for Jamaica late in January and re-entered Canada February 5 on a Minister's Permit. As soon as immigration procedures have been completed, authority will be sought from the Governor-in-Council to land him.


Mr. Howie: Did the Province of New Brunswick request funding from DREE over the next five years for (a) Fredericton-Westmorland Street Bridge (b) upgrading of Route 7, Fredericton to Saint John (c) upgrading of Route 8, Fredericton to Chatham (d) upgrading of Route 8, Fredericton to Newcastle (e) upgrading of Route 10, Fredericton to Chatham and, if so, in each case (i) bow much (ii) how much financial assistance is DREE prepared to give?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: In response to a request from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the province of New Brunswick submitted to the Department an outline of the provincial plan for highway constructions and improvement to be undertaken over the next five years. Although the projects listed in this question form a part of the overall provincial plan, there has been no specific request from the province for DREE assistance to them. The question of what assistance, if any, might be provided is being considered in the continuing process of federal-provincial discussion regarding DREE activities in New Brunswick, (i) Not applicable; (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of public funds spent for St. Lawrence Islands National Park during (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?
2.	What is the estimated amount for 1976?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a) $311,000; (b) $397,000; (c) $544,000.

2. $775,000.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What amount was originally allocated to the Constituency of Mackenzie for 1975-76 under the LIP Programme?
2.	(a) What was the total amount, in dollars, of applications received from the Constituency (b) what amount was finally approved?
3.	Were any funds directed out of the Constituency and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to which constituency were they appropriated and for what reason?
4.	How many applications received required as much or less funds than those which were redirected and from which communities did they originate?
5.	Of the amounts allocated for LIP Programmes in the Constituency of Mackenzie, were applications approved for harvesting ice and construction of ice houses and, if so, what amount was spent (a) within the boundaries (b) outside the boundaries of the Constituency and in which locations?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	$345,000.
2.	(a) $774,089; (b) $345,000.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Yes. Two such projects were funded, (a) $133,644; (b) Nil.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,577 and 3,778 could be made orders for returns, those documents could be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the two questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary shall be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I rose on this point and it was not an idle gesture on my part. I have discussed the matter with the parliamentary secretary. Today there is no reason given why this should be done. I should like to add to my reasons for raising this point. If the answers are tabled, they go to the parliamentary returns office. It is true that hon. members can go there, and if there are interested members of the press they can go there; but there are thousands of readers of Hansard who have no opportunity of seeing the answer.
I agree that there are occasion when this exception may be granted because answers are sometimes too voluminous, but the practice as it now stands is that the parliamentary secretary simply states the question number which is asked to be made an order for return. Not one hon. member of this House has the opportunity of going down to see what number it is, or of being consulted as to whether he agrees or not.
I have suggestions to make in this regard. The parliamentary secretary could phone the opposition whips and

tell them which questions are proposed to be made orders for return on a particular day, and if hon. members have any objection they could let him know or state whether they are prepared to accept, or reject, the request which is presently based upon the opinion only of the parliamentary secretary that the question should be made an order for return. I do not think the present method is fair. That is not the purpose of these questions, and unless we can get some co-operation I withhold my consent.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has asked whether it is the pleasure of the House that the questions referred to by the hon. parliamentary secretary shall be made orders for returns. It is not the pleasure of the House at this moment.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. member for Edmonton West has not raised a point of order which can be responded to. He has simply withheld his consent that the two questions be made orders for returns at this time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: May I move to motion?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers No. 65 and 76 are acceptable to the government. Would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 78?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. MacKay:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Transport and Sky Shops Export Limited of Montreal in respect of an extension and renewal of the lease for the operation of the duty-free shop at Dorval International Airport and of the granting of a lease for the operation of the duty-free shop at Mirabel International Airport.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all pertinent material, minutes of meetings, telegrams, letters, etc. between the
Motions for Papers
government, particularly the Directorate of Public Affairs, the Department of Transport and the Government of Newfoundland and/or the Newfoundland Department of Transport and Communications and/or Memorial University with regard to the 1976-1977 Transportation Development Fellowship Programme offering individual awards of $4,650 plus tuition fees to university graduates across Canada for studies at the master and doctorate levels.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Baldwin (for Mr. Marshall):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams between the government and the Province of Newfoundland relating to changes in the unemployment insurance system as they apply to fishermen.
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned, a search of the Unemployment Insurance files relating to fishing regulations did not reveal any correspondence between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland relating to changes in the unemployment insurance system as they apply to fishermen. Therefore, we request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which comes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am only calling on the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby pursuant to his notice of motion under Standing Order 26.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Matters relating to Standing Order 26 are not supposed to be called until the last item before orders of the day. We have not yet reached that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have asked for deferral of the hon. member's point of order, as well as the minister's statement, until such time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have asked for deferral of both those matters until such time as we complete routine proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The last, remaining item on routine proceedings is items under Standing Order 26, which come before orders of the day. I have asked the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to put to the House his notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 26, after which I will hear the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on his point of order, after which we will hear the minister's statement.

Labour Conditions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation today of the announced intention by the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress representing almost two million Canadian workers to withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government in every province, this decision arising from the now clearly demonstrated and acknowledged absence of the right of appeal under due process of law for all those affected by decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board and/or the administrator, and leading inevitably to further breakdown of civil order in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), pursuant to Standing Order 26, has given the Chair notice of his intention to put before the House the motion which he has described to the House. The Chair has had the matter under consideration for the two previous days of this sitting and on other days, as will be shown in the records of the House. In applications pursuant to Standing Order 26, the Chair has to make a basic decision, and that is whether the matter is one that is proper to be discussed pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order; that is to say, is it a specific matter of importance, requiring urgent consideration?
Previous motions have made reference to the necessity for amendment of the anti-inflation legislation in order to cure certain alleged shortcomings. I have taken the position that such amendments ought to be sought in other ways. I have no reason to alter my thinking in that regard. Even in those rulings, however, I want to some length to indicate that there was general agreement of the House that the matter was of considerable importance; that it was of considerable scope. Indeed, it had been raised on both sides of the House by way of applications pursuant to this rule and by way of questions. In fact, in the last few days it has been the subject of questions by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by members of other parties throughout the question period. It has been the subject of questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as to other members of the cabinet.
There was a problem at one time with the question of jurisdiction. That question has now been set aside. I indicated in previous rulings that there were many ingredients that made this an ideal subject for discussion pursuant to the Standing Order, except that it relates to the amendment of a statute which was passed by this House very recently and I thought, therefore, it ought not to be, in that form, the subject of discussion pursuant to Standing Order 26. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby in this instance, however,

refers principally to a different ingredient, or a different development altogether, and that is-and I quote:
-the relevation today of the announced intention by the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress representing almost two million Canadian workers to withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government in every province-
The hon. member has also added some words about the basis for that decision. May I express the opinion that the opinion that the basis for the decision is not the guiding factor in this particular instance as far as the Chair is concerned, except that it does relate to the anti-inflation measures that are before the House in one way or another and, which therefore clearly ties it into the jurisdiction of this House. Surely, if such an act on the part of the Canadian Labour Congress is contemplated and is announced publicly by them, as is alleged in the notice of motion, it is not for the Chair to make an independent determination as to the truth of that but, rather, to accept it at its face value. Surely, therefore, the matter is both important and urgent.
Secondly, having considered that the matter is important and requires urgent consideration, I think it ought to be said be very clearly that it is not in the interests of this House or the interests of the country to await the actual event before extending to hon. members of this House the opportunity to express themselves-that is to say, members on both sides of the House and at every level-in advance of any further deliberations of such a serious move within the Canadian Labour Congress and in advance of any consultations which may take place between that important congress and this government.
Therefore, I fell that this subject is a proper one to be discussed pursuant to Standing Order 26. If the hon. member has leave of the House to put the motion, it would be my disposition that it be considered by the House at eight o'clock this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 26, I must therefore ask whether the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has leave of the House to put his motion at eight o'clock this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.



['Mr. Speaker, I would like to join those who have thanked the minister for inviting us to his office to look at the figures that would be discussed this afternoon.\nAs concerns the opinion of our party, I would like to make a few comments concerning the expenditures of the Treasury Board. First of all, I must say that we are not surprised that the minister is announcing today that the growth of federal expenditures will be limited to 16 per cent this year, since this government policy has been emphasized on various occasions. Indeed, I do not think that the government had any choice in the matter because its enormous budgetary deficit is forcing it to make important cuts in its expenditures, even if these cuts are painful, especially if it wants to support its own anti-inflation policy. The government must set an example.\nBut when we look at the whole situation of the Canadian economy, which urgently needs to be stimulated and stabilized, we can realize that the attitude on which the budget is based is just not good enough. On the contrary, it is timorous action which does not aim at supporting the economy, but shows that the government still maintains a defensive attitude as concerns the situation.\nIndeed, these is an alarming contrast in this situation. The economy needs to be stimulated, but the government remains on the defensive, and instead of supporting the economic life, it is content with remaining an observer and hoping that things will get better late on. Where, for instance, are the employment creation programs that are needed in these days of high unemployment? Instead of introducing such programs, the government increases its contribution to unemployment insurance by $810 million. It remains inactive, it accepts to fight against inflation, to create more and more unemployment and to increase deficits, which is illogical in this situation, because the government is increasing its contribution to unemployment insurance without introducing in compensation a dynamic program designed to progressively reduce this problem by creating productive employment.\nBesides, in this budget, there is a glaring problem of great magnitude, namely the $1.75 billion increase in the cost of public debt.\nWho has allowed the banks and loan companies, in 1969, right here in the House, to increase the interest rate if it is not this government? At that time, the same government enacted this legislation which makes borrowing more expensive and deficit higher, thereby enlarging the yearly deficit margin which the government has to pay.', 'Non-Canadian Publications\nThe question I wish to ask is this: How long shall we allow public debt expenditures to increase? Must we keep taking more and more out of our budgets and more and more out of the manoeuvering room the government requires for efficient administration? I would like the government members to answer that question specifically and suggest solutions. If they have none, some of us may come up with one.\nIn short, I can say that the government is trying to remain in power, while we unfortunately know, among other things, that the country will again experience severe economic setbacks in 1976, the farm income could decrease by 20 or 25 per cent according to the experts of Agriculture Canada, and also that the consumer will be affected by various increases ranging from 10 to 15 per cent in food products alone and unemployment is still threatening.\nIt is wrong to believe that the government could save itself by remaining on the defensive when fused with problems and by letting conditions run out of control. I suggest that this is not a matter of political partisanship, but an administrative issue and a matter of responsibility.\nAs far as agriculture is concerned, today the minister has tolled his 1976-77 estimates. The 1975-76 estimates for agriculture amounted to 32 per cent, that is $612 million, but in 1976-77, they will only reach 11.9 per cent. When studying those figures, I note that two groups will be more affected than others: first, the farmers and then the Indians, because the estimates for Indian Affairs have been reduced from 29.5 to 17 per cent.\nMany other items have been increased. I wonder if the government is not making a great mistake, because, in my opinion, they should know that agriculture is the mainstay of society and even millionnaires must eat. Farmers must remain in business, and get $1,1000 million have been cut from agricultural loans for example, as shown at page 275 of the Blue Book. For agricultural loans alone, $1,100 million, which means a cut of more than a third. And then they will say that they are trying to provide sound administration.']
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am rising now on a point of order which arises from a decision Your Honour reached in today's proceedings not to accept a question I put to the Prime Minister concerning certain aspects of the antiinflation law. At that time Your Honour said it was your view that what was involved in the question was an interpretation of law. With all due respect to Your Honour, I should like to suggest that that was not the case. Earlier in the question period I had asked the Prime Minister a
February 18, 1976

question with reference to the same law, in answer to which he indicated general agreement on a point of law, namely, who would or would not have the right to appeal under section 30(1) of the law. That was the earlier question. There was no dispute; no question of interpretation. Just in passing, the Prime Minister indicated acceptance of an interpretation of the law on my part which was part of an earlier question.
Once the Prime Minister indicated that he agreed with that conclusion, my question to him was not concerning an interpretation of the law, but given the agreement on the point of law which was shared by the Prime Minister and myself, this was the force, if not the exact words, of my question. I asked did he not agree that it was desirable for the government to bring forward amendments to the law in order to change it so that the grievance or injustice perceived by myself and other vis-a-vis workers who are excluded from having a right of appeal might be changed? My question did not ask for an interpretation of law; it did not indicate that I was concerned about the interpretation of the law. I wanted the Prime Minister to indicate that the government might be prepared to change the law.
I suggest that Your Honour might reconsider your previous ruling. I know the Prime Minister at the time was rising to his feet to answer the question. If you decide that he may answer, perhaps the Prime Minister would do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, I do not think the opportunity to reconsider is given to me. I felt that the hon. member was asking about two matters with which I had some difficulty. He asked for an expression of opinion, as to whether certain rights lie with certain people under the terms of the law; further, whether it was the opinion of the Prime Minister that something further might be done about that. I confess that I rarely interfere with questions, particularly those asked each day by lead-off members of each party. I may have been influenced in my approach to the particular matter today, in deciding that this was a matter for debate rather than a matter for the question period, by the fact that I knew, and hon. members had no way of knowing, that I intended to rule in favour of a debate on the whole matter this evening. It is not something I would take as a general indication or precedent.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask if, to Your Honour's knowledge, the estimates have been tabled and if we are entitled to a copy at this time from which to prepare our questions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that I am to make a statement and receive comments before tabling the document. However, since someone has taken the document to the table, I can only say this: if the authorities at the table want to distribute copies of the estimates, that is their privilege. They are not under my control.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would be my understanding that the document now having been tabled, it ought to be distributed to hon. members forthwith. In accordance
Main Estimates
with the earlier agreement of the House, the House will now revert to statements by ministers.



Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the main estimates for 1976-77, which I am tabling today, amount to $38.4 billion for budgetary items and $1.1 billion for non-budgetary items.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As chairman of the public accounts committee, I have more than a passing interest in the figures to be tabled today. Can those figures be made available? I see that the page is now distributing copies of the documents to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's point of order was dealt with seconds ago. Copies of the document are now being distributed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the three opposition parties will receive information which will allow them to comment on my statement.

They include for the first time old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments, which in other years were paid out of a special account.
Throughout the current fiscal year, I have continued to state the government's intention to hold the growth of expenditures between 1974-75 and 1975-76 to 16 per cent or less. I am pleased to say that there now is every indication this target will be achieved. This has been done, in the face of strong inflationary pressures, only through the exercise of great restraint on new expenditures, and through the actual reductions in previously approved expenditures which I announced last June. The 16-per-cent increase in federal expenditures during 1975-76 compares favorably with a number of recent indicators for the private sector of the Canadian economy. During the third quarter of 1975, for example, business non-residential construction and business investment in machinery and equipment were expanding at annual rates of 18 and 16 per cent respectively; the growth of personal expenditures on consumer goods and services reached 14.3 per cent during the same quarter. [English]
I now state my intention to keep the increase in federal expenditures under the ceiling of 16 per cent again in 1976-77. In both cases-that is, in the result now expected to be achieved for 1975-76 and in the intended result for 1976-77-I mean all expenditures, including the non-budgetary items which do not appear in the main estimates.
It will not be easy to reach this target during the coming fiscal year. While it is to be hoped that inflationary pressures will abate, they will still remain strong. Aside from the upward drift in the cost of inputs from rental payments to materials, equipment and supplies which federal departments and agencies, like other economic agents, will have to bear in 1976-77, the main estimates reflect the

February 18, 1976
Main Estimates
higher salary and wage rates which will have to be paid under existing collective agreements.
The House should note that the average annual compound rate of increase in wages and salaries provided by federal public service agreements signed in 1975 was 14.4 per cent. Thus, the federal government's performance in this respect was somewhat better than that of other sectors of the Canadian economy. While I am conscious of the need to deal fairly with public servants in relation to other categories of wage earners, I hope that in keeping with the government's anti-inflation program, and with the co-operation of public service unions, our performance will further improve during 1976.

Inevitably, higher expenditures could not be avoided for the Department of Transport and certain agencies such as the RCMP and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which are responsible for policies to which the government attaches a high priority. In addition, a large increase in government payments to the Unemployment Insurance Account was made necessary by conditions in the labor market during 1975; and subsidies for the two-price system for wheat are included for the first time in the Main Estimates. Nevertheless, subject to unforeseen developments during the new fiscal year, I hope to keep the growth of federal expenditures below the 16-per-cent ceiling.
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a new summary table of the Blue Book, Table 7, which classifies budgetary expenditures by type of payments. This new table shows that the federal government, far from being the "big spender" it is sometimes said to be, is the key agent for income redistribution in Canada. In fact, fully 70 per cent, or $27 billion of the monies included in the main estimates for 1976-77 will not be spent directly by federal departments or agencies, but rather will be redistributed, in one form or another, to Canadian householders, Canadian industry or other levels of government. [English]
Nevertheless, as I announced last December 18, we are continuing our efforts to curb the rate of increase in the size of the public service. I remind the House that the expansion averaged 7.1 per cent in the two-year period ending 1974-75. We initially set it at 4.1 per cent for 1975-76, but later reduced it to about 3.1 per cent by freezing part of the new manpower resources already authorized. Last fall we set a new and much lower 1.5 per cent ceiling on the growth of the public service during 1976-77. At 1.3 per cent we are well within that limit in the main estimates, and we still have a small margin to meet unforeseen requirements.
Net growth in authorized man-years was held to this low level by reducing the staff of many departments and agencies in order to be able to increase resources in others where requirements were considered more urgent because of government priorities in such fields as economic management, domestic security and essential services. [Translation]
The year-to-year budgetary expansion in the Main Estimates for 1976-77 over 1975-76 is $6.2 billion. The programs which make the major contributions to this expansion, in absolute terms, are the following:

($ Millions)
Public Debt Charges	1,075
Government Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Account	810
Hospital Insurance and Medicare	614
National Defence	573
Old Age Security	537
Transport Ministry	291
Post Office	230
Fiscal Transfers to the Provinces	226
(Including Contracting-Out Payments to Quebec)
Almost all the items I mentioned are statutory expenditures in whole or in part, which means that the government had virtually no flexibility to exercise further retraint. To put it another way, about 55 per cent of the Main Estimates of budgetary expenditures (including OAS-GIS) were of a statutory nature in 1975-76; and next year, the proportion will be 57 per cent, which, among other things, shows the control we have exercised on the non-statutory side.
Almost all the items I have mentioned are statutory expenditures in whole or in part, which means that the government had virtually no flexibility to exercise further restraint. To put it another way, about 55 per cent of the main estimates of budgetary expenditures, including OAS-GIS, were of a statutory nature in 1975-76 and next year the proportion will be 57 per cent which, among other things, shows the control we have exercised on the nonstatutory side.
The 1976-77 booklet, "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", is being distributed to all members, together with the main estimates. The booklet is a more compact version than that of previous years, reflecting our concern for greater economy. At the same time, it is a highly informative and analytical document which I am sure many will find useful.

However, Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to add that some hon. members from the opposition parties, in particular my good friends the NDP members will say this expenditure budget is too restrictive, whereas the Progressive Conservative members will argue we have not made enough cuts. That is the simplest explanation I can give; when it comes to budget cuts, we should remember this popular French folk's song which says: Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die".

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. member for Edmonton West, it has been our practice since last Easter that statements by ministers would result not only in a statement by a representative of each of the opposition parties but also by a period of questioning. While that practice certainly has prevailed with some considerable benefit to the House, I would suggest, in general statements by ministers on motions the fact is that the practice of introduction of estimates by the President of the Treasury Board today is part of a practice which is to initiate a whole series of questioning and studies before
February 18, 1976

the standing committees of the House about the estimates, and so on.
The President of the Treasury Board will appear before the standing committee, as will other ministers, in defence of the estimates tabled today. Certainly we will proceed with statements by opposition spokesmen in respect of the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board. While that is taking place, I wonder if some thought might be given to whether it was ever the intention, in this particular instance, for the House to attempt to question the President of the Treasury Board when he is simply initiating the practice of being questioned in one way or another for the next three months.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in my continuing questions. I am all right; I am in the lifeboat. I have had an opportunity afforded to me to question the minister and his officials on certain points. I hope that I can keep my remarks short. I would not like this practice basically to change from that wherein ministers are making statements. We can keep our statements short and leave our colleagues to put questions. Keeping that in mind, I think we can get along. I would prefer to start that procedure rather than on my own, at this moment, to eliminate the questions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend. If the minister makes a very factual and limited statement, obviously that can be responded to in the same way. If, however, as was noticeably the case here, the minister makes an exculpatory statement in which he assings to himself certain virtues and benefits about which there may be some doubt, he leaves himself open to questioning. As far as I am concerned, we do not intend to pursue that procedure at this time. I utter that as a word of caution with respect to the limited time the minister may have to occupy his present position. He should restrict the nature of his statement and not invite the kind of questions which the statement he just made does invite.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I appreciate the gesture of the minister in giving us an opportunity to look at the estimates. Second, may I say that this year the version of "How your tax dollar is spent"-having had an opportunity of going through it-is a considerable advance over last year. Hon. members and the public will be well served by this document; that is, those who are looking for it.
There is one word of caution that I want to bring forward. This relates to the spirit of the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), with regard to the remarks of the minister being somewhat self-exculpatory. There is a great danger at this time in looking at percentages and constant dollars. The use of percentages is totally deceptive. In addition, the practice or the method of using percentages as much as possible in the format of the old blue book is present.
Here I would like to call attention to the good work being done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, arising out of the Auditor General's recommendations regarding these estimates. That advantage will only appear next year and I am not going to make a
Main Estimates
statement in that regard; I will save it until we have the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) before us.
In the first paragraph of his statement the minister talked about $38.4 billion for budgetary items, and $1.1 billion for non-budgetary items, totalling $39.5 billion. If one goes to page 1 of the what I call the small blue book, one sees that the main estimates for budgetary expenditures, including the cost of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, have a projected total of $42,150 million, and not $39.5 billion. We have to look for further estimates this year. There is a reserve of $1.5 billion that goes in. There is a separate item of half a billion dollars. Then there are things such as loans, investments and advances of $2,750 million, for a total of $42,150 million. That is what we are talking about for this year. When the minister talks about a percentage of 16 per cent, it is this latter figure that is being used.
If one goes to page eight of the booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", the total of columns 2 and 3 is in actual expenditures starting in 1972-73 all the way through to 1976-77 and showing the percentage increases. We see that on the basis of 1973-74 over 1972-73, there was a 24 per cent increase. The following year, 1974-75, there was a 27 per cent increase. In 1975-76 there was a 16 per cent increase, and this year there is a 16 per cent increase. With the greatest respect, that is a lot of hokum. It is worse than the shell game.
While $42,150 million is roughly 116 per cent of $36,500 million, the increase of some $5,550 million is already on something that is 116 per cent of the previous year. If there were established a base year as we have in the computation of the consumer price index, we could find out what the expenditures are today compared with what they were ten years ago, and index it. We see that today the consumer price index is something like 180 compared with the base year, 1961. If we wanted to take the $6.3 billion of expenditures by this administration in the base year 1963, and take the $42 billion estimated for this year, the index would be up by some 600 per cent. Then we could see what money they have been spending and what money they have been collecting from the taxpayer. We could see, also, on the basis of a constant dollar, the true relationship and we would be better able to determine the influence which government spending and monetary policy has on the consumer price index.
Hon. members should be very careful about accepting the glib figures presented to us. The minister almost sprained his shoulder congratulating himself on maintaining a rate of growth of 16 per cent-sixteen per cent of 116, and that comes to something rather lower in my book. If we turn to some of the other information which has been provided to us, we see where increases in expenditure arise. The minister has indicated that some amounted to 5 per cent, some to between 14 and 20 per cent, and up and up. There were even some that dropped. I understand that ten ministries are responsible for 80 per cent of the increases in expenditure. According to page 11 of the fact sheet, this year the Unemployment Insurance Commission is going to ask for $1,702 million, an increase of some 90 per cent over the previous year. But this does not cover 196667. It is not a forecast. It is merely refilling the pot, because

February 18, 1976
Main Estimates
the unemployment insurance fund, in order to cover shortages for 1975-76, has had to borrow $310 million.
I underline the fact that there is not one member of the House who can have any influence at all in connection with the sum of $1,702 million which is to be put into the fund. It is one whole year after the event. I put it to members of the New Democratic Party, and to the Credi-tistes as well, that in 1972 the party to which I belong objected to amending legislation which lifted the ceiling of $800 million on these advances. If that ceiling had been left in place, the government would have been obliged to put forward a resolution in the year in which the unemployment was experienced before they could get the advance, and parliament could then have had something to say about the policies, or lack of them, which had led to the situation. I trust that nobody will spend more than 30 seconds on this particular item, because it is beyond repair. I simply express the hope that the administration will restore some sanity to it.
My last point is this. If one examines page 54 of the ancilliary book, one finds that the three levels of government in 1974 took 38.9 per cent of the gross national product. The share of the federal government was 16 per cent, the provinces' share is now up to 11.3 per cent, municipalities took 8.3 per cent, and hospital funds, pension plans and so on took 3.2 per cent. Undoubtedly there was an increase in 1975, but the latest figures we have apply to 1974. This House ought to concern itself about the share of the GNP which goes to public spending. I think the House committees, provided they do not become laden down with a lot of other junk, will be able to digest these estimates. Bear in mind one thing, though. As the minister has indicated, 70 per cent of this projected $42 billion is either statutory on non-budgetary. In other words, only 30 per cent of this expenditure is really under the control of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) or of this House.
Perhaps the proportions should be changed if this House and parliament are to exercise a greater degree of control over year to year spending and keep a closer watch on monetary policy. It is conceivable that both the percentage of GNP which goes into public expenditure ought to be cut down and that somehow we showed increase the proportion of the annual expenditure of the Government of Canada represented by budgetary items, rather than statutory items, so that members might express a more effective opinion as to its validity.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for his kindness in giving us a sneak preview of the figures, thus enabling us to reach an early conclusion about them. I should also like to thank him for his solicitude in directing us to the path of heaven. I appreciate there might be some concern on his side of the House, but I can assure him there is no such concern in my party.
I should like to make something clear to the hon. gentleman. He seemed to indicate that there was not much point in the debate. He anticipated, with some degree of correctness, that members to my right in the Conservative party would attack most government expenditure, and he expected that members of the New Democratic Party would be complaining that the government was not spending enough. Mr. Speaker, despite all the years he has been

here, the minister does not understand what is going on. What we object to is the direction in which he is proposing to spend a great deal of money. We do not object because the Parliament of Canada is spending more money on the old, on the sick, on research and on many of the things which make our society a better place in which to live. What we do object to is the kind of spending he is recommending to us today. For example, debt charges have risen by 21 per cent, an increase of more than $1 billion. This did not come about through an increase in the public debt alone. It arose, quite clearly-as is pointed out in the information paper before us-as a result of higher interest charges. These higher charges are a direct result of government policy, which has been to raise interest rates until they are now between per cent and 15 per cent higher than those in the United States.
The minister then comes to us and says he is doing something about public spending, when there is a. 21 per cent increase in debt charges. What good will this do? It may enrich a few people in this country, but what good does it do in terms of redistributing income, helping elderly or sick people, or providing housing? If anything, it has the opposite effect. That is the kind of spending we do not like and to which we object, yet the government seems to be satisfied with it.
We also take objection to a 90 per cent increase in unemployment insurance payments. Not because we do not think payments should be made when people are out of work. We object because we have a government, that is so inept, that so mismanages our economy that the only way parliament can find to avoid disaster is to pay out unemployment insurance instead of creating job opportunities in this country. That is the kind of worthless expenditure that is being made.
My hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) may quarrel about whether it is correct to put this increase into this year's estimates or into last year's, and that is a point that some attention should be paid to. But the disgraceful thing is that the government has no other way of enabling its people to survive. The government puts in a program of hand-outs rather than providing the employment that it is the right of the people of this country to expect.
The government prides itself on holding its expenditures. It has held its expenditures all right on the elevator operator, the secretary and on other people in the public service who never got a great deal of money. But let us look at how it has held its expenditures in the Prime Minister's office. My colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in response to a question got the following information. There are eight people in the Prime Minister's office earning between $35,500 and $47,500 a year. There are two people in the Prime Minister's office earning between $54,000 and $66,000 a year. That is admirable restraint to show the people of this country! We have had legislation before us that says to people earning $10,000 or $12,000, "Restraint on you". We have in the Prime Minister's office, I am sure, talented and able people. But are they that talented and able to be worth six or ten times as much as anybody else? I do not think so. I do not think the country thinks so either, or that the country will be per-
February 18, 1976

suaded to accept the government's restraint program in face of this disparity in income.
Let us look at the growth in SX employees. Again, in response to a question put by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North, the growth in SX employees-they are employees earning between $29,000 and $66,000 a year- went from 402 people in that category in 1969 to 1,082 in that category in 1974. What are they doing-making gold? How many do you need? Other government employees are restrained, yet at the same time there is this enormous increase in people at the upper levels of government. I appreciate that there was a time when people working in the government, particularly at the senior level, may not have been receiving as much as those in the private sector. But the opposite is true now. The point of paying salaries larger than average, or normal, is to attract competent people. The complaint now is that they are overpaying people in the public service, paying away beyond what is necessary to attract able people. The proliferation of people in this category is something that must be looked at. If you wonder why there has been this growth in the non-productive sector of the public service, Mr. Speaker, it is because of salaries of this kind. Those salaries are based on size of department and number of people employed, rather than on the particular talent that people may display.
The government spends, on contract and casual employees, over $900 million. It is hard to get an itemized account of this, particularly when we have all these high-priced people in the public service, why is there almost a $1 billion expenditure on contract labour? In these estimates, the departments which have received the least assistance have been those dealing with scientific and medical research. At the same time there has been an increase in travel expenditure for senior people in the public service, from something over $1,967,000 to $4,310,000. How can one say this government has any decent priorities, when one see things of that kind?
The minister is congratulating himself that there has been an average increase in the public sector of something in the neighbourhood of 14 per cent. I say "something in the neighbourhood" because although these figures look awfully definite, they turn out to be not so definite on examination in committee. The House of Commons estimates have gone up by 19.2 per cent. Admittedly, a great deal of that is due to increased staff because of the increased responsibilities that the Commons has. But if you look at the Department of Justice you find that salaries-and essentially the cost of the Department of Justice is salaries-have gone up by 26.5 per cent.
Perhaps even that we could live with, but we find that the Senate's estimates have gone up by 31 per cent, at a time when the wage guidelines are encouraging people, indeed demanding people, to restrict their demands to 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Until these estimates were tabled, the situation in terms of people's conception of income disparity in this country was bad enough. This is one way in which we differ with our friends to the right. They are worried about the level of government spending. We are worried about who gets it, whether it is friends of the government, in the form of large hand-outs, write-offs and tax concessions, or the people of this country who are entitled to a fair share of income.
Main Estimates
Over the last 30 or 40 years there has been no change in income distribution. If the government expects its essentially unfair program of wage and price controls-and it knows it is an unfair program-to be accepted at all, or if it is to have any chance of being accepted at all, one of the things it must demonstrate while the program is in operation is that the gap between those at the bottom and those at the top is being narrowed. There is nothing in the information tabled before us today which shows that the government either understands that philosophy or intends to take that kind of action.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join those who have thanked the minister for inviting us to his office to look at the figures that would be discussed this afternoon.
As concerns the opinion of our party, I would like to make a few comments concerning the expenditures of the Treasury Board. First of all, I must say that we are not surprised that the minister is announcing today that the growth of federal expenditures will be limited to 16 per cent this year, since this government policy has been emphasized on various occasions. Indeed, I do not think that the government had any choice in the matter because its enormous budgetary deficit is forcing it to make important cuts in its expenditures, even if these cuts are painful, especially if it wants to support its own anti-inflation policy. The government must set an example.
But when we look at the whole situation of the Canadian economy, which urgently needs to be stimulated and stabilized, we can realize that the attitude on which the budget is based is just not good enough. On the contrary, it is timorous action which does not aim at supporting the economy, but shows that the government still maintains a defensive attitude as concerns the situation.
Indeed, these is an alarming contrast in this situation. The economy needs to be stimulated, but the government remains on the defensive, and instead of supporting the economic life, it is content with remaining an observer and hoping that things will get better late on. Where, for instance, are the employment creation programs that are needed in these days of high unemployment? Instead of introducing such programs, the government increases its contribution to unemployment insurance by $810 million. It remains inactive, it accepts to fight against inflation, to create more and more unemployment and to increase deficits, which is illogical in this situation, because the government is increasing its contribution to unemployment insurance without introducing in compensation a dynamic program designed to progressively reduce this problem by creating productive employment.
Besides, in this budget, there is a glaring problem of great magnitude, namely the $1.75 billion increase in the cost of public debt.
Who has allowed the banks and loan companies, in 1969, right here in the House, to increase the interest rate if it is not this government? At that time, the same government enacted this legislation which makes borrowing more expensive and deficit higher, thereby enlarging the yearly deficit margin which the government has to pay.

Non-Canadian Publications
The question I wish to ask is this: How long shall we allow public debt expenditures to increase? Must we keep taking more and more out of our budgets and more and more out of the manoeuvering room the government requires for efficient administration? I would like the government members to answer that question specifically and suggest solutions. If they have none, some of us may come up with one.
In short, I can say that the government is trying to remain in power, while we unfortunately know, among other things, that the country will again experience severe economic setbacks in 1976, the farm income could decrease by 20 or 25 per cent according to the experts of Agriculture Canada, and also that the consumer will be affected by various increases ranging from 10 to 15 per cent in food products alone and unemployment is still threatening.
It is wrong to believe that the government could save itself by remaining on the defensive when fused with problems and by letting conditions run out of control. I suggest that this is not a matter of political partisanship, but an administrative issue and a matter of responsibility.
As far as agriculture is concerned, today the minister has tolled his 1976-77 estimates. The 1975-76 estimates for agriculture amounted to 32 per cent, that is $612 million, but in 1976-77, they will only reach 11.9 per cent. When studying those figures, I note that two groups will be more affected than others: first, the farmers and then the Indians, because the estimates for Indian Affairs have been reduced from 29.5 to 17 per cent.
Many other items have been increased. I wonder if the government is not making a great mistake, because, in my opinion, they should know that agriculture is the mainstay of society and even millionnaires must eat. Farmers must remain in business, and get $1,1000 million have been cut from agricultural loans for example, as shown at page 275 of the Blue Book. For agricultural loans alone, $1,100 million, which means a cut of more than a third. And then they will say that they are trying to provide sound administration.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily the proceedings of parliament at third reading would be of a routine nature and often oppositions are wont to let bills that have had committee study, report 
stage scrutiny, and so on, pass on a routine division; but I am sure it would be irresponsible of the official opposition if we were to permit such a course of action for this grubby piece of legislation. Bill C-58, in the opinion of the official opposition, should be referred back to the committee. A good deal of the evidence that was heard in the committee about the status of Reader's Digest has become irrelevant because of a special arrangement made for that magazine, presumably as a result of pressures exerted, and so on. We do not even know, as parliamentarians, whether the deal is a reasonable one within the terms of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, at some stage of this debate, a spokesman for the official opposition will be moving to refer the contents of this bill back to the committee so that representatives of the Department of National Revenue and the Department of the Secretary of State, as well as officials of Reader's Digest, can bring us up to date on what is obviously a very fundamental change in this legislation.
When speaking for the Progressive Conservative party at second reading, I thought I made it clear that the party had no basic argument about the various tests of citizenship which the Income Tax Act applied to publications. I said at that time-I am rather sorry to have to repeat it- that after so many years in this country it was high time that Time Canada and the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest took out, so to speak, Canadian citizenship. By a curious anomaly, Time was prepared to meet the test of the Income Tax Act and said so during the summer of 1975.
Representatives of Reader's Digest were urged, presumably, by various ministers and various members and, if I may presume to speak for him, my leader and myself to dispose of equity shares up to 75 per cent in order that they could meet the test. This was, of course, unacceptable to Reader's Digest until certain events transpired late in 1975 and early in 1976. We are faced with an entirely new set of circumstances, circumstances that I, for one, am not even prepared to say are wrong because we do not know whether they are right or wrong.
Unlike the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the people who made the decision affecting the status of Reader's Digest are unknown to us. The regulations under which the deal was made are unknown to us and-unlike the case of CRTC-there have been no public hearings. It was suggested at an earlier stage of the debate that the analogy to CRTC was wrongly drawn. I have always felt that. I have always felt that the tests and the regulations should be subject to some scrutiny, that there should be some notice. It may well be that the government is right; I have no way of knowing because the whole thing is most mysterious.
In any event, we are faced with an entirely new situation because of an arbitrary rule decided upon by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) who told the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts that even if his ruler measurement, as it was described to us by his officials, was found to be beyond the powers of the Income Tax Act and the regulations, the minister would come to parliament with a new statute which would specify that which the courts found to be illegal.

That is how I describe the bill, the purpose of which was rather laudable, which many of us accepted at an earlier stage, but which had gone from one bad arrangement to another. I, for one, an distressed at this outcome; I feel that makes a mockery of the committee system. We go to some trouble to cross-examine witnesses or hear to evidence from various people who are called before the committee, and now all that evidence has gone out the window.
I think that on the second part of the bill it would have been well, and perhaps the debate would have been substantially shortened, had parliament had an opportunity to hear of any special arrangements made by the Federal Communications Department and the CRTC about the serious dilemma faced by Canada because of stations beyond our borders. We were told by various ministers- the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) for one-that discussions were being held by officials. We watched these officials parade into the Lester B. Pearson Building to try to negotiate some understanding about how Canada would treat these offshore stations, and so on. I would have thought it would have been better had we been privy to the plans, arrangements, discussions and agreements. But all that came to nought. The government decided that they would set up a special status for Reader's Digest, they would execute Time Canada; they would not wait for any international arrangement about the offshore stations; and they would proceed with Bill C-58.
I think the government has a good deal to answer for. I am interested in the phenomenon that we witnessed during the past few days of members of the government and of the opposition who have serious reservations about the policy and who have the courage of their convictions. After all, this is a place where representatives of the public have to put before ministers, the government and all of us, their convictions about what is right and what is wrong, or how particular pieces of legislation will affect particular parts of Canada. I do not have any personal quarrel with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner)-why would I-but I do have substantial quarrel with legislation which is so centrist in its application. It is almost a text-book case of the pressures that are on this federal experiment, of which we are all part, when members from one province in particular who are going to be seriously affected have spoken out about their frustrations. But apparently if the results during report stage are to be taken as read, they are not to be listened to; yet perfectly legitimate frustrations have obviously been expressed both in the government caucus and to the ministers' ears about the killing of Reader's Digest and how that would affect another part of Canada.
Therefore, ministers must not be surprised if we raise questions when an arrangement is made for the convenience of members in one part of the country which results in the saving of one of the instruments of culture, if I can so elevate Reader's Digest, that it is to be safe and sacrosanct under a new arrangement about which we cannot know anything because we do not know the officials who have made the arrangement. Yet other parts of our culture, namely, broadcasting, have been curtailed or cut off.
I do not hold any particular personal brief for an offshore television undertaking. I think we have to under-
Non-Canadian Publications
stand the pressures on the whole broadcasting system of Canada to understand what this present legislation tries to do. On the other hand, it is much too easy to expect hon. members to sit idly by and see fundamental changes made to the broadcasting aspect in the part of the country they represent, and have other hon. members who apparently are closer to government benches and therefore can have their pressures answered by a changed status of Reader's Digest.
I do not care if ministers and members opposite speak in this debate forever. They will never convince me, and I am sure they will never convince my colleagues, that a special arrangement was made that had nothing to do with what the government planned when it first introduced Bill C-58 with a flourish of trumpets. It is this aspect of the bill that has caused government backbenchers to express their frustration and has caused many members of parliament on this side to take what many might think a substantial amount of time venting their frustrations about special cases.
I was here when the new Broadcasting Act received general approval in parliament. I supported, and this party supported, the direction that that policy was enunciating for our country. What I particulary liked about CRTC was its openness. Obviously, every decision that is made will not find general acceptance in the country. How could it, dealing with something that is almost as pervasive as the weather? Everyone has an opinion on broadcasting; everybody, apparently, has an opinion on our educational system; and everybody seems to know where to complain.
However, having said, perhaps a bit trite and oversimplified, that the CRTC is made up of responsible public people, appointed in the way the statute decreed, who after notice evolved a system of regulations which were public regulations and which, if they were challenged, could stand up under what I like to call the rule of law, I say there is no element of the rule of law when special deals are made in upstairs offices. This is a mistake that a government which espouses the cause of liberal democracy should be ashamed of, and a mistake which this opposition party would be irresponsible not to resist. It is a mistake which it would be wrong of us to allow to pass without serious criticism and comment, not only this afternoon but in the days ahead.


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said in this debate. It has been a long debate which has accomplished very little, and to my mind what it has accomplished is negative. What is more, if the slightest accommodation had been made, simply omitting the provision for the 80 per cent "dissimilar content" interpretation, there would have been no need for this long debate and no need to take up the time of the House unnecessarily: the bill would have received acceptance in a positive way.
The debate has been exaggerated on both sides. The opponents of the bill gave it overkill on the censorship issue. The bill does not present any extensive degree of censorship. The argument regarding lack of legal authority of the Minister of National Revenue, or the abuse of it, has been overdone.

Non-Canadian Publications
The supporters of the bill have also exaggerated to a great degree. They have greatly overstated the case about the future influx of foreign publications into Canada if the bill is not passed. It is nonsense to say that without this bill our cultural identity would be in danger. It is also nonsense to say that there is a privilege involved which is extensively abused by some publishers. When it is said that this bill really does not propose significant restrictions on anyone, and that it is a minor tax bill, that is an exaggeration.
I think the answer, and the reasonable position, lies somewhere in the middle-where Liberals normally are but from where we have badly shifted with this legislation. The minister and the government have never accepted consideration of any middle-ground position. When I consider the type of mild amendments which were refused by the government-even amendments which would have been useful without detracting to any great degree from the bill-I am obliged to feel that the minister operated from a point of total inflexibility; I might even say bad will. I do not intend to be mean to the minister, but on some subjects no person is more Liberal to the point of probably being libertarian. That is why it is tremendously difficult for me to understand his inflexibility in this instance. I suppose it is always those who shout the loudest for freedom and liberty who are the first to deny them to others.
I will vote against this bill because it is totally contrary to my Liberal principles and my party's principles. It is not easy to vote against the government of which you are a member, but more than ever I am convinced that a government cannot override a person's or a party's principles. I voted against the Petro-Can bill because that was strictly socialist legislation. I am not a socialist and neither is my party. If I had wanted to support socialism, I would have joined the NDP, not the Liberal Party. I will vote against Bill C-58 because it is against my party's principles, and in my view it is a retrograde piece of legislation.
If only the minister and his officials could have found the Liberal middle-ground which would not have totally offended worthy segments of the publishing industry in this country and the principles of the Liberal party. Instead, I am afraid this legislation demonstrates total lack of imagination and I wonder if that lack of imagination is not intended in order to have the effectiveness of the legislation rest upon departmental interpretation rather than on the legislation itself.
This point was totally confirmed when accommodation was found for Reader's Digest. The opposition has contended that there is something shady about this accommodation, and in light of the previous inflexibility there might well be; I do not know. But it would have taken a mind completely isolated from reality not to recognize eventually that Reader's Digest is not a news magazine like the others. What troubles me deeply is that we are continuing a trend in the cultural field to perpetrate all sorts of inequities and injustices, and treating citizens and groups unfairly in the name of a nebulous, broad principle, while at the same time disregarding other equally or more important principles regarding the rights and opportunities of individuals who are the backbone of Liberalism. As a Liberal member of parliament, my affiliation requires that

I should support the bill. As a Liberal member in principle and philosophy, my decision is not to support the bill because those principles cannot be compromised except for very serious reasons for the public good, and this bill does not address itself to any such serious problem.
There have been many arguments pro and con during this debate, but just let me discuss some of the meaningful points which argument and exaggerated and artificial verbiage or positions cannot change, and which clearly demonstrate the undesirability of this legislation. The objectors see a great deal of censorship in the bill, and the supporters see none at all. I think everyone will agree that there are at least some substantial restrictions which would be consequences of the bill. If there were not, there would be no need for the bill and its proposal in the House would be a sham. So there are restrictions which will be imposed by this bill. To whom will these restrictions apply? Most, or all, foreign publications cannot comply with the bill and will not, likely, distribute their publications into this country in any event except from outside the country. So who will the bill affect? It will affect Canadian publishers because the law will be on the books for Canadian and foreign publishers alike. Our Canadian publishers will be restricted, and let us not forget that they have no other country to run to.
It may well be that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and his officials will look the other way when a Canadian publication is involved. Indeed, if they can wring out of their interpretation an accommodation for Reader's Digest, they can surely wring one out for a Canadian publisher. However, the fact remains that our Canadian publishers will have to face this legislation always; and it may be they who will be hurt by it, and not foreign publishers.
What about the discriminatory aspect of the legislation? There is no changing that, in spite of all the debate and arguments. Newspapers and broadcasters are not covered by this bill. The news and editorial content of newspapers and broadcasters can be totally similar to a foreign publication and nobody will say a word. Why could we not come up with a bill which at least does not discriminate between competing media elements? Surely no Liberal principle can tolerate this type of discrimination. Another fact which cannot be changed is that no other country has this type of legislation on its statute books. Are we the only government so lacking in confidence in our people and our institutions that we must be protected by such negative legislation? Are we so weak and do we place so little value on our Canadian culture that it is threatened by foreign publications? Are we slowly isolating ourselves onto an island of culture which runs away from the rest of the world? If one is to take this bill seriously, the answer to all these questions would be "Yes." Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. I think we are badly misjudging the strength of our Canadian culture by measures such as this.
A big case was made with regard to dumping. If the 80 per cent "dissimilar in content" interpretation was not part of the bill, it would allow a continuance of the terrible dumping that now exists. We have seen the arguments stretched to the ridiculous point of comparing publications and written material with manufactured goods, and calling
February 18, 1976

it all dumping. We have heard how terrible is this published dumping of Time and Reader's Digest-except that now we have agreed that the Reader's Digest dumping is not that bad after all: we find that Reader's Digest dumping is acceptable.
If we are looking at dumping in respect of publications, where does it stop? Does the Toronto Star, published in Toronto, dump its papers in Timmins? Is that dumping? Does the New York Times dump its papers in Philadelphia? Is that dumping? It is an argument that can become, and is, really ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Suppose for a moment that we agree it is dumping-I do not, but let us suppose that for a moment-what, then, is the consequence of this bill? I say that I accept the economic restrictions, the ownership percentage, the director provisions, and so on, but let us zero in on the 80 per cent "dissimilar content" provision. In that respect, what is the consequence of the 80 per cent content provision? The very simple consequence, and the choice we make by having this provision, is whether Canadian owners or American owners will make the profit on this alleged dumping.
Take Time magazine, for instance. If the 80 per cent restriction is applied, Time cannot comply, so they move their existing Canadian facilities back to the United States; they keep dumping, so-called, their magazines in Canada-and who makes the profit? The American owners. So with the 80 per cent restriction, Americans make the profit. On the other hand if Time complies with the 75 per cent Canadian ownership restriction-and they have indicated they will-and if the government were not to impose the 80 per cent restriction, what would happen? Time keeps its Canadian facilities, it can comply with the act and its new, 75 per cent Canadian owners make the profits on the so-called dumping. And make no mistake, we are talking of practically the same material and the same dumping in both cases. Mr. Speaker, without the 80 per cent content restriction we even conserve the editorial staff in Canada and the Canadian section of the magazine.
The issue is very simple. With the 80 per cent content ruling, Americans make the profit; and without it, Canadians make the profit. Surely it does not take a genius to realize what our decision should be on the 80 per cent ruling under those circumstances. The 80 per cent ruling loses us a great deal and gains us nothing in terms of profits and published material. Taking away the rhetoric, the artificial and forced arguments of the debate, we are left with these facts. The people who will be restricted by the legislation are mostly Canadians. The bill introduces discrimination between different competing segments of the media industry. No other country has adopted this kind of negative legislation. Finally, the profits are Canadian without the content restriction in the bill, and they are American with it in the bill.
I have no time for the people who complain about lobbying, Mr. Speaker. I think all they are saying, in a very narrow-minded way is, "Don't bother me with the facts and figures; I want to make a decision in my own way without knowledge of the case". Nor do I have any time for the people who have based their decision on whether or not the profits of the publishers were high, excessive, or whatever. It has always been my experience that those who criticize and profit the most are not necessarily socialists
Non-Canadian Publications
but people who have never invested a cent in the potential of Canada in any way.
We have been told on several occasions that if we would only read the committee proceedings we would be totally illuminated and would understand everything. I have read the entire committee proceedings and I have attended some of the sessions-as an observer, of course. Those proceedings did not change my mind. I made the necessary allowances for the testimony of vested interests for both sides, I tried to separate the substance from the fiction, and I noticed the large percentage of media background people who formed the government's side of the committee; and I do not say this disparagingly, because I have the greatest respect and admiration for my colleagues. However, surely they would accept that their interest in a sense could not be impartial. They are not, after all, Solomon. Under those circumstances, is it not just possible that the committee study on our side was, to a degree, distorted? After reading all the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, I find we are still left with a bill that is contrary to our Liberal principles and which cannot be justified in light of those principles.
The bill, very obviously, was aimed at two publications- and later only one. If it had been aimed at 50 publications, however, it would still have been contrary to my Liberal principles. When you want to help and assist someone or some industry, you do it in a positive way, not by restrictions. If we want to aid Canadian publishers, then we should find a positive way in which to do it. We should not do it at the expense of someone else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: In committee, Mr. Zimmerman made what I consider to be a very telling statement. He said something to the effect that if the government wants to help the Canadian publishing industry, why not give 10 per cent of the CBC budget to those publishers and they would then have more money than they could ever hope to gain from the total of Time and Reader's Digest advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Robert Roy: Just 10 per cent of that monstrous, costly $350 million-I retract that, because in the estimates tabled in the House today the CBC budget is up to $415 million-would mean $41 million to the publishers of Canada and it would not even touch the level of expenses of CBC. It just makes me shiver to think of that particular budget, Mr. Speaker. I think Mr. Zimmerman is right. I think we could take half of the CBC budget and put in into other endeavours. Most Canadians would highly applaud such a move.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was quoted in committee, and I think his words bear repetition here. The irony is that the quotation comes from Maclean's magazine of October 20. This is what the Prime Minister said:
-for me, I am afraid of the word "nationalism"-particularly economic nationalism, though it applies to cultural nationalism too-is very often a vehicle of the ruling classes to transfer wealth to themselves. In the case of culture, you put tariffs on culture because you want the people to have the culture as defined by you. Now you can and would come back and say that you have taken some "nationalistic measures". I'd say that the test of them is always: are they by and large good for the mass of the people, or are they something which is brought in to protect a

February 18, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
small elite group? And to me that is the test, whether it be economic, cultural or even military nationalism. I think the duty of the state is to protect its citizens and to promote a greater exercise of their liberty.
How anyone can reconcile that statement with this bill, I will never know. In conformity with the Prime Minister's statement, I shall vote against this bill. To my mind, it does not meet the test: it does not protect our citizens or promote a greater exercise of their liberty.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), lucidly and logically, put forward the position of my party. I have great admiration for the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I know that this bill troubles him. Essentially, he is in favour of some kind of positive action to help the Canadian magazine publishing industry. That has been the stance of the hon. member ever since I have known him, and his point of view is known throughout Canada. My colleague is a reasonable man and looks on this bill-as we all do, regardless of our position-as overkill. Clearly, it is overkill. It is counterproductive and will not assist the Canadian publishing industry.
What will it do? It will eliminate the Canadian section of Time magazine and the 45 jobs of Canadians who prepare that Canadian section. But we shall still continue to receive Time if we want to: Time will still be published and sold to the Canadian public on newsstands and will still be sent to subscribers who want to receive the magazine. Advertisers will still advertise in the magazine, but the cost to the advertiser will have to be reduced to offset the detrimental aspects of the bill; and, of course, costs to the subscriber will rise to compensate for that loss. I listened, also, to the constructive speech of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy). I know that many on the government side share his views, and before the bill is given third reading I hope we shall hear from those hon. members.
I am concerned about what the bill in its present form has done to our legislative process and to the committee system. I might be well to reflect on the progress of this bill. Closure was imposed on second reading. I do not deny the government's right to impose closure after reasonable debate. Then the bill was given clause by clause examination in committee. The discussion was really on one clause, this being mainly a one-clause bill to do with an amendment to the Income Tax Act. Again, in committee, we found ourselves operating under the constraint of closure. We were given barely one month in which to hear witnesses from the publishing industry, the specialized magazine industry and the broadcasting industry. I submit that was not enough time.
During the committee hearings we asked for the principal witnesses appearing for Time and Reader's Digest to be recalled. Insufficient time had been allowed for the examination of these important witnesses and the important briefs they wished to present. But the government imposed its rigid discipline. I have never previously experienced such discipline. The result was that we were denied the right to recall those witnesses.
We examined the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), during the course of those hearings, on the ruling he had made in October on what constitutes a publication 
under the Income Tax Act that is essentially the same, or substantially different. We examined him on the so-called Cullen rule, the "80 per cent different" rule. Mr. Speaker, had the government stuck with its initial proposition perhaps I could understand the exercise through which we are going today. But it changed the rules.


Mr. Fairweather:: They got greedy.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of National Revenue, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), on behalf of the government, intimated to Reader's Digest and Time that in no way would the government change this rule. The bill was reported back to the House; then we discovered that an accord had been worked out with Reader's Digest. What do such actions do to our process of committee examination? Yet, Mr. Speaker, I see an hon. member opposite smiling.
Clearly, Liberal members from Quebec, and especially other Liberal members who are troubled about this bill, made their views known in caucus. They persuaded the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of National Revenue, and the Secretary of State, to reach an accord with Reader's Digest-and rightly so. Reader's Digest has been a good corporate citizen of Canada, employing directly 500 of our citizens and indirectly another 1,000, and spending a great deal of money in this country to support Canadian publishing. An accord was reached.
The present bill is aimed essentially at Time magazine. In view of the announcement of the Minister of National Revenue that an accord had been reached with Reader's Digest, is it not logical and reasonable for those who examined the bill in committee to expect it to be sent back to committee in order that committee members may again examine the Minister of National Revenue and discover what brought on his conversion, examine again the Secretary of State and re-examine witnesses from Reader's Digest and Time?
Time made a reasonable request which was reflected in an amendment moved in committee but rejected by the minister. The request was for a one-year extension during which the magazine could return to the planning tables and see if it could achieve a format which would adjust to the Cullen rule. That request was denied. They asked for only one year. They had demonstrated to us that they were willing to live with the Canadian ownership requirement; but, being an international news magazine, it would be impossible for them to work under the constraints of the so-called Cullen rule. Indeed, no news magazine in the world can be expected to function, let alone publish, in that fashion.
As I say, the magazine was denied that right, it was denied that request, even though at a meeting in April last year with the minister's predecessor who is now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), an understanding was arrived at as to the definition of "substantially the same." Time was prepared to live with that definition on the basis of their understanding. It understood that "Canadian content" involved between 50 per cent and 60 per cent. It was prepared to live with that definition and was planning to produce a magazine with considerably more Canadian content, a magazine which would reflect the Canadian perspective on the international coverage of the magazine. I
February 18, 1976

call that real progress. After all, this bill attempts to Canadianize an essentially American publication; it attempts to make it conform to our laws. It wants to make Time a Canadian magazine. I submit the present bill is overkill.
After Time had prepared mock-ups of the new magazine and said it could live with the definition of "Canadian content," suddenly, in October, the roof fell in. The Minister of National Revenue announced that "essentially the same" meant about 80 per cent the same. I say this is overkill. Frankly, I should like to examine the publishers of Reader's Digest and learn how they can live with the new definition. I am glad they can live with it, glad we will continue to receive Reader's Digest in this country, glad that that good corporate citizen of Canada will continue to contribute to this country's publishing industry. But what will happen if a new minister of national revenue appointed tomorrow, decides he does not care for the present definition and wants to change the rules? I would say that is a very uncertain future to put any company in, especially a company that has tried so hard to live within the rules, to be a good corporate citizen and make its stock available to the people of this country. I do not understand the attitude of the government.
A lot has been said about specialized magazines such as MD, Canadian Doctor, and so on. I will not go into that subject. There is no way in which the medical profession in this country can sustain the publication of these specialized magazines which bring to our medical profession ideas from around the world.
Let us talk about what this bill does and what the Cullen rule does to the bill. It changes the bill. This is not the bill that we had on second reading. This is not the agreement we arrived at during committee stage. This is a whole new situation. We recognize and respect the right of the government to make this definition. That is the rule of the Minister of National Revenue and his officials. However, we have a definition of such proportions as to arrive at an accord totally opposite to what we were told in committee. Surely, in light of that situation, we are entitled to go back to committee and examine the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State. Perhaps an accord can be worked out with Time magazine; who knows? We had only a very brief opportunity to examine the publishers of Time magazine, and an equally brief time to examine the publishers of Reader's Digest, the two principals in this bill.
I believe this is bad legislation. What concerns me even more is that it is setting a very bad and very dangerous precedent. Why did the minister not come before us in committee and say he was prepared to work out an understanding with Reader's Digest and Time to see if they could live within his definition of what constitutes "essentially the same"? Such an understanding is not beyond the realm of possibility. We know that now, as a result of the fact that the government finally recognized Reader's Digest as being a unique magazine. As a digest, it is unique; it is without competition. As a digest, it would obviously have to bring in articles from publications all around the world. In recognition of the uniqueness of Reader's Digest, the accord was arrived at.
Non-Canadian Publications
I submit that Time magazine is also unique, with its substantial, international news gathering capacity which no publication, given the limitations placed upon it by the Canadian market, could afford. No Canadian publication could afford the international news gathering capacity of Time magazine. Yet this magazine, which has tried to meet the provisions of the legislation, has tried to operate within the framework of the new law and was prepared to become 75 per cent owned in Canada and had in fact worked out an understanding with potential purchasers, has suddenly had the rug pulled out from under it.
What we are left with is some kind of backdoor accord as a result of pressure on the minister by his own colleagues which will allow Reader's Digest to continue at least until we get another minister of national revenue. The Canadian edition of Time magazine which we now know will be lost to this country. Perhaps it will not be long before Time magazine ceases to publish in Canada and has its printing work done in the United States, as is the case with Newsweek, U. S. News and World Report and some of the other American news magazines which get into the Canadian market. If that is progress, if that is helping the Canadian publishing industry, I have to be convinced, and I submit that many members of the House still have to be convinced.
We are worried about this bill. We are worried about what it does to parliament. I look at the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who has a contribution to make with her substantial background in journalism. She has made a contribution to this debate but was denied the right to make that contribution in committee.


Mr. Breau:: That is untrue.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is true. I have it on the hon. member's own word. The only time the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway was heard in committee was when I moved a motion and it was passed by a majority of the members. That is true, and the hon. member must accept the word of his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. What about the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)? The hon. member seems to want to know the facts. He was the chairman of the committee for four or five years, and he was denied the right-


Herb Breau: Madam Speaker, can I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member not aware that any member of the House of Commons, regardless of his party or standing on the committee, is allowed to be heard in committee regardless of whether he has the right to vote?


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just took the floor, the former parliamentary secretary, has been around here long enough to know better. He knows that members of the House who are not members of the standing committee may only be heard after all other members of the committee have been heard, and because we were operating under closure the hon. members could not be heard; there was no time.


Herb Breau: You are wrong.

Non-Canadian Publications


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way was denied the right to be heard, and she stood in her place in this House and said so.


Herb Breau: You just admitted you were wrong.


James Aloysius McGrath: I say now that all the arguments in the world would not make you understand, because you are so partisan that you would not understand the facts.


Mrs. Holt:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), I must remind hon. members that they are to address the Chair and not individuals on the opposite side.


Simma Holt: Madam Speaker, since I have again been brought into this debate on this issue I would like to clarify it. I was occasionally allowed to be heard, if there was time. That was all. I was not allowed to make motions or to vote, which, after all, is the most important part of my role in parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. That is not a point of order but a matter of debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope, Madam Speaker, that will settle the argument, because I am sure even the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) will have to accept the word of his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It was not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear to the House-and this is common knowledge-that when a member is not on a committee he is entitled to discuss but surely he should not be entitled to move motions when he is not a member of the committee. On that I have to agree with the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: All I know, Madam Speaker, is that the record will show that the only time the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was heard in a substantive way and allowed to make a contribution was when I moved a motion that she be heard. The government members on the committee abstained. The majority, which happened to be the opposition as a result of the abstention, carried and the hon. member was heard.
I submit to the minister, who is not now in the House, that he consider withdrawing this bill. Give us an opportunity to go back to the committee. Give us an opportunity to recall the representatives of Reader's Digest and Time. Give us an opportunity to examine these important witnesses in the context of the new definition which may make it possible for Time to continue to publish in Canada as before, with some modification. What concerns me most is that we can never again take seriously the government's intentions with regard to the examination of bills before committees. It is a farce; it is a charade; it is an utter waste of time. Members put in many hours of hard work in

committee in connection with the bill before us. The sittings were particularly arduous, having regard to the restraint placed on us by closure. We were denied the right to recall a number of witnesses whose evidence would have been most valuable.
As to the radio and television aspect of the debate, I may say I have no brief for the border stations. I believe the time has come for the loopholes in the Income Tax Act to be closed to protect Canadian broadcasting. But if a special case can be made for Reader's Digest, I suggest that a special case can equally be made for KVOS, a station which is unique, a station which voluntarily follows the restrictions imposed by the CRTC, which complies with all the requirements of Canadian law and which operates essentially as a Vancouver station. I believe the House deserves the right to explore further the aspect I have mentioned in the context of the accord which has been entered into with Reader's Digest.
I know the House will have an amendment before it and I am sure this amendment will commend itself to the well-meaning members on the government side who are just as concerned about this issue as I am. I refer especially to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) who made such an outstanding contribution to this debate. He put forward a constructive amendment at the report stage, but unfortunately it was rejected by his colleagues. I refer, also, to the hon. member for Timmins who has spoken on third reading and who also made an outstanding contribution during the report stage. He is another who saw his amendment rejected; its intention was to save certain special publications such as MD, Canada. I hope our amendment will commend itself to a majority of the House. Perhaps it will not even be necessary. Perhaps there will be another meeting of the caucus of the Liberal party at which the Secretary of State, that immovable force, will be prevailed upon to withdraw this bill with provision that the subject matter be referred back to committee.
I believe we deserve the right to examine the minister on the accord he has entered into with Reader's Digest and question him as to the possibility of reaching some similar accord which would allow Time magazine to continue to publish its Canadian section and, who knows, even to live within the so-called Cullen rule.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a few moments at the third reading stage of Bill C-58 to put a few remarks on the record. For some months now we have been discussing this bill at the report stage, committee stage and second reading, and I think some of the attempts that have been made to distort what are two fairly straightforward principles are objectionable to a number of members, among whom I include myself.
I think the public has been misled by members of the opposition. I feel that the remarkable distortions that have been made in two fairly straightforward principles should be responded to to some extent. The two fairly straightforward principles, as I see them, are that first, as the O'Leary Commission concluded so many years ago, the Canadian publishing industry cannot succeed so long as it must compete for revenue with branch plant operations of foreign magazines. That principle was established by the
February 18, 1976

O'Leary commission in 1959 or 1960. The second principle is that the tax laws of Canada should be the same for everybody. That is what Bill C-58 is all about. I find it remarkable that it should take two months of the time of the House to deal with these fairly obvious and reasonable principles of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: 
Benno Friesen: I rise on point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) is rising on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Would the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Spadina allow a question?


Peter A. Stollery: No, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is not allowed.


Peter A. Stollery: If the hon. member would like to ask me a question, he can do so when I have finished. In the meantime, I should like to have the time to try to explain to him something that he obviously has not been able to understand, namely, how the minister's decision will work in practice. As I was saying, Time is an original publication which originates in the United States, with the exception that Canadian Time currently carries some four pages that are written in Canada. I think it is fair to say that when Time magazine officials appeared before the committee, I asked them why in the 11 years they have been operating under the threat of some change in our tax legislation they had made no attempt to enlarge the Canadian section. The president of Time Canada replied that there had not been any legislation to force them to do so, so they had not seen any reason for making some effort to try to Canadianize their magazine. Surely if any piece of evidence was damaging to their claim that they needed time to make changes, it is the fact that in 11 years they had made no changes whatsoever; that they had made no attempt to Canadianize the magazine.

February 18, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
This debate has concerned itself with two publications, Reader's Digest and Time, both of which are entirely separate magazines. They have nothing in common except that until now they have been branch plant operations in Canada, based in the United States. I think any attempt to try to confuse these two separate operations is misleading and is based on fallacy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the idea that we should not have fair and equitable tax legislation in Canada is very difficult to understand. It is simply fantastic to suggest that more time than 11 years is needed to straighten out this inequity. The suggestion simply lacks credibility.
I did not want to take long to put these few remarks on the record, but having spent the last month or two listening to complete fabrications and to uninformed comment, may I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of putting what I consider to be the facts on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock rising to ask a question?


Benno Friesen: Yes, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Spadina allow a question?


Peter A. Stollery: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate and thank the hon. member for Spadina for giving us this lengthy explanation as to how the regulations work. I should simply like to ask him how his explanation now is different from his explanation when we were in the committee?


Peter A. Stollery: As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, we could have finished with this business some time ago, as I do not think the position has changed since we were in the committee.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to extend this debate which has been long enough, but I think it is the duty of members of Parliament to consider Bill C-58 very closely. However, before the House gives this bill third reading and before it is definitively adopted on third reading, I wish once more to express my views on the bill and also on the various events that took place in committee when this legislation was studied, both at the report stage and on third reading.
Madam Speaker, I remember quite well that during the second reading, I said to this House and to this government that I could not understand how it was possible that an act which had been presented in 1965 by this same government, this same political party, could be put again in 1971. In 1965 and 1971, it seemed right to grant some privileges to Canadian advertisers announcing in supposedly American magazines which were published in Canada, and which in some ways could be considered and were then considered as Canadian publications and magazines.
Madam Speaker, during that discussion, I had simply brought to the attention of the government that Canadian publications were defined so that they did not come under

the rule established by the department. As a matter of fact, publications owned in a proportion of 75 per cent by Canadians were considered Canadians.
However, there was an exception for periodicals which in 1965 were written in whole or in part in Canada, and that was the case of both magazines mentioned in Bill C-58. At that time, I had simply suggested that the government aDply the law as passed in 1965. That seemed to meet the aspirations of Canadians and also satisfy the people running those magazines. Why come back on that question? We were told that it is to allow Canadian advertisers to have the benefits of that act, those exemptions, and at the same time invite Canadians to publish more magazines in Canada that would also be entierely owned by Canadians.
I think that the act of 1965 which was introduced in this House by a member of the Liberal party must have been considered at that time and examined even in the caucus of the Liberal party. There was agreement to introduce that legislation in the House and that it was entirely reasonable at that time, in 1971. So, why that about face in 1976? That is what I am seriously wondering about, Madam Speaker. What occult powers intervened so as to force the hand of the government to introduce an entirely different legislation and be in opposition with the legislation passed in 1965 and 1971? Furthermore, I wonder quite seriously about the fact that in the course of the discussions on Bill C-58, a great deal of representations were made to Canadian parliamentarians of all parties by the leaders of Reader's Digest magazine to urge them to fight this bill because they considered it unfair to them and they should by all possible means oppose its passage.
Madam Speaker, I am surprised that in the last few days, the leaders of that same magazine seem to have changed their attitude without any change being brought to Bill C-58. According to the statement by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Cullen), they now seem to be satisfied with that legislation and we are now being asked to give it our support and pass it as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, I cannot change my mind as quickly as that. I am a responsible parliamentarian who must consider very carefully all legislation introduced in this House and receive in a very objective way the representations made by people or groups about such or such a legislation. It is our duty to take those into consideration and I do not accept anything unless we are given valid explanations that we should be asked at a certain moment on third reading of this bill to give it our support and accept it as such.
Madam Speaker, I am convinced after listening in this House to the speeches made by members of all parties who express themselves freely, and even on the government side, we saw a truly serious position being taken that goes against passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I said: or the government side. I may not have expressed myself clearly, because power does not always mean majority. The Liberal party may have a majority in the House but that does not necessarily mean that they are in power, because I have often felt that the real power was in the hands of persons outside this House, with the result that stands are sometimes taken which are not always in accordance with true ministerial responsibility, and the real responsibility that power entails, from a strictly democratic point of view.
February 18, 1976

So, Madam Speaker, for all those reasons, I seriously believe that it is my duty to oppose passage of this bill. That is why, when the vote is called, I shall adopt a very clear stand, with no bitterness towards anyone, but as a free and responsible member. I must oppose passage of this bill, because it runs counter to other legislation passed in 1965 and 1971, which seemed excellent then and if it was good then, it still is today. I shall therefore vote against Bill C-58 on third reading.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this third reading debate somewhat perplexed by some of the statements that have been made this afternoon. Since the last debate we have had the benefit of some correspondence from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and the reply to that correspondence from Time Canada. Also, an interesting article has appeared in "Citizen Forum" in today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen in which some interesting questions are asked about the debate that is going on at present.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) tutor us on the difference between a magazine and a digest. I suppose we should all be grateful for his attempt to elucidate that rather fine point, except that most of us understood it clearly many weeks ago. Apparently the only two members who did not clearly understand it are the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen).
One wondered, when listening to the hon. member for Spadina, why somewhere along the line some months ago, or a year ago, he had not discreetly tugged the sleeve of the Secretary of State and given him the explanation that he has given us this afternoon, because I am sure many people wondered why the two publications have been lumped together so long. The hon. member said there was only one similiarity between them, but he missed the real similiari-ty between them, and that is simply the fact that they have been lumped together in this piece of legislation from the beginning. That is what has made Reader's Digest and Time Canada seem to be the same thing in the minds of some people.
The author of the article in "Citizen Forum" is Mr. Horwood who says that there is an absurdity in all this. He writes:
The absurdity is obvious enough; it becomes painfully apparent when government must resort to measuring these pomposities in percentages; 75 per cent Canadian ownership, to fortify our national pride; 80 per cent non-foreign content, to protect our Canadian culture. They even argue about such puerile yardsticks. Perhaps 50 per cent would be enough. Well, how about 66 2/3 per cent? No, let's settle for 80 per cent.
We find the same argument carried forth in the letter from the minister addressed to Time magazine, when he wrote with a pomposity that has not been heard for some time. One suspects he probably used a quill pen and black ink, and that what he wrote was written as a present to posterity rather like Lord Chesterfield's letter to his son, something one suspects was designed to live forever in the annals of Canadian letter writing, something perhaps related to a recent bill which safeguarded Canadian treasures. One almost expects to see a price tag of $1,000 on the original of this letter already so that it will not leave the
Non-Canadian Publications
country in some auction of great Canadian art. It is full of the same sort of simple definition that has been provided for us by the hon. member for Spadina.
First the minister confirmed that Time Canada has no grounds for objecting to Bill C-58. Anyone who is based outside of this country knows that he has no grounds for objecting to Canadian legislation in the sense that the powers of this sovereign land are sovereign still and can be used, no matter how foolishly, how ill devised, and how badly written is the legislation.
No matter how many abrupt shifts in policy have to take place, there is still a sovereignty there, and power on the government side is still there. Certainly the public has come to realize this and members on the government side have come to realize it in the backbench revolt which led to the sudden shift of policy with regard to the position of Reader's Digest vis-a-vis that of Time magazine. That was transparently evident to the Canadian public in their response to the appeal from Reader's Digest compared to the response from Time magazine. We did not need a lecture from the hon. member for Spadina this afternoon to teach us that, nor do the Canadian public need it because they have known it for a long time.
The minister writes a sentence which, because of its brevity, is obviously one that is supposed to live forever. He states: "What Time Canada is fighting for is money, not principle." I suppose there is a balance and a brevity there that would rate something for its literary value, but nevertheless it is not just Time magazine that has been concerned about the principle. A good many voices have been raised in this country by independant Canadians, by independent Canadian publications, and by authors who have written that they too are concerned about the principle and they too are concerned about the measure of control that this bill will give to the government over publishing in Canada. They too are concerned that the 80 per cent figure is not in the bill itself and that it lies at the whim of the government and the minister responsible any time in the future. Those are matters of principle and matters of concern. They are very real issues that we must consider. I also join in the call to have the bill returned to the committee.
I agree with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that it is a good thing that Reader's Digest will continue to publish in this country. I note that there are thousands and thousands of Canadians who wrote letters by hand to members, sometimes painfully with aged and arthritic fingers, in which they told me that they wrote few letters but they wanted to write to tell me they love the size of Reader's Digest because they can hold it in their hands, something they have difficulty managing with other publications. They gave intimate details of their own situations. I know they are delighted that that magazine will continue to publish in this country. The opposition, with some help from some courageous backbenchers opposite, has scored a victory which will be recognized as such throughout Canada.
But that is not the point. The point is that we need to know on what basis the victory was won and what arrangement was made. I should think that the hon. member for Spadina, with his knowledge of what constitutes a digest, would be just as curious, as a member of the

February 18, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
committee, to hear that explanation as he was eager to give us the definition that he provided this afternoon.
There is a point that is basic to all of this, that is, that the Canadian reader is not a masochist; the reader who subscribes to publications knows what he or she wants to read. If he does not find it within Canadian publications, he will look elsewhere for it.
While people might occasionally accept an article which will upset and disturb them, they do not want a steady diet which is upsetting, disturbing, unpleasant, and not worth the price of the subscription. That they will not accept, and in recent times that has been provided by Canadian publications.
We heard a fair amount about lobbies this afternoon from hon. members opposite. Another example of a lobby just arrived on the desks of hon. members. I am sure hon. members received the same copy of a publication called Owl with the announcement that it is a new Canadian magazine for children. There are several delightful things about it, but the important thing is the letter which came along with it. It says:
We think it's an example of the sort of new magazine ventures we'll see a lot more of in this country when the proposed Time-Digest legislation is enacted.
The benefits to existing Canadian magazines of abolishing the Time-Digest tax privileges will be significant.
It goes on to point out how detrimental the 1965 legislation was to foreign based publications, with the exception of Time and Reader's Digest. It claims that that legislation led directly to the creation of the magazine Miss Chatelaine of Canada. It finally says:
We predict first-class, vigorous, new magazine activity all over Canada when the legislation is passed. Please vote yes.
That is a very obvious lobby of the members of this House with regard to Bill C-58. When one picks up the publication which accompanies the letter and riffles through it, there is not an advertisement in the entire magazine. There is a subscription rate, but no advertising, so we realize something is being offered. However, if we read the fine print at the bottom of the letter we see the publishers are the publishers of Key to Toronto and Toronto Life, and they sent the whole thing to us.
I think that tells something to the Canadian public who wrote to members of parliament, and certainly to us as members from western Canada something of which we are already aware, and that is that if there is any money which is supposed to be returned to Canada, it is supposed to go to Toronto. It is intended to go to that narrow, limited and self-centred publishing world which is situated in the heart of Toronto and which produces slick publications like Toronto Life with the advertising which it carries.
We know that far too many of what are called Canadian publications are really only Toronto publications and offer nothing to the rest of Canada except scorn. I was attempting to point that out the other evening when I ran out of time, and I will not repeat the argument now, but I think it is basic that if Canadian publications publish for a very narrow and limited audience, then they will not ever be able to attract the advertising which depends on a large

readership. That is the basic issue, and that is the challenge to Canadian publications.
If anything, I suspect that the passage of Bill C-58 will limit the role of Canadian publishing in this country and encourage the type of publication which is designed for a fast overturn in large urban conglomerations and which will not provide the quality of reading material the people who wrote in about Reader's Digest want and are willing to pay for if it comes to them regularly. People who subscribe to magazines are very loyal, and they like to give them as gifts. But who wants to send a gift to someone of a magazine which uses the next 12 issues to insult, frustrate, and infuriate to the point where the subscription is cancelled or is simply allowed to lapse at the end of the year? That has been the fate of much Canadian publishing.
I urge that Bill C-58 be returned to the committee because I do not think it should be pushed through the House. I expect closure will be used if it is not returned to committee and an explanation will not be provided to us about what enabled Reader's Digest to comply. We know what prevents Time magazine from complying with the legislation. I think possibly the explanation lies in the remarks made by the hon. member for Spadina. He talked about the differences between a digest and a magazine, and I suspect that it is in that regard that a way has been found. Because of the different nature of the two publications it is easier for one.
Reader's Digest should be praised because it went much further to make itself more truly Canadian when it had the opportunity. The task was easier for it. However, that is not quite enough. I join in the general rejoicing that Reader's Digest will still be available in its Canadian format and in its French version, which also would have been lost to this country which has two official languages. However, I also join in urging that this bill be sent back to committee so that we can find out some of the facts about this important case, and so that the government will have time either to amend the bill or to make definite what the plan is so that publishers in Canada will know what they will be up against in the years ahead. That is imperative.
f Translation]


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Madam Speaker, it is surprising that this House finds it necessary to have such a long debate on this question as I think that its objectives serve entirely the actual interest of our country and that a few days of debate would have been enough. In no other country in the world a measure serving so well the national interest would have been fought so fiercely. In a normal country where people really have the interest of their country at heart a consensus on such an issue would have been very easy. Madam Speaker, beyond the immediate implications of Bill C-58 I think that this debate reveals the mentality of a colonized country and the lack of desire to live as an autonomous community in this country. I am afraid this country does not have exactly the spirit it should have. I think that some people would prefer our country to be nothing more than a poor replica of our southern neighbour.
I do not think it is normal for Canadians to accept to see in the Canadian reality nothing more than the international reality through the distorting prism of news media which are controlled by foreign interests and in this par-
February 18, 1976

ticular case by American interests. Madam Speaker, there are some signs which worry me very much and which demonstrate very well the spirit that I greatly deplore.
I cannot understand, for instance, how the mayor of the third largest centre in Canada can declare, apparently for electoral and political reasons, that his fellow citizens and himself would rather watch American television than allow into his city not only French television, but Canadian television, French or English. If our country had a soul, if our people really wished to live as a community in this country there would be pressing demands from all parts of Canada to release this government from its moral undertaking regarding the Olympic Games deficit in Montreal.
We think that the others deserve our praise. For instance, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) appealed to the public the other day on television and the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) and maybe some others consider that it is a Canadian event. In any case, I wish to speak particularly about the essence of the bill now before this House.
A moment ago, I heard opposition members say that we should withhold this legislation, send it back to committee and wait for one or two years. Parliament has been concerned with this matter since 1922. In 1922, the Magazine Publishers' Association asked for protection measures to ensure the development of a Canadian periodical industry.
The problem became increasingly serious so that in 1955, Time and Reader's Digest syphoned off one third of advertising revenues from the Canadian periodical industry. That is why the Saint-Laurent administration, a Liberal one, imposed in 1956 a 20 per cent tax on advertising published in Canadian issues of foreign-based publications.
What is surprising, Madam Speaker, is that in 1958 the Conservative government which had been elected on the philosophy that Canada was too much oriented towards the United States, that we should look more to our mother country, Britain, and diversify our relationship, it is surprising that this very government has removed a tax that was brought forward two years before by a Liberal government.
All this reflects the kind of opportunistic attitude of the official opposition which explains for a large part why Canadians are never prepared to trust that party when they are called upon to vote during a general election.
In May 1961, the O'Leary Commission submitted its report. I hear the exclamation of a member of the official opposition. It was a commission composed of qualified, distinguished, non-partisan Canadians who really were on top of the job, who did not spend just a few hours, a few days, to the consideration of this matter but who studied it for over a year, working in task forces. What were the findings of the O'Leary Commission?
Domestic advertising expenses must support a nation's own broadcasting facilities. He recommended that no taxpayer be allowed to deduct for income tax purposes the cost of advertisements directed to the Canadian public inserted in foreign periodicals, wherever they may be printed.
Unfortunately in 1965, that recommendation received partial implementation only with Time magazine and Read-
Non-Canadian Publications
er's Digest being exempted. I do not wish to insist unduly on the lobby that did a good job and finally prevailed upon the government to back down. Still that backdown was unfortunate, because if they had gone all the way we would now have a prosperous publishing industry in Canada. In this respect, I would like to quote from the Davey Committee report:
We deeply regret that Time and Reader's Digest were exempted from the O'Leary legislation. It was a bad decision .. . Frankly we marvel that any Canadian mass consumer magazines have survived in such a forbidding climate. It is a tribute to their skill-and to the fact that Canadians obviously want Canadian magazines. We are certain that, if section 12A (now 19) had been fully applied ten years ago, there would be more Canadian magazines today.

The Senate Davey Committee simply recommended abolishment of privileges granted to Time and Reader's Digest, which in the views of the committee were a menace to the very existence of Canadian publications.
I would quote once more from the O'Leary report:
It is clear that Canadian periodicals are denied competition on an equitable basis with foreign publications publishing so-called "Canadian" editions.
Basically, what we are faced with is a problem of an economic nature. By that I mean that Canadian publications are confronted with unfair competition. This is very easily explained. Time Canada, for example, gets 85 per cent of its material from the American parent company, and Reader's Digest two thirds. They get them at much lower cost than that paid by Canadian magazines for material of the same quality and nature.
Basically, costs have already been written off in the United States; it is therefore easy to offer good terms to Canadian magazines, that is the Canadian edition of Canadian periodicals.
In 1974, the advertising income of the Canadian magazine industry amounted to $39 million. Of that $19 million, that is 48 per cent, were paid Time and Reader's Digest while in 1955, 19 years earlier, their share had amounted to only 33 per cent, which goes to prove the increasing importance of those two publications.
Between 1958 and 1974, Time's income from publicity increased by 819 per cent, that being an average yearly increase of 55 per cent, while that of Reader's Digest went up by 413 per cent representing an annual increase of 27 per cent; on the other hand, that of Canadian periodicals increased by 185 per cent only, giving an annual average increase of 12 per cent.
Madam Speaker, there was obviously a lobby because, things having worked out in 1965, it was hoped they would again. In this regard, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who did not hesitate to take a stand, yet showed some willingness to be flexible, feeling that, to the extent where a magazine like Reader's Digest was truly willing to become a good corporate citizen, as we say, concessions should be made.
I want to close with a few words on censorship. The government has been accused of exercising censorship. What is censorship, according to Oxford.

February 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions
To censure is to forbid publication. Does this mean that the Reader's Digest and Time Canada will no longer be admitted in this country? Absolutely not. If the suppression of the tax privileges of a periodical meant censure, this would mean that many foreign periodicals, like the Nouvel Observateur and the French magazine Express have been submitted to the censure of the Canadian government since 1965.
I would like to say a lot more on this matter, but I see that it is nearly six o'clock. I will close by saying that a while ago there was mention of a reversal. For my part, I am very surprised to see that some people are motivated only by opportunism. On January 23, 1975, the official spokesman for the opposition on this issue, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said the following:
Mr. Speaker, in responding to the statement just made I would first like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased the government has clarified this matter at long last. We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines. Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.
Yet, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) spoke about a government reversal. What did the representative of the Social Credit Party, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), say at that time? He said the following:
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I should like to thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) for his statement which has finally given birth ...


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, before we say that it is six o'clock, I am wondering-



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Madam Speaker, before we call it six o'clock I wonder if the House would consent to revert to routine proceedings so that I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to make questions Nos. 3,577, 3,778 and 3,654 orders for returns. If so I would deposit these returns immediately, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES CONTRACTS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	With reference to the contracts described in the twenty-eight Research and Development bulletins published up to and including the July 1975 issue let by the Department of Supply and Services, by department (a) what is the total value of the contracts (b) how many 
were publicly advertised prior to being awarded (c) what were their numbers and descriptions (d) what was their total value?
2.	Of the contracts that were advertised before being awarded (a) how many had more than one bid submitted (b) what were their numbers and descriptions (c) what was their total value?
3.	Of the contracts for which more than one bid was submitted (a) which contracts were awarded to anyone other than the lowest bidder (b) in each case (i) what were the bids submitted (ii) by whom (iii) for what reason was the contract not awarded to the lowest bidder?
4.	Of the persons or organizations awarded contracts (a) what are the names of any who were previous employees of the government (b) on what dates and for whom did they work (c) what previous work have they done on contract for the government (d) at what cost to the taxpayer were the contracts let?
5.	What are the names of contractors or principal investigators who have been awarded more than one contract and, in each case, what were the (a) numbers (b) descriptions (c) values (d) client departments?
Return tabled.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since April 20, 1968, what amount of public funds was spent on furniture, equipment, fixtures, carpets, etc. in each department for (a) the department office of the Minister (b) the Parliamentary office of the Minister?
2.	What is the total expenditure for this period for all departments?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTITUENCY OF CHAMPLAIN
Mr. Matte: 1.	Since 1970, has the Department of Public Works allocated money for works in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, how much?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the kind of work done (b) the amount granted (c) the year (i) the works began (ii) the works were completed?
Return tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This can be done only if the hon. parliamentary secretary gives the Chair the assurance that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who was opposed to this motion this afternoon, has given his agreement. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask if this has been cleared with the official opposition, since one of their members objected earlier today?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations through the usual channels with the opposition, and I am advised that this is agreeable to them.


Mr. McKinley:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is so ordered.
February 18, 1976



It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening, when the House will proceed with a motion moved under the provisions of Standing Order 26 by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
At 6:02 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely "the revelation -today of the announced intention by the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress representing almost 2 million Canadian Workers to withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government", accordingly the motion is as follows: Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for sometime now the New Democratic Party has made its opposition clearly known to the kind of anti-inflation program that the government has brought before the people of Canada. We made that known last Thanksgiving when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went on television and announced his intentions. We followed that up by clear opposition to the bill which was introduced subsequent to that time in the House of Commons. There has been no question about our general opposition to the kind of program that the government has presented to deal with inflation.
Nothwithstanding our opposition to the general program, that is not the issue before the House tonight. The principal concern of tonight's debate is the absence, in the law that has been passed by this House, of the fundamental right of all Canadians to appeal judicial or quasi-judicial decisions which affect them. That is the issue before us and that is the one to which I hope spokesmen for all parties, particularly spokesmen for the government, will address themselves.
On January 28 in the House for the first time in a question I indicated, on belhalf of my party, concrete reasons to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald for believing the appeal procedure set down under this law
Labour Conditions
was, to put it bluntly, a farce. The minister at that time dismissed the question. He suggested that I and one of my colleagues should reread the law. I read the law with considerable care before I raised the issue then. I would like to suggest to the minister, and I wish he were here, that he read his own law and, in addition that he try to comprehend more fully the basic anti-democratic component that is deeply imbedded within it, and take steps to change it forthwith.
The reason for this issue coming glaringly to the surface in the last few days has, of course, been the Irving Pulp and Paper case, the outcome of which has been the fining of the company in the amount of $125,000. Let me briefly outline the chronology of events in this particular case because they illuminate the general situation in a clear fashion.
Last November 30, following serious negotiations between the company and its employees, an agreement was reached through the normal collective bargaining process on what the terms of employment should be. The company then proceeded to implement this agreement. It considered that it did so precisely within the framework of the law of Canada. In particular it paid what it regarded as scrupulous attention to the historical relationship clause in the white paper which preceded the law. It paid, as I said, its workers according to its honest interpretation of the law.
On December 18 the Anti-Inflation Board decided that the company had exceeded the guidelines. However, still acting from within its own perceived framework of the law, the company decided to continue to pay its workers on the basis of the agreed upon settlement with the workers.
On January 23, urged I might add by both the union and Mr. Irving, the Anti-Inflation Board referred the case to the administrator. As soon as the board referred the case, Mr. Irving, acting I submit entirely appropriately, began paying his workers within the framework of what was deemed to be appropriate by the Anti-Inflation Board, putting the amount of money in excess of that in escrow to be left there depending on the outcome of the appeal procedure.
On Friday the minister announced agreement with the board's interpretation of the law and Mr. Irving was fined $125,000. As matters now stand, the agreement originally reached by collective bargaining is in a shambles. Mr. Irving, a law-abiding man, finds he has become unintentionally a lawbreaker, and the pulp and paper workers who are directly affected have no right to appeal.
I believe that in this case Mr. Irving was correct in his judgment-that he was right in thinking the original contract did come within the framework of the anti-inflation guidelines. That is a matter of opinion. My colleagues and I think the case for the settlement agreed upon was reasonably made, especially in view of the historical relationship between wages paid to pulp and paper workers and to the outside workers. A point of greater significance at the moment is this: this case is a graphic illustration of the injustices which are built into the act and which will remain a' permanent part of the law of Canada if the act is not changed. The law makes a criminal of an employer and leaves his employees without recourse to appeal in the face
11078

Labour Conditions
of purely administrative decision-making. Could anything more seriously violate the democratic tradition of the due process of law as it pertains to appeal procedures?
The company and the paper workers have been unfairly dealt with in this particular instance but I believe this is simply the beginning of a virtual flood of injustices affecting the working people, cases which will never reach the level of the appeal procedures as the Irving case has done. For reasons I will indicate soon most of them will go unnoticed unless we change the law.
Is it any wonder that, according to news reports in today's papers, the executive committee of the Canadian Labour Congress should contemplate recommending that the labour movement throughout Canada withhold cooperation in all joint projects with the federal government? Is it any wonder that responsible leaders of the trade union movement, perceiving such a profound injustice and perceiving that the federal government is taking no steps to change the law, should have decided that no form of co-operation with the government is acceptable to them? It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, because they, more than any other leadership group in our society, have an obligation to the working people of the country both within and outside the trade union movement.
I want to say something about the appeal procedure as it presently exists. At the moment no decision of the AntiInflation Board on wages or salaries can be appealed until it has been dealt with by the administrator. But how does a matter get to the administrator? Can the union refer it? No. Can the company refer it? No. It gets to the administrator only if the board itself refers it to him, or if the cabinet does so.
However, I ask this question: when is it likely that either the cabinet or the board would make a referral to the administrator? Only, I suggest, in the highly improbable event of an employer paying more than the board deems proper. It is for this reason that the Irving case, unjust as it is, is not likely to be typical of the cases which come before the board. Most of the decisions which adversely affect working people will never get as far as the administrator. Yet it is when a case gets to the administrator, and only then, that it is possible to launch an appeal.
I turn now to another crucial step. Who can launch an appeal after the administrator gets hold of the case? The answer according to section 30 is that only a person against whom the administrator has made a ruling can do so. What this means in plain English is that only a company can launch an appeal. As I suggested last month when I first raised this issue with the Minister of Finance, the government never intended, in our view, that working Canadians should have any right of appeal under this legislation.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Read section 30. Read section 24.


John Edward Broadbent: You will have your chance to speak later. It is only because we have the very exceptional and, I should add, the very commendable situation of an employer, in this case Mr. Irving, paying more than the board thought appropriate that the case got to the administrator in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Liberals over there in their usual anti-democratic, anti-working person fashion are laughing themselves silly over this. I would ask the hon. member who is giggling most to go down to Saint John any day this week and talk to the paper workers who have been dealt with in this way.
This afternoon in the House, in reply to questions by myself, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the facts as I have outlined them with regard to the appeal procedure are beyond dispute. However, we failed completely to understand the undemocratic nature of the arrangement. He agreed with me that under the law as it now stands it is only the employer who has the right to appeal. It is important to notice his reason for approving the present procedure. He indicated that if the administrator found that the employer was paying in excess of the amount permitted by the guidelines it would be he, and not his workers, who violated the law. The Prime Minister then went on to say that as a result no worker or group of workers whose pay was reduced as a result of the administrative decision could claim that an injustice had been done against them. Surely this is legalistic nonsense. What the Prime Minister has done is to define justice in terms of the existing law.
The whole point of our opposition to the law-and our position is shared by spokesmen concerned with civil liberties outside the House as well as by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the House of Commons-is that the law as it exists is an unjust one and should be changed. For the Prime Minister to define justice in terms of the provisions of the existing law is to indulge in mere sophistry, and surely he knows it.
Surely it is wrong to say that workers who believe that their settlement comes within the framework of the law have no grievance, when a case that goes against their financial interests can be appealed only by their employer. That is what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons this afternoon. I say to the Liberal backbenchers who are objecting that they should read the record and see what their Prime Minister has been saying. I ask, could anything be more unjust? Are working Canadians to lose all of their basic economic rights? Are they going to be denied, within the context of this law, the general right that all Canadians have taken for granted, which is the right to appeal administrative decision-making through due process? In effect the Prime Minister dismissed that question this afternoon.
We urge the government in the most serious way to bring forth amendments at the earliest possible time to ensure that the democratic right of appeal of all working Canadians be restored under this law. In our view such amendments should take the following form. First of all, they should enable anyone directly affected by a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board-I am thinking of employees and employers here-to appeal directly to some appeal body following the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board. If there is no appeal within a certain prescribed number of days then it would be assumed that the decision is accepted by all parties and that would be the law.
The administrator should have the authority, in our view, to levy fines on employers or employees only after
February 18, 1976

the appeals tribunal has considered an appeal, and certainly not before. Only some such procedure would permit, in our view, Canadian workers, 90 per cent of the people of our land, to have the democratic right of appeal, and also, I might add, put corporations in our country in a fairer position. The injustices that are embedded in the law concerning this farce of an appeal procedure must be corrected.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say something very briefly about the history of the working people of this country. It has been largely since the first world war, resulting from a series of strikes, difficulties, confrontations, in cities as far apart and diverse as Winnipeg and St. John's, Newfoundland, as Windsor and Oshawa, that working people got the collective right to have some minimal say in our industrial system. It has been a very real struggle for a great number of highly dedicated men and women.
In raising this particular issue the New Democratic Party sees it as being fundamentally connected with the history of democratic rights of working people. We see this law that is now on the books, objectionable as it is in its general prescriptions for dealing with inflation, as profoundly unacceptable in its measures for dealing with the right of appeal precisely because they deny that right of appeal.
Having spoken to a number of workers on the scene in New Brunswick and in the city of Ottawa in the last few days, I can now understand more clearly why they have become so profoundly opposed to the whole anti-inflation program. They perceive in this program, clearly illustrated in the complete denial of their rights to appeal, a serious and deep anti-labour attitude.
I submit that the only way that the government has the slightest hope of getting any kind of compliance with its program from the working people in the weeks and months ahead is to make the appropriate change. If it does not make this change but leaves the law in its highly arbitrary and undemocratic state, then I predict-I am not encouraging this and I do not want ahyone to suggest I am-that the kind of opposition that we have seen in the last few days will be a mere pittance. It will grow, and grow with considerable depth right across the country. In concluding,
I urge that the government come to its senses and make the appropriate changes.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I listened with some attentiveness to what the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said about the Anti-Inflation Board and the question of appeal.
I think the matter is clearly on record. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said today that, as he perceived the application of the act, the Anti-Inflation Board would have a jawboning function. It would advise the parties on what it felt was reasonable in the circumstances with respect to a settlement, and then if the parties did not want to adhere to that advice, went off on their own and made an agreement contrary to that advice, the board could refer the matter to the administrator and he would make the ultimate decision in terms of enforcement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And impose penalties for contravention.
Labour Conditions


John Carr Munro: And impose penalties for contravention. The board would refer if its advice were not taken. That provision is in the act, and it was in the legislation when it was brought into parliament, so presumably we can study it in that context. The Prime Minister stated that if, as a result of these representations, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) considers these provisions should be in the act, he will bring them to cabinet and we will make a decision as to whether improvements in the procedure can be made. So we are open to persuasion, and this was quite clearly stated in the House today by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What else could he say?


John Carr Munro: If hon. members would check Hansard they would see that is pretty well precisely what the Prime Minister said. I do not think there can be any argument about that.
I think the legislation is fair in the circumstances, but if it can be improved in terms of equity we are open to persuasion. The point I should like to emphasize is this, and it was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The position of the CLC at the very outset when this policy was first announced was, in a sense, negative. They condemned the policy in all its aspects. Having condemned it completely and said that they would fight it, they then went out on a limb, so to speak. I suppose they felt that it would be inconsistent if they adopted the approach of suggesting amendments or improvements to the act.
I have a very high regard for the Canadian Labour Congress and what it has contributed to this country. I think most of the leaders will attest to that fact, and I do not have to protest my feelings about it to any hon. member. What I am saying is that the CLC having said that it is not pleased with the legislation, having indicated to its membership that it will use all lawful means to combat it and prevent its passage, and having tried to persuade members of the House, and so on, not to give consent to this legislation, might have made a constructive posture by examining the legislation and accepting the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government to come up with needed improvements before the legislation was passed by the House. The CLC did not do this. I feel it missed a very real opportunity to be of service not only to the country but to its membership. I repeat that these were invitations not only by myself but by the Prime Minister, and we could not get any concrete suggestions from any students of this legislation in the CLC regarding its improvement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You
had scores of amendments in the committee and you did not accept any of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Perhaps hon. members would listen, keep their minds open and their mouths shut for a moment and hear what I am saying. I am not talking about individual members of parliament or amendments they have suggested. I am talking about an invitation to
11080

Labour Conditions
the CLC as the representatives of labour in this country to make some concrete suggestions in respect of improvements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Are you blaming them for your bad law?


John Carr Munro: Wait a minute. This is an over simplified approach by the leader of the NDP who is saying that if we invite people to make amendments or suggest improvements to our legislation, somehow we are acknowledging that we are authors of bad law, yet I suppose if we never asked for any suggestion of improvement you would call us arrogant. You cannot have it both ways.
The fact of the matter is, this was very serious legislation in an attempt to cope with inflation. We put out an invitation that was sincerely advanced in respect of suggestions for needed improvements, and they were not forthcoming. However, that is water over the dam. That opportunity has been passed over by the Canadian Labour Congress in terms of a constructive contribution. This, conceivably, could have been one of the areas in respect of which the legitimate voice of labour in this country could have been heard, as well as in respect of other aspects of the legislation. I would think there is still an opportunity.
I make this appeal in the House tonight. There is still an opportunity, despite the position of the Canadian Labour Congress-and we have all heard that amply stated on several occasions-for the CLC to come forward and make representations to this government. I believe it is constructive on the part of the government to keep the channels of communication open with the labour movement in this country, and I invite them to make representations in respect of where needed improvements should be made. The government is willing to listen, and where they have constructive suggestions we are prepared seriously to entertain them. That invitation is renewed to the labour movement.


John Edward Broadbent: I made that suggestion three weeks ago.


An hon. Member:: What happened to collective
bargaining?


John Carr Munro: You talk about collective bargaining. It has always been the policy of this government to maintain the institution of free collective bargaining, resisting all demands of some of the extremists who oversimplify in this House with regard to abolishing the right to strike. This is well known to members of the labour movement who watch the proceedings of this House, and it is certainly well known to hon. members of the NDP. This has been the position of the government. At the same time, we felt that in order to cope successfully with the inflationary situation we should implement a system of selective controls for a temporary period of time. Of course, that is an interference, for a temporary period, with the free collective bargaining system.


Walter David Baker: That is the first admission you have ever made. Your ministers have denied it and your Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has denied it.


John Carr Munro: Nonsense; and that acknowledgement of abysmal ignorance on the hon. member's part is really appalling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: It has been acknowledged by many government spokesmen that a selective control system is a temporary interference with, but not a denial of, free collective bargaining.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is
the obliteration of it.


John Carr Munro: Nonsense; it is not an obliteration. There are all sorts of collective agreements being reached. The hon. member can go into my department and examine the records of them. There are negotiations going on all the time, right across this country. The hon. member can talk to the mediators and conciliators of all the provincial departments of labour and find out about the settlements being arrived at within the guidelines through free collective bargaining every day.


An hon. Member:: We don't have to talk to them. We negotiate with you.


John Carr Munro: Even if it were not for the guidelines there would be situations in this country where even the unions would agree that, because of profitability or productivity, a 12 per cent settlement would not be warranted or possible, and perhaps a 10 per cent, an 8 per cent or even a 7 per cent settlement would be appropriate. At any rate, what I am saying is that it is perfectly obvious that there are all sorts of situations in this country where, because of certain conditions, settlements even at the ceiling of the guidelines are not feasible or possible. Bona fide unions which are totally committed to get the best they can for their memberships must be prepared to recognize the situation and settle for less. Hon. members say it is a complete denial of collective bargaining, but it is not.


An hon. Member:: It is.


John Carr Munro: It is not a complete denial of collective bargaining in terms of intellectual honesty.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


John Carr Munro: It is certainly an interference with the collective bargaining system; there is no question about that.


An hon. Member:: It is destruction.


John Carr Munro: It would not make any sense, in terms of a control program, if it were not an interference for this temporary period of time. Obviously, the government did not lightly implement a system that interfered for a temporary period with the collective bargaining system.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The heavy hand, again.


John Carr Munro: We were convinced then, and we are convinced now-make no mistake about it- that a significant majority of Canadians are behind this program and are supporting it.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, there are a lot of people over there with their mouths wide open and their ears closed. I would think they are pretty insensitive to the feelings that are prevalent in this country in terms of concern about inflation, even in their own ridings. They know very well that the Canadian people are behind this program.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you start with prices; that is inflation.


John Carr Munro: It seems to me that if the assumption is correct that the majority of Canadian people are behind this program as a means successfully to cope with inflation, then what we need is co-operation on the part of everyone involved to make sure it works and works equitably. We have always been asking for that type of co-operation and we now ask for it on the part of the members of this House. Certainly we ask for it from members of the NDP.
Hon. members have asked about prices and profits. I think the position of the board is quite solid in this regard. What has happened here is that the board has intervened in many cases. Where the board has intervened, the companies have not proceeded with what may have been their intended price increases. You cannot very well put a man on an indictment list for having backed off from committing a crime or for not having committed one in the first place. Through the procedures of the board and the accounting procedures that are necessary he has decided not to go ahead with what might have been an intended price increase. This is a very difficult thing to document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The first true thing you have said tonight.


John Carr Munro: I am not trying to mislead anybody but I do feel that there has been a significant impact. I should like to point out to some skeptics in the NDP just what has happened of recent date. This dates back to a week ago and it reads:
The latest consumer price index confirms that the underlying rate of inflation has diminished to about seven per cent on an annual basis. Statistics Canada reported yesterday that the latest three-month rate of inflation, on an annual basis, is 7.2 per cent.


Mr. Orlikow:: Give us last year's increase.


John Carr Munro: The overriding concern of the people of Canada and of the labour movement was to cope successfully with inflation. I say this establishes that the program is working and is going to work continually in the interests of the working people in this country.
Labour Conditions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the
backs of the workers.


John Carr Munro: Somebody yells out that old cliche "on the backs of the workers." You can examine what a runaway rate of inflation has done to the labour movement and its leadership in any country where it has occurred. Surely I do not have to give that type of lecture to many of the experienced trade unionists who are part of the NDP. It has played total havoc with the leadership, it has undermined it, and in many cases destroyed it, and has worked in the worst interest of every trade union member in any country where it was allowed to get out of control. Surely that cannot be denied. So when someone says that any government that tries to cope with inflation is not concerned with the labour movement and its members, he is not only deluding himself, he is deluding the Canadian people. I do not believe we have anything to apologize for in this regard. What we are asking for and will continue to ask for is co-operation-


David Orlikow: Tell us how they appeal.


John Carr Munro: -of the NDP and the labour movement to help make this work.


An hon. Member:: How do they appeal? Tell us that.


John Carr Munro: I should like to deal with another point which the leader of the NDP raised. It is a disturbing element. He indicated-if I am incorrect I am sure he will tell me-that the CLC has withdrawn.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not what I said.


John Carr Munro: Certainly he has indicated that they are considering withdrawing. I think that is a fairly accurate reflection of what he said. I can tell you what I perceive from the actual wording of the press release and having talked to some people connected with it, that it is not considering withdrawing, unless you want to interpret the words "we are reviewing our position with respect to various government agencies" in another way. But that was the precise statement.


John Edward Broadbent: That is because the executive council has not met yet. I think you know that.


John Carr Munro: To try to exploit the situation-I hope that is not the intent of the leader of the NDP but it may be the intent of some others-in terms of creating embarrassment for the government by feeding the flames of confrontation, is doing a great disservice to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carr Munro: The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Labour Congress has a right to review its participation or involvement in any government agency and no one can deny it that right. But I would like to make it quite clear with respect to the Canada Labour Relations Council that it is not a government agency or a government board. When we are talking about withdrawing from various boards and government agencies I might say that I think that would be very unfortunate indeed, not only for

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
the government in terms of the advice it receives, but for the labour movement in terms of their input into many of the decisions that are made by these boards. In any event, if they should review their position with respect to these boards and withdraw, obviously we will have to inherit the misfortunes that flow on all sides from such a development.
With respect to the Canada Labour Relations Council I think it should be made clear that this is not a government agency or board but a truly tri-partite council in every respect. If one element withdraws, the whole thing collapses. We have a one third interest in it in terms of participation. It is not management, it is not labour. Each one is entitled to operate in it to a certain extent, so that if labour or management should withdraw they are withdrawing from their own agency. They are self-destructing their own mechanism to try to come up with some workable solutions. That would be self-defeating.
I might add here that this board is doing some very useful work indeed. It is involved in the whole area of broad based bargaining as a useful way to diminish work stoppages, both legal and illegal, in this country, and to inject some rationality into the collective bargaining system when we have been faced with some serious figures on a relative international basis of man years lost due to strikes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: He has my consent if he would give some consideration to speaking for a few minutes on the subject, which is the appeal procedure.


Mr. Nystrom:: Yes, he should speak on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Read the motion.
Mb. Broadbent: Would the minister permit a question? I have been listening with great care to what he had to say. I might have missed the point, but did he acknowledge, and if he did not, does he disagree with the substance of my argument that as they exist now the appeal procedures are undemocratic, and if he does, was he saying earlier that while the government may be considering changing the procedures it intends to amend them along the line that would be regarded as democratic?


John Carr Munro: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. What I did say was that when we envisaged this legislation, we felt it was reasonable. I still feel it is reasonable. To my way of thinking, in terms of full representations before the Anti-Inflation Board, the board renders an interpretation with respect to an agreement. If it is not adhered to it goes to the administrator, admittedly through the board, for a decision by the administrator.
If the hon. member and others claim that there is an element of inequity in an appeal going in the second stage to the administrator and beyond, I think I might say that we are open to persuasion and we are prepared to consider

the matter. I think that is the position clearly stated in answer to the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Is there any appeal to the courts?


John Carr Munro: The leader of the NDP in his motion states that this is a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, "the revelation today of the announced intention by the executive of the CLC representing almost 2 million Canadian workers to withdraw ..Today the hon. member used the word consider, his motion says "intention to withdraw", and the press release from CLC says "review" its position with respect to all boards. So I think we should be very precise, when we talk about a serious matter of this kind, not to inflame the situation and try to create an atmosphere of confrontation, which could be unfortunate for everyone. We all have a responsibility to avoid that.
I should say that I appreciate the opportunity hon. members have given me to exceed my time limit, and in conclusion I should like to indicate just two other measures which are being looked into by the Canada Labour Relations Council which would provide some really tangible benefit for Canadians generally and for members of the labour movement. We talk about rationalization of bargaining units or broader based bargaining. I think it is essential and in the best interests of the labour movement, its membership and the Canadian people, that this be studied.


An hon. Member:: Get off the pot.


John Carr Munro: Perhaps the hon. member who is again interrupting does not even speak to union membership, let alone the leadership, or he would be aware of that fact.
Another area which has been seriously considered by the Canada Labour Relations Council-and in which labour has been one of the most profound advocates-is the area of trying to develop a central agency for statistical gathering and analysis which would not have a bias, or be perceived as having a bias by either labour or management. It would in fact be responsible to this tripartite council itself rather than to a government agency. At least this would set some reasonable parameters within which collective bargaining could take place at a time perhaps when these controls are finished.
People keep asking why should labour or management not sit on the Canada Labour Relations Council and why should they stand by when we are interfering-not denying, but interfering-with the collective bargaining system. It seems to me that it is in the interest of all of us to be assured that, when the control period is over, the collective bargaining system as such will be a better system so it is not so vulnerable to the attacks which are launched on it daily, to the detriment of labour and its leadership as well as of the Canadian people. This is another area which is being studied very seriously by this council now.
The third area in which labour is fully participating for the benefit of workers on this council is the examination of

the whole question of industrial relations in the work place which involves questions of the work environment, job satisfaction, worker participation, and all these matters.


John R. Rodriguez: Alice in Wonderland.


John Carr Munro: The cynic over there who talks about Alice in Wonderland should tell that to all the labour people who have been participating in all the studies to make it work.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, oh!
Mb'. Munro (Hamilton East): Why don't you make your smart aleck remarks to the labour people who are working so hard in some of these areas? I do not think they would appreciate them.
The fourth area which is very much in the interests of labour leadership and its membership is the development of far more appropriate and adequate arbitration services so that union members can have their grievances dealt with more readily and quickly. All these areas are very much in the interests of the labour movement!
So I think it is very much in the interests of the labour movement, its membership, its leadership, and the Canadian people not to let their emotions and their strong feelings with respect to these controls divert them from the course they have always followed, and that course has always been to act in every way in their best interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, if I may I should like to ask the minister a question before he sits down.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the minister allow a question?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: After listening to the minister for 30 minutes I still have not heard the answer to the main point. Can he name any provision in the Anti-Inflation Act, apart from section 24 which gives the right of appeal to the cabinet, which would give a trade union the right to appeal the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board or to appeal the decision of the administrator?


John Carr Munro: I think the act is quite clear that the direct way to get the administrator's decision on a ruling is from the Anti-Inflation Board.


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


John Carr Munro: I think that is quite clear in the act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I have a feeling that tonight is not a very appropriate one for the Leader of the Opposition, so it is
Labour Conditions
perhaps just as well that I am shedding this mantle in a few days.
I feel a little sorry for the minister, and I do not think it is very fair of my hon. friends to press him to defend the indefensible.
I did not support the anti-inflation legislation on third reading-


An hon. Member:: You did on second.


Mr. Benjamin:: You can't have it both ways.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I can't have it both ways, but I am one of the few people in the country who has not tried to have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was concerned about the administrative procedures established in the bill, and especially about the appeal procedures. I was very concerned about the proposed duration of the program of some three years or more, with very easy provision for extension, so that anybody, whether on the management side or on the labour side, could very well anticipate that we were in for a fairly long haul.
I said in the course of the debates on the bill, and I say again tonight, that it is one thing to ask leaders of organized labour and members of trade unions to accept substantial restrictions on collective bargaining in the public interest for a period of a year and a half or so, but it is a very different thing to ask the labour movement to accept such restrictions for a period of three years or three and a quarter years, and perhaps substantially longer because a government with a majority in this House can extend the duration of this program by a simple resolution which can be debated for only three days in parliament.
So it seems to me that proposing controls for a period of three years or more was a most inappropriate way to get acceptance of the program in the country, and particularly from the organized labour movement, especially in view of the complete about face of the government on the whole issue and the complete lack of credibility the government had in making such a proposal to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Despite what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said here tonight, the government compounded this offence by repeated hypocrisy in the House and by pretending that the government was maintaining free collective bargaining. The Minister of Labour can protest as much as he likes, but I have had answers from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and from the Acting Prime Minister who is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), time after time in this House, taking the position and adopting the pretence that this legislation did not restrict collective bargaining and that the government was by no means prepared to interfere with collective bargaining. This kind of pretence, this kind of hypocrisy, has added to the general lack of acceptance in some quarters of this country. I did not support the bill on third reading for the reasons I have indicated.

Labour Conditions


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I heard a member say "Shame," Mr. Speaker. If there is any group in this House that should be ashamed of this issue, it is my hon. friends opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I had not been convinced before-well, I will not go on with this; there is no point in talking about the cynicism in the Liberal ranks because it is certainly beyond measurement. As I said, I did not support the bill on third reading for the reasons I have indicated. I also said that I would urge Canadians, and my party would urge Canadians, to comply with the law passed by parliament and to co-operate with the Anti-Inflation Board. I believe that compliance with a law adopted by parliament is essential to the maintenance of democratic government and is essential to the maintenance of an orderly society.
I accept the right of labour or any other group to try to bring about a change in the law through persuasion and through pressure, at least such degrees of pressure as are compatible with the maintenance of democratic institutions. I accept that; but I want to make it very clear that I could not condone or support any massive defiance of the law, and I am not suggesting this has taken place. I simply want to make it very clear that I could not support or accept any declared intention by businessmen or working people, organized or unorganized, to defy a law passed by this parliament. No group can set itself above the law and no group can set itself above parliament.
I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members opposite that there has been an unnecessary polarization in the way this program has been developed. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to stand in this House and lecture members of the opposition, expressing the hope that we will not do anything at this time to increase polarization. The very way in which this government has chosen to introduce its program of controls has tended, itself, to work in the direction of polarization and to add strains.
I sometimes ask myself whether this polarization that we are now seeing in the country is not really something that the government, if it does not seek it is at least prepared to welcome. I sometimes wonder whether you can explain some of the polarization that the government has developed simply through the normal amount of stupidity that they demonstrate from day to day, or whether in fact this is a deliberate kind of exploitation, a deliberate kind of polarization.


An hon. Member:: It is called divide and rule.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can call it divide and rule, or you can call it developing an election issue and running the next election against organized labour on the basis that it has defied a government program and defied a law of parliament. I have already referred to the duration of the program as asking an unnecessary amount of forebearance from the labour movement, asking the labour movement to give up far more than is necessary and asking them to
[Mr. Stanfield.)
accept very substantial restrictions on the collective bargaining process for such a length of time.
There is also the matter of the appeals procedure. As I understand it, the Anti-Inflation Board makes a ruling and there is no way to get from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator, in effect, except by defying the Anti-Inflation Board, by refusing to comply or by threatening to refuse to comply. This, surely, is an intolerable situation.
As I understand, the Irving case-and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong-the Anti-Inflation Board made a ruling, then it was referred to the administrator and the administrator soaked the company with a fine. It was not a case of the administrator saying to the company in question, "I support the finding of the Anti-Inflation Board and order you to comply within a certain number of days." It was simply a reference to the administrator and the administrator treating the company as if it had already broken the law.
Today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Labour talked about the jaw-boning role of the Anti-Inflation Board. That gives the impression that all the board does is jaw-bone and try to persuade, and nobody does any enforcing except the administrator. It is some jaw-boning if you do not do what is suggested to you, so you get socked with a heavy fine.
Surely the truth is that the government intends the Anti-Inflation Board to have the final say as to what the guidelines are and how the guidelines apply to the particular case. When you remove all the verbiage, the government intends to maintain a very, very strict control over any appeal from the Anti-Inflation Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is set up that way. That is the only conclusion I can draw. Not only is it set up in such a way that an appeal is virtually impossible unless the law is defied, or unless the government or the Anti-Inflation Board wants to see the thing carried a step further, but when the administrator makes a decision supporting the Anti-Inflation Board and imposes a fine, he gives no reasons. The statute provides for an appeal from the administrator based on natural justice, based on an erroneous finding of fact or a mistake in the law. How can a Canadian corporation or a Canadian individual exercise any kind of appeal that means anything if they do not really know what the decision of the administrator was? How can any member opposite defend the failure of the administrator, the lack of requirement for the administrator to give reasons for his decision?
I would be very difficult to find a more arbitrary procedure anywhere. The government says it is open to persuasion but not open to persuasion about how you get from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Labour indicated there would be any easing of the lid that is really placed upon getting from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour said they were open to persuasion with regard to appeals from the administrator and as to whether the union would be given
February 18, 1976

the right of appeal. What must one do to persuade the government that this procedure is utterly arbitrary, without justification and at odds with our traditions of procedure? What must we do to convince the government that if it persists in its course, the Canadian people will not be persuaded that the legislation is fair and applied even-handedly. If the program fails, it will be a disaster.
I will not countenance defiance of this law, but I will not tolerate a government which polarizes the country and encourages people to protest against the program. This evening, that is the point we must consider. We must consider the government's approach to the question. It pretends that a reasonable appeal system is in being, when no such appeal system exists. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Mar-chand), the Minister of Labour, and Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) understand these matters. Do they think Canadian people, particularly those in the labour movement, regard this procedure as fair?
One can find many faults with the program. I say to the Acting Prime Minister, through you, sir, "For God's sake give the program a chance. Pay some heed to the principles of natural justice and our traditions of judicial procedure and give the people a chance to support the legislation and the program."


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in this evening's emergency debate we shall discuss two issues: the denial of natural justice to working people, particularly members of the Canadian Paper Workers Union who were dealt a cruel blow by the anti-inflation administrator, and the government's attempt, with its anti-inflation program, to destroy free collective bargaining as we know it. I have tried several times to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 in order to discuss these issues and I am glad that Mr. Speaker allowed this motion.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and myself made a fact-finding tour of some one-industry-paper industry-towns in northern Ontario affected by the paper workers' strike. We met workers and their families, civic officials and businessmen. We learned firsthand how the government's anti-inflation legislation has prolonged the strike of about 25,000 paper workers in this country, sometimes by more than seven months. We heard of families which had used life savings to meet expenses because the $20 a month strike pay was not enough. We heard of families who were thousands of dollars in debt, paying as much as 24 per cent interest on loans. We heard of families who had lost their homes through inability to meet mortgage payments, and of families separated from the breadwinner who had found a temporary job elsewhere in Canada. My colleagues will elaborate on these heartbreaking stories and will tell the House how the government, by its legislation, unnecessarily prolonged the strike to the detriment of many Canadian families.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That's baloney.


Reginald Cyril Symes: What astonished me most was the lack of Liberal members of parliament in those areas.


John R. Rodriguez: They run and hide.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Baloney. We live there. That's totally false.
Labour Conditions


John R. Rodriguez: You people run and hide.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) were not there, even though the workers had asked them to be there. I invite Liberal members from Port Arthur, Cochrane, Timmins or Saint John to return to their communities and explain the rationale of this program to the workers. Let them explain how only a short while ago in the 1974 election campaign those very Liberals argued against the kind of wage controls which this government has now imposed. They argued that the Conservative party would impose wage controls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Robert Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) referred to me in his remarks in a disparaging way. I think the next election will be held in 1978. I invite him to run in my riding, if he thinks I was not there. Then he will see.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's constituents will make the proper decision in 1978. We will not see the hon. member back in the House. The Liberal party won the federal election by opposing wage controls. Now, with its program which discriminates against the labour movement, it has completely reversed itself. I shall show how the program this government instituted has victimized the Canadian Paper Workers Union and has actually destroyed the well-being of thousands of workers. Many of those workers have been on strike since July, 1975. They bargained in good faith in the spring of the year, long before the Prime Minister addressed the people on Thanksgiving Day. Previously, the paper workers had entered into a two-year contract. During those two years the paper industry made tremendous profits. The paper industry in Canada quadrupled its net profits, after taxes, from $79 million in 1972 to $320 million in 1973.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where were the controls then?


Reginald Cyril Symes: It more than doubled its profits in 1974, to $685 million. What did one hear about controls in those days? We suffered from price inflation the extent of which this country had never seen. Yet the government made no move to control that inflation. Meanwhile, the workers were locked into a two-year wage contract. Incidentally, we have yet to see the Anti-Inflation Board make one ruling with regard to rolling back prices.
Between 1973 and 1975 the paper industry increased the price of a ton of newsprint by 52 per cent, and the price of a ton of bleached kraft pulp went up by 118 per cent. In December, 1974, before collective bargaining had begun, Abitibi offered a one-year extension of the wage contract. The union locals turned it down, rightly, since in view of the company's astronomical profits it could afford to pay more. They also argued that they could not accept that kind of a wage offer because just previously the woodland workers, with whom they had always a historical wage relationship, had settled for a higher offer. Meanwhile these great corporations, these good corporate citizens, had been running the mills seven days a week and had been stockpiling paper for over three years in anticipation of a strike. That indicates they were not serious about getting
11086

Labour Conditions
down to real collective bargaining and bargaining in good faith, not when they were making that kind of inventory build-up.
Bargaining began with Abitibi in May, 1975. The strike began in July, after an attempt at conciliation failed. We have other evidence that the companies were not interested in good faith bargaining, that they had a secret arrangement to supply one another in the event of a strike should any company run short of supplies. My colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), will elaborate on this.
What really threw the monkey wrench into the collective bargaining process, besides companies that were not ready to bargain in good faith, was the Liberal government in October, 1975, bringing in a wage control program. Make no mistake about it, that is what it is. It is not a wage and price control program, but a wage control program.
The paperworkers' unions were naturally shocked. They assumed there was some sense of principle left with the Liberal government. They read the white paper that said we will set out a guideline of a 10 per cent increase, but we will look at such things as historical relationships, as they did in the case of inside postal workers and letter carriers.
The paperworkers' union bargained in good faith, assuming that the Anti-Inflation Board would look at the natural historical wage relationship between paperworkers and woodland workers. They thought they would get a fair hearing from the Anti-Inflation Board set up by the government. The companies knew better. The people of Canada certainly know better now about the kind of justice they can get from the Anti-Inflation Board.
While this process was going on with regard to the Irving Company in New Brunswick, the other paper companies throughout the country were not bargaining in good faith. They were hiding behind the anti-inflation guidelines and waiting to see what would happen in the Irving case. The necessity for a speedy decision was evident. We tried to get some kind of information. We put pressure on the Anti-Inflation Board through the government to get a speedy decision so that the bargaining process could resume.
The Irving settlement of a 23 per cent wage increase in the first year was turned down by the Anti-Inflation Board. It ignored entirely the legitimate historical wage relationship between woodland workers and paperworkers. If we think of any sense of elementary justice, surely at the stage when the Anti-Inflation Board turned down the wage settlement the workers who are directly involved as well as the company, who without a strike reached that 23 per cent wage agreement and under provincial labour legislation were bound to abide by that collective agreement, surely both parties should have had the right to appeal to the Anti-Inflation Board and argue their case or get an appeal beyond the Anti-Inflation Board. However, that is not the way the government sets up legislation. The way this legislation is set up, it-becomes very hard. The government does not want appeals. It does not want workers to argue in a logical fashion. It would rather provoke them to go out on strike in defiance of the law of the land.

The only way you can get an appeal under this farce of a law the government has created is for the company first of all to disobey the recommendation of the Anti-Inflation Board for a wage rollback. Only by challenging the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board can the case then go to the administrator. Only when the administrator makes a ruling, and then one of the parties launches an appeal against the administrator-


An hon. Member:: The employer.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That is the point I am coming to. We assume that, if we had natural justice, either the labourers directly involved by the administrator's decisions through a wage rollback or the company would have the right of appeal. However, the recent decision by the administrator in the Irving case indicates that only the party which the decision was charged against, in this case the company, has the right of appeal to the appeals tribunal.
Where is the elementary sense of justice in that? Only one party, the party that the administrator directly makes a ruling on, can appeal. The thinking behind the administrator's decision is confidential. How can you launch an appeal if you do not know how to argue against the ruling you are trying to appeal because you cannot see the evidence? That kind of a system is a farce and a sham.
We hear from the Liberal members that there is the right of appeal to the cabinet under Section 24. That is a real impartial body. My God, Mr. Speaker, it is the very minds that designed the legislation in the first place. They designed the controls program to thwart the appeals procedure process. Do you think you can get a fair hearing before the cabinet? Can you argue your case? Can you engage in dialogue with the cabinet? This afternoon in this House we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say everything is fine. He does not see anything wrong with the principle of this procedure. This evening the Minister of Labour skirted the issue entirely. What kind of reception or hearing will working people get under that situation? It is incredible to think that there is any real appeal procedure in this legislation.
This anti-inflation program set up by the government and administered by the Anti-Inflation Board and the administrator is one step closer to the destruction of basic human rights in this country. Let us not make any mistake about it. When you look at the government you see that at a moment's notice it could introduce the War Measures Act that destroyed civil liberties and threw people in jail without real evidence. Now we see this kind of program and what it does to natural justice in terms of appeal. Before, we had a War Measures Act. Today, we have a wage measures act. We are coming one step closer to authoritarianism and the destruction of the collective bargaining process.
The government deliberately set out to have the Irving Paper Company fined. It was not interested in hearing appeals on a rational basis or considering historical relationships. It wanted to make an example of this dispute between the paperworkers union and the Irving Company as a signal to every other corporation in this country that if they dared go beyond the guidelines they would get the kind of treatment that Irving got.

The point that should never be forgotten is that that was a blanket and arbitrary kind of rule. It does not take into account past profitability of a company or that Irving, Abitibi, and every other paper company in this country can afford more than a 14 per cent increase in the first year of the wage contract and quite legitimately so. The government is out to put the law of the land behind the employers and to point out to employers that they dare not defy.
Employers, in turn, can say to their workers, "What is the point of asking for more than 10 per cent because, as you know, we shall be fined if we go beyond it? What is the point of going on strike? We, as employers, have the law behind us and we just have to hold out until you people starve or until"-as is probably the case with the paper workers-"you reach the end of the financial resources at your disposal."
A strike is a last resort: it is not entered into lightly. When we look at what is being endured by the families of the paper workers, we see evidence of this. But it is a right, it is a hard-earned right, and it is a right in law. Through its anti-inflation legislation the government is destroying the validity of a strike because it is saying to the companies, "Don't worry about your workers going on strike. We, through the Anti-Inflation Board, have put the law of the land behind you. The guidelines will be enforced and the workers will soon get the message that there is no point in striking."
When you strip away all the rhetoric used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), what they say comes down to one thing: the government is going to fight inflation on the backs of the workers. It is setting out, in a systematic way, to pick on one union at a time, to crush them as they have attempted to crush the postal workers, to make examples of them or, as in the case with the paper workers and their families, to deny them a legitimate wage increase based on historic wage relationships and the profitability of the company.
We have not seen one price roll-back under this antiinflation program, yet we have seen roll-back after rollback in the case of wage settlements. To pretend, in these circumstances, that we still have free collective bargaining is to bury one's head in the sand. The government is embarking on a course of confrontation. It is promoting civil disturbances because it is undermining a right which is established in law, the right of workers to take strike action if they consider it to be necessary. What we are considering is a backward step, a regrettable program, and I urge the people of this country to stand up and call for the withdrawal of such an inequitable program.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well that-


An hon. Member:: He knows nothing about conciliation!


Jean Marchand: No, I am quite sure that I do not know about it as much as the hon. member, but as I spent 23 years there, I am perhaps entitled to speak about
Labour Conditions
it and perhaps as intelligently as the hon. member who cannot refrain from shouting!
Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with the problem confronting us as well as the Canadian people and which affects workers. I would like to do so not in a demagogic manner but as sensibly as possible.
When it is objected, as we have just heard, that workers have suffered during a long strike, that they have lost their house, that they have paid high interest rates, I understand it because I have probably been through that more than the hon. member. However, we cannot choose at the present time between such a situation and an ideal situation, because we are going through an inflationary period and some people are suffering while some non-union workers are losing their house and their means of living. The question is not to decide whether workers lose something when they go on strike.
In the past, there was no control over the so-called free collective bargaining. I noted it myself when I was a leader of the asbestos strike. There was no obstacle to free collective bargaining. However, the workers remained on strike for four months and a half. We saw those things. The legislation does not necessarily edict that, precisely because our collective bargaining system gives rise to a conflict situation.
And as to the historical link in pay rates, Mr. Speaker, really one must have never negotiated in his life to know that there is no such thing as historical links in pay rates because those links are continuously upset by the relative strength of the parties. At a certain moment, the employer is stronger because the cycle is downward, so he can prevent salary increases. At another moment, the union is the stronger and it gets salary increases unheard of before.
Take the case of the teachers in the province of Quebec and even Canada as a whole. Can you imagine that in 1959 the relationship in salaries with those paid in industry was comparable to what it is today? Everything is changed altogether. And if you want to talk about the pulp and paper industry, fine. The relationship between the pay rates of papermakers who traditionally were represented by the International Brotherhood of Papermakers and the salaries paid to other employees at the plant who were represented by the Pulp and Sulfite Workers of America have always been different because precisely employers preferred to give 10, 15 or 20 per cent to papermakers and force the guys with the pulp and sulfite workers to follow, which resulted in depressed salaries for the pulp and sulfite guys and very high salaries for papermakers.
Do you know how much a machine tender earns, Mr. Speaker? Eleven dollars an hour, and I do not blame them for it. That represents $22,000 a year, without counting overtime. I do not say that it is excessive, I simply say that comparisons are a hoax.
Now the legislation is passed, Mr. Speaker. I find it to be imperfect and I would not be prepared to die for that anti-inflation legislation. What choice do we have in front of inflation? If we let it run away, of course, everyone will say: What is the government doing against inflation? People on fixed incomes, unorganized people will suffer from inflation. The organized workers are not the ones who will suffer, but the unorganized will.
21419 - 1014

Labour Conditions
Then, we merely say: What does the government do to ward off inflation? What can we do against inflation? Many things. For instance, there is what we wrongly believed in 1974 when we said to the parties: Try to lower your sight as regards both wage and price increases, that is use the voluntary system among unions and businesses. That proved to be a complete failure. It took the English workers, the Trade Union Congress, which is as important as the Canadian Labour Congress, to defeat two socialist governments before accepting, in 1975, the voluntary control of salary increases. They destroyed their own political party before accepting voluntarily salary restrictions. We tried the same approach in 1974. Some ask: How come you have changed your mind? We have changed our mind because we were wrong, and this I confess, we were wrong in believing that the various parties would voluntarily accept to restrict their claims, price increases, and so on. This was not done. I have always entertained very serious doubts about that because, precisely, our collective bargaining system is not based on a rational process but exclusively-perhaps not exclusively but almost so-on the balance of forces between the parties. That is how our system works. Not only is it working like that, but people want to keep it that way.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has met Mr. Morris some time ago-and Mr. Morris has said so in an interview he had given-in an attempt to convince the Canadian Labour Congress and all the other trade unions that we must try and widen the scope of the collective wage agreement.
It is precisely because we had problems like the handling of western grain when either the grain handlers, the railway workers or the longshoremen went on strike in the West. That is when we see the western members of the New Democratic Party torn between two things, between their so-called labour constitution and the interests of farmers that they want to keep on their side. Obviously the government must legislate all these people back to work.
For that matter, the Conservatives take the same position: What is the government doing to put an end to the strike? Yet all we wanted was first to prevent the grain handlers from going on strike and from stopping the movement of grain in the West, and then to prevent the railway workers and longshoremen from going on strike. And Mr. Morris said: "What Mr. Trudeau wants is to centralize." But that makes a lot of sense and when there is a strike affecting western farmers, I am anxious to see what will be the attitude of our good friends of the New Democratic Party. Why did they not tell the farmers: Come on, pay more, let the workers get more. No, all we get is a big silence and the usual attitude from people who are afraid to stick their necks out.
Mr. Speaker, we had the choice of referring to the parties and in so doing, true democracy would have prevailed. If both parties, the union and the employer, had said: Because of inflation, since it is in the national interest to do so, we shall try to restrict our demands. But this cannot be done and it does not mean there is a lack of good will but the system is built that way. The unions in our country are modelled after the capitalistic pattern. I am not implying they are capitalistic but they bargain in the same way.

Some asked: What is the Wagner Act?. When the Wagner Act was passed in the United States, in 1934, what did it offer which was really new? Two things. It gave the unions the sole responsibility for union representations and at the same time it protected the employer against the AFL-CIO wrangling over union jurisdictions in the United States.
Both parties were very pleased with this extraordinary solution which Roosevelt had found, because the union had the monopoly of representations and the employer was protected against interunion competition. How does the system work out? It operates in such a way that the party which is in a power position will take as much as it can out of the other at a given moment. That is the way it operates.
And that is exactly what the employer does with prices when he tries to get all the market can bear, that is the customers can pay. Now, in times of crises, that cannot be allowed, so the system must be changed slightly. There are those who claim or have claimed that the Anti-Inflation Act denies free collective bargaining. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. To say that is sheer demagoguery. During the war, we had the Wartime Prices and Trade Act. Everything was frozen. The only increases allowed were limited to 25 cents per percentage point increase in the cost of living index. In addition, attempts were made to eliminate glaring disparities and injustices, that is to say, labour councils were only allowed to grant increases where glaring injustices or disparities existed. They had full discretionary powers in that regard. They could deny or remove the right to strike and, notwithstanding that, the labour movement survived, Mr. Speaker. Not only did it survive but it became stronger during the war. I did not like the system. I was in the labour movement at the time and felt naturally that it was a burden for the strongest. For the strongest unions, it was a burden, but for the weaker, it was some sort of relief because, as they could not resort to strikes, they went before the Wartime Labour Board and through it got the salary increases they could not have obtained through their own economic strength.
We have the choice between free negotiations between the parties, bearing in mind the common good, or resorting to a system of controls. We could consider controls under the War Measures Act, but it would mean that before they could be implemented, many would have been strangled by inflation in the country.
Then that solution was put aside. So we tried to attain our end promptly without depriving unnecessarily the workers and the employers of their basic rights, while keeping as much freedom as possible and avoiding setting up a whole institution which would have taken a very long time to build and a very long time to destroy, because I was in the group who came here in Ottawa in 1946-47 with Pat Conroy and Percy Bengough. We came here and asked for the maintenance of price and salary controls, since we were afraid that prices would soar because of the shortages due to the war. I came here in Ottawa. Maybe several members were not even born at that time. They do not know what happened, but I do, and the labour movement was asking for this.
Some hon. members speak of the right to appeal. The way they want to interpret it means on the whole that they
February 18, 1976

are against the anti-inflation program. It means that they are against the guidelines because, even if there were appeals, the appeal tribunal would be bound by those guidelines. It would be impossible to allow more than 8 per cent, plus 2 per cent, plus 2 per cent for catching up, and 2 per cent for productivity. In fact, there is no right to appeal and if appeals were allowed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: -of course they are not, that is to say, Mr. Speaker, it is possible to appeal from the interpretation of the guidelines, but not from the guidelines themselves. They are included in the legislation and must be complied with.
Now, if we are talking about an appeal which would allow, for example, the paper workers to get an increase higher than that provided by the guidelines, those workers will argue that the wage relationship between the pulp and paper workers and the woodworkers is no longer the same. Then, let us cancel the program and allow inflation to get out of control, or else, let the New Democratic Party table a resolution asking for a wage and price freeze and a return to the wartime system. If this is what they want, let's play fair. As far as I am concerned, I do not like the program, I would prefer the free bargaining system across the board. We tried, but it did not work. Nobody in the Canadian public would forgive us for doing nothing under the circumstances.
What does the New Democratic Party do, Mr. Speaker? It simply stirs up certain groups of workers who are not the most in need in our society, without offering a worthwhile solution. When you talk about the right of appeal as a right enabling workers or trade unions to go beyond the guidelines, this means that these guidelines are destroyed. And what is proposed if they are destroyed? Yes, they are destroyed without any doubt. I say that all trade unions have a valuable argument about catching up and if pulp and paper workers can catch up, the woodworkers will then say: Well, before that we had such a relationship with pulp and paper workers and we want to maintain it.
And if that is it let us say so frankly, let us stop beating around the bush; this is unpleasant, this is clearly unpleasant. I simply say that it is not true that we have killed the free bargaining process. Now, we are threatened here, we have heard those threats. The Canadian Labour Congress will pull its representatives out of the federal agencies. Well, the CNTU did that several years ago. Let us not forget that, for all practical purposes, the CNTU pulled out of the federal agencies five or six years ago, to my knowledge. It does not even submit any brief. This is what makes me smile, as I know something about the history of the unions.
I remember very well that in 1926, five years after its creation in Hull, the CNTU asked to be accredited by the Minister of Labour. It wanted to be recognized. What is the history of Canadian unions before 1944 or 1945? It was a struggle for recognition by the employers and the government. In Ottawa, the federal government-


An hon. Member:: It was the Liberal government.
Labour Conditions


Jean Marchand: It was the Liberal government that enacted C-103 in 1945 which compelled the employer to recognize the union. Don't forget that.

I do not know whether those hon. members can do anything else but shout, whether they can have some valid ideas. I simply suggest that before that time, there was a fight for employer recognition of the union, and then a fight for collective bargaining in order to try and get better conditions.
Unions succeeded in obtaining that the law itself force employers to recognize unions. The second fight by unions was to get government recognition, labour relations boards' recognition, recognition wherever they had interests. The government finally yielded, all governments finally yielded in Canada. Now they are threatening to remove themselves the rights they fought very hard to obtain. Such is the meaning of this.
Who are they threatening in so doing? Nobody but themselves. How come, Mr. Speaker, and this will be my final point although I could go on for a whole hour, how come that labour unions which are-
Oh, stop those shouts through your nose, you wake up people! How come, Mr. Speaker, that labour unions are fighting with employers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to let other members speak. Tonight's debate was requested in order that the views of the various parties be heard. I believe the minister has a right to be heard.

I think the minister has the right to be heard, and should be heard in this House.

Labour unions have diverging interests from employers and have always been fighting them. They would not accept for a moment that employers cease to recognize them. That is basic, it is now included in our law. It is an essential aspect for the labour movement's and the workers' future. They not only ask employers for recognition, they also made strike after strike to get it. They even fought for government recognition. And now comes that great threat, they now tell us they will cease to recognize the government. The Federation of Labour in British Columbia stated they were following instructions from the Canadian Labour Congress. It is the first time I hear a labour federation or Canadian unions say that they obey the Canada Labour Congress. It is the first time in my life. It is only because they hide behind the congress in an attempt to force acceptance of things which they find it difficult to live.
Then, Mr. Speaker, this threat could as well be carried out. I do not like to say that the right of appeal will give additional rights to workers as I do not believe it. If a more perfect system were proposed I would agree to support it, but if the only things we can expect from this House are demagogic appeals or suggestions which do not improve the situation I consider that we do not serve the interests of workers, of unions, nor those of the people of Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I shall first thank the Chair for allowing us today to discuss a

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
point extremely important as it affects the life of workers and Canadian companies generally.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Environment (Mr. Marchand) who seems much more comfortable as Environment Minister than as Labour Minister. I can understand him very well as he spent, like he said, 23 years in the field of labour management relations and we can very well understand why he talked tonight with so much enthusiasm about a subject he knows so well.
However, I regret that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was not as eloquent, as straightforward and as clear as the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of Labour did not answer the question before the House tonight, the right of appeal of workers and companies concerning the anti-inflation act. The Minister of the Environment blamed us for fighting the anti-inflation program saying that we did not really wish to stop inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we do not object against the concept of an anti-inflation program, but rather the anti-inflation program of this government. Yet, the Minister of the Environment did not say anything about the causes of inflation. What is the use of talking about the consequences of inflation, of repeating that it has to come to an end, long and passionate speeches which not come to anything, we must truly put an end to inflation.
Nothing is said about what brought it to Canada. Yet, I do remember that within six years this very government has doubled the interest rate in this country and when one considers, for instance, the cost of family houses, one realizes pretty well that the cost of housing is part of inflation. But nothing is done about interest rates. Since the Anti-Inflation Board has started its operations, we have never heard its chairman or any of its member say that they were going to analyze, scrutinize, and if necessary condemn the financial institutions of this country. Not satisfied with plundering the poorest among Canadians, putting them on welfare or just giving them small jobs between two unemployment periods, now they want to fight the well to do through the Anti-Inflation Board.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate-and hon. members of the New Democratic Party are quite understandably alarmed by this situation that has been known for a few days-that the Anti-Inflation Board decisions be practically without appeal. If the government could tell us that this situation will last only one year, but we know perfectly well that this government does not want to be too specific about the period during which this Anti-Inflation Board will be in operation. Nor does it want to give us any assurance about the period during which there will be no appeal procedures in Canada.
And we also know very well when a socialist measure is introduced, for instance during the last world war when direct taxation was removed from the provinces and given to the federal government, supposedly as part of the war effort, it was never returned to them. And when one considers this legislation, one realizes that we have just removed the right to appeal in labour bargaining. Therefore, I am concerned about the fact that this government does not give us any guarantee as regards the period during which the appeal procedure will be suspended.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has not been as specific as the Minister of Environment, who spoke frankly and said that this board's decisions were without appeal. One cannot argue about such a frank, clear, obvious and precise answer. Now, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with my hon. friends, my hon. colleagues from the NDP, I deplore this situation but not for the same reasons as they do.
We have already begun to realize a few days ago, and tonight in particular, the dictatorial approach that the Anti-Inflation Board has taken and which will be worsening throughout Canada, leading the private sector and the working people to be held within the framework of this board's regulations, that will be made as required, at a moment's notice according to the whims of these hon. mandarins.
Today, we can therefore judge the first decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board. The chairman of the board, Mr. Pepin, said that the board will be strict, that it will be indulgent, that it will be inflexible, and that it will be flexible. In other words, we can expect anything from the board as concerns regulations and the day to day interpretation of these regulations. But the chairman forgot to say that the board would be useless to control inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we spoke against the anti-inflation legislation because, as Social Crediters, we are convinced that this legislation will be completely useless to control inflation, but will be very effective when it comes to creating problems for everyone. Why? Because the board has extraordinary and anti-democratic powers. The board is not a department. It is not accountable to the public like all hon. members of this House who have been elected by the population.
The population voted for representatives who had promised to control inflation and not for members of Parliament who will hide behind the socialistic decisions of the board. The powers and the immunity of the board are stronger than those of any department. The powers of the board are such that it can do anything. Indeed, its chairman said so: it will be strict, indulgent, inflexible and flexible, strict and inflexible. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what will happen is that the board will be strict and inflexible towards the weak and private enterprise and indulgent and flexible towards the strong and especially finance which will not be touched by it. The board will pit the weak, those who have already been deprived of everything by governments, against private enterprise to create a favourable climate for the introduction of legislation which will be even more socialistic than at the present time.
Instead of trying to control finance which stifles private industry, wage earners and low income people, the board will pit low wage earners against private industry, creating the impression that if the economy is so bad in Canada, we must put the blame on private industry and not on finance. This habit of accusing private industry is well in line with the duties of the board. That is also in line with the attacks of the right hon. Prime Minister who stated recently that private industry no longer works in Canada.
The Trudeau government used every possible means to kill private industry and now, to finish it off, the AntiInflation Board will make it easier to run private industry
February 18, 1976

right into the ground. Mr. Speaker, they curtail an industry's operations then after blame it because it does not work. The board has a socialist duty to do. That is why it has been created. Inflation is only an excuse for its institution. Inflation is only an excuse for the government to create a board which will certainly control the whole economy. The collective agreements which the Minister of Environment (Mr. Marchand) just mentioned-or which he is dreaming about-have disappeared from our employer-employee relation system because the government cannot give any guarantee as to when the right to negotiate will be there again.
Mr. Speaker, they would have us believe that the AntiInflation Board was a temporary measure. Maybe it will be temporary but the tentacles and the traces it will have engendered will remain as long as other much more realistic, more sensible and less socialist economic measures are not devised to stimulate the general economy. The AntiInflation Board could have tackled the monopoly of finance which is causing our current economic confusion and inflation. We do not control causes of inflation but the results.
We will have to deal with the consequences of a bad financial system monopolized by the banks which today endangers the private sector by causing inflation. Bank monopolies make billions in profits every year but the board will not touch them. It would much rather concentrate on the few hundred thousand dollars of profit in the private sector.
The government wanted to lay its hands on our production system in Canada and the best way to succeed was to create an Anti-Inflation Board to harass the private sector which has already been affected by the bank monopoly. There are a number of businessmen who have now acquired the mentality of those who live off the welfare system. They have no more motivation, no sense of risk, no love for work left. They were ready to invest more in the economy of the country, but to do so they would have needed the confidence of the government. Governments should treat them as responsible individuals, responsible for our production and not for causing inflation, as the Anti-Inflation Board seems ready to do. Facing the socialist threat of our present government, they are ready to liquidate their business, restrain their activities, reduce their risks and emigrate somewhere else, as many others have done in the last five years.
When they see our government ministers, or the right hon. Prime Minister on television, or when they read the newspapers which are constantly telling us that we are going towards a new society, Mr. Speaker, businessmen in Canada soon understand that Mr. Trudeau's new society is a socialist one and this is why all sense of risk and all motivation in business tend to disappear.
We are strongly opposed to the last decision of the socialist board of Mr. Pepin which levied a $125,000 fine against the Irving Pulp and Paper Company. Not because this fine will bankrupt the Irving Company but on a question of principle. The Irving Company wanted its emplyees to share the profits but the board has just directly penalized the Company and fined it and indirectly fined its employees as well.
Labour Conditions
Irving Pulp and Paper Limited has just been fined directly, as well as its employees and pulp and paper workers in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that Anti-Inflation Board is an almighty bureaucracy and I wonder how far the government will go in bureaucracy in its future decisions. In certain socialist countries, we saw management-labour relations disappear from collective agreements; they disappeared and were replaced by bureaucracy.
A little later, justice disappeared and was replaced by bureaucracy. Well, Mr. Speaker, when a country takes the road toward socialist bureaucracy, there is no limit and that is why we Social Crediters voted against the antiinflation legislation. We are against inflation, but we are also against the steps taken by the government because as days go by, the board will increasingly give disappointing results. It will give everyone a bad time and will not control inflation because it will not deal with its causes, but only its consequences.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we had the unusual pleasure of listening to the rhetorical flights of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand). I must say I enjoy a good speech as much as anyone else, but I would have enjoyed his speech much more if he had stuck to the point of the resolution before the House.
This resolution is important. It talks about the breakdown in our society of the relationship between the various elements of society. One of those important elements is organized labour. Others are management, government, business and industry. However, what the minister talked about was the failure of or the difficulties in the adversary system. He talked about confrontation and about the intervention of parliament into organized labour-management matters, as we have had to do from time to time, and every time we have done that we have really stuck a dagger into the heart of the collective bargaining process in Canada. When we have had to do that, something has broken down.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I do not expect the hon. member sitting groaning in the background to understand this at all, but I do expect him at least to listen.


An hon. Member:: Stick to your notes. If the minister did not speak to the point, why don't you?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has the floor, and I wish he would stick to the subject.


Walter David Baker: The itinerant professor from the backbenches is interrupting the debate again, and I am sure he does not intend to add anything more to the debate than perhaps the occasional "hear, hear" or "no, no", and in terms of this debate he will go down in history recorded in that way, as he did yesterday.
Of course the system is imperfect. That is really what the minister was saying. He talked about intervention in the system, but what is happening here, and what worries

Labour Conditions
me about the speech of the minister, is that he threw down a gauntlet to organized labour.
I carry no particular brief for organized labour any more than I do for management or government, but if there was anything clear in the speech by the Minister of the Environment, or anything which rang true, it was that the free collective bargaining system has been interfered with, in some cases stopped, and in the case of the employees of the Irving Company-this is the group of employees we are talking about-certain rights have been denied them. The minister can argue that it is necessary perhaps in the public interest. He can argue that the adversary system is not working, but I suggest that what has happened here is that the collective bargaining system has in fact been interfered with.
We can talk about getting to the root causes of inflation and other difficulties, but in terms of the motion before us it was made amply clear that what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been harping on for the last few days in the question period, and a long time ago with respect to questions in the House, is that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) tried to tell the House that the collective bargaining system was still intact, the most charitable thing which can be said is that the President of the Privy Council and others do not know what they are talking about.
Tonight the Leader of the Opposition made a very forceful speech. It was one of the last speeches he will make in this House as Leader of the Opposition, and I do not have to tell hon. members his position in the eyes of most Canadians as a man of integrity. What he cried out for tonight, and what he asked the ministers one by one as he went along the front benches was very simple. He asked them to make a very simple inquiry. He asked them to look at that legislation and see the extreme limitations of appeal, which are referred to in the motion by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was applauded by hon. members on all sides of the House, and he asked each member to search his heart and his conscience, and to ask himself whether it is right, fair, just or equitable that a group of Canadians, by the accident or otherwise of draftsmanship, should be denied what is really the fundamental right of citizens in a free society, the right to appeal from a decision of an administrative tribunal.
The Leader of the Opposition asked that simple question with quiet eloquence, as befits him. That is not to say he was not moved. He was very much moved about what he said. No person in this House has been more in pursuit of what could be called simple justice for Canadians than the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Campbell:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I ask the hon. member who just interjected to look at the bill. She is a lawyer, and probably a pretty good one. I ask her to look at section 30 of that statute and ask herself whether in terms of section 30 the working men and women of Canada, who might be caught in a similar situation as these working men and

women of the Irving Company are caught have the same right of appeal or have a real right of appeal to some tribunal to have the matter at least heard regardless of what the tribunal may find.
Surely no one in this House, whether he is Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic or Social Credit, could deny the simple fact that the right of appeal is essential. The right of access to the court is an essential part of Canadian justice. The right to know the findings against which an appeal has been made is an essential piece of our jurisprudence.
I referred earlier to a drafting accident, and if this is a drafting accident by someone in the Department of Justice, perhaps it should be looked into. As I listened to the Minister of Labour earlier tonight, I did not think it was looked into. I am sorry he is not in the House now. He was given extended time by this House as a matter of courtesy, and he talked about a tripartite labour council. He talked about the important things upon which it has embarked, the new studies and the things which might replace the adversary system in collective bargaining and which might make the system work, make it more human, and more responsive to the twentieth century. Perhaps replacing the adversary system in some way could be the answer. All of those things may be worth-while, and any investigation would be supported by every hon. member in this House.
I want to say to the Minister of Labour-and I hope he reads this-that if he allows this opportunity to change an unjust society to go by, if he permits this polarization and removes from a segment of our society certain rights and does not give those rights which should apply to every group in Canada-in this particular case working men and working women coming under the aegis of the Anti-Inflation Board-then all the things we want this tripartite council to do will be washed away.
I cannot believe-and someone told me I am a fool not to believe it-that the government would be so foolish as to try to polarize the elements of society in order to create a situation which would call for an election. I cannot believe they would do that. Whether that is the motive, or whether it happened inadvertently, the effect is exactly the same. The peace we want in our society, the industrial peace, the productivity which everyone tells us we need, the incentives we must have if we are to grow, to build and to create a better life for other people, the justice of the just society-which was the catchword a few years ago-will be washed away if we allow this polarization to take place.
I ask members of the House, and the government, to look at the appeal procedures in Bill C-73. A program like this requires some rough justice, and that has been admitted. That it should go on for an indefinite period is wrong, I think; but that it should go on even for a short period, defective in so far as the right of appeal is concerned, is also wrong and this government should admit that and make changes. If it does, it will have the support of all members of the House of Commons. If it does not, it will have to reap the whirlwind of denying that right to a large number of men and women who work and are in unions, unions to which the government has said they give sup-
February 18, 1976

port, involved in the collective bargaining process, a process which they say they support.
I am not carrying any brief for them, Mr. Speaker, and I want the House to understand that. I am carrying a brief for justice, equality and good conscience. If the government denies that right of appeal which is symbolic, and these three matters which are important in a free society, then it is denying to a large group of Canadians something they ought to have. The system could operate satisfactorily if they had those rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) apologize for the so-called anti-inflation program. We all witnessed some of the scenes on television. The minister said he had gone before organized labour and presented the case of the government for anti-inflation and organized labour supported the anti-inflation program. Does the minister forget that we saw the way he was booed at the CUPE convention in Toronto? Does he forget that he was booed in my own riding of Nickel Belt when he came there to sell the trade union movement a bill of goods? He was not permitted to finish his speech because the workers in the Sudbury basin thought he was coming to sell them the way to wage controls.
We also saw the minister booed when he spoke to the British Columbia Federation of Labour and tried to sell them the same bill of goods. He was booed when he went to Newfoundland and spoke to the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. This is the minister who gets up in the House, sweating and panting and trying to put across to the House the message that there is support in the trade union movement for the government's wage controls.
Do we forget that the minister was silent-but of course he was taking the treatment then-when the former minister of finance and other ministers were going around naming labour as the scapegoat for inflation? That minister sat quietly even though he was minister of labour. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will at least stand up for the farmers from time to time, but the Minister of Labour was silent and he was condemned by his silence. Now he comes along, belatedly, saying he has the support of labour.
Next we have the spectacle of the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of the Environment, the minister who has run through so many portfolios in the cabinet that he has only three or four left. He got up and patted himself on the back; I was surprised that he did not break his arm through doing so. He told us what a friend of labour he is, that he was 23 years in the labour movement. All I can say is-


Jean Robert Roy: That is longer than you have.


John R. Rodriguez: Why don't you get up and make a speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair?


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) should be as vocal in his riding about the injustice of this
Labour Conditions
legislation as he is in the House. He is a great defender of the workers, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Robert Roy: I have already defeated two of your party; sent both of them down.


John R. Rodriguez: I have already defeated two Liberals. The minister was patting himself on the back. From the condemnation of labour that he has displayed in this House, I can only say he has come a long way since those 23 years when he was active in the trade union movement. Give a man a ministry and a chauffeur to drive his limousine and he soon forgets his roots. The minister said quite bluntly that there was no historic relationship in his wage control bill. He also said, in effect, that the trade union movement needs to be controlled in terms of wages.
Mr. Speaker, last year 90 per cent of the wage contracts in this country were settled without strikes or disruption of services. Surely we will hear shortly from the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). We know what he has on other occasions; he has said that patriotism is important in wage control bills. I was on the fact-finding trip to New Brunswick to look at the situation with regard to the Canadian Paper Workers Union." Let us consider how dynamic, radical and left-wing those unions are. We seem to think we are talking about workers who would strike at the drop of a hat. The pitworkers' union in Grand Falls, Newfoundland, has not been on strike for one day in 60 years. Paper workers at MacMillan-Rothesay Company, a subsidiary of MacMillan-Bloedell, were out for three weeks in the last ten years. At Irving Pulp and Paper Company, workers have been out for eight weeks in the last 30 years. Workers at the Miramichi Timber Resources Company have been out for eight days in the last 30 years.
Are these radical workers? It is not in the nature of workers to strike. It is not in the nature of workers to walk the picket lines without a pay cheque coming in. May I remind the fat-cats in this House that it is the nature of workers to earn money and to keep their families with their heads held high. These are the kind of workers this legislation works against. Do I see the government moving as resolutely against prices? Why could we not set up a system which says that no prices will go up until approved by the Anti-Inflation Board and then the administrator?


An hon. Member:: It is the same process.


John R. Rodriguez: It is not, and the hon. member knows it. Every week I have supplied the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Anti-Inflation Board with a monitored price list of those items constantly rising by 10 per cent, 20 per cent and even 25 per cent, but have not seen any action by the Anti-Inflation Board to deal with my complaints. At the same time workers' wages are effectively controlled. Not only that, the collective bargaining process is dead, deader than a door nail. Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)) wants to tell railway workers that it is not dead. I challenge him to tell the railway workers how this program will work.
When I was in New Brunswick I met with union representatives, and met a chap by the name of James K. Irving, the owner of the paper company. I never thought I would

Labour Conditions
see the day when I would stand up for the Irvings or the Taylors in this House. I had a chance to talk to that gentleman and get some facts. He told me that the paper companies had formed an association, that the association had asked him to join the club which would control workers' wages and keep them within the guidelines. He said he refused because he felt he could always paddle his own canoe and settle with his workers as he had in the past. He said he felt he could afford to pay 23.8 per cent. Actually he said it was 21 per cent but the Anti-Inflation Board took into account contributions to pension plan and overtime, and said it was 23.8 per cent. At any rate Mr. Irving said he felt he could afford that settlement.
I also discovered on my fact finding trip that the paper companies colluded one with another. As evidence, we have secured a document with the signatures of four paper companies attached to it. Let me read one paragraph of that document:
The undersigned undertake in such circumstances to:
(a)	secure the competitiveness of the industry by satisfying to the
best of their production capacity the fine paper product requirements
for the customers of that or those manufacturer(s) which has (have)
ceased operations as a result of a strike; and
(b)	offset the latter's cost of negotiations through financial support.
That agreement was entered into in 1973. The establishment of the Anti-Inflation Board, and the guidelines, exactly suited the paper companies. They were prepared with machinery with which to control wages. Obviously, the association was a cartel. That is the power against which the workers were aligned.
The workers are poor people who could ill afford to strike; but they did strike. There comes a time when one must stand for principle. I know the Liberals know little about principle. I also know that there comes a time when a man must stand for principle. Often we have seen wives of workers recognize that principle and show solidarity with their menfolk on strike by supporting the strike. I have met trade unionists involved with the movement at the federal level and always thought they were mild, reasonable men. They are too logical, and not at all left wing maoists, Marxists, or whatever one calls them. I always hoped they would show more spunk and more backbone in dealing with the country's corporations. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour return to the House. As I said, I challenge him to tell railway workers how the government's program will work.
To revert to what I was saying, those leaders of the trade union movement in this country have been forced, by the government's action, to withdraw their participation in the very system by which they can correct labour legislation passed in this country. Things must be pretty serious if they are pushed to such extremes. As I said, I was always impressed by their quiet approach, by the mild attitude which has characterized their relationships with the government. I always hoped they would be more aggressive. Now we find that they have taken this hard position.
What has been the cause, Mr. Speaker? The immediate cause is the government's enactment of that infamous Bill C-73, by which the government intervened in the free collective bargaining process. In the present instance the administrator of the anti-inflation program, Mr. Tansley, has fined the Irving paper company $125,000.

What was the company's crime? Mr. Irving was paying his workers what he had agreed. I have often said, "Fine companies which do not do the right thing by their workers." Now we find that the government fines companies which have done the right thing by their workers. I really do not understand Liberal thinking.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nobody does.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a sort of "Alice in Wonderland", thinking. But then the government is consistently antilabour. Mr. Tansley made his decision and brought down his judgment. And whom does he name in the judgment? He names the Irving paper company. Do the workers have the right to appeal Mr. Tansley's decision? That is the question.
I distinctly recall the Prime Minister saying this afternoon that he was dealing with the root causes of inflation and it seemed only proper to him, in law, that action should be taken against the person who is directly causing inflation. I distinctly remember the Prime Minister saying this afternoon, in answer to my leader's question, that if the employer is paying wages higher than those permitted by the guidelines, it seemed only proper to issue an order against the employer, not the employee.
I also recall the Prime Minister saying that the employer should have the right to appeal if he does not agree with the Order. According to the Prime Minister, the person paying salaries higher than those permitted by the guidelines is the real cause of inflation. Well, that is a new one. I never heard that before, never heard of an employer who agrees to pay his workers a fair wage as being the cause of inflation. And there is no appeal from that.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand (Langelier)), who has held pretty well every portfolio in the cabinet, suggested that there is not even an historical relationship. He ruled it out completely.
I can well understand the confusion of the country's trade union movement. First the Anti-Inflation Board says that it is all right for teachers to get 30 per cent in a one year contract, Falconbridge workers to get 18 per cent in a two year contract, and CUPW workers 30 per cent in a two year contract. Then they turn around and say that 23 per cent is too much for paperworkers. Where is the pattern, consistency, and logic to that? What it boils down to is that in every case the worker is being blamed for inflation. He is made the scapegoat when in effect it is the government's inability to deal with the economy so that the resources of the country can be used effectively.
It reminds me of how we think of the rape victim. We always blame the victim for causing the problem. It is the same situation here. We do not blame the corporations for pushing up prices as a result of which the workers are forced to bargain for higher wages in order to keep abreast of the rising cost of living. When you have the same corporate group financing the Liberal party and you have a lobby in the Senate, what can you expect? Can you expect legislation that is just for workers? Not on your life!
I found out something that is very interesting with regard to the Paperworkers Union when I was in New

Brunswick. We might think we are dealing with very poor companies. However, they are not poor. They are very rich multi-national corporations. Somehow or other they get some pretty good deals in New Brunswick. For example, there is no stumpage fee for five years. This is to be reviewed at the end of five years. There is no stumpage fee at all. In terms of tax the people of New Brunswick do not get any benefit from that resource. I found out something else that appalled me-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the pride of the New Democratic Party, I am going to speak to the resolution or the particular reason why we are here tonight.


An hon. Member:: You will be the first on your side.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can talk about the New Democratic Party. It is not hard. If labour has many more friends like the NDP, it certainly will not need many more enemies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have not heard any outbursts by the NDP about the responsible attitude of Premier Schreyer in Manitoba. Let them give their views on that. They do not like to hear the truth. I did not start out in this vein and I would prefer not to, but I can carry it on.


An hon. Member:: Patriotism.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Patriotism is something the hon. member should appreciate. When he says that unions in this country are not radical, he is correct. They are very moderate. It is only the self appointed spokesmen for the labour movement such as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who create the mistaken impression across this country that labour is as radical as he is. In this country, however, they do not happen to be.
I wish to take advantage of this occasion to say something about the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in fact the only effective opposition in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: By coincidence I was in the House when the hon. gentleman made his first speech in his new role. It was difficult, even for one of his experience. As I recall history, I think one of my interjections upset him. But as often happens when relationships begin on the wrong foot, we became very, very close friends. Frankly, I think he is probably one of the most under-rated, under-estimated people who has ever sat in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: People in the gallery, and there were many tonight from labour and other segments of society,
Labour Conditions
had a wonderful opportunity of comparing the style of the Leader of the Opposition with the diatribe we have been listening to from those poor people in the corner for the last hour or two. When we read Hansard tomorrow we will see that the hon. gentleman's contribution to the debate was not only much more eloquent, but much more persuasive to the ministers on this side who will now want to look at this legislation extremely carefully in the event that unintentionally there was some denial of the rights of individuals or trade unions.
I noticed something significant when I dug out Votes and Proceedings tonight. With regard to the passage of Bill C-73 there was not one single amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party to strengthen the appeal procedure or, if labour had been unintentionally overlooked, to rectify that at that time when the bill was being examined, debated at second reading, in committee, and on third reading. There was not a word from the NDP about the terrible loss of liberty to the labour movement. It is obvious that they were either asleep in committee or did not attend.
Now they have suddenly awakened in their opportunistic manner when something seems to be bothering the labour union to reinforce once again the adversary concept, making Canadian society so structured that you have the haves and have-nots, which everybody deplores but which that party seems to think is the key to political success. They never seem to learn, because there are no more of them in the House now than there were 20 years ago.
Why are we here tonight on an evening that is so important to members opposite? They have to sit here when, on this Wednesday night, they want to be looking to their own personal affairs. If it was to improve the bill I could understand it. If there were a national emergency I could understand it. That is what Standing Order 26 is all about.
In determining whether or not we would spend a Wednesday night in the House-and remember it is really inconvenient to the staff and everyone else associated with us; never mind the members, we abide by the Speaker's decision-why did the Speaker suggest that an emergency debate was justified under Standing Order 26, a fairly rare procedure as you know? It was not because, in the opinion of the Speaker, there was a flaw in the bill; it was not because the Speaker felt that the bill was unfair or that there was a national emergency. It was because the New Democratic Party unintentionally-I use the word "unintentionally"-misled everybody.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Members over in that corner say "come on". We are supposed to sit here and enjoy their diatribes, but when something is said that they don't like they yell, "Oh, come on, don't be too hard on us". I am going to put of the words of their leader on record-as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation today of the announced intention by the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress representing almost two million Canadian workers to withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government

Labour Conditions
in every province, this decision arising from the now clearly demonstrated and acknowledged absence of the right of appeal under due process of law for all those affected by decisions of the Anti-inflation Board and/or the administrator, and leading inevitably to further breakdown of civil order in Canada.
Note that phrase "breakdown in civil order". As if the Canadian Labour Congress would suggest violence, or taking to the streets after the fashion of unruly demonstrations in some other countries!
There is no evidence that any member of that party can produce to indicate that the Canadian Labour Congress today has decided to withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government in every province. To suggest such a thing is entirely wrong. And we are here because those words in the motion were taken at face value. In actual fact the CLC said it would consider such a move when the executive got around to doing so. "Considering it" is a long way from making a firm decision.
I know the Canadian Labour Congress as well as the New Democratic Party does, and I know how difficult it is for the president. I do not think the President, Mr. Morris, gets a fair shake in the press. He has a difficult job, as politicians should understand. In many ways he is a politician.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The friend of labour!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You are no friends of labour with your radical views. It is your type of view that gives labour a bad name in this country, one it does not deserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is the tragedy of your type of intervention in the House of Commons.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Address the Chair.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hansard, of course, can't capture the wistfulness of that party hoping-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the appeal procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has the floor. Give him his chance to express his opinions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -hoping that labour will be as irresponsible as they have been tonight. They say, "We hope it doesn't happen; we are not suggesting that labour withdraw from all the different bodies, the Economic Council and all the other boards to which they make such a valuable contribution." But I am saying that their intervention was an invitation to the labour movement to do precisely that, and that is not in the best interests of the labour movement. The best interest of the labour movement in this country, and of the people in this country, is for the labour movement to participate in the decision-making process whenever it has an opportunity.


An hon. Member:: When?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They had an opportunity to participate in this fight against inflation from the very beginning and

they chose, as is their democratic right, to ignore the existence of the board and not to bring forward the name of a person suitable to the Congress to sit on that board. It was their own decision.
I can understand the problem of the Canadian Labour Congress and I can see the progress that is being made. I can understand their fear, and it is a legitimate one, that somehow this system might be applied unjustly to labour because it is easier to control wages than it is to control prices. I can understand their concern.
But remember, Mr. Speaker, inflation hits the poor, the hungry, the senior citizens, the people who live on fixed incomes. And these traditionally have been areas with which labour is concerned. If we have old age pensions in this country, if we have minimum wages to help the poor, if we have any kind of medicare program, we have to thank the labour movement for it. As Hubert Humphrey said the other day, there are no votes in being a spokesman for the poor any more, or for the underprivileged or for the sick or for the senior citizen. That is a liability in a country which is tending to be very reactionary and losing track of the fact that we have to help each other in society.
Labour, too, is not without sin, and there are times when the labour movement can be wrong. That is something the hon. member for Nickel Belt cannot seem to understand. I do not happen to believe you can eliminate the adversary concept entirely. Collective bargaining is nothing more than a reflection of individual rights. When you talk about industrial relations you are really talking about human relations, and we all have the adversary system built into us as part of our culture.
We shall never solve all the problems which arise between labour and management by everyone becoming idealistic about an objective. That is why we have government. Sometimes it has to do things it would not wish to do under normal circumstances. But take the large labour unions. Last year their wage settlements happened to be higher than inflation. They did not suffer. The people who suffer are the unorganized, those who have to live on fixed incomes, the people on minimum wages. If you want government and members of parliament and the business community to stop taking more out of the system than we can afford, in order to help those very people, is it so wrong or anti-labour to say to organized labour; "You, too, have a responsibility to co-operate, if only for 18 months or two years, in order to help break the spiral"?
I think that in 1976 it is a little much to be talking about "they" and "we", or about the employer as the enemy, or about labour as the enemy. I am glad my colleague mentioned that there are people making $20,000 or $22,000 in the paper industry. More power to them! Let's face it, though, they are middle income or upper middle income people; they are people who have something left over and they want to invest; they want to invest in a country that is prosperous, a country that is going somewhere. They do not want to see their savings eaten up by inflation. They are as concerned about the profit motive as myself, or any member of the House of Commons.
It is ridiculous to think that a family today cannot earn sufficient-those who are working-to have something left over for investment. The working class wear two hats in effect. Are we here talking about the anti-inflation pro-
February 18, 1976

gram? Are we talking about labour's role in it? If we are, we shouldn't be here tonight; we should be taking an opposition day from the New Democratic Party to do some soul searching to find out whether the Anti-inflation Board is functioning properly, whether the program is being applied justly, whether we need to make modifications, because for once in our life we have a common objective which is fighting inflation. If we are not fighting it right, let's hear about it.
But that is not why we are here tonight. We are here because in the opinion of the Speaker there is an emergency, and that emergency arises, it is said, because the CLC made a decision to withdraw from all the government boards. I am saying that this is inaccurate. One thing that the mover and the seconder of this motion should have done at the beginning of this debate was to apologize for having unintentionally mislead the House.


An hon. Member:: Intentionally.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If it were not for the passage to which I have referred, the Speaker would never have permitted this debate under Standing Order 26. He might have said the subject could be discussed on the next opposition day, or on estimates, or during the question period. But he would never have allowed this method of allowing a discussion of something which has not happened and is not necessarily about to happen.
I do not want to misrepresent the CLC. I want to be their friend. Compared with the NDP, the Canadian Labour congress is one of the most responsible organizations of the country. They did not say they were walking out of all government organizations, thus negating their influence on behalf of their members. They have an obligation to be on these boards. They exist to look after the workers of this country, and the workers are entitled to be represented on key boards, the Economic Council and others. That is so under the statute. The union has an obligation-not a privilege but an obligation-to make the views of its members known. To the best of my knowledge their contribution has always been equal to, and on most occasions better than that of management or the academic world or any other group.
Now to turn round and have parliament, the press, spectators, opposition members, and the staff here on the spurious-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Quit crying about it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know the hon. member would sit here seven days a week, 24 hours a day, isolated from reality. The reality is, as the hon. member should know, that we are here under false pretences. We are not here to discuss the Anti-Inflation Board. We are not even here to discuss any alleged weaknesses in the act or the appeal section. We are here because we have been informed that the Canadian Labour Congress has made a decision based on their concern-


Reginald Cyril Symes: Read the whole motion.
Labour Conditions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the motion had been worded to the effect that the Canadian Labour Congress was considering the possibility of withdrawing from these various boards in light of their disaffection with the section of the act that may or may not deny them an appeal, then on the strength of that I do not think the Speaker would have called for this debate tonight. But I can understand the Speaker calling for the debate when he is told that the Canadian Labour Congress, representing two million Canadian workers, is about to "withdraw from all areas of co-operation with the federal government in every province", "leading inevitably to further breakdown in civil order in Canada". That is a pretty serious statement.
Is it not an awful condemnation of the labour movement to presume that they would be so irresponsible as to bring about a break down in civil order in this country? Who is causing labour to be labelled irresponsible if it is not the New Democratic Party? I would imagine that the Canadian Labour Congress are about to disassociate themselves from this very radical and rash statement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Phone and ask them.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member says phone and ask them. Isn't that a great contribution! He does not go to the bathroom without phoning somebody and asking them if he can go. Without consulting the CLC he would not be able to find his way to the washroom. What a great contribution he makes. I hope he sends it to all of his constituents. He can tell them "I told the government to phone the CLC and ask them". Ask them what? Ask them if they are going to recommend a breakdown of civil order in Canada? The labour movement in this country has never been irresponsible. It has never been radical to that point. I am surprised that his so-called friends of the labour movement are suggesting that the Canadian Labour Congress would be so irresponsible as to start some movement that would lead inevitably "to further breakdown of civil order in Canada." That is a pretty serious charge.
I will not deal further with the New Democratic Party. They stand condemned on the sheer logic of the matter, if I may sum it up in that way. However, I should like to refer to something that must please the members from the Atlantic provinces, and that is that the Irving company is becoming so pro-labour after all these years. That is a wonderful thing! I do remember some of my history, though I say with respect not nearly as much as some other ministers, and if the Irving company really felt so strongly for its workers, it could put some of the money from the increase arrived at through collective bargaining into a trust on behalf of the workers until the administrator came along, not simply to keep their operation going but for the good of the workers. That would be consistent, and until the act were revised, repealed, or amended they could institute an appeal on behalf of their workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Why don't they do that? That would get around-

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The very fact that-


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a peculiar position in which the House finds itself tonight. We are debating a situation that was predictable from the time the legislation was presented to the House, and which is still predictable. There will be difficulty with it. Sometimes I wonder whether it was intended to work. Sometimes I doubt the credibility of the government that introduced it. I doubt it because it came in with three factors that basically relegated it to a position in which it could not succeed.
First, there were exceptions made by government ruling before the legislation was introduced. Secondly, it was put in a position where price control was second hand and labour control was first. That was bound to make it contentious. Thirdly, it endeavoured, and quite successfully so, to transfer a very major part of the responsibility for control to the provinces.
Since that time the government has proceeded to embarrass everybody it possibly could embarrass. The pattern has been consistent. The minister of health wants to cut his grants from the Government of Canada, and therefore the government is forcing the provinces into the position where they are withdrawing certain services in the health field. We read of provincial governments finding themselves in the position where they must close hospitals, in whole or in part. So it has been a very successful political ploy to transfer responsibility to others, and I submit it is questionable whether the government itself even thought the legislation could work without transferring responsibility for part of it to junior government at the provincial level. It is passing on responsibilities even at the municipal level so as to cut the cake as the government wants it cut. Certainly the legislation was designed to create dissension, and that dissension is apparent.
I was very interested in the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) as he was sort of pleading with this House and with Canada, and properly so, on behalf of the economic structure in which we find ourselves. We are in a position where inflation is eroding our stability. It is eating away at the very future of our country. So he had a right to plead on behalf of Canada. But I hope he was just as interested and sincere when he stated that, as a result of the remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), there might be some reconsideration of the legislation, and an amendment introduced.
I think Canada will now expect from the Postmaster General, as a member of cabinet, a body of people that must be unanimous in its conclusions, some action to restore equity to the situation. Let us remember that these exceptions were made in order to bail out the Postmaster General from certain problems he inherited and with which he found himself forced to deal. Let us hope that

part of his speech was as sincere as his pleading with all Canadians.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) spoke in a fashion which indicated that we cannot understand in this House why he chose Canada as his eventual place of residence. It would make one wonder, if that place from whence he came was not satisfactory to him, why he thought he has been so endowed with wisdom he should now run this country. He fled from one, and is it his intention now to try to reduce this country to the level of that from which he fled?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Fred Alward McCain: I did not make one interjection while the hon. member for Nickel Belt spoke-not one and he was a disgrace to the country of his adoption his host country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: If I and other members of this House can sit and listen to the things which would destroy us, then let that hon. member sit and listen while we review the statements he has made. Let us go to that great-


John Gilbert: Attack the argument, not the personality. Deal with the argument.


An hon. Member:: How about letting him speak?


Fred Alward McCain: Are you fellows done over there? Do you mind if somebody else has something to say, in peace and quiet, as did the hon. member for Nickel Belt as far as I am concerned, or are you running off at the mouth to the extent you can't control it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: The people of New Brunswick in the labour movement have exercised great responsibility for a great many years. I submit to you that they have shown they understand the economic problems of New Brunswick and the economic climate in which they work. They chose to work in New Brunswick as members of these unions. I want to thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt for the remarks he made in their support. They are well deserved, and he explained them well. I very much resent the fact that a union in New Brunswick or a New Brunswick corporation should become the victim of a rule when the government itself has already made exceptions for its own employees to solve its own problems. I do not think that is fair to the employer or the employee, and as a result of the exceptions that were made by the government we are now debating this subject tonight as a result of that, and nothing else. This was the exception of an old agreement and the exception of those agreements made before January 1, 1974. This has made a bone of contention throughout the entire structure.
For those great socialists on our left I want to cite the example of a meeting which was held not long ago which involved Canadian elected people as well as Swedish elected people. Among other things that were said, one of the Swedish representatives said if they did not have in
February 18, 1976

Sweden the multinational corporations bringing profits home to his country, they could not support the social system which they have. We, on one hand, are being asked by the socialists on our left for all the benefits which we could possibly hope to extent to mankind, while on the other hand they are denying Canadians, by their propaganda, the right to reap some of the benefits of those companies which do business abroad from this country and who contribute in a major way to our society. They cannot have it coming and going; they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Let us make up our minds whether we want to live within the abilility of Canada to sustain us, or whether we want to ignore-as the hon. member for Nickel Belt suggested today-the political and economic realities of Canada, cutting the suit to fit his cloth, which I submit would be a very difficult thing to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It is a lot better than your cloth.


Fred Alward McCain: I should like to add that governments of New Brunswick have had the right to estimate the charges which can be taken from the various resource industries in that area. I submit that the financial records of the pulp and paper industry in that area were taken into consideration as the governments of New Brunswick formulated their policies-whether Liberal or Conservative governments. I submit it ill behooves those who are ignorant of the facts of New Brunswick economics to make statements as irresponsible as those made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt in respect of whether New Brunswick benefits from its natural resources. It benefits because it creates employment and because it encourages development, and if the hon. member for Nickel Belt had not chosen that area as his place of residence, he might better understand some other areas of Canada. I suggest it would behoove him to stick to those things which he knows, rather than to try to speak on a number of Canadian subjects of which he is almost totally ignorant.
I want to compliment not only New Brunswick labour but all facets which make up Canadian society; that is, labour, business and government as represented in this House. Regardless of the workability of the legislation that has been introduced, with all its iniquitous structure we, as Canadians, whether we are in the House of Commons, in the offices of business or members of a union, must take a responsible position toward the long-range business interests of our economy. I plead with those on our left to recognize that there is a point in time beyond which you can go no further. That point has been recognized by the official opposition in its platform and it has been halfrecognized by half-hearted legislation on the part of the government. I think this represents the bulk of Canadians, and it is pretty near time for the NDP to take a responsible position. We do not need inciters in Canada today: we need level-headed, clear-thinking realists.


An hon. Member:: Like the NDP.


Fred Alward McCain: We do not need that anaesthetizing which has apparently taken place among certain people who seem to belong to a particular party in this country which is
Labour Conditions
ignorant of the facts of life. They think there is nothing but pie in the sky and all you have to do is reach up, cut it and eat it. It is just not that way, it never has been, and we just cannot make it that way. Let us start exercising responsibility and stop inciting the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to some of the speeches tonight, particularly the speech of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand). His words took me back many years to the days when he was involved with the Catholic Syndicates in Asbestos, and Thetford Mines. I can remember those days when we helped raise money for an industrial union being formed by his colleagues in the Catholic Syndicates. That was a very weak organization at the time, but it had the high principle of establishing a trade union in the area where trade unionism was not developed. We helped them by supplying money in order that they might put up the kind of fight they did over many months. They were eventually able, following the Asbestos and Singer strikes, to establish a union solidarity which enabled them to force the companies into negotiation. This was something that at no time anyone considered possible.
It was interesting tonight to hear the minister, the same man who has been in the trade union movement since that period of time and who was willing to participate in this debate. He made a very good union-hall speech and I enjoyed listening to him make the same type of speech he made many times before.


An hon. Member:: The same speech every time.


William Arnold Peters: Not necessarily quite the same speech. But I would have appreciated it if he had been able to stand in the House and say he was willing to help as a cabinet minister and ensure that the same kind of justice could flow to people such as workers in the pulp and paper industry whose situation is very different to that which existed some years ago. When he belonged to the Syndicate, they went on the other organizations which they established and eventually arrived at the CNTU. The pulp and paper workers of this country decided not too long ago to establish a Canadian union. They had no money but they were well aware of the fact that the companies were making immense profits. In 1972-73 the profits of that industry quadrupled: the profits of the pulp and paper industry went up from $79 million, after taxes, in 1972 to $320 million in 1973, and they doubled in 1974 to $685 million in net profits, after taxes.
What should the Minister of the Environment have been saying to us, as a trade unionist? I will not speak about the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) because he became obsessed-and I feel sorry for him-with being the member of the cabinet to take on the NDP all the time. He used to have more to say that was constructive, and I think that in the terms of trade unionists he would have been expected to speak for the workers in this country. But what did the Minister of the Environment say, remembering that a company that makes a considerable amount of money under the free enterprise system is a company with

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
a union which will expect to get its share of the profits? There were unprecedented profits, disastrous profits. In one year they paid back 20 per cent in dividends on the equity of the shareholders. That isn't bad. If you can get back 20 cents in the dollar in one year, you can't beat that even if you are in the shyster business and you are taking an unreasonable profit in usury.
I would have expected the Minister of the Environment to say that these workers have the right to get their share from the company. What we are suggesting is that even with the anti-inflation legislation, legislation which has been a total disaster and which has not brought about one favourable decision in terms of cutting prices, in the case of the worker who feels he has been aggrieved, or the employer who feels he has been aggrieved, we will not agree to fight for his right to appeal against a decision which he considers to be unjust.
It seems to me that the least the Minister of the Environment could do is to provide for the workers in the pulp and paper industry and the other workers who are affected by the anti-inflation legislation, leaving aside the judgment of whether it is good or bad, the same kind of opportunity that I and thousands of others had who were in the industrial trade unions in the 1940s. Some of that money came out of our own pockets. I am not asking the minister to do that; I am only asking him to remember the days when he was in the trade union movement and was fighting against insurmountable odds, and the companies in most cases have been facing insurmountable odds. In this case the odds are not only management; they are also government and the full power of the law.
I have spent some time on the picket lines. I can remember spending 8V2 months on the picket line in Timmins years ago. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) asks why we do not run in the riding. I ran in that riding at one time, long before he was on the political scene, and lost by only 500 votes. It is not unreasonable to think it would be possible to go back there, because already I represent part of the city of Timmins. I had the opportunity, together with my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) to go into Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskas-ing. We talked to the workers and their wives. What they said to us was what I knew to be true after months and months of having to go through exactly the same situation. However, their situation is much tougher. It is tougher because the workers in that industry decided to get out of the international organizations and to build for themselves a Canadian union. They have no strike fund and no moneys put away, yet they have the same vitality, and the same willingness is found among the women to back their husbands in the strike.
There is great enthusiasm among civic officials in these areas to see that the workers get a fair shake. When they organize under provincial legislation they are faced with a cartel by the companies and by the government which passes legislation affecting them, taking away their rights. It is interesting that they were offered in one or two of these cases, particularly in Abitibi, 25 per cent before they went on strike, but they did not think that was reasonable in light of the profits that the company was reaping. Every one of the hypocrites who spoke in the House about free entrerprise would have to agree that if you believe in the

free enterprise system, you must agree that the labour movement is also entitled to its share of the free enterprise system.
These people on strike in the pulp and paper industry were faced with, not 25 per cent which they were voluntarily offered by the company, but with 10 per cent because the company said they should be more patriotic than the government itself, and instead of offering the maximum 14 per cent which was referred to in the Irving case they kept it down to 10 per cent. I understand they are voting today and maybe the decision has already been reached on a 14 per cent settlement. That is the increase with which they will go back to work.
How would you like, Madam Speaker, to be one of the strikers who goes back to work, after six months on the picket line, with 14 per cent? You would be doing that, not because the company made you do it but because the government made you do it. All the housewives in the area told us about the increase in the cost of living, and municipal officials told us about the increase in the cost of living and that no taxes were coming in because no one was working in the area-but the costs were going up just the same. What is the answer? I have heard some of the Liberals say that two years from now they can vote if they want. That is little comfort to those who will have to go back to work now. The country will pay dearly for it because there will be no surpluses in the pulp and paper industry. They are not stupid; they will not work seven days a week, or overtime any more and there will not be any inventory.
We are not going to have any exports like we have had in the last few years. The Canadian public will pay dearly for this because the workers are not getting justice. They waited for a decision on the Irving matter. There was no administrator. They had to wait for an administrator. As yet there is no appeal board. We appointed a bunch of temporary people from the civil service. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with them, but the legislation has been drafted. They already received a big increase.
The board members are not really going to be very sympathetic. They will not recognize that workers in the mills will want to be paid a similar amount, in a historical sense, as bush workers in the area. The bush workers are making $1.50 more than the mill workers. For years and years the mill workers were the highest paid people in that area-certainly the bush workers were not-so I think there is an historical obligation for the mill workers to maintain parity with the bush workers.
The Americans have increased the price of paper another $25, and that does not seem like very much. It may be that Canadian companies will not ask to increase the price of paper, but it is interesting to note that in the two years between 1973 and 1975 they have been allowed an increase in the price per ton of newsprint of 52 per cent and an increase in bleach craft pulp of 118 per cent. They may not ask for the $25 right away. They really will not need it, but I suggest they would be awfully stupid to deal on the American market, where most of our surplus goes, if they do not get at least the same price that American companies have to pay for American newsprint. So they are going to
February 18, 1976

get another $25 increase, and the Anti-Inflation Board will not look at that at all.
Where are all the Abitibi plants in my area? I come from northern Ontario, and I speak for northern Ontario. There is a plant at Sturgeon Falls. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) represents that area. The Iroquois Falls plant is in the federal riding of Timmins. The Smooth Rock Falls plant and the Spruce Falls plant are in the Cochrane riding.
I am not too familiar with northwestern Ontario, but I am sure the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) will be able to tell us about those areas. However, it seems to me that those plants will receive an increase in their revenue on top of unjustifiable revenues which they have been making for the last two or three years. They will receive an increase because of the international price, and I suggest there is nothing this House can do to stop that.
All these plants I am talking about in Ontario come under Ontario labour legislation. When I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to use his offices and intervene, I was aware that this came under provincial jurisdiction, and he hastened to point out that he had no responsibility. Mr. Pepin is the labour boss in this country. He will make the decision for every agreement made in this country, and he will set prices. He is now the czar of labour in Canada. The federal Minister of Labour does not matter. He can talk about the little game he has been playing for two years of trying to get management and labour to go along and help him run his business if he wants.
The hon. member from New Brunswick said that other people should not get involved in New Brunswick politics, but the negotiation which took place between Irving and its employees was under the labour legislation of the province of New Brunswick, not federal legislation and not under the Anti-Inflation Act. That settlement was negotiated under the jurisdiction of the New Brunswick labour board, and I think the workers there have the right to take Irving to court to make sure he lives up to the contract which was signed because that was a provincial contract.
We have forgotten that we allowed the total elimination of all jurisdictions in the field of labour by this legislation.
I will close by saying that I sympathize with workers in the pulp and paper industry and those in particular who have been made the bellwether of the anti-labour legislation of the Liberal government. They have led the fight and they are stymied. What can they do? They cannot appeal. There is talk of a one day strike and of withdrawing services. If we lived in a warmer climate I am sure that rebellion would have been talked of, but it is cold here, so the labour movement may walk around 1,000 strong and protest on Parliament Hill. They may do this at provincial legislatures as well, but there is a terrific amount of resentment on the part of every worker in this country who is facing collective bargaining under provincial legislation because workers know that no matter what agreement is signed, and no matter what employers are willing to agree to, an agreement is subject to federal legislation which overrides, eliminates, and negates any benefit which might be had through common, ordinary collective bargaining.
Labour Conditions
I have known both cabinet ministers who spoke tonight a long time. Both came from honourable backgrounds in the labour movement, and both of them have made contributions to that movement. Never has there been a time when their voices should be raised publicly and in cabinet with greater strength than today, because they have a role to play in telling their colleagues that the whole process of collective bargaining is being destroyed by this legislation without workers in any way seeing any benefit by way of reduction in the cost of natural gas, gasoline, fuel, hydro, or any of the other commodities which make up their cost of living.
Members of trade unions have always been fair and reasonable. I sincerely hope that my two colleagues from better days will make their voices heard on the side of the workers whom they supported, and who supported them for so many years.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker-


John Edward Broadbent: Paperworkers of Toronto, here we go.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am glad I have 20 minutes because I may have to endure the catcalls of my hon. friends opposite.
At the risk of offending the sensibilities of my hon. friends opposite I should like to confine my comments to the motion which is before us tonight.


John Edward Broadbent: You would be the first Liberal who has tonight.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I may be the first Liberal who has, but certainly from the last few speakers I have heard on the NDP benches there have not been any appropriate comments in connection with the Irving decision which gave rise to this problem.
Perhaps I could say at the outset that I have considerable sympathy for the indignation expressed by the labour movement in connection with this decision because I think that, upon analysis, it has tended to distort the viewpoint that we might have of the anti-inflation program and the possibilities of appeal.
I should like to start by quoting part of the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
-which would give trade unions the same right of appeal as that enjoyed by the corporations and to remove the necessity of breaking the law in order to get a case before the administrator. I would therefore ask the minister if the government is prepared to introduce two amendments. First, an amendment to provide for the appeal by any party affected by a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator and second, an amendment which would allow any person affected by the decision of the administrator to appeal directly to the appeal tribunal?
The minister stated that he was going to give consideration to this suggestion. I should like to deal with the first point, which is the appeal from the order of the Anti-Inflation Board which I think is actually a misconstruction of the whole matter. The Anti-Inflation Board was not given the power to issue an order; it was given the power to state that if in its judgment the guidelines had been exceeded by the parties to which it was addressing itself and it then

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
was entitled by the law to make reference to the administrator. Clearly, unless a party states they are not going to abide by the moral suasion exercised by the AIB, it is not a matter of appealing because there is no onus upon them to obey anything said by the AIB until they make their reference to the administrator.


An hon. Member:: They get fined if they do not appeal the order?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: For the benefit of my friends in the smoking area, the order is applied only by the administrator, not by the Anti-Inflation Board. I should like to trace the procedures which took place in the Irving case. First, an agreement was reached between the parties, as every hon. member is aware. The Anti-Inflation Board studied the settlement and then rejected the contract and set up a revised level of compensation which it stated should be more within the guidelines and should be accepted by the parties.
The Anti-Inflation Board then asked the parties whether they intended to conform with the board's decision. They also advised the parties that if they did not, the board was going to make reference, as it was entitled to by law, to the administrator. On January 23, the two parties informed the Anti-Inflation Board that they, together, were not prepared to modify their agreement. Therefore, the Anti-Inflation Board, following correct procedure, referred it to the administrator. At that point there was no question of appeal. Appeal from what? They were simply asking, "Do you accept, or reject, our suggestion?" The reply was, "No, we don't". Then the board said, in so many words, that the only alternative was to send it to the administrator.
The first part of the question put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is inappropriate, I believe, because there is never a possibility for an appeal of a morally suasive decision by the Anti-Inflation Board. It is then referred to the administrator. As was indicated in the early stages of debating the Anti-Inflation bill, the administrator is, in a sense, the bulldog with the teeth who simply takes the Anti-Inflation Board's determination. Then in accordance with the act it has the right to bring in other facts, but essentially the task of the administrator is to issue the order.
Section 30(1) says that any person against whom an order has been made by the administrator may appeal, and so on. So the curious feature of the Irving case is that while both parties went through the Anti-Inflation Board, both parties went to the administrator-and both parties and in the administrator's "whereas" clauses-only one party was the subject of his order, Therefore, in accordance with the law, only one party can appeal.


John Edward Broadbent: We are objecting to the law. That is the point.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: My point is simply to say I think it is curious and anomalous that the two parties appear equally guilty of not abiding by the law. The administrator, within his jurisdiction, issued an order fining only the one party, thereby excluding the union from appealing. I share the view that there is a party to the agreement, a party who was equally dissatisfied with the agreement, a party who appeared before the administrator, who was stated to be a 
party before the administrator, and by some strange logic the administrator applied his order only to the employer.


An hon. Member:: You want the workers fined as well; is that it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, the workers are being penalized by taking the reduced wage. That is not my point. My point, and I assume the point of the Canadian labour congress, is that they are denied the right of appeal because of this order. The due course of law that would have been theirs had they been joined in the order was denied them. I am simply saying that presumably it would be a welcome amendment to the law to say that any party who is a party to the order has the right of appeal.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what we said.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: So we have no argument, beyond that I suggest the point made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, or which he implied in his question, is not appropriate in that there can be no appeal from a simple request to the parties to obey the decision of the AIB.


An hon. Member:: That was yesterday; that was not the proposal that was made today.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am not talking about proposals. I am trying to talk about the course that was followed in the Irving case and the law, as I see it, in the statute. I am simply stating that I agree that if the administrator is not going to see fit to join both parties in his order, thereby enabling both parties to appeal, the law should be amended to provide, that both parties to an order should be permitted to appeal.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, one cannot but be impressed with the sincerity of the New Democratic Party motion. I notice that as one their own speaker is addressing himself to the resolution, only half of their caucus is present. One cannot but be impressed, either, with the wave of piety in the House when we are discussing the dilemmas and problems facing the poor in our nation. I have noticed that members of the NDP really do hate poverty. We in British Columbia know that better than anyone else. As soon as the NDP was elected there, they doubled their salaries-so we know they hate poverty. We had a human resources minister there who had such compassion for the deprived in society that he wanted to work out their problems, but he needed a very expensive assistant to work with him because he hired an executive assistant at a salary of $35,000 a year.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I have been listening to the hon. member with great attention, and I am afraid he is getting a little beyond the motion.


Benno Friesen: I am coming to that, Madam Speaker. I just want to emphasize that when you hire an executive assistant for $35,000 and then give him a sabbatical, you are not that interested in poverty. I recognize that we are faced with a dilemma in this House. On the one hand we have a government program which is something like the captain of the Titanic appointing a committee to see where icebergs come from. On the other hand, the NDP resolution of the
February 18, 1976

problem is like the crew of the Titanic insisting on a 30 per cent wage increase before they drowned in the icy waters.


William Arnold Peters: If they had done that they would still be alive.


Benno Friesen: The point is, both are irrelevant. The object now is to save the ship, and to do that you must anticipate the problems. That is what we tried to do in 1974 in our party. The problem the government faces today is not simply one of the acceptance of the Anti-Inflation Board's program which they have proposed; it is basically a problem of credibility. When it comes down to the nub of the question, nobody believes them any more.
Why does it take so long for the federal government and provincial governments, and the federal government, organized labour and other elements of the economy, to come to agreements? Surely the reason is that various segments of the economy do not know how they stand with the government. The government's credibility is in question.
In 1974 I well remember the Prime Minister saying to this country's workers, "The Conservatives will freeze your wages." Today the workers of Canada remember what the Prime Minister said in the 1974 election campaign and wonder, "Can we believe this guy any longer." At the same time the NDP "conned" the workers into believing they could ask for ever larger pieces of the pie without increasing productivity. The workers kept asking for more; there was always more to be had from where the last increase came.
If one considers the meaning of the term "collective bargaining" at its face value, one must concede that the motion before the House has some validity. When the government establishes what the wage settlement of workers shall be, there can be no bargaining. When it establishes unilaterally the terms of an agreement, there can be no collective solution. The very terms "collective bargaining" and "administrator" in this context are mutually exclusive. Logically, the Minister of Labour is redundant, a vestigial organ of government. Who needs the Minister of Labour when there is no longer effective bargaining?
The government's program lacks credibility. It should be noted that the Prime Minister has never made a speech in this House on the anti-inflation program. He has spoken across the country on this subject, but never once in this House. We wonder is he really serious if he is not willing to face parliament on this most critical part of the government's program.
The second problem is this: the government lacks consistency in its actions. Today the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) announced spending increases of not more than 16 per cent; but worker's wage settlements are supposed to be not more than 10 per cent. Where is the government's consistency in asking the workers to accept not more than 10 per cent when it, itself, will spend an extra 16 per cent?
Let me allude to another area of inconsistency. Not long ago the House passed Bill C-71 to do with the reformation of the Criminal Code. Features in that legislation were
Labour Conditions
long overdue. Now the government proposes to introduce a bill ensuring greater peace and security. If the government is so concerned about the ideal of justice for everyone in the land, why not extend justice to those in labour engaged in collective bargaining? Why not introduce legislation which will guarantee the right of appeal for workers involved in the bargaining process? On the one hand the government says its program is voluntary; on the other, the program itself encourages the opposition of adversaries and class confrontation.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was quite right when he said that collective bargaining ought to involve human relations, ought to involve a process in which men and women of good will sit down at the bargaining table, discuss matters of mutual interest and try to come to a reasonable, sensible, and sensitive resolution of their problems. Really this is a matter involving human relations. But you can only bargain if the men and women involved in the bargaining process consider themselves as equals. If one side is waving a club over the head of the other, it is no longer a matter of human relations. If one side has an advantage over the other, again there will not be that element of human relations. Human relations are not involved when there is but a single dimension, a single party, in the bargaining process. There must be provision for recourse to an impartial judge and jury made up to the peers of the parties, who can adjudicate on the situation.
The NDP motion says nothing for the 80 per cent of our work force which has never enjoyed bargaining rights or never entered into collective agreements. Is not the NDP position specious? Why is the party so worked up about that part of the labour force which has been organized some time and engaged in collective bargaining, and not greatly worked up about the rest of the work force, about those who have never been guaranteed these rights and who, so to speak, have been disenfranchised in the labour force? I am led to believe that the socialists are exercised about the matter because the vested interests of the party coincide with the interests of the group they defend, and there will be implications concerning fund raising when the next election comes around.
I agree that the workers who have been on strike nearly one year face an impossible future and unnecessary hardship. As the Postmaster General said, if the parties to the dispute had sat down together and discussed the matter in a human way, in a way involving human relations, the situation would never have come to this pass. There must be other ways of resolving this problem. There has been greed on one side and stubbornness on the other, and we know the result.
I suggest that our plight is serious and that the motion before the House has merit. One could criticize the government for many of the shortcomings of its program. For that reason I ask government supporters to bring pressure to bear on the cabinet and ask the cabinet to introduce a bill which will ensure that the country's workers will have recourse to justice. It is clear that at present there is no such recourse. I commend this action to hon. members on the government side. Let them take the subject matter of the motion under advisement, and let us see if we cannot introduce some righteousness to the way in which we treat the workers of our country.

Labour Conditions
[DOT] (Midnight)


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion was to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the press reports that the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents almost two million workers in Canada, is considering withdrawing its representatives from a number of government-labour-management committees which have been set up over the past 25 years. This is in protest against the fact that in the legislation passed by the government to deal with the inflation problem, there is no method by which workers or their trade unions can appeal against a decision by the AntiInflation Board or the administrator, against a decision which they consider to be unfair.
We listened to the greatest demagogue in this parliament, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), who has had so many portfolios that even I cannot remember them, tell this House that members of this party are being demagogic. We listened to that friend of the Labour movement, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), suggest that members of the New Democratic Party were egging on the labour movement. He stated that if it were not for the NDP, the labour movement would not be opposing the government's anti-inflation program.
Today I got the latest issue of the Liberal party's house organ, Maclean's magazine. That magazine is beholden to the government because of legislation, which I support, that will eliminate Time magazine. It contains an article which I commend to the member who intends to speak. The title is "The Revolt of the Middle-Class Worker". This article was not written by a member of the NDP. It was written by one of the staff of what I call the house organ of the Liberal party, Maclean's. Let me put on record the last paragraph of that article. I quote:
-the federal government is committed to price and wage controls, the labor movement is as unmoving in its opposition to them, and a confrontation is inevitable. When it happens, 1975, for all its turmoil, will look like a year of tranquility in comparison.
That is Maclean's assessment of what we will have in 1976. Why? It is partly for the reason which we indicated in our motion. Had the government listened to the questions we have been asking for the past couple of weeks, had it followed the advice given tonight by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), and had it indicated it was prepared to amend the legislation so that workers would have the right to appeal against a decision which they feel is unfair, we would not need to have this debate.
In every other kind of situation in which people feel they have been unjustly dealt with by a law, they have a right to go to a court for redress. Let me give some illustrations. Whether there be Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit governments, the provinces today are in the process of enacting legislation implementing rent controls. There is not one province which will pass a law which does not provide the right of a tenant or landlord to go before an independent appeal board if they feel they have been mistreated under the provisions of the law.
The government of Saskatchewan passed legislation permitting it to take over the potash mines. Written into the legislation are specific provisions outlining how the companies, if they do not agree with the government as to the price to be paid for the companies, will be permitted to

take their complaints to an independent board chaired by a judge of the Superior Court of Saskatchewan.
The Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) felt that the sugar companies had conspired to raise the price of sugar. He was probably right. But his department and the Government of Canada, took those companies to court. They lost the case, and when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had some unkind things to say about the court and the judge, he was himself called before a court and penalized.
I cannot think of a situation where the government passes a law and then says that its appointees will be the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury all put together. Yet that is what we find in the present instance. We have heard a good deal about the workers being unreasonable in their demands. One would think, from some of the comments which have been made, that workers in the paper mills went on strike for no good reason-that they should have been satisfied with what they were offered by the companies.
Lest anyone is under the impression that these are poor companies I should like to read from the brief which the union presented to the anti-inflation administrator as follows:
The pulp and paper industry in Canada was coming out of a period of unprecedented prosperity which in 1973 saw them more than quadruple their 1972 net profits, after taxes, of $79 million to $320 million and then more than double this figure in 1974 to some $685 million.
That sounded extreme to me. I thought the union might be exaggerating. So I took the trouble, as any hon. member might, of going to the reading room and getting the Financial Post survey of industries for 1975. I turned to the section dealing with the pulp and paper industry. What did I find? I want to put these figures on the record because we shall soon learn whether the employees were being unreasonable.
Here we find the Abitibi Paper Company, one of the leaders in the industry. In 1972, according to their own figures supplied to the Financial Post, they showed a net profit of $8.5 million. In 1973 profits rose to $30 million, and in 1974 they rose to $45,800,000. Here are the figures for Consolidated Bathurst, no relation, of course, to the Liberal Party. In 1972 they made a net profit of $6.4 million. In 1973 net profit rose to $19.8 million, and in 1974 to $47.7 million. Here are the figures for the Price Company: in 1972, $6.6 million; in 1973, $7.2 million, and in 1974, $31.6 million.
It is the nature of the free enterprise system and of real collective bargaining that when companies make large profits, workers in the unions ask, and expect to get, a share of that increased profit. And that is all this union was doing. So they went on strike. When did they go on strike? Before the government announced its anti-inflation program. They had no knowledge this would happen. That is when they went on strike. Some of them were on strike for seven months.
When agreement was reached with the Irving paper company, the Anti-Inflation Board said, "Your increase of 23 per cent or 21 per cent is too much; you cannot have more than 14 per cent". Did the Anti-Inflation Board say
February 18, 1976

what happened to the profits of the Irving company, or to the profits of Abitibi, or Bathurst Consolidated? No. After all, profits of corporations are sacrosanct and cannot be touched. Are their prices going to come down? Of course not.
The clown chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, a former cabinet minister, former director of half a dozen companies, who will have earned the undying support of the corporations so that when he leaves his $50,000 job he will get appointed to a dozen corporations or boards, will guarantee that they are entitled to at least 95 per cent of the profits they have made during the last five years, and of course they will be happy with that. They have never made so much money, so why should they not be satisfied? We know from Revenue Canada that there is no real way to monitor the profits. We know they will go up more than that.
It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the unions went on strike. They went on strike before the act was proclaimed. They reached an agreement before the administrator had been appointed. They asked the administrator as soon as he was appointed to investigate the matter, but he said he could not do so until it was referred to him by the board. Weeks later it was referred to him, and then he made a finding that the company had violated the act. Will the workers who will not be able to get the increase for which they went on strike be able to appeal that decision or go to a court? No. They will not even be able to go to the appeal tribunal.
With regard to the appeal tribunal, it is chaired by a former civil servant with a great record. He was a deputy minister of manpower and immigration and was a failure. So he was moved out of that position and was made chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He was a disaster there, so they made him chairman of the Tariff Board. Then having failed there, he has now been made chairman of the appeal tribunal. Is it any wonder that the workers are unhappy? Is it any wonder that responsible trade union leaders are withdrawing from all boards and commissions appointed over the years? If we are to have polarization and class conflicts in this country of the kind that we have not seen since the 1930s, it will be because of the unthinking, unfeeling, cynical policies of this government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wins an election by promising the Canadian people that there will be no wage controls because wage controls are unfair and will harm them. He gets elected with an increased majority on this promise. He then proceeds to steal the program of the opposition party, and then has the gall to criticize all members of the opposition who said we should have controls, when he opposed them, as well as those who opposed controls when he opposed them and who still oppose them, and says we are somehow being unpatriotic or worse. There has been no such act of cynicism in the history of Canadian politics in the more than 100 years that we have been a country. We know parliament has voted on this question and that the government has the legislation it wants enacted.
We know that until the legislation is changed by parliament, or until the courts declare, as I think they will, that parliament has no constitutional authority to pass this
Labour Conditions
legislation, the legislation is law. We know that like any other law it should be lived up to, observed, and obeyed by all citizens of this country. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. There is no justice and there can be no appearance of justice with a law which, either by accident or by design, is imperfect. I do not know whether this was by accident or by design, but I have been here too long and watched Liberal governments too often to believe this was entirely accidental. It is obvious that this law is flawed and leaves a great deal to be desired.
We did not have to sit here from eight o'clock this evening till 12.30 tonight listening to the sanctimonious approach of the Minister of the Environment and the Postmaster General. We did not need the Minister of Labour to come over here privately and ask us why we do not stop talking because he knows we are right and the government is going to amend the legislation. All the Prime Minister had to do yesterday, a week ago, or today, was admit there was something wrong with this legislation and say the government intended to correct it. All he had to do was be decent and honest enough to do that and we would not have had this debate tonight.
Had the Prime Minister done that we would not now have the responsible, hard working and decent leadership of the labour movement threatening to withdraw from the Economic Council of Canada, from the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee, and from that newborn babe created by the Minister of Labour, the Canada Labour Relations Council. We did not need any of this if the Prime Minister had done what anybody with any decency would have done; simply say he was prepared to amend the legislation.
Any decent and responsible individual would have done this if it were true, as has been alleged, and as I believe is now obvious, that in fact the working people who are directly affected by decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board, arbitrators, and possibly tribunals, do not have the right to appeal, as does any citizen of this country in respect of any other law passed by a government, federal, provincial or municipal. Had the Prime Minister done this we would not be here tonight.
I hope those who suggest the imperfection of this law was an accident and not deliberate are correct. I hope in the next day or two, or the next week, we will have the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), who piloted the original anti-inflation legislation through parliament, rise in his seat and move the first reading of a bill amending this legislation and making it clear without any doubt, and without any need to go to court or hire a high priced lawyer, that any worker or union that feels a ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board or an administrator is in fact contrary to the law, will have the right to go to court as would be the case in respect of any other law passed by this parliament or by any other jurisdiction in this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before us tonight really refers to two items. One is the allegation in the motion that the CLC has announced its intention to withdraw from co-operative

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
action with the federal government-and it has already been pointed out that considerable poetic licence is involved in this: the CLC is actively considering this matter. What a difference between the two statements. The second part of the motion refers to the right of appeal by bodies subject to orders of the Anti-Inflation Board or the administrator to appeal their ruling to the appeal tribunal. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) when speaking tonight indicated that if there were imperfections in the appeal system, he was quite prepared to look at it again and see what changes would have to be made.
I would like to speak for a few moments about the pulp and paper strike that has been going on in our country now for some months, affecting many communities throughout the country. This strike is a broadly-based one, one that affects communities across the country. It is a labour dispute that affects practically every province, and it has tremendous detrimental effect on many communities throughout Canada. Over 25,000 members of the Canadian Pulp and Paperworkers Union in numerous towns and cities have suffered through the long and difficult months, in some cases up to seven months.
I am especially conscious of the harmful effects that this strike has had on the many industrial towns in Canada where these industries are located. My own constituency of Algoma is facing serious economic problems, not only with the shutdown of the E.B. Eddy plant in Espanola but also because of the spillover effects which this strike has had on other related industries. This area in northern Ontario has often been considered economically depressed, so you can well appreciate that a solution of this labour dispute is of prime importance to the residents of the towns and cities in the area. In Algoma, the strike is located in the town of Espanola. This one-industry town literally has been brought low as a result of the strike, with over 1,000 workers affected and the economy of the town hit rock bottom.
Many families have received virtually no financial assistance for these past four months. Family savings and investments have been used up, and many are now facing serious debt. Other services and activities in the town have been cut back or curtailed. The morale of such a one-industry town is severely damaged by this long shut-down. The effects have, however, spread significantly to virtually all communities in the Manitoulin Islands and North Shore. Support industries to the paper mill are closed or are operating under severe hardship. The number of families thus affected is multiplied enormously.
I have been approached by many individuals and small businessmen who are facing serious financial problems because of the strike, asking me to seek government assistance for them. Many residents employed in the areas north and east of Sault Ste. Marie, located in the Algoma riding in the bush operations of the Abitibi plant, are likewise without work. So the effects of a pulp and paper strike ripple out to the entire community, even into the bush lot operations and the small sawmills selling wood chips to the paper mills. The communities in northern Ontario rely primarily on mining, forestry and pulp related operations. Half of them have been idle for four to seven months, and many families have had to move to other locations and even to southern Ontario and cut their social and commu-

nity ties. The resulting problems for these one-industry towns are enormous.
I believe that a very unfortunate aspect of this strike has been that it affects most severely families in the small communities and towns throughout the country where media coverage is not as good as in our large urban centres. So in some ways, for much of the country in urban Canada it has really been a forgotten strike because the media has not covered it and they have not brought the normal pressure to bear which often occurs with regard to strikes.
While it may be that some companies have suffered because of losing customers to plants in the United States, it is clear that the companies must shoulder much of the blame for lack of settlement in the negotiations. This is an industry which operates on the leader principle where the big companies tend to settle first, and then the smaller companies settle. At least, this is the theory. Often there is not a concerted effort by the smaller companies to negotiate. By the same token, the companies have not had the normal pressure to settle because of high inventories in the pulp and paper business overhanging the market.
In this connection, I do not think the Canadian people have been greatly affected by this strike, although the effect has been devastating in the small industry towns where many of the pulp and paper mills are located. However, there has not been a public outcry because there really has not been any direct shortage of paper. If there has, it has been so minimal that it has not been noticed by the general public.
Another aspect of the strike which I think is important is that many trade unionists believe there has been a deliberate challenge to the new Canadian Paperworkers Union as it is just beginning to get itself established: it was set up in 1974. We need strong unions which can adequately represent the workers in our plants and production centres, and encouragement is due to the members of the CPU because this is a relatively new union. Its resources have been quite limited, and as a result the assistance it has been able to give its membership during the strike has been limited.
During the last week or so I have been encouraged to see that negotiations are resuming in many parts of the country. There have been some settlements, and I hope there will be more. Although some people will criticize some specific aspect of the anti-inflation program, such as the appeal procedure which is the subject of this motion, I believe most people agree with the need for a program and want to see it work to combat inflation. Our inflation and unemployment rates are too high. It can be argued that our rate of inflation is lower than that of Great Britain and our unemployment rate is lower than that of the United States; however, they are both too high for Canada. As a country, we have a special stake in a good price performance and a low unemployment rate. We are a trading nation. A large percentage of our GNP comes from foreign trade, larger than nearly every other industrialized nation, so it is in our own interest to have competitive prices so that we can sell our products abroad and create jobs at home.
Likewise, on the job scene we have special circumstances in Canada compared with nearly every other industrialized western nation, because we have the fastest growing labour force-a growth rate of 50 per cent during
February 18, 1976

the period from 1965 to 1980, and over this period over 3.5 million new jobs will be created. Comparing this with other countries, we can see its significance. For example, in the United States, for the same period 1965 to 1980, there will be a 30 per cent increase. During the same period, most western European countries will have a 5 per cent growth in their labour forces. Countries like Sweden have practically no growth rate. So it is important that we control inflation and create more jobs.
I believe that there is general support for the anti-inflation program, not only to reduce prices but also to help our unemployment problem and to put us in a position where we can take advantage of the general economic upturn which seems to be indicated for the last half of this year. Already there has been some indication of a reduction in the rate of the consumer price index with rates lower in both December and January. The December increase was the lowest for any month in three years, only .1 per cent, and January's was at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent. Both are lower than last year. Likewise, the jobless rate has been reduced during the past month or so.
It seems to me that the price side must be the critical concern of the Anti-Inflation Board in the months ahead. Only if the rate of prices continues to moderate will working people be willing to have guidelines on wages. Some 6,500 firms across the country now have to disclose to the Anti-Inflation Board all their profits, prices and dividends and provide this information to the board by February 27. The profits must not increase even though the volume of sales goes up. As well, 117 major firms and their subsidiaries-which brings it up to some 200-which sell $28 billion worth of consumer goods and industrial materials must give the Anti-Inflation Board 30 days notice of any significant increase in price. The board has the power through the administrator to roll back unjustified price increases and should use this power whenever necessary.
Members of the New Democratic Party, during the years of the Food Prices Review Board, demanded that the board be given power to roll back unjustified price increases, profits and rip-offs. Now we have a board with exactly these powers. Why do they not support it?


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) would not want to mislead the House. There are no roll-back provisions for the Anti-Inflation Board relating to prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Has the hon. member for Algoma completed his speech?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Maurice Brydon Foster: No, Madam Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: The answer is not written out, so he cannot give it.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportu-
Labour Conditions
nity to speak in this debate. I have been bothered for several months because the Canadian people have not paid more attention to this strike in the pulp and paper industry. In mid-December I proposed a motion under Standing Order 26 which was not accepted. It seems to me that in this country, unless something happens in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Ottawa it just does not happen. When there was a very serious strike in the Post Office, every minute of every day the press was bombarding the minister. This particular strike, which affects more people and affects the economy perhaps as much as the Post Office strike, drew no attention at all until the situation became desperate. I welcome this debate and I am pleased that we at least have a chance to give some attention to a very serious problem.
We are all aware of the twin scourges of inflation and unemployment. I spoke on this matter at least two years ago in terms of the Galbraithian idea that prices were being manipulated and wage costs were being passed on. I was, therefore, pleased that the sector of the economy capable of passing on these costs was brought under the controls. Companies with 500 employees or more were controlled so that something could be done to avoid the scourge of inflation which is accompanied by high unemployment. The controls were not introduced in 1974, as the Conservative party had wanted. Then our inflation was fed by demand, and controls would only have complicated the situation and made it worse. There would have been a tendency to reduce supply.
By 1975 conditions had changed and we experienced cost-push inflation. At that stage of the game the controls were probably necessary.
In July and August, 1974, labour income was lagging and prices had risen more quickly than labour income. During the period 1974-75 we saw some significant catch-up affecting a significant portion of the country's working people. Some had not experienced this catch-up when the government introduced controls in October. Consequently it included the provision covering contracts entered into before January 1, 1974, special cases, and historical relationships.
I am not happy with the deliberations of the board on these two particular matters and I am not happy with its workings. The board has not adequately assessed historical relationships, for instance, those that exist between woodland workers and those in the mill. It overlooked the significant increases granted to woodland workers, certainly in my area, in late 1974 and again in 1975. These distorted the picture. I do not think that the Irving settlement, if applied to the Abitibi and Great Lakes paper companies, would have been adequate. I do not think the board took into account these historic relationships. I think the board has failed to come to grips with some of these problems, and for a good reason. It does not fully understand what the implications of its programs will be for the labour movement and does not know how its programs will affect the general welfare of Canadians.
We have four paper mills in our town, three Abitibi mills and one Great Lakes mill, on strike. The first group has been on strike eight months, the second for six. It has been a long strike and there is much hardship. As the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), said many families are in

February 18, 1976
Labour Conditions
real trouble. There is no welfare and no unemployment insurance for most. That situation has created great hardship in our community. It was expected that the settlement would be better than that which the board would allow in the Irving company case. These expectations apparently will not be met. There is a great deal of understandable concern, of chagrin, among the people in our community who have been badly affected by the strike.
There are basic causes for the board's inadequacy. I do not think either the labour movement or the NDP can escape from the consequences of their actions, or from the responsibility for some of the causes leading to the board's shortcomings. What are they?
First, the failure to put a labour representative on the board has caused some of the shortcomings of the board. I well know, as do other hon. members, that the CLC effectively blocked the appointment of a labour representative to the board. The third appointee would have served with Mr. Pepin and Mrs. Plumptre, and would have been a labour representative. I think the board in its deliberations has been less than fair to labour because labour has not been represented. This is an important factor in the board's shortcomings.
There is another factor that is also extremely important. That is in the whole formation of the policy the attitude that labour took when they said they would have nothing to do with it. That is unfortunate because there are things that could and would have been done had the labour movement said that because they did not like it there were some amendments that should be made. For example, I would like to have seen an amendment that would have taken contracts before January 1, 1974, right out of it. Pressure from labour would have had some effect along that line. I hope the appeal process will be corrected. I am sure that if labour had shown more interest and had gotten behind some of these changes, it would have occurred.
In spite of the reaction, not of trade union members but of the trade union movement, I call on the government to make an appointment to the board, even on a temporary basis. If that appointee is not from the trade union movement, he or she should at least be someone sympathetic to the problems of labour. That appointment should be made shortly.
The board will be hearing the terms of settlement of the IWA, the west coast settlement, which I believe is roughly 16.2 per cent. I hope they will look at this settlement very carefully, not reject it out of hand, and not lower it. There is a great deal of justice in that settlement.
I call on the government to bring in an amendment allowing for an appeal as soon as possible. I ask that the cabinet take another look at the Irving settlement, particularly if the board tends to agree with the west coast settlement.
These are the suggestions that I have made: an immediate appointment to the board, a favourable look at the west coast settlement, bringing in an amendment as soon as possible to allow for an appeal, and hearing an appeal from the union. These are the four steps that we must take.
I am very concerned about the future of labour-management relations in this country. I am concerned about the confrontation aspect that is creeping in nowadays. It is not necessary. It is not the Canadian way. It will create a great many difficulties.
There is a need for strong anti-inflation measures such as the present controls. It is extremely important that labour be part of the whole operation. We have to start taking new directions. As the Prime Minister indicated, we may want to look at the West German or Swedish models. At this point it is very important that the trade union movement, labour, be included in consultations. This confrontation business is not going to work. If there had been consultation rather than confrontation we would not be having this debate tonight.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me a question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to accept a question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I listened very closely to the disappointe-ment which the hon. member expressed with respect to the legislation. During the debate on the legislation, many suggestions were made to make the kinds of improvements the hon. member was talking about, but the government refused. Can the hon. member advise me whether it is correct that he supported the legislation when the bill came to a vote?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, I supported the legislation. I should like to have seen some changes. I feel strongly, though, that had the trade union movement been supporting the bill it would have been easier to get some of those changes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the hon. member permit a further question?


Some hon. Members:: No!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member like to make a speech?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Then pursuant to Standing Order 26(13) I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded, and I therefore declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. this day, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 12.47 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 19, 1976