1976-03-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 with respect to the matter of Computing Devices of Canada and the cancellation of the Samson contract and their participation in it. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That a thorough investigation be undertaken by the Department of Supply and Services as to the fairness in the evaluation of the product of CDC in light of the conditions of unprecedented security that are the cause of the delays and were beyond the control of the company by reason of, first, lack of U.S. security information as promised; second, lack of Canadian government security information as promised; and third, the fact that this was therefore the first Canadian company to undertake the development and establishment of tempest technology.
Further, that pending the investigation, the Crown reinstate the contract on the basis that the company can meet the delivery requirement of September 1976 for the prearranged testing and implementation of the system.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the standing order, the motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that yesterday in the House the Minister of National Defence, in reference to the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, said that there was a full disclosure of the improper payments by that corporation in the Senate hearings in the United States, and Canada was not mentioned at any time in those full hearings, and in view of the fact that the deputy Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Robert Ingersoll, has announced that
the State Department will supply the Lockheed data to other countries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of National Defence table the data received from Mr. Ingersoll in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented 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, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House recommend that additional credits be allotted to LIP to promote a better use of our manpower through the creation of new jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRIBUTE TO MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON THIRTY-SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION AS MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing the question period I know all hon. members of the House would want to join with me in taking just a moment to mark the significance
12176

March 26, 1976
Oral Questions
of this occasion in celebration of an anniversary of an event which took place on March 26, 1940, some 36 years ago. I refer, of course, to the first of an unbroken succession of elections to the House of Commons of the Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The incidence of an unbroken succession of elections to this House is a remarkable occurrence, appreciated perhaps no more clearly than by the other members of this chamber. In addition to the success the right hon. member has enjoyed during that time at the hands of the electors and the honours which have been heaped upon him by Canadians in every walk of life as well as from every corner of the country, perhaps the highest honour the Canadian citizenry can pay to any one of us is to elect a person to be Prime Minister and first citizen of our country, which is at the pinnacle of those great honours and distinctions.
However, to add to that achievement, and as a recognition which I think all of us share with immense pride, the right hon. gentleman will leave Canada tomorrow for the United Kingdom where he will be received by Her Majesty the Queen and recognized as a Companion of Honour, a recognition which is shared by only 65 members of the Commonwealth, and perhaps most significantly the motto of which is, "in action faithful, in honour clear". It is in that expression of the record of service of the right hon. gentleman that all of us, and I am sure all Canadians, share with great pride and wish him well on that journey, in receiving that honour, and in continued devotion and work on behalf of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am very deeply touched by your words and by the reception of my hon. colleagues. From the bottom of my heart I thank you all. Nothing honours one more than to be a person in the House of Commons who receives the warmth of reception which I always receive. Thank you, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -my question is to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday the Prime Minister said that he would look in some detail at the consulting contracts involving Mr. Reis-
man and Mr. Grandy. I wonder if the Prime Minister is now in a position to provide the House with further information, whether he will as well give us now a clear commitment to table all of the contracts involving these gentlemen and also to table whatever additional correspondence or documentation there is which might spell out the terms of reference of these contracts.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I see no difficulty in the latter part of the question. Of course, it would be subject to the usual procedures and, presumably, the consent of the contractees at the other end, but I see no problem in that. I will look into the matter.
On the first part of the question, I have nothing to add. I think there was some misunderstanding which resulted in the belief that I had said that the Reisman and Grandy company had had contracts with the government. I reread Hansard, and I never said anything of the kind, although it seems to have been reported in that way. I did say the individuals had contracts, both of them in the early period after their resignations, merely to clear up the files in the transitional period. Both of them had it with their former departments as individuals. There was an additional contract with the Auditor General on the part of Mr. Grandy. That is what I had in mind the other day in saying that I did not have all the facts, but I have no knowledge of this third contract. I will see if it is within the rules to table these contracts Monday or Tuesday.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House now whether guidelines are being prepared by his government which will have to do with the activities of retired senior public servants after leaving the public service, and if he can give us some indication when and in what form these guidelines will be presented to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I already gave that assurance. As to the time and form, I indicated that the subject is a difficult one and I cannot give any guarantees or assurances as to time and form. I would welcome suggestions from all parts of the House. At this point I think it would probably be by way of an enunciation of principle rather than a whole series of individual guidelines, Mr. Speaker, but I would make that statement with the hope that the House itself would see fit to improve upon it in any way. I repeat, it is a difficult area and one which has not been faced before in Canada except by custom. It will take some time to see the practices in other parliamentary or democratic governments and if we want to do a thorough job it might not be immediate. In the meantime, I repeat my statement of the other day; it does cause some uneasiness to the government and we will have to ensure there is no conflict which is a disservice to the government or to the people.
March 26, 1976


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Prime Minister that some action will be taken in the interim prior to the development of some sort of guidelines to ensure that no conflict exists. I wonder if the Prime Minister might also tell the House, in light of the fact that Canada has a mixed economy and an increasing number of agencies are being established by the government which involve an interface between the private and the public sectors, whether the government will give active consideration to a formal policy which would require the registration of all lobbyists or all persons whose occupation or profession involves attempting in a formal way to influence the decisions of government or activities of government agencies? Is there any present intention to give consideration to the registration of lobbyists in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no consideration of that policy and none of which I am aware. I think the difficulties of it are obvious as there are many forms of lobbying and some can be quite indirect. I am not sure how the registration of some of them would achieve the purpose which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has in mind. I will take note of the suggestion and perhaps in the studies that are being made I will bring that aspect of it into consideration.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister of National Defence told the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on Tuesday night that when these officials discussed the purchase of the LRPA with Lockheed, that company was aware of the fact that the Department of National Defence had only $30 million available for payments in the first year of production. Since most of the negotiations for the actual contract were conducted by officials of the Department of Supply and Services, was the minister aware, and were his officials aware, that when the contract was being negotiated DND had only $30 million available?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the financing is still under the responsibility of the customer department and not under mine.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister was aware of this situation, since the contract which was negotiated between his department and Lockheed called for first year payments of more than $100 million, how did he expect production to get started?
Oral Questions


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in effect, the contract has not been signed.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR LACK OF WRITTEN UNDERTAKING FROM COMPANY TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING
A. Daniel McKenzie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If Lockheed gave a verbal undertaking to provide interim financing, why did the department not seek to have this commitment expressed in writing before it began to negotiate the contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in such a negotiation I do not think that promises have any great value. I simply believe that negotiations ought to be written and it is on this understanding that it will be possible to determine whether or not the provisions of the contract were met.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? The press quoted the minister a few months ago as saying that, at an earlier stage, the government had been misled by Lockheed Aircraft. Later he said that statement was not correct and there had been some misunderstanding. As it is obviously important to understand clearly the financial arrangements required-and we heard about the striking increase in the amount of total contract-can the minister explain exactly the nature of the misunderstanding, and how it came about?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have done that in this House and before the standing committee. There was a difference between the amount of funds available in the national defence budget and the progress payments required by Lockheed. We explained this and were told by Lockheed that the difference could be financed by them. Subsequently they told us they could not do it. That is all there is to the misunderstanding. It is serious, but easy to explain.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IF CONTRACT CANCELLED
Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At one stage the minister said that the agreement should not be cancelled, or he was not in favour of cancelling it because the government might be liable to damages. If there was no agreement but a misunderstanding between the government and the company,
2 1 804- 10/i

March 26, 1976
Oral Questions
how does the minister anticipate the possibility for a claim for damages if the contract were to be repudiated?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I expected a claim for damages. I said there might be costs which we should pay. I am not, however, at present trying to find ways of not completing the contract. We are trying to find ways to complete it. I wish hon. members opposite would realize that my objective is to obtain better equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. That is what we are trying to do.
I do not know what the hon. member's objective is in trying to raise all the difficulties rather than finding a solution.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to discover what happened. Does the minister not appreciate that when you are dealing with billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money, you should look into these things carefully, not merely push them forward.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering that the Canada-Quebec agreement on eastern Quebec will expire on March 31, and that it has been announced another agreement would be signed shortly, would the minister advise whether a special agreement of the same nature will also be concluded concerning the south shore between Levis and the Rimouski area east of Levis?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Ottawa-Quebec
agreement concerning the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas will come to an end within a few days. Discussions are being held between the two levels of government in view of reaching another agreement to replace the present one but it certainly will not be identical to the former. It will cover other much more specific areas. Within a few weeks or months, I expect to conclude the negotiations with the provincial government and my colleague, the minister in charge. As for the latter'part of the question, I think the hon. member is referring to his own constituency and to that part of Quebec which lies between Quebec City or Levis and what is commonly known as the Riviere-du-Loup or Gaspe area. I must admit there are no specific projects geared to that area in the programs which are now under discussion at the two levels of government. They will be included in the sectorial agreements which were signed and in others which are about to be signed and which necessarily affect the whole province generally. But there are no specific programs for the area mentioned by the hon. member.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Has the minister received

representations from the municipal authorities of the south shore area and from agencies to ask specifically that a special agreement be concluded to enable the south shore area to develop more quickly and make further use of available manpower?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the hon. member. Indeed the department has received not only recently but during the past months, not to mention previous years, some instances from public groups, more particularly from municipalities to have that area included within a special agreement. Up to now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that it has been impossible for both levels of government to answer affirmatively as expected to the representations of those municipalities or public groups. I hope, however, and I am sure, that avenues will not be closed and there will still be some opportunities for those areas during the months if not the years to come. There are some plans under consideration which, without being under a specific agreement, would surely have a beneficial effect on the area to which the hon. member referred.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The Department of National Defence is now approaching banks on behalf of Lockheed seeking a loan to enable the LRPA project to start, but to date it has met with little success. We hope they are successful. Since DND is prepared to pay the interest on this loan, which we understand amounts to $111 million over the term of the contract, does the minister intend to bring forward legislation authorizing the government of Canada to guarantee this loan to a foreign national?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken of just one of the options we are considering at the present time. However, we have not completed the financing arrangement. Until we do, the other parts of the question are hypothetical.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBLE OBJECTION FROM UNITED STATES IF FINANCED THROUGH CANADIAN BANKS
William James Kempling: Bearing in mind that the minister at the Defence committee on Tuesday night said he did not anticipate any difficulties with the United States government if these funds were made available through Canadian banks, can the minister state that the United States government unequivocally would have no objection to such a move, bearing in mind the difficulties Lockheed are having?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the United States government and their officials must speak for themselves.
March 26, 1976

However, we will have written communication from them before the contract is completed.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On February 25, 1976, Dr. D. R. McGregor, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region Canadian Penitentiary Service, sent a letter to the Pacific Regional Representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The letter stated that an investigation would commence regarding statements about Dragon Cernetic given to the press by members of the PSAC and also that any further statements would lead to disciplinary action. Will the Solicitor General admit that this letter from his officials is curbing the civil rights of the individuals working within the Canadian Penitentiary Service to inform the public of the atrocious conditions that exist within the maximum security institution?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker. The report on the most recent incident at the B.C. Penitentiary will be made public shortly as well as the Farris Commission report on the earlier incident. As I mentioned on a previous occasion, we have been asked by the judge not to make the report public while proceedings were still under way against the three individuals involved in the hostage taking incident, but we are taking steps to make it public shortly.


Douglas Charles Neil: Is this practice of censoring statements made by members of the PSAC implemented on a national basis and, if so, is it to continue?


William Warren Allmand: All I can say is that members of the PSAC frequently make very critical statements directed not only against the Commissioner of the Penitentiary Service but also against me. I am not aware of any hesitancy on their part.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Economic Council of Canada, in its latest reports, has stated that industrial productivity in Canada is the second worst of all industrialized nations and is decreasing steadily, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce productivity incentives based on increases in productivity? Since the Prime Minister expressed great interest in this suggestion five months ago, when I first made it, and referred it to the Department of Finance and to the Privy Council for study, I am sure he
Oral Questions
must have had those reports back from the departments many weeks ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Then, I will ask the Prime Minister, since he is obviously not making the slightest attempt to get these reports which could have been in his hands a long time ago had he wanted them, whether he is content to satisfy himself by philosophical musings on this important matter, or whether he intends to do something to try to put this country back on its feet again?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the case of Stephen Badger I notice that as early as a week ago there was a remark by one of the hon. gentleman's departmental officials to the effect that Canadians were the most important people to swim in the Olympics. Today, an official comments that we do not consider who they are when they go into the Olympics and in the same article he mentions he received representations from Winnipeg saying that only Canadians should swim in the Olympics. Does, really, the fact a person is an athlete play any part in the immigration process or is the official in error in both cases in saying it would play any part in the person not being admitted and it might be effective in admitting him?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I have not seen the reported comment by an immigration official. The question of the Olympics is really not, in that sense, anything to do with immigration. We would judge applicants strictly on the basis of whether they were eligible to enter Canada under the immigration laws.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact that the Deputy Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Robert Ingersoll, has announced that the State Department will supply the Lockheed data on bribery to individuals in other countries, will the hon. gentleman say whether Mr. Ingersoll has supplied to Canada information about the Lockheed bribes and, if so, will he table the information in this House?


James Armstrong Richardson: No such data has been provided.

March 26, 1976
Oral Questions


Andrew Hogan: Will the minister seek from the Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Ingersoll, this information on the Lockheed bribes so that we may be sure no Canadian officials or intermediaries are involved?


James Armstrong Richardson: Canada has not been named and if there is any accusation, then it should be brought forward.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the minister's own statistical report on Riverport, Nova Scotia, dated March 15, 1976, indicates that last year some 300 vessels reported in and out of this port requiring 280 entries for exwarehouse deliveries plus long room entries, small collections, export entries and postal shipments, and since the position of customs officer at this port has been vacant for over a year, following the death of the resident officer, I should like to ask the minister when he intends to advertise for a fulltime customs officer at Riverport instead of downgrading the port as an outport under a vessel clearing station officer with a proposed salary of only $600 a year.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in one breath we are talking about saving money and in the next we are talking about spending it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The statistics which the hon. member quotes are, of course, all relative to vessel clearings which take place in other areas. It is true there has been no customs officer there for a year and a half; we have made the port a vessel clearing station and the salary of the individual who handles that post on a part-time basis is negotiated by the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. We have to look at the statistics here in the light of the availability of other ports. As the hon. member knows, Lunenburg is also available. They have been operating at Riverport without a customs officer for about a year and a half. I think the Lunenburg people have done a great job in this area. But in accordance with the hon. member's representations we will look at the proposal. I think his figures should be judged in conjunction with the other figures we have.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister implies that we are not interested in saving money. I would point out to him that there are some 20 ships sailing from Riverport, vessels approximately 150 feet in length and costing in excess of $3 million, and that to delay a sailing for one day would cost more than the $6,000 or $7,000 that a customs officer would receive. So, when one is faced with a penny wise and pound foolish proposal, one must ask a supplementary, and it is simply this; in the light of the minister's program of restraint which is costing Nova Scotians dearly, will he assure the House that he will apply the same restraint to

his entire department by offering to pay all his other employees a salary of $600 a year?


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As the budgetary deficit for February is higher than it was in the same month last year, and as the level of federal government spending shows no signs of moderating, to the extent we have a budgetary deficit of $3.3 billion in the first 11 months of this fiscal year as opposed to a surplus of $219 million at this time last year, can the minister tell the House when his much-publicized so-called restraint program will show any effect upon government spending and rising deficits?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I could refer the hon. member to the last question which was asked.


An hon. Member:: Cheap shot!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Considering that chartered bank general loans increased by half a billion dollars in the week following the raising of the bank rate, perhaps the minister can tell us a little more explicitly than last time when we may hope to see the effect of the rising bank rate upon the expansion of our money system bearing in mind the half billion dollar increase immediately after the increase in the bank rate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The governor has always pointed out to those who follow monetary policy that the changes to be effected by changes in the cash reserve system would not result in immediate responses but that they would be in effect over longer swings. The bank is of the opinion that the change in the reserve policy, which was signified by the change in the bank rate, will bring about a restriction in the growth of monetary aggregates in Canada but he does recognize that from week to week there may be intermediate swings.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON RATE OF INFLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister indicate whether a contributing factor to Canada's relatively high inflation rate is high government spending including the heavy borrowing required by the government, $6 billion being required last evening alone, bearing in mind that our inflation is now half as high again as it is in the United States where they are forecasting lower unemployment in the coming year and higher real growth than in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the level of government expenditures and that is precisely why we sought the co-operation of the hon. gentleman in measures such as
March 26, 1976

Bill C-68 in order to reduce the level of government spending.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to put my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but since it arises out of the communication from the acting minister alluded to by the minister on Monday I will direct it to the acting minister. I can understand the difficulties the government has in communicating through the normal channels with the Republic of Cambodia, but considering the history of special missions to the Indochina area during the decade of the Viet Nam war, would the acting minister consider sending a special envoy to Cambodia to ascertain the situation, if necessary to offer aid and plead for tolerance for human life?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question ought to be put directly to the minister. The situation has not changed and I am not in a position to give a positive answer.


CAMBODIA-POSSIBILITY CANADA ASKED TO TERMINATE AID PROGRAM
Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which perhaps the parliamentary secretary or the minister may be able to answer. In the letter alluded to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Monday, the acting minister mentioned several international agencies which were asked to leave Cambodia. He made no mention of the small but growing contribution of CIDA to the Khmer Republic. Was Canada asked to terminate its aid program to that country?


Monique Bégin: Would the hon. member please repeat the last part of his question?


Howard Earl Johnston: There has been in the last three years a small but growing contribution through CIDA to the Khmer republic or Cambodia. Was Canada asked to terminate that aid program?


Monique Bégin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the minister.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF RAIL SERVICE IN PRINCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and relates to the report tabled this week by his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the Standing Committee on Regional Development, a report which comments on the economic situation in the various provinces. With respect to transportation in Prince Edward Island, the report stated that the problems involved in transporting commodities using existing facilities are expected to be extreme by 1977. In view of the comments yesterday in the provincial legislature by the minister of highways about the likely abandonment of rail service by Canadian National Railways and the difficulties this would obviously create, can the minister indicate what steps are being taken, either by himself or his officials, to head off this impending crisis referred to in the report I have just mentioned?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we always attempt to analyse trends in traffic and to look ahead to the steps that have to be taken to accommodate them, and this is what we are doing in this case.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat surprised because I understand that the minister had a meeting with the provincial highways minister about two week ago on this problem. Yesterday the minister of highways indicated that he did not know what steps would be taken. When will the minister be able to give the House a report, or can he tell the House whether a special committee has been struck? Because this involves the complex of transportation facilities in Prince Edward Island, not only rail but highways as well.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's first question was very general, but he now appears to be referring specifically to the question of highway strengthening, which was the issue in a meeting that I had with the highways ministers from the Atlantic region. I had a long brief from him on this subject and I did undertake to have a further look at the brief before responding to it. I have no further comment to make at this stage.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board and it deals with the designation of the Niagara region of Ontario as a bilingual district. In view of the minister's admission on Wednesday that the people of the Niagara district had not been sufficiently consulted by way of public hearings on this matter, would the minister give his assurance that such meetings will be held before his department proceeds to designate the Niagara region as a bilingual district?
March 26, 1976

Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have been there myself. I met people who made objections. We had an excellent and very lively meeting. I think I cannot have better public hearings than those in which I take part myself. I said that before proceeding in this area I was going to consult the people's representatives of this area. We have already established a subcommittee of hon. members from the area and we hope that by the time we do proceed there will have been enough exchanges with the population.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is based on the incredible response yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he feels that the intergovernmental agreement regarding the CANDU reactor in Argentina is binding even though there has been a change in government. Given the terrifying implications for world security if nuclear agreements are not adhered to, does the government not feel it is necessary to discuss this agreement with the new regime and gain the firm assurance that at the very minimum the accord announced on January 30 of this year will be honoured?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not hear the answer of the minister yesterday, but I see no likelihood that the new government would not also be looking at the contract which binds their country since the contract is ongoing. There may have been something I missed in the question or in the answer, but as to the desirability of the new government being conscious of that contractual arrangement, obviously the answer is yes.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister with regard to a Canadian initiative to undertake to achieve a reconfirmation of this agreement from the new regime. Can we have the Prime Minister's word that this initiative will be undertaken by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this will call for a particular reconfirmation. We will want to make sure, even before recognizing the new government, that it undertakes to discharge its contractual and treaty obligations.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would

inform the House of any federal government proposal or solution to save the jobs of several hundred workers at the Douglas Aircraft plant in Malton, and when can we expect an announcement about a sound Canadian aerospace industry policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been having some discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who in turn has been in close consultation with Douglas Aircraft (Canada) regarding some possible extension of work opportunities at the Malton plant. I am hopeful, as I know the hon. member is, that notwithstanding the drop in the international market for DC-9 and DC-8 aircraft, we can find some means whereby we can assure that this Canadian production will not only be kept at the present level but, indeed, increased.


MEASURES TO RELIEVE NOVA SCOTIANS OF HIGH COSTS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who will be well aware of the concern in Nova Scotia about the increase in power rates as a result of the heavy dependence of that province on oil in terms of power generation. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the premier of Nova Scotia has made any specific proposals to the government of Canada, either in respect to a global approach to the problem or a selective approach to ease the pressure of power rates in that province, particularly on certain industries and Nova Scotians of low income?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer that, I discussed this question again with the premier of Nova Scotia this morning and am looking forward to the participation of the minister of finance of that province, Mr. Nicholson, at the finance ministers meeting next week, at which meeting the question of the costs being assumed, particularly by Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as a result of the oil price increase will be a specific agenda item. In other words, we would expect to have a rather intensive discussion of this question at the meeting next week.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister whether the government has notified the provinces that the federal government will be changing some of the regulations under the equalization formula, specifically the income tax guarantee formula?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I should explain that it is
March 26, 1976

not so much a change in the regulations as the fact that the fiscal arrangements act, which provides for equalization, the revenue guarantee, revenue stabilization and postsecondary education, will expire on March 31, 1977. There have already been discussions at the official level leading to the conference next week which I anticipate will be the first of a number for the purpose of indicating the federal government's intention with regard to equalization and the other programs and seeking to get provincial agreement on this. We have indicated we are proposing changes in a number of these programs and that is the subject for discussion next week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can tell the House at this time in general what the intentions of the government are in this area so that the provinces will know ahead of time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the provinces have been advised in general terms. We have indicated to them that the revenue guarantee proposal which arose out of the tax change in 1971-72 would not be continued beyond the present program and that indeed we would propose to them a change in the method of calculations. Our view is that we are now in a better position to determine the extent to which the revenue which we would have had under the old tax system has been affected by the new tax system, and with this greater precision we feel we can make it clear to them why the formula should be changed. As I indicated, these have been set out at the official level and we expect to discuss them at the ministerial level.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION NOT CHANGED
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, can we be assured that in any new formula the national responsibility for post-secondary education will not be allowed to be eroded.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: think, Mr. Speaker, in the most general sense, yes. The question is of course-and again we get back to the very important question of fiscal responsibility-as to who should bear these costs and how the system should be structured. On post-secondary education, my colleague the Secretary of State has been involved in more detailed discussion. Mine has been in relation to the formula itself and some of the financial consequences.


SWINE FLU-SOURCE OF VACCINE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday he indicated that Canada has a maximum capacity to produce 300,000 doses of swine influenza vaccine by next fall and indicated that we should have to purchase large numbers of it from other countries. Could
Oral Questions
he clarify from which country he is expecting to obtain this vaccine?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This would most likely be the United States, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of some concern to me. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the fact there is a possibility there will be no exports from the United States until November, and when one considers the time it takes to vaccinate the Canadian population this alternative would appear to be unsatisfactory. Would the minister indicate what else he plans to do.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, traditionally we have been able to obtain between 7 per cent and 9 per cent of the production of American companies for this type of situation. I have already been in touch with the American companies and the American federal authorities on the subject and discussions are taking place at the present time.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I apologize for failing to send him notice, I did not have enough time.
It has to do with the Donohue project at Saint-Felicien, with which the minister is well acquainted Since the Quebec government has made it a priority matter, considering it as the project of the century, since private, provincial and federal sources of capital are grouped together, could the minister tell the House whether he considers this project in a specific agreement or in a general agreement, that is within the framework of a general agreement with Quebec? Further, where do the discussions now stand?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, it may very well be the project of the century for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, but likely not for the whole of province. It is true, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions for some time on this project, as the hon. member knows very well. If there is an agreement, it will be within the terms of the general development agreement which has been concluded with Quebec as well as with every other province, and it will be the subject matter of a special agreement, that is a subagreement. One cannot intervene in such an area in any other way than by subagreements. We do hope that our discussions will come off presently and that a decision one way or another could be announced eventually.

March 26, 1976

Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS
so we would hope that they might agree to modify the proposals.


ALLEGED DENIAL BY UNIONS OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is related to the discussions he recently had with labour leaders here in the capital, particularly that portion of the discussion that led the Prime Minister to suggest that serious adjustments will be necessary in our society before the antiinflation program can be phased out. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention to insist on that adjustment which would restore some of the basic freedoms of individuals such as the freedom of association which most trade unions, with the sanction of our government, have denied their members.


Mr. Gillies:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the answer of the minister to mean that the government is moving away from the traditional position of a multilateral cut in tariffs to a bilateral arrangement among countries and by commodities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not so much bilateral because of course under the most favoured nation clause they would immediately under GATT be transferred to the benefit of others. We have, however, been advocating a sector by sector approach which would be of particular value to those areas in which Canada, either in the United States or in the European Economic Community, has had difficulty in getting market access.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. 
Speaker, I can put this on the agenda if the hon. member wishes. I had not contemplated discussing this matter with
the unions.	WILDLIFE


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION GUARANTEEING RIGHT TO WORK
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Labour. In light of some of the recent actions in the United States, has he considered the preparation of legislation which would restore the right to work for some people who feel they have had this right eroded as a result of some of the powers the unions have in our country?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have not given serious consideration to this because we have not perceived it as a major problem in any of our discussions between the unions and the government.


BUFFALO-METHOD OF PREVENTING WOLVES FROM DEPLETING HERD
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but since neither he nor his parliamentary secretary are here, might I direct my question to the right hon. gentleman. Wildlife officials have blamed wolves for the serious decline in the Fort Smith buffalo herd. The herd which numbered 2,000 head in 1971 is now down to about 900 head. A wildlife official said that about 100 wolves would be capable of eating 730 buffalo per year. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what method he plans for the control of the number of wolves or is he capable of giving the House an answer today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk.


PROPOSED GENERAL TARIFF CUT OF SIXTY PER CENT- GOVERNMENT POSITION
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What response has the Government of Canada given or is planning to give to the reported initiative on the part of the United States government in respect of the GATT agreement that tariffs should be cut on an average of approximately 60 per cent in world trade?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: might answer, Mr. Speaker, the initial response on behalf of the Government of Canada is that the United States' proposal does not in our view equitably meet the interests of Canada in this particular negotiation. We have sought a sector by sector approach, and there obviously will be some differences between the United States' position and that of Canada. We would seek from them greater precision on the position they will be taking, but prima facie this does not seem to meet the objectives we would have at the meeting,


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I should like first to compliment the minister for accepting the opposition's suggestion that Canada acquire tanks on the hire purchase plan. I wonder if the minister could now indicate to the House whether or not he would accept our suggestion as well to have an open-ended agreement until the Leopard Mark II tank is available.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. At the present time we are negotiating with the Germans for the purchase of the Leopard I as one of the options, the other option being, of course, the refit of the Centurions.
March 26, 1976


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which touches on the responsibilities of three different ministries. In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister since it concerns government policy. Recently I received a letter from the president of a textile plant in Ontario who is concerned about an invitation he has received from the Tunisia Trade Commission, supported by promotional material from CIDA, inviting him to establish or relocate his plant in Tunisia. In view of the present adverse balance of trade situation, is this a policy that Canada is now advocating?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look to see whether this particular case is an example of a general situation. There are obviously attempts by CIDA to enter into joint ventures with other countries so that Canadian industrialists can share with industrialists of other countries opportunities existing in developing nations.


MANPOWER
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that CIDA has offered to pay part of the travel and other expenses for any industrialist who wishes to consider establishment in Tunisia, in view of the attractive labour rates which exist there, and in view of the potential dislocation of hundreds of workers in Canada, does the minister have contingency plans available to look after the situation in Canada if many people are left without jobs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member when he raised this matter in the standing committee the other day, I have not been aware nor do I have any details as yet on the subject, but based on that comment I have requested my officials to check this out thoroughly to see what the facts are. If there was any displacement-and I rather suspect that there may be some variation in the approach from that which the hon. member's information would indicate-then most certainly we will take measures to help anyone displaced by such action. But I want to check it out before I give a definitive answer.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF SYSTEM OF BOX CAR ALLOCATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It has to do with the review of box car allocations and the procedures and recommendations which were advanced by J. F. Monts, an economist from Agriculture Canada. Can the minister advise the House what action the government is contemplating with respect to the recommendations that have been advanced by Mr. Monts, and can we assume that arising from the report there may be some modification in the present system of box car allocation?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the steering committee, which was recommended in the second recommendation of the Monts Commission, has been set up after receiving general approval from all concerned. A number of other comments on the recommendations are coming in to me and will come in to me from the steering committee. I will propose a date in the not too distant future to indicate the nature of the implementation that will follow therefrom. I may say that two of the recommendations, particularly Nos. 8 and 9, are not being generally approved in the comments, and indeed do not sit favourably with me.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether or not it is the policy of the Department of Transport to collect user fees at MOT airstrips where there is no staff looking after those airstrips at present and, if so, what would be the method of collection, and would the collection take place even if the department had to hire staff specifically for collection purposes?


Otto Emil Lang: We would certainly want to avoid any additional administrative expense in the course of the collection. Together with the association, we are looking at such questions as this and in order to have more time for the consideration of these matters we have temporarily delayed the implementation of landing fees.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. It concerns the $12 million of $1 and $2 commemorative Olympic stamps issued two weeks ago. In view of the Postmaster

March 26, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
General's statement released on February 12 in which he said:
We need to show our young Canadian athletes that we care about them-that we are aware of the tremendous effort and the sacrifice they are making for Canada. One way you can give your support is by buying this commemorative stamp issue for your collection at philatelic outlets.
What portion of the procedures from the sales of the new $1 and $2 stamps will be given as aid to our Canadian athletes?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, my answer was quite ambiguous and I appreciate the opportunity to be more specific. There are two types of Olympic stamps: the surcharge stamps where the surcharge goes directly to the Olympics, and the commemorative stamps where the net proceeds, after cost of production, are turned over to COJO. But the arrangement we have in writing with that organization is that 3 per cent of all moneys turned over are turned over to the Canadian Olympic Association which in turn distributes that money, as it does the 3 per cent of the money turned over from the Olympic coins, among various organizations responsible for amateur sport in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Because of the interest shown by several members on both sides of the House, I am happy to say that the Minister of the Environment yesterday swam, non-stop, 100 lengths of an Olympic swimming pool- which is the equivalent of over IV2 miles-in one hour and ten minutes, using the crawl stroke. The money earned for the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association was over $2,000. The instructor was Aime R. Brazeau.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the correctional investigator, better known as the correctional ombudsman, for the year 1974-1975.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), Glengarry-Prescott-

Russell (Mr. Ethier), Welland (Mr. Railton), Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), Renfrew North-Nipissing (Mr. Hopkins), Trinity (Miss Nicholson), York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), and Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, may we append these objections to today's Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Similarly, an objection signed by the hon. members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), Trinity (Miss Nicholson), Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), Fort William (Mr. McRae), Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins), Nipissing (Mr. Blais), Welland (Mr. Railton), and Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for province of Ontario.
Again, may we agree that these objections be made an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTION 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 question will be answered today: 4,601.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM FUNDS
Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Was money returned to the Local Initiatives Programme from persons across Canada and, if so, what are their names?
2.	Did other persons receive additional funds and, if so (a) what are their names (b) what was the (i) total (ii) individual amount?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No.
2. No.
Note See reply to question 4,125 referring to the allocation process. Funds were redistributed on the basis of constituencies, not on the basis of persons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak on second reading of this bill. I hope that Your Honour will hear me out, because I am raising a point of order. It is a rather detailed point of order for which I ask Your Honour's indulgence for about five minutes so that I can put it before you. I am satisfied that Your Honour will have to reserve opinion on it, but here it is. It comes back, basically, to the point I have raised time and time again with regard to bills, and that is that some bills go beyond any recommendation made. In this instance, to come down to a nub, there is in this bill, as there was in Bill C-73 which Bill C-89 attempts to amend, provision, under sections 20 and following in Bill C-73 and in clause 6 of this particular bill, for the government of Canada to enter into an agreement with the provinces with respect to the enforcement of the guidelines and all the consequent provisions.
On January 9, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) filed a model agreement and in paragraph 9 of that model agreement there are the following words:
"Payments to the province". Canada hereby agrees, with respect to the aggregate amount paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada pursuant to any order made by the national administrator under sections 20 and 22 of the federal act-
That is now chapter 75 of the statutes of 1974-75-76.
-against a person in the provincial public sector, to pay to the province an amount equal to such part of that amount as may be determined on the basis of a formula to be agreed upon between Canada and the province.
That provision was incorporated as paragraph 9 in an agreement made January 13, 1976, between the government of Canada and the province of Ontario. Basically, there is a situation where revenues resulting from orders of the administrator are paid into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Then there is an agreement by the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to pay moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund to the province, calculated on a proportion of an amount paid into the fund. But under our constitutional and procedural requirements there are two conditions which apply to such payment out of the consolidated revenue fund. First, His Excellency the Governor General must recommend the payment for that purpose in his message to this House. Second, the legislation based upon the message must authorize the payment. We already have had one amendment to the recommendation preceding Bill C-73, and neither the original recommendation nor the amended recommendation says anything about payment of such funds to
Anti-Inflation Act
the provinces. The recommendation is limited to administrative expenses.
Bill C-89, which amends the appropriate clauses of Bill C-73 with regard to these agreements, has no recommendation. I should like to refer Your Honour to clause 6, subclauses (1) (2) and (3) of Bill C-89, and it is my submission that these subclauses, relating directly to payments to Her Majesty in the right of Canada, put this constitutional and procedural defect right at issue. I will summarize briefly. It is a combination of Bill C-73, which has no provision for payment of funds from Canada to the provinces, and the model agreement tabled by the minister and entered into by some minister, on the part of the government of Canada, with the province of Ontario-and, strangely enough, to show that the government is conscious of this fact, in the agreement with the province of Quebec there is no mention of payments from the government of Canada to the province of Quebec, because Quebec does its own administering.
In the case of New Brunswick, the money the administrator directed that the Irving Paper Company pay to the government of Canada is subject to an agreement and is shared between the government of Canada and the government of the province in question. However, there is no authority for that sharing in any recommendation or in Bill C-73, which we have passed, and there was no model agreement. The model agreement followed the passage of Bill C-73 and, as I say, Bill C-89, clause 6, refers directly to these agreements and to the payments thereunder. Since there is no recommendation, it is my view that the bill as prepared is defective, imperfect and requires an amendment by the bringing in of an appropriate recommendation that this House will authorize the payment or the sharing of these moneys paid under the order of the administrator with a province.
I am not going to hold up the legislation, but in my submission this will have to be done. That is my submission to Your Honour for this purpose at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have had no notice of this objection, so obviously I have not been able to consider it in detail. I do not know whether it is well-founded, and I would very much like to take advice from the advisers of the Crown and also to ascertain the position of the Law Clerk of the House on this question. I do not know whether we can continue, therefore, with this bill, or what the suggestion should be. Obviously, I cannot respond now, but I would like to do so in due course.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to consider this matter. I should like to make representations with reference thereto. I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West to the effect that he does not want to delay this legislation. He is fully aware that in the event there should have to be an amendment to the royal recommendation, and in the event that his point is accepted by the Chair, such recommendation could be obtained. Perhaps it might be in order to proceed with the legislation, with the understanding-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With no second reading.

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act


Jean-Jacques Blais: -that the debate is to be continued until such time as the question is ready to be put, but the question would not be put until this point has been disposed of.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated that he was rising to correct a procedural error.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It goes much farther than that.


Walter David Baker: Of course, it goes to the root of the matter, but it ought not in any way to impede the business of the House. I think that is our feeling, and the feeling expressed by the hon. member for Nipissing, and I think it would be in order for us to proceed on that basis. However, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has said, I think it would be inappropriate for us to give second reading, in a formal sense, to the bill until the point has been cleared by Your Honour. With that in mind, I think the business of the House could carry on. I hope that suggestion is acceptable to the government House leader.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We had some assurance that there would be second reading today. If, however, we have to keep talking until a ruling can be made on this point, it seems to me rather unconstructive to keep talking just for the sake of expending time. I put myself in the hands of the House leader, but it seems to me that because of this objection we will probably be compelled to move to other business, which seems a more sensible use of the time of the House.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the Minister of Finance, could we not have an understanding that if the debate on second reading comes to a conclusion, it will at that point be adjourned until there has been a ruling? The minister does not want the House just to talk until' four o'clock to keep it going. Can we not have an understanding to that effect?


Walter David Baker: Why not?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is all I want.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was under the impression that there was an indication that debate on second reading would likely conclude some time later today and that in any case the second reading vote would not come until Monday. If that is the situation, it might be appropriate for the House to proceed to finalize discussion at second reading stage on this measure and then withhold the putting of the question until such time as the Chair has had an opportunity to rule on the point of order.
At the moment there is nothing, it would seem to me, that would prevent the discussion coming to a conclusion at second reading stage and then, before the question is put, the debate would have to be adjourned in order to hold the matter open until such time as further argument can be heard from both sides and until the Chair has had an opportunity to consider the matter and make a definitive ruling in the circumstances. If that is agreeable, the House might proceed on that basis.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, as government House leader, I might say that that procedure is quite agreeable to us.


Walter David Baker: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was not clear whether the hon. member for Edmonton West was seeking the floor to intervene on a point of order, or to speak on the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my point was purely a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dauphin.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this bill and to add my comments to what I think is a very important problem. There is a growing number of people and organizations in Canada who are joining in the chorus that wage and price controls are essentially wrong, and that they should be removed as soon as possible before too much harm is done for the future. Last Monday morning, the cabinet listened to the highly-selective and well-prepared brief of the Canadian Labour Congress which feels that the bill deals unfairly with organized labour. Page 9 of that brief gives an indication of what they think:
Your government's program was supposed to be equitable. Canadians were told that the same degree of sacrifice would be required from all sectors of the community. The legislation and the regulations have made a mockery of this principle for we fail to find adequate controls on dividends, interest rates, professional fees and land speculators. The removal of the special levy on export profits is a clear demonstration that workers in these industries will not benefit from the profits which they worked to produce. Neither is there any guarantee that these profits will be reinvested in Canada to create badly needed jobs. The inequities are becoming clearer with the passage of each day.
While I do not agree that things are as bad for organized labour as this brief states, I do think the inequities are there. Certainly, when the leaders for large numbers of well-organized unions make presentations, we cannot dismiss them and the anti-inflation program must be looked at carefully. The congress listed injustices that they feel were perpetrated in this country by the Anti-Inflation Board. I think it is significant that they have carried out their threat to withdraw from the Canada Labour Relations Council, amongst other bodies. When I consider how the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) for a long time was seeking ways to reduce labour strikes and increase consultation between government, labour and business, I am concerned about this withdrawal. Now we are back to square one as far as concerns the government's attempts to bring peace to labour-management problems in this country. Other voices are being heard. Last Monday, the Ottawa Journal reported that the Canadian Economic Policy Committee of the C. D. Howe Institute had this to say:
Forecasts indicating little if any improvement in the rate of inflation, a further rise in unemployment and only modest gains in over-all productivity do not constitute an outlook for the Canadian economy in 1976 that can be viewed with equanimity.
They stand in sharp contrast to the performance expected in a number of other major industrial economies, particularly the United States economy where the need for greater discipline in its policies was recognized sooner and implemented faster than in Canada.
I think it is important to note that the government has backed off the export tax. In effect, what they have said is that we will now have a two-price system for Canadian
March 26, 1976

goods-what the company can get in Canada, and what they can get in the export market. Almost certainly, the export market price will be higher, which means that shortages will develop if the controls are allowed to continue. That raises the possibility of an attempt by the government to direct into the domestic market a portion of the production of the various companies.
The C.D. Howe Institute went on to say that at present the government has an opportunity to implement sound economic policies. They recommended that the growth of money supply be limited to 10 per cent, and that government spending be restrained while import barriers and government subsidies are reduced. They also urged the government to remove its wage and price controls at the earliest possible date, and said that in their view, any long continuance of the controls increases the risk that government will delay the adoption of a sound package of basic economic measures. The real crisis lies in inadequate leadership and a failure to make full use of the market system, they claim.
The government is faced with the possibility of keeping controls on too long and using them as a means of dealing with inflation rather than getting the economy into shape. We will get the worst of both worlds. As has been pointed out many times, during the election campaign of 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that wage and price controls did not work and he would not use them. The Prime Minister is quoted as having stated on February 28, 1974:
Income controls risk hurting the small and the poor more than they do the big and the rich; and while that may be of minor concern to the more conservative governments and political parties, it is of great and fundamental concern to this government.
The Canadian Labour Congress brief aptly pointed out that the government had degraded the political process in Canada and spread cynicism in the public about government and politics in general. This turnabout by the Prime Minister stands as one of the greatest political turnabouts in the history of Canadian politics. Also, in this bill the government indicates that it is merely tinkering with the process of the functioning of the Anti-Inflation Board without making it in reality any more effective than it was before. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) put it very succinctly when he said that Canada and Canadians are living through an economic experiment. Even with all the wage and price controls being tried in other countries with economies somewhat similar to Canada, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, controls were shown up to be only superficial in attempting to cope with inflation. Speaking on November 14, 1975, on the New Democratic Party motion, I had this to say:
What about inflation? The latest consumer index showing inflation at just over 10 per cent does not come into the category of "good tidings of great joy" but neither is it runaway inflation. It is down from last year. The declining rates of inflation in wholesale prices and commodity prices can be expected to work their way down through the grocery shelves. For instance, the wholesale price index for September announced this week was 6.1 per cent up over a year earlier and the price of raw and partially finished goods was up only 2.5 per cent in the year. The enormous and bumper crops in the United States of grain have pushed down the basic price of corn, wheat, oil seeds so that at the present price the farmer is producing the level of return of 1972 before the devaluation of the American dollar.
Anti-Inflation Act
I think this indicates that the stage was set long before the anti-inflation bill was brought in to have a reduction in the price of many goods. We were saying that Canadian wage settlements were being reduced. I think we have to remember that with the devaluation of the American dollar by 40 per cent two years ago, much of the increase in wages can be attributed to the readjustment that this would inevitably bring. In the third quarter of last year, before the government decided on wage and price controls, wage settlements in the commercial industry averaged only 13 per cent over the life of the contract. This is certainly not far behind the 12 per cent allowed under the guidelines for workers who have fallen behind because of inflation.
The government can point out that the consumer price index, whatever its value as an index of inflation, has dropped considerably. The rate of increase of the money stock has slowed, and the average rate of increase in major wage settlements improved in the fourth quarter of 1975. This might indicate that these key economic indicators have all shown substantial improvement, but the link between the improvement and the controls is almost nonexistent. The consumer price index is down because of declines since October in the price of beef, pork, poultry, fresh fruit, cereal and bakery products, fats, oils, and airline fares. Of all these, only air fares come under the Anti-Inflation Board's purview. Further, the board has only just begun monitoring price and profit margins in a formal way.
On January 28, the board took its first formal step requiring 6,500 companies to provide information by February 27 on prices, profit margins, dividends and compensation. In March, the net was extended to cover a further 9,500 companies in construction, shipping and other industries where small firms conduct joint bargaining with their employees. It will probably take a considerable time for the true effects of the guidelines on prices to become apparent, although the board relatively soon may identify and publicly punish firms which contravene the guidelines.
Although some of the moderation in wage rates during the fourth quarter is attributable to the operation of the guidelines, I am of the opinion that most of the decline would have taken place in any case. The guidelines do not apply to settlements below 10 per cent, or 12 per cent in special cases. In cases where the board has intervened, many of the settlements allowed were only marginally below the previously negotiated increases. Since its first decision of November 27, the board has ruled only on about 160 settlements: another 340 await approval. Of the 160 settlements dealt with, 26 were rolled back an average of 3.9 per cent. The average first-year increase allowed in these settlements was 16.2 per cent. The average wage increase in all approved settlements so far has equalled about 14 per cent.
Wage settlements in this period have moderated, primarily because of high unemployment, falling inflation rates and mounting employer resistance to high claims. This could have been forecast last March, long before the controls were initiated. The controls program very likely will have little effect on the average rate of increase in

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
wage settlements as the months go by. The controls program will have some effect, but only through supervision of price increases which in any event would have come about through stable or rising profit margins in current economic expansion. In other words, in the long run, the board may depress allowable profits and there will be considerable trouble down the road.
The deliberate sacrifice of profit margins cannot be allowed to continue for long without causing undesirable distortions in the economy. A restraining monetary policy, together with a move away from net stimulus in fiscal policy, is now evident. Together, these policies will be responsible in large part for preventing a price explosion when the controls are softened or lifted. The government will not find it easy to manage the period of transition. There will be a tendency for prices to rise when the controls are lifted. Some companies are not raising prices at present because they are not sure exactly what the guidelines allow. Most people want to remain within the guidelines; few want to break the law. Once people know how much extra they can charge under the anti-inflation guidelines, they will charge as much as they can. I am afraid that the minimum increase will be the maximum allowed under the guidelines.
In summary, at this stage it seems as if the country will meet the government's inflation targets for 1976 and 1977, December to December increases in the consumer price index of 8 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. To date, the effect of the controls program has probably been minimal, but its effects will cumulatively be more important as time goes on. It will be necessary for fiscal and monetary policies to be sufficiently restraining during and after the controls period to make certain that no price explosion occurs when the distortions caused by controls are worked out in freer bargaining after the program's end.
It is increasingly evident that the problems of our controls are just beginning. Mr. Pepin, head of the Anti-Inflation Board, has warned that prices will rise as soon as business people realize what they are entitled to charge under the plan. Actually, the controls program indexes inflation at around 10 per cent. It is quite likely that inflation will rise at this rate and the program will make things worse rather than better. The period of control obviously will be extremely unsettling. The longer decontrols stay on, the worse the period of decontrol will be, and the stronger will be the desire of certain groups-perhaps the government included-to see permanent controls remain. These could further distort the economy. Undoubtedly the government has made poor decisions in the past few years; the results of these are going to show up. In our major markets, the United States in particular, there has been a greater tendency to allow market forces to make their way. These economies will be the stronger for it.
I find one aspect of this bill unsettling, namely, the attempt to bring into the ambit of the AIB many small companies which have hitherto been exempt, especially construction companies. There is no obvious reason for this. There has been no public demand for it and no evidence that these people were upsetting the balance which the controls were designed to achieve. This aspect of the bill seems to be based solely on a recommendation of the former prices and incomes commission. The worthy

chairman of that commission advanced no reasons for his recommendation. Frankly, I think it is a mistake to do this. After all, it is in direct conflict with the Prime Minister's theory of government, the Galbraithian theory, which holds that small firms cannot be monopolies and cannot create distortions in the marketplace because they are too small. In other words, small companies respond to the discipline of the marketplace and competition holds down undue gains. Perhaps the moral is that once you start controlling, you must control everything.
May I now deal with the Anti-Inflation Board's decision relating to bilingual civil servants. The Anti-Inflation Board has ruled that bilingualism bonuses for civil servants are not compensation increases subject to wage and salary guidelines. According to newspaper reports, these will cost the federal government $60 million or more in the next year or two. It has been argued that provision was made for such compensation before the controls program was instituted.
I point out that the board did not hesitate to criticize the government's wage settlement with the postal workers. It seems to me that it ought to have rolled back the proposed bilingual increases. Of course, it is up to the government to decide if such roll-back is fair, if the extra $60 million should be paid under government policy. If the government were to so decide, well and good. I submit that the government was responsible for making a decision with regard to bilingual employees, not the Anti-Inflation Board. I raise this matter since it is apparent that we are operating under a double standard. The Anti-Inflation Board has favoured public employees over private employees. If it is to function effectively, it must be objective. It is the government's responsibility to decide what policies it wishes to implement with respect to the bilingual program, or what it wants to pay postal workers.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-89, an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, because I did not participate in the debate on the original bill, C-73, passed on December 3 last. Although I attended nearly every meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs during the consideration of the original bill and was prepared to contribute to the debate, I thought it was better to defer to my colleagues on this side of the House who had not been able to put their views on record before the government imposed closure once more.
I was greatly surprised, however, that less than four months after the passage of Bill C-73 the government proposed an amending bill. Already, through the regulations, the minister had effected certain changes; for example, dividends for small companies, although the public companies still have their dividends frozen. Under the original rules, one area of inequity was that dealing with dividends. Recognizing the effects of inflation, wages were to be allowed to increase 8, 10 or 12 per cent in certain circumstances. However, dividends were frozen at the levels paid in 1974 or those declared in 1975. Furthermore, this not only applied to the largest companies, but to all companies, including small businesses which rely on their dividend policy as part of their remuneration plan. Excep-
March 26, 1976

tions, the minister says, were to be allowed if they could get through the Anti-Inflation Board line-up of cases of corporations needing higher dividends to attract new capital or those for which the base rate was unusually low. It is not hard to imagine the effect this policy had on investors. Many of them probably went to United States markets in the meantime.
The government attack apparently ignored the fact that many retired Canadians rely to a greater or lesser degree on dividend income. These thrifty Canadians who are now to have their dividend income frozen are the very ones the government should be encouraging so that more and more Canadians will want to save and invest instead of spending every last nickel today.
The minister was unable to explain, during the committee hearings, how the pensioner was to get along with a frozen income at the same time that wages were to be allowed to rise. You may say, yes, but government pensions are indexed and that will take care of the pensioner. Although most government pensions are indexed, the private schemes with which they are often co-ordinated usually offset the government increase with a reduction of the private portion, so that the number of dollars paid remains constant. This, of course, works a great hardship on pensioners in these days of high inflation rates.
The government has also overlooked the plight of the ordinary pension funds, the mutual funds and insurance companies. These companies invest the hard-earned savings of low and middle income Canadians, giving nearly every working Canadian some kind of interest in dividends. Every little guy who has an insurance policy, pension plan or any kind of savings has an interest in the dividends of Canadian corporations. But look at the financial attacks being made on the ordinary pension fund today. For one thing, pensioners are living longer and therefore are making greater demands than were predicted when these funds were set up. Of course, the drop in value of the dollar means that more demands are being made on pension funds for increased pensions. In the period since 1965, wages have gone up 126 per cent, but dividends have gone up only 32 per cent, further curtailing the pension funds and stimulating demand for higher pensions. Falling markets have in many cases resulted in capital losses for these pension funds. The government proposes to continue this freeze on dividends. Many pension funds are having great difficulty remaining actuarially sound as a result of all these forces. I suspect that more serious trouble will lie ahead.
I often refer, in my remarks, to the little guy, the little investor and the widows and orphans who have substantial interests in Canadian corporations. Others, particularly those to my left, make frequent reference, with scorn, to the corporate welfare bums. It is significant to see how far into the Canadian corporate structure the individual shareholder has penetrated. To give an example, I point to the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited, which has 55,000 registered shareholders in Canada. Undoubtedly, there are many more who are beneficial owners through trusts and other vehicles. This 55,000 is three times the total number of hourly workers employed by the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited. These 55,000 shareholders have had their dividends frozen,
Anti-Inflation Act
while the wages of one-third that number of hourly workers are allowed to rise 8, 10 or 12 per cent in certain cases.
Before government members say to me that we in the official opposition proposed this kind of a plan, I wish to refer to one or two statements that have been made by government people and others. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), in the House on October 17, 1975, denied that there was any relationship between his plan and our plan. He said:
As I anticipated, the leader of the opposition could not resist the temptation to characterize the program now being put forward by the government as a vindication of the mandatory, comprehensive prices and incomes control program he advocated during the last election campaign and for 15 months before that. It is, of course, nothing of the kind.
I wish to refer as follows to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) given to the accountability session of the Liberal party in Ottawa on November 9 last year:
And we are not the Tories, for instance, who say in one breath that we are stealing their program against inflation and who say in the next, it can't work because we did not follow their program on inflation. We are not following their program on inflation.
During the committee hearings there was another reference that tended to show there was no similarity between the programs. I wish to refer to a question I directed to Mr. Hughes, the executor director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I asked:
Do you see any major differences between this program and the program that was proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1974?
Mr. Hughes replied:
Yes, sir.
He went on to explain the differences that he saw.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question on that point.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member might be expected to know whether, in the program he advocated in 1974, dividends would have been exempted from restriction under the controls.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: My recollection was that there was nothing in the program put forth by our leader that would have had a direct effect on dividends.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Exempting them.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I do not believe there was any mention of it, Mr. Speaker. Long before this bill was introduced certain changes were announced by the minister. The changes were to include, as I remember, 41,000 new companies or firms that would be covered by the guidelines. They were to include all firms in the construction, trucking, grain handling, longshoring and shipping industries. Just last week the minister also said he was considering including the insurance industry in the control program.
Originally, the bill was only to apply to large companies. A number of organizations appeared before the committee.

Anti-Inflation Act
At that time the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which claims a membership of 4,500 companies and 9,000 individual members, stated that only 350 of their 4,500 companies would be covered and that none of their individual members would be covered. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimated that of its 125,000 members in Canada, some 1,500 would be covered-just over 1 per cent.
Then we heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen that probably none of its 30,000 members would be covered. The Canadian Construction Association made an estimate that close to 10 per cent of the firms engaged in the construction industry would be made subject to the guidelines. In the labour sector, the CLC indicated that although the proportion in their case would be higher, less than half their members would be covered by the guidelines. It is interesting to note that the Employers' Council of British Columbia, a noted organization in the field, was refused the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to present its views and ideas.
Then, of course, before the amending bill was presented we were able to hear the Prime Minister's year-end address delivered only a few weeks after the passage of the original bill. Even though the opposition had mounted a vigorous attack on the length of the control period, the Prime Minister indicated in his address that our society was not working to his satisfaction and that we might be faced with a permanent variety of controls. Last week, after all this, the minister took more than 30 minutes to explain the amendments to the three-months' old bill, C-73. The most significant, he told us, were those related to the appeals system. He also proposed the broadening of the right to appeal, and changes in the rules regarding increases in compensation in excess of the guidelines. Then, of course, the all-powerful administrator would have his power broadened in compensation and dividend cases.
The minister also claimed that significant progress was being made in slowing the rate of inflation. As to that, I can only echo my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who quoted the report of the conference board which stated that the recent moderation in the rate of inflation was due almost entirely to a decline in the food component, and that it would be erroneous to give credit to the control measures. Certainly, the Liberal government does nothing to help when it introduces a so-called cutback budget showing estimates 16 per cent higher than those of last year. These proposed amendments do nothing to relieve the plight of the pensioner who relies on dividend income, or to ease the raising of capital so as to encourage investment by Canadians in Canadian enterprise. Nor do they solve the problem of raiding or transfers between companies with the object of circumventing the rules. Still awaited, also, is some relief from the mountain of forms and interminable extra work required to be done by the business community. These are all reflected in passthrough costs, and it is the taxpayer who pays in the end.
Some firms are still trying to understand why they are not entitled to the protection, as they perceive it, which is being given to the larger firms. It is obvious to me that the scheme is never likely to be accepted readily by the Canadian people, principally because it is so confusing to

the community at large and because the government cannot make it appear to work equitably. I suppose we shall be looking for more amendments to the legislation as the days go by.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Frank Oberle: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my words on this occasion will be relatively brief, but I should like to cover a few points that concern me about this bill. My original understanding was that the Anti-Inflation Board rulings would apply to some 1,500 firms. This has now been extended to cover some 20,000 firms. The number of people employed to perform this function appears to me to have been increased by about 2 Vi times the original number. I find this somewhat inconsistent with the original philosophy of the Anti-Inflation Board and I hope that in his concluding remarks the minister will deal a little more fully with this particular point than has been the case up to now.
One favourable feature of the legislation is the expansion of the right of appeal to unions. Originally, the appeal structure was limited to the party that considered itself aggrieved, the government and the party being privy to the ruling. The paying party, the payer of the salary or wages, originally was the only party that could launch an appeal against the ruling of the board. This right has now been extended to the unions, and this is as it should be since a person who receives a salary or wage is as much interested as the person who pays. Wherever possible, it is most undesirable to interfere with freely negotiated agreements as to wages arrived at between employers and employees, but in cases that do exceed the guidelines it is extremely important that both parties to the agreement have the right to appeal the board's ruling to a superior tribunal. I think this is a very good feature of the bill.
Significantly, Mr. Speaker, this change seems to have been brought about as a result of a ruling affecting the Irving enterprises and the paperworkers in New Brunswick. In his concluding remarks, I hope that the minister will have the opportunity of dealing with this particular case. The woods workers of New Brunswick too, are in a very difficult position. Our forests, particularly in the northeastern part of the province, are in a very high state of irreversible decay. When these trees are cut, some go to the sawmill and others go to the pulp and paper factories. The original concept of the sawmills was an extremely good one and flowed from our forest products royal commission study and report. The report recommended, among other things, that we use the best part of the tree for quality products. For example, we use the trunk of the

tree, the best wood, to make finished lumber, furniture or hardwood components, whereas the balance of the tree could be turned into porridge and possibly commercial paper or a more finished form of paper. This recommendation is one that I strongly support. As a result of DREE participation a pilot project sawmill was erected in New Brunswick to perform this very valuable function.
A great deal of difficulty has been encountered with this lumber due to the high degree of decay. One of the major reasons for this decay is that the spruce budworm attacks our forests in New Brunswick and over $5 million of federal money has been allocated to deal with the problem. Indeed, the province has put up even more money than that, as have the industries of the province. So that although we have a three-pronged attack on the budworm, all that our attack on the budworm can do at this point is to control the damage it does. Scientists, particularly in agencies of the federal government, are working on the ultimate solution.
To return to these woodworkers, with this high degree of rot an extensive amount of sorting has to be done in New Brunswick which is not the case with woodsworkers elsewhere. I hope that full weight was given to this fact when the decision affecting the Irving company was taken: Irving is the only firm in New Brunswick that made it a requirement that after the trees are cut, reforestation should take place. They are one of the leaders in North America in this field, and I give them full credit for it. I hope this point was taken into consideration in the wage settlement arrived at between the Irving company and its employees and that it was looked at from a regional point of view.
I should also like to refer to a rumour I have heard from New Brunswick which I hope the minister will be able to shoot down. I understand that in granting the wage increase that was disallowed, the Irving firm, in effect, brought its wage earners up to the national level. I would be very unhappy if I felt that this government has in any way impaired the opportunity of anyone in Atlantic Canada reaching wage parity with Canadians in the central provinces.
Much hard work has been done in this House to reverse the trend whereby not all but some people in Atlantic Canada are paid two-thirds the national wage rate. I would hope this board would not be allowed to operate in such a way as to bring about a freeze in respect of New Brun-swickers, maritimers and the people in Quebec because of the disparity in which they find themselves. The minister partly dealt with this matter in committee. I hope he will have an opportunity to do so again. I would appreciate it if he would deal with it again.
Another thing which concerns me is whether this program can be terminated by resolution of the House. If I read the regulations correctly, the resolution would also have to be dealt with by the other place, as my learned friend to the left refers to it. I should like to reflect on that a little further. Perhaps we might conclude that a limit should be placed on the amount of debate in the other place so that this program could be very quickly brought to an end if that should be the decision of parliament.
Anti-Inflation Act
Another thing we should realize, in dealing with this matter-and perhaps the board should realize it in dealing with applications from New Brunswick-is that there are great problems in that province in respect of transportation. Transportation rates have been increasing in respect of our primary products. This has caused very considerable concern. The province came up with a very dramatic, far-reaching and enlightened program of highway construction over a period of four years. Regrettably, the federal government has not seen fit to join the province in this $400 million undertaking. It has approved some badly needed road construction with regard to arterial highways in northern New Brunswick, but has completely deleted the program for southern New Brunswick.
In answer to my question which appeared on the order paper, it is suggested that no specific request was made for any particular project. However, the whole proposal was before the DREE people and only part of it was approved. I do not know what the Premier of New Brunswick must do in order to ask his federal counterparts to deal with this problem. I know he was here in Ottawa in December, at which time he did everything possible to bring it to the attention of the people concerned. If New Brunswick workers must travel on less favourable roads, or on a less favourable transportation system, then surely wage considerations should involve such concepts. This is in line with what the Irving firm did in dealing most favourably with the matter of wages. This seems to be a move in the direction of what I hoped would be encouragement rather than discouragement, as has been the case in respect of this policy. I am not sure the board has adequate regional representation in order to take into account regional problems.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying I certainly do not expect the minister to deal with all the points I have raised, but I must say he certainly made an effort to deal with all the points I raised previously. If he has an opportunity, I hope he will give some consideration to these points also.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will not indulge in reiterating what some of my colleagues have said during this debate. They went back to before the last election and indicated how the government brought in a program which it had so vigorously opposed before the 1974 election campaign.
I should like to refer to this in another way. When the government finally structured its anti-inflation program, it was no surprise to me that there was a system of wage and price controls in Canada. I said this to my Liberal opponent during the election campaign. I felt sorry that he had to tell political untruths to the people during the campaign. We both knew that our economy was in trouble and that something would have to happen in tune with what other countries have done to bring the flood and spiral of inflation under control. What I am upset about is that when the government finally decided enough time had expired since the last election campaign, and that it was safe to go to the Canadian people and say, "While this was not a good program in July, it is a good program now," the government also applied, for the first time, this innocuous thing we have heard throughout the debate, that the program is substantially different. In other words, the anti-inflation

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
program with which the Minister of Finance burdened the people had to be substantially different from the well thought-out plan of the former leader of the opposition.
What did the members of the government do? They sat in the backrooms and went through the Conservative antiinflation program. They must have told themselves, first of all, that they could not have a 90-day freeze because that would look too much like the Conservative program. They decided not to have a time limit of 18 months or 12 months, because that was what the Conservatives discussed during the 1974 election. So they ended up with a program that was substantially different from that worked out and thought out by some people who worked on the problem over a long period. They did not bring in an anti-inflation program that would have worked, a program which indeed did work in the United States and a program that has worked and has helped to bring the economy under control in other parts of the world.
I do not wish to give too much credit to our friends in the fifth estate, but recently a reporter for a local paper said that a government shows its decay never more clearly than when it begins to spend more of its time saving face than fulfilling its mandate. Truer words have never been spoken about this government. This anti-inflation program has been nothing but an effort to save face. It is nothing more than a program that is substantially different to something that might have worked in Canada. At no time did we say that our program was a cure-all or a solution to all the economic problems we face in Canada. We did say, however, that it was a program that was needed to combat the inflationary cycle and bring it under control.
A short while ago the minister asked permission to ask a question of one of my colleagues who spoke about this matter before we recessed for lunch. He asked what the Conservative program would have been. Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can save myself the trouble of responding, if the minister should feel the urge to ask me the question, because I would tell him to ask the former minister of finance who in Toronto recently laid out exactly what he thought the anti-inflation wage and price control program should be like. He said that the open-ended program in effect now could lead to totalitarian government. This is the minister who has just left the cabinet, the former minister of finance. He was also involved in the 1974 election campaign, when he said that the program should have started with a 90-day freeze. I wonder where he got that from, and I wonder why he left the cabinet.
This program is doomed to failure even if the amendments are brought in. When the minister first introduced the program in the House of Commons, and his colleagues spoke on it, great care was taken because it was being said that he would build a monstrous bureaucracy. We were under the same attack in the 1974 election campaign. With regard to the anti-inflation program, we were told that only 200 people in total would administer the program throughout the country and that it would be a kind of self-liquidating program. I invite anyone to travel throughout the country to see how many adjudicators, arbitrators, communicators and instigators are travelling around trying to make this program work, trying to earn the respect of labour and the business community, and trying

to explain the inexplicable; in other words, trying to explain something for which there is no explanation.
My colleagues have spoken about the monstrous forms which small firms have to hire armies of consultants, lawyers and accountants to fulfil the new requirements which the government has placed upon them. What about this business of the jurisdiction of the anti-inflation program? When the program was introduced, my colleagues will recall that the minister said-and I made an issue of this in the House-that basically certain sections of the Income Tax Act would be used by the Anti-Inflation Board in exercising their power to intervene. Generally speaking, anyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Act would fall also under the jurisdiction of the AntiInflation Act. We know that that did not work out the way it was intended, because none of the current operations of the federal government or of the provincial governments- and those are the ones affected by the Income Tax Act and considered different from ordinary departments of the government-is attuned to the anti-inflation program.
The provinces did not fall over themselves to rush to Ottawa and sign the agreements provided for under the act, because first they had to get their own house in order. They wanted to be the first to introduce increased rates for hydro and increased insurance rates such as in British Columbia, which has increased these rates by 120 per cent and 150 per cent in some cases, and all the other costs which make up the cost of living of Canadians. Some provinces found themselves in a pinch with regard to the professional salaries of nurses, teachers, and so on, so they decided it was time to go to the federal minister to sign the program and to refuse to grant the increases which some of these professional groups are demanding.
With a program like this, how can you ask a private sector, the Canadian Labour Congress or the man on the street to practice restraint, to fall in line? These agreements with the provinces have not worked out, and the reason they have not worked out is that the federal government should have shown some restraint. As a matter of fact, we are faced in this House with a 20 per cent increase in federal spending at a time when everybody is being asked to restrain their demands to 10 per cent. On top of that, the government saw fit to shift some of its own responsibilities to the provinces by announcing the phasing out of its participation in certain health programs and the curtailment of some of its contributions to health care over a number of years. Recently, the provinces were faced with the decision of the federal government, reached without any consultation with them, to slow down spending when it comes to policing. The formula is being adjusted, without consultation. The provinces were told they had to accept the greater share in the cost of monitoring the program.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a perfect example of this. I am referring to the recent adjustments to the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby a qualifying period of six weeks was brought in under the legislation. I challenge any member of the House to show me one working person in our country who could live for six weeks without income. What has been achieved by that change is that the burden to maintain families with no income is now shifted from the federal government to the provincial govern-
March 26, 1976

ments. So why should the provinces be so excited about the anti-inflation program, and why should they act in a different way from the federal government? The provinces had every justification to do what they did through their Crown corporations, to increase hydro rates, the cost of energy, the cost of transportation and all the other essential components in the budget of the average Canadian, particularly those Canadians who can least afford these increases.
When he goes to the bargaining table, the first thing the employer tells the working Canadian is, "We understand you have fallen behind, but you must understand that we are bargaining under some restraints. After all, we want to be responsible Canadians and we do not want to exceed the guidelines that have been set by the federal government." This is the main topic of discussion across the bargaining table today. Unions are charging that no one else is living by the guidelines. Corporations are not following the guidelines, particularly those exporting their goods and who are being paid on international markets.
The minister has announced that their profits, which may be in excess of the guidelines, are allowed under the program. I do not argue with him. I am part owner of a small company which exports all its productive capacity to another part of the world, and I welcome the minister's decision. But I should like to hear from him how he will monitor these excess profits and ensure that they will be funnelled back to the company to be reflected in the increased capacity of the individual plant. It is an exercise in futility. It is impossible to have that kind of transfer of money.
One of my big objections to the program is that it will do nothing in the first year but guarantee us a 10 per cent inflation rate. I can substantiate that argument with the experience we have gained in monitoring the cost of houses and rents in the two major metropolitan centres of Toronto and Vancouver. My colleagues will recall that in British Columbia the socialist government there in 1973 and 1974 had a rent control program: landlords were not allowed to increase rents by more than 10.6 per cent a year. Everyone in the House knows that the cost of housing and rents is the highest in the country in Toronto and Vancouver. The effects of the rent control program in British Columbia were monitored in this way and resulted in rents in Vancouver increasing 3 per cent more in that one year than they did in Toronto. Everyone asked how that was possible, because there was a ceiling on rent and no one was allowed to increase it by more than 10.6 per cent.
The answer is very simple and obvious. Every landlord in the city of Vancouver, whether he wanted to or not-or needed to or not-would have been a damned fool had he not increased his rent by 10.6 per cent, because he did not know what was coming the next year. So every landlord and everyone who rented anything to anyone increased his rent by 10.6 per cent. In the city of Toronto there were some people who did not need an increase that year and they did not operate under those restraints. They knew that if they needed an increase the next year, they could increase rents by 6 per cent, 8 per cent or 15 per cent. The result was a 3 per cent differential.
Anti-Inflation Act
I have operated several small businesses in my business career. If I was in business right now-and there are thousands of small businessmen throughout this country

 every time I would walk through my plant I would look at this and that and make little notes. The Anti-Inflation Board tells me I cannot increase prices more than four times a year, so every three months I would automatically increase my prices. Every day I would look very closely for what I could find to demonstrate to the Anti-Inflation Board a legitimate cost increase as a result of which I could increase my prices. So the effect is this: instead of increasing one's prices once a year or not at all, which was the practice before, one now increases prices four times a year. The effect will be monstrous. Unions will also bargain for the maximum. They will have to, knowing how the anti-inflation program applies to the business sector and the public sector, and knowing how the intrusion of the anti-inflation program into the private enterprise system has affected the economy. Private enterprise will also have to bargain for the maximum in order to protect its skin.
We have not broken the inflationary cycle; we have accelerated the process. Unions will have to try to achieve the maximum because their employers will try to keep them down, and the Anti-Inflation Board will probably roll them back. Recently we have seen settlements in excess of 20 per cent. Unions are shopping all over for these historical relationships. Nobody seems to be able to explain this thing. Some have it, some do not. If you have it, do not fight it. What is an historical relationship? What do you have to catch up to historically? These are some of the questions unions and business people ask themselves, and until some almighty administrator tells them whether they have it or not, nobody will know.
This program does nothing to battle the problems we are facing in our industrial relations. The government is stimulating industrial warfare: the labour movement is more divided today than it ever was as a result of this massive intervention, and the adversary system which exists in labour negotiations is more prevalent today than it was before the program was introduced. We hear voices from every corner and from every sector of our society- and every knowledgeable economist has offered his views on this matter. The C.D. Howe Institute recently published a little booklet which was distributed amongst all my colleagues: it laid out, in no uncertain terms, what the effects of this anti-inflation program would be, even after the amendments are discussed and implemented-if they are implemented as a result of this debate.
As I mentioned before, the former minister of finance has finally broken the silence and entered the public debate, warning the government where the program will lead. This is why we are getting the reaction we are to some of the other legislation that is now before the House. There is an uproar among honest, hard working citizens throughout the country. There is reaction to some of the peace and security legislation, and so on, because people are beginning to think that the great intellect which is within the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a master plan and that the anti-inflation program might lead us to a destination for which we have not bought our ticket. We are concerned about the recent announcement of the Prime Minister respecting dealing with unions, and his talk about the massive intervention which is required to decontrol

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
and phase out the anti-inflation program, if indeed that will be possible after a three-year or four-year period.
I hope the former minister of finance will be more vocal and will tell us just how this program came about and why it was necessary for him to leave the cabinet and disassociate himself from the obvious dilemma which was being cooked up in the back room by people who obviously had not given any thought to the problem at hand.
The Prime Minister met with the labour unions just recently, as my colleagues know, and told them that their meeting here-there were only about 15,000 of them marching up and down in front of this building-really would be of no consequence because they would be naive to think that the government would reconsider its program, and that it would be naive for them to think that the government would reconsider the duration of time over which the program should operate. So they went away peacefully and they have embarked upon certain actions.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he is prepared to sit down with labour and talk about the new society and the adjustments which will have to be made in our society before the program can be phased out. We all know about the year-end message of the Prime Minister which caused so much anxiety amongst Liberal backbenchers. They found it necessary to sit down with their leader over a whole weekend and have him explain to them what he meant by this new society and this massive intervention in business and labour and the Prime Minister now says to labour that he is prepared to sit down with them, but with them only. He is not prepared to sit down with them and business people to talk about the the anti-inflation program, about further changes which need to be made, or about the decontrol period; however, he is willing to sit down with labour and talk about how it will be affected by the new society and what kind of intervention into labour he will be planning before he considers this society prepared to live without these controls.
Then I assume he will tell the corporations, chambers of commerce, manufacturers' associations and the people who come to Ottawa to lobby and consult with him, that he will be prepared to carry on this consultation process with them as well, and perhaps he will share with them his views about the new society and how the intervention will affect them.
However, we can rest assured-I know my hon. colleagues will agree with me-that the Prime Minister will never get all these groups into the same room, because that could be dangerous. That would be a departure from his tradition to divide and conquer and to do away with this consultation process where everyone gets into the same room and tries to reach agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: That is not the method our Prime Minister will use in bringing the previous imbalances within our society under control. I fear what the outcome of this program will be. Unless the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacDonald) responds to the request of people in every part of society and makes the controls program more equitable, makes it apply equally to all, the Prime Minister's prediction may prove right: the system may well be doomed. Our time-honoured, free enterprise system as we

have known it, the system which has worked so well for Canadians for so long, will indeed be doomed.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Incidentally, I was sorry to see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) leave the chamber. The government must feel relieved at his departure this afternoon because in the last election campaign he told the country what we must do to put our economy right. He was farsighted enough to see what needed to be done to put right our economic difficulties and inflation.
I congratulate the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on what he said. He spoke excellently. I join him in indicating to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), who is present in the House, my concern about the operation of the controls program. As I have said, my former leader had the courage to tell Canadians during the last election campaign what needed to be done. We would have done it if this party had formed the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Frankly, the program suffers because the government lacks credibility. Its difficulties began when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced it in his famous message on Friday, October 14, and gave us all great indigestion on Thanksgiving eve. It would not have mattered so much if the government had brought forward a reasoned, reasonable program of wage and price controls. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The government adopted our program. Unfortunately, it ignored its best features and adopted instead some of the worst features of the program we brought forward in the last election campaign. I am under the impression that the present controls program constitutes the sole attack upon inflation. Ignoring action long overdue for curbing inflation, the government has failed to implement concurrent fiscal and monetary policies for slowing down and halting inflation. The controls program, as I say, is the sum and substance of the government's attack on inflation. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has said, this government has reneged on its responsibilities with respect to certain programs, medicare being an example. On the whole, the government has adopted a slapdash approach in its attack on inflation.
Some people question the constitutionality of important parts of the program, and belatedly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has said that he may seek direction from the Supreme Court. He, too, wants to know if certain aspects of the program, particularly agreements with the provinces, are constitutionally valid. If the Supreme Court finds that parts of the program, agreements with the provinces especially, are not constitutionally valid, there will be chaos piled upon chaos in this country. Various groups in society, teachers included, will make salary demands the like of which we have not seen for a long time. As I say, this government's approach to the whole question has been slapdash. It patches here, fixes there, and introduces an amending bill only weeks after this House passed the original bill. Although the government was thinking of controls before October 14, it had no clear idea where it
March 26, 1976

was going. Now it will take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for judicial decision on the constitutionality of the agreements with the provinces.
Controls are disrupting our lives. Let me give a personal example which no doubt could be repeated many times. A couple of weeks ago, late one Sunday night when I returned to my apartment after visiting my constituency I was surprised to find attached to my door a pamphlet on which was printed, so to speak, the modern-day equivalent of Martin Luther's thesis. In so many words, the pamphlet told me that the landlord wanted to apply to the rent review board for a substantial rent increase made necessary by increased costs. I can tell you, at one o'clock in the morning that was a shock to my system.
I discovered, after asking questions, that many landlords in Ottawa-indeed, landlords all over Ontario-are asking for rent increases. Rent increases are to be limited; hence they are asking for the maximum rent allowed. Part of the problem is that the government's control program was without a termination date, and according to all indications, restrictions will be in force for a long time. People were putting pressure on provincial governments to control rents even before the government introduced its antiinflation program. The matter was made worse when the federal government introduced its wage and price control program but without a termination date. Landlords say to themselves, "We must protect our investment and apply for the maximum rent increase or we shall be left out in the cold. We will apply for it and pass on as much as possible the cost of the increase to the unfortunate consumer." I know that in my province of Saskatchewan there is concern because of the pressure placed upon the availability of rental accommodation. More and more owners of apartment buildings are making application under the provincial condominium act to turn existing apartment buildings into condominiums. Rather than renting space within the building, they will be able to sell each apartment.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a shame, for the reason that if this practice continues and is widespread there will be a very great shortage of rental accommodation. People who have the resources will buy accommodation to protect themselves from increases in rent hrought about by pressure being placed upon them by landlords. Unfortunately, with the rent control plan in effect there is a natural discouragement to people investing in building new rental accommodation. Therefore, a person seeking rental accommodation is being squeezed from both ends.
The question is whether this government is going to give us any indication within the reasonably near future as to the direction it proposes to take us down this road of wage and price controls. It is not sufficient for the Minister of Finance to bring in this bill to amend existing legislation, Bill C-73 that was just passed by this House a few weeks ago, without making a major statement on the aims and goals of this government with respect to wage and price control and the anti-inflation program. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to giving a candid assessment in the very near future so that the people of Canada will understand and be able to make specific plans. They
Anti-Inflation Act
should know the duration of the plan, rather than each and every one of us speculating on it, compounded from time to time by the philosophic musings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over television.
As I said earlier, this government has not taken the best, but the worst parts of the plan put forward by our party at the time of the last election, advanced at that time and alluded to by the leadership of our party over a period of years as being an essential attack that must be embarked upon with regard to the problems of inflation.
As has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, the Hon. John Turner, recently departed from the cabinet and now in private life, acknowledges that one of the problems of this plan is that there is not a hiatus during which there is an absolute freeze on wages and prices to allow the federal government to come in on a more orderly basis. However, the program was evolved in the minds of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and those involved in financial matters within the cabinet in a matter of hours or days. They came forward with a quickly-conceived plan without the kind of consideration that we ought to expect in our country as far as economic matters are concerned. The minister and the Prime Minister have spent a great deal of time trying to justify the success of this program. I do not think they have been successful. I say, sincerely, that I do not wish them any bad luck. In fact, I wish them all the luck in the world so that they will in fact be able to deal with the problem of inflation in an effective way.
I canvassed my constituents on the question of wage and price controls. The result probably applies across this country. The people of Canada are concerned about the economy and the future. They are concerned about it to the extent that they support in principle an anti-inflation program. However, once you get that acknowledgement from them, they express the same sort of apprehension that has been expressed by my colleagues throughout this debate and which we will continue to express with regard to the effectiveness of the plan. The government is really not sincere in its anti-inflation program. This is evidenced by the fact that they themselves have not given the leadership with regard to government expenditures to which we in this country are entitled. Therefore, when we have an announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) that he is going to make gigantic cuts in government spending-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You are ragging the puck; you are repetitive.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry, I did not get the hon. member's remark. Let me put it this way: if it is sentimental, I will be glad to look at it in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is that we have this great pizzazz and fanfare announced by the President of the Treasury Board about the cuts to be made in government spending, and then we find that a very large portion are really paper cuts. It is paper doll time in the affairs of our country. To categorize the situation I will make the analogy that I will reduce my spending next year by $5,000 because I am not going to buy a new Ford automobile. That is the kind of cut announced by the President of the

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Treasury Board. We were not told of any effective cuts. We were not given an analysis of spending in this country. Rather, we were given a con job to give the impression that the government is really serious about exercising restraint as far as its own expenditures are concerned.
There is concern about the effectiveness of this antiinflation program that has been with us now for some five months. On the basis of my observations, there is a general feeling across the country that there should be an accounting, not in some informal television interview with the Prime Minister, but a candid accounting on the part of the Minister of Finance with regard to where we are now and where we will be headed in the following months or years. Is there any hope of this program being terminated within a reasonable period of time, so that we can get back to our affairs and away from the prospects of a system in which there is massive and continuous government intervention in the everyday affairs of the average citizen?
I indicated earlier that when this bill was brought in I was concerned about the size of the administration and the cost to be involved in giving it effective control and monitoring anti-inflation and wage and price controls such as the government has involved us in. I stated that there seemed to be danger signs on the horizon. Already there are increases in the number of people involved in this operation. Parkinson's law started to operate within a very short period of time. Not only do we have the Anti-Inflation Board involved here, but other departments and people seconded from other departments. We are looking not only at the 200 or so employees directly involved in the program, we are looking at people in other departments such as the Department of National Revenue, who are spending substantial amounts of time and effort trying to put this program over.
Unless we see, in a reasonably short time, the end of the policy now being followed we shall find ourselves locked into a permanent system of government intervention and control from which it will be difficult to extricate ourselves.
As far as government spending is concerned, I have lately detected during the question period a tendency on the part of government spokesmen, whenever a member on this side suggests some money should be spent, to say, "You members on the opposition side have been asking for restraint in government spending, so we do not intend to spend any money carrying out whatever suggestions you may make." It is not responsible to answer our inquiries in these terms. It is true that members of my party are deeply interested in having the government exercise restraint, but we are also interested in getting the government to carry out a basic review of its spending priorities. This has not been done.
Treasury Board is chopping away at the funds of various departments and agencies, directing its efforts particularly toward programs with a high profile, actions which produce press coverage for a few days. Information Canada, everybody's scapegoat, has been suspended. They say, "Look, we have cut out the CYC." But in terms of the total amount of dollars spent, cuts such as these are not significant. They have not involved a basic re-examination of

spending priorities or a new view as to the direction in which the country is going. I am suggesting that the people of Canada are becoming impatient with the government and impatient with the course it is following.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wanted to say much more-


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate that invitation, Mr. Speaker, but I am satisfied to have expressed in these terms some of the concern I feel with respect to the operation of the program we are discussing.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, for altogether, too long, Canada has been under the direction of a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: It is a government which has been extremely slow to acknowledge realities and devise its programs accordingly. Some of us have the questionable privilege of having spent a fair portion of our three score years and ten. I am envious of those who have not spent so much. But having spent those years one does develop the power of recollection, the ability to draw from the past an element of personal experience in the way some of the younger members cannot do. We can remember, for instance, that there was a time when a Canadian considered it virtually a right in the economic structure to own a home of his own, or to look forward to the day when he would do so. And he could justifiably entertain such an ambition as part of his expectations in life.


Mr. Drury:: You are talking about the homesteaders, are you?


Fred Alward McCain: We would only be going back to the years when there was a division of government between Liberals and Conservatives, when Liberal administrations did not dominate and did not sell this country's heritage for a mess of potage.


An hon. Member:: Heady stuff!


Fred Alward McCain: The opportunity for the individual to own his own home probably reached its peak immediately after the second world war. The government recognized that to compensate for the diversion of the activities of citizens who had enlisted to protect their country the provision of "something extra" was in order. Various programs were accordingly enacted, designed specifically for veterans but oriented, in some instances, toward people with low incomes generally. This stimulated a great many people who, although they did not have the rights of veterans and were living on low incomes, to build their own homes, sometimes with the help of a loan from friends or, maybe, from a bank-to build them, possibly as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) has suggested, in the fashion of the homesteaders, with the help of co-operative community loans.
In the little business I operated for some time there were four individuals in that crew who bought or constructed
March 26, 1976

and owned their own homes, though at that time they were receiving little more than the minimum wage as their source of income.
Under Liberal leadership we have gone from one economic catastrophe to another.


George Harris Hees: Throw the rascals out!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Resign!


Fred Alward McCain: In the Diefenbaker years at least there was incentive, there was a promise of business opportunity, there was a promise for the well being of the individual, and a recognition of the welfare requirements of the nation, while at all times keeping the long term interests of the nation at heart. This cannot be claimed by those on your right today, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Remember the Arrow!


Fred Alward McCain: I suppose the Liberal government dumped money down the aeronautical drain for years during its administration, and having proceeded along a comparable course it has yet to demonstrate that it can run an airline.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They can't run anything. They cannot even run the St. Lawrence Seaway.


Fred Alward McCain: We find ourselves now, after a long period which has certainly not been characterized by leadership, in a position in which it has been suggested through various sources that there should be a wage and price control program. Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry reflection upon the administration of the Liberals over the past decade. They have brought us to a position in which our leader recognized, during the election of 1974, that such a policy was essential. The Liberals denied it was called for, yet today, without a mandate from the electorate to do so, they have brought in a hodge-podge program purporting to control wages and prices. This has created a very unjust burden for a great many people in Canada.
I would ask Your Honour to bear in mind that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), our then leader, said that there should be a 90 day freeze. As has been mentioned before in this House, the man who was then the minister of finance for Canada has since said that if wage and price controls were to be brought in there must be a 90 day freeze. Is this why he left the cabinet, Mr. Speaker? Or did he leave the cabinet because of some of the other ulterior, behavioural patterns existing in cabinet at the time with which he must have been familiar? It must have been one of the two.
We now find ourselves with a program that began by making many exceptions and which-I think this is quite justifiable criticism on the part of the labour sector of our society-has not been effective in controlling prices, and cannot be effective in controlling prices as the program presently operates. The government has created, perhaps intentionally-and that is what alarms me-friction within our society by allowing exceptions to be made to the program, and by exercising no active control over prices other than in cases legislated to the provinces by agree-
Anti-Inflation Act
ment. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) said, the program does control rents.
Was it intended to stir up a furore? Was the plan intended to be criticized by those who said it would not work? Because if that were intentional the government could have devised no better way to engender criticism of the government and doubt among the people of Canada.
Let me give the House an example of how one person feels who has felt the brunt of this program. I want to read to the House a letter addressed to me:
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you to express my disapproval to the present antiinflation program. Being a proud Canadian I would be the first to agree something had to be done to stem the tide of economic disaster that our country is headed for. Wage and price control I am not against, but I am definitely against the present system where our present government freezes the income of the wage earner (not the prices) and segregates one Canadian from the other, because one is from the east and one from the west, when they say the west has always been ahead of the east. Is this democracy? They didn't do this to us when world war II started; when we were mixed up in the forces at that time we all had one common denominator, our love for Canada.
We tradesmen at Irving Pulp and Paper were given a 25 cent increase to adjust our wages to come closer to our western paper workers. We lost that. We fought for our COLA clause. We lost that. We negotiated for N.B. day as most New Brunswickers now enjoy. We lost that. Other things we lost, along with a large per cent of our wages, but most of all we lost our bargaining rights. I love Canada and I love freedom. That is why I am writing you, appalled at the dictatorial tactics taken by Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet.
The really significant thing about that letter, Mr. Speaker, is that the writer, who is prepared to accept wage and price controls, is a union member and a victim of the administration of the Anti-Inflation Board. Yet he is still prepared to accept wage and price control because of the economic situation that he recognizes is Canada's mess of pottage today. It is not that labour is against wage and price control as such; it is against the plan as conceived and administered by the government.
It is incredible that before people can appeal a government decision they must first break the law. This is precisely what happened in the city of Saint John to people who had bargained so long and so well in good faith, and who historically have had such excellent relations with their employer, with a minimum of strikes interrupting the progress of business.
I think one has to recognize the way in which both the company and the union were prepared to face the situation. Both parties, law-abiding groups, agreed that the law had to be broken after a fine had been assessed in order to appeal the decision. How they feel about the situation has been pretty clearly stated in their presentation to the cabinet. For instance, one point they made was that they felt they should remain in the same relative earning position as their fellow workers, the woodlands workers. The agreement signed by the paper workers and the paper mill would have brought the wages of the paper workers up to those of the woodlands workers. An historic relationship had existed between them for years, and historic relationships were to be recognized in Anti-Inflation Board decisions.
When the decision was made these workers got one third of their historic entitlement, which I suggest is a very poor recognition of historic relationships. After the white paper
12200

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
was issued and after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had said that wage and price control would be enacted into law, there were 60 days during which there was no regulation or legislation. The Anti-Inflation Board called for and obtained documentation of and representations on the CPU-Irving agreement before the regulations were published. In fact the decision of the board on the CPU-Irving agreement was handed down on the same day that the regulations were announced. What were the guidelines upon which the decision was based?
Needless to say, the paper workers were shocked and dismayed at the ruling of the board. And well they should have been since it was a breach of faith as well as a breach of the philosophy supposedly part of the program. As I have already said, they were alarmed that there was no way in which they could appeal. Secondly, if they had wanted to initiate proceedings and appeal the decision on December 19, the day after the board's ruling, they had nowhere to go since the government had not bothered to appoint the administrator to whom the appeal would be directed. When finally they had an opportunity to meet with the administrator, they stressed the point it was not their wish to violate the law, but in terms of the pursuit of justice there really was no alternative.
This goes on, Mr. Speaker, like a Cinderella story; it has to be a fairy tale. Surely the Liberal government would not have created a situation such as this unless it had intended to engender criticism and prove the failure of the program that it had derided so severely in the 1974 election campaign. I do not believe that the government wants the program to succeed. I believe it wants to keep Canadians in a state of confusion, indecision and anger, so as to prove prior to the next election that wage and price controls will not work. I believe it wants to prove to Canada that one can bungle, disturb, incite, that one does not have to govern well; that you need only keep the people stirred up but that you try to keep them on your side.
I mentioned that these workers received only one third of what they should have received in order to preserve the historic relationship. They got a very dirty deal. I say that on two grounds; first, because historically they were not receiving equal pay vis-a-vis their western counterparts; secondly, because historically they did not retain the relative position of one group of workers compared with another. Both these things should have been allowed in respect of the ceilings under the program of the government. Yet they were not allowed.
When we couple that with the justifiable complaint of labour that the effectiveness of the control of prices has been virtually negligible, then I think we understand why very many people in the union structure of Canada would say, as this man said to me in his letter, that he is not against wage and price controls in the economic chaos in which we find ourselves, but he is against the inequitable and relatively disgraceful pattern of administration that has been applied to a program in which the government has no heart.
An illustration of the fact that the government has no heart in the program is that it cannot live within its own spending guidelines. The areas in which it chooses to make

cuts are the productive areas. There is no expansion in agricultural research or in fisheries research. There is a reduction in the research expenditures in respect of medicine. I submit these are the productive and necessary expenditures of the country today. There is no expansion in research for energy. These are the areas in which research moneys could be spent for the increased productivity of all Canadians, but they are the areas in which we are pinching pennies.
I do not believe the government is sincere in its approach to wage and price controls or economic guidelines. It certainly cannot be other than hypocritical when it says to the provinces, to labour and to industry, that they must observe these guidelines but that the government will not. This is a sad illustration of the sterility of economic capability as far as the government is concerned.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have participated in any debate in respect of the government's anti-inflation program. However, I welcome this opportunity this afternoon to say a few words in this regard.
My memory is very clear concerning the election campaign of June and July of 1974. I remember particularly the impassioned speeches made by my Liberal opponent during the campaign when, on platform after platform, and at candidate forums he equated controls with every aspect that was foreign to Canadian life. He equated freedom, particularly the brand that was to be provided by the Liberal government, with everything that was true and equal to Canadian life. Had he been elected in that campaign and sitting in this House last Thanksgiving Day he would have had to resign the next day because there would have been no possibility of his living with the moves being made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet ministers.
It amazes me still how this program we are debating today could have been set at play at any point without mass resignations from the other side. I will never be able to understand how it could have passed through caucus, through cabinet, and into parliament after the campaign of the summer of 1974. I and millions of other Canadians watched breathlessly as the grab bag of goodies was unloaded across the country. One day there would be reference to a transportation bill, and another day to a housing bill involving billions of dollars. This gave the people a hope for expansion in the future. Unfortunately for the country those promises were taken 6s being true. That assumption has been shattered.
In this debate I should like to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), because he saw the situation as it was developing. He sounded a warning, well in advance of Thanksgiving Day, because he knew what was coming. The hon. member is not in the House and I know he is too modest to regard himself as even a minor prophet, but I am sure his judgment as to what was coming out of government offices was solidly on the line.
It was interesting this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) use the word "terminated". During his address it occurred to me that the program of the government has been "Turner-rat-
March 26, 1976

ed" in the last week. The former minister of finance rated it a solid zero and indicated what should have been done.
It might be some solace to the official opposition, and certainly to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) to know that what they proposed was what the former minister of finance sees now as what should have been, and was, the only possible road to follow in entering this delicate and important question of controls. That must have been quite a cabinet meeting at which he told his colleagues the only way they could go was to follow the plan suggested by the leader of the opposition. Obviously that was not possible for the government opposite, so that minister of finance resigned and is no longer in this House. Instead of accepting what was not palatable to the Liberals, the government embarked upon a policy of wage and price controls which must by its very nature tighten down, tighten down, and tighten down.
The possibility of easing up becomes more remote every day. The inequities that have been introduced, which this bill attempts in some way to overcome, grow larger and larger day by day. There have been some statements in the press suggesting that the rate of inflation has slowed and that the scheme is working. I suggest seriously that those figures are illusory, and that if there has been any slowing down it has been at the expense of the farmers who receive lower prices for their produce, and at the expense of the companies that are going out of business at fire sale prices across this country because of the program put in place by the government, and because there are very few areas of the Canadian economy that are allowed to fluctuate freely any longer. There will be an even lower percentage of the economy that will be able to fluctuate in any way. The program that is before us will not assist very much in that regard.
I would like to bring to the attention of the minister one example of the kind of frustrations that have been brought to my notice. I have here an invoice from a hospital in my constituency. On January 19, 1976, it had an invoice for a shipment of Macbick flasks, 3,000 ml. 12 at $87.90. On February 19, 1976, it had an invoice for Macbick flasks, 3,000 ml. 12 at $182. It is at that point that it raised the matter with the Anti-Inflation Review Board. The reply was that the company employed fewer than 500 people and therefore does not come under the guidelines of the AntiInflation Board, so nothing can be done about this.
One hopes that possibly what we are doing under Bill C-89 will provide the Anti-Inflation Review Board with an opportunity to bring some equity here because this is the missing element in the approach taken by the government. I am not an economist, but when the program was announced I heard it would be restricted to those corporations that employ 500 employees or more and it struck me then that there was not a shred of hope that the program could succeed on that basis. I believed that it would only be a matter of time until we were presented with the bill that is before us today because nothing as inequitable as that can hope to succeed.
But the government in all its efforts has endeavoured to make the suggestion that it was really going after big business, even though it has been in the hands of big
Anti-Inflation Act
business for a long time. There was a hope in the announcement that some popularity could be bought at the expense of the larger corporations, but in these days of automation a great deal of manufacturing can be done with far fewer than 500 employees.
There was a false hope that the government was really going to take some firm action and do something about inflation. We know that initially the response across the country was good, and that in the year during which the former minister of finance endeavoured to persuade the various sectors of the Canadian economy to get together and form a consensus, public opinion began to harden on the whole question, and there was a growing realization that the program presented by the official opposition would have been the wiser choice in 1974. It is regrettable that the prime minister of this country was not the hon. member for Halifax, as he should have been.
I am concerned about the decision recently taken by the representatives of labour who were consulted during that search for consensus. I wonder if the former minister of finance had set up an all encompassing board-I do not know what power it would have had because of course it would not have had any power until some legislation had been presented to parliament-a board where all the sectors of the economy met and talked together, whether the representatives of labour would have taken the chair that was reserved for them at such a board.
I regret the intransigence and the separation of that very important part of the Canadian economy from various boards, because certainly if the scheme which has been presented to us-with all its errors and shortcomings, its inequities and confusions, with a board that does not know what it is doing and is not likely to know for many months ahead, with the emphasis on wage controls and the apparent inability to do anything about prices-is to be successful, it will require the co-operation of every sector of the Canadian economy. Only then can the inflation rate in Canada be slowed down.
I know how many institutions in this land, which are absolutely vital to the country, are bedeviled at present by inflation. All kinds of voluntary and church organizations, schools and hospitals, almost every institution that holds together the fabric of this country, are threatened now as they never have been since the great depression of the 1930's.
It is important that an equitable incomes policy be arrived at, but I do not see any hope that this method of approaching case by case individually will ever produce anything like a recognizable policy, and even as the cases are decided one after another a feeling will be left that justice has not been done. The situation will grow darker rather than lighter even if we pass Bill C-89.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), because if you compare his delivery with that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) you find that the Prime Minister is often found sniffing at thin air surrounding the metaphysics of political intellectualism, always dealing with peripheral issues, and never getting down to the centricity of conceptual thought. If you compare that to my colleague, the hon.
21804-11%

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
member for Okanagan-Kootenay, you find that his speech is steeped in honesty and delivered with humility and conviction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I want to say to my colleague this, that although there were very few if any on the government side who were listening, there were many of us here who heard and who took heed of his speech and who took his thoughts to heart. When we are on the other- side we will implement some of those truths and suggestions offered by him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Here we are on a Friday afternoon. An hon. member across the way was calculating the other day the cost per minute of running the House of Commons. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) should have been the first one to count the cost of debating this amendment in Bill C-89. So far as I am concerned it has been a waste of time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It sure is.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Oh, the whip on the other side has just woken up. My colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), speaks well in both languages but says nothing in either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The only thing that I want to bring to your attention, in view of the comments made by the hon. member, is the fact that he is never here to hear us, and that is why he does not know whether we speak or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: That remark is a reflection on the hon. member's attendance in the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I never missed a day yet.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. members' tongue flaps around more than a hundred pollack just out of the water. There is a little proverb which the people who process fish in the hon. member's riding use and which the hon. member ought to take to heart, "Even a fish would not find himself on the hook if he kept his mouth shut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: To get down to the matter at hand, Bill C-89, as many of my hon. colleagues have pointed out many times inside this House and outside, and during the last election campaign-and particularly my former leader-any anti-inflation program, any wage and price control program is designed for one purpose only, and that is to provide a period during which other policies can be put into place which will fight inflation and which will have an effect on the rate of inflation.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Have some manners, Joe.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Who is speaking here anyway?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If the hon. member wants a debate, I challenge him to a debate in any forum outside this House which he wants to choose, but until then I will speak, and if he has something to say I will sit down at three minutes to four and give him a chance to give his two cents worth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Sit down.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I will not sit down as long as I have the mandate of the people of Selkirk, and I will meet the hon. member's candidate head on in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member is the whip for the other side of the House, not this side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Nice to see you in the House for a change.


An hon. Member:: Have some manners, Joe Guay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If the whip on the other side will give me an opportunity, I will go on to more important things than his rudeness.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You wouldn't know the difference.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I was saying that any wage and price control program should only be designed to give a chance to the government to get into place real programs which will actually get at the root of inflation. It has been pointed out by some of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House that we need a new fiscal policy. If Milton Friedman has anything to say about inflation which is worth while, it is his dictum that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, and that the money supply must be put in order if there is to be any other program of validity and credibility in place. There must be a responsible monetary policy. Notwithstanding the effects of an over supply of money which will cause in international trade an inverted J curve, we need a new fiscal policy.
Rather than reiterate the kinds of arguments we hear from this side of the Chamber so often it might be interesting to note why this debate is a waste of time. There sits the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) fretting and fuming that we on this side of the House are holding up Bill C-89, the amendments to Bill C-73, the anti-inflation program. Yet it was his own party which held up procedures for the amendments we proposed.
When Bill C-73 was in committee witnesses were not allowed. My party wanted to bring in public input and witnesses from all sectors of the economy, from labour, business, and small business. That was denied by the majority Liberal members on that committee. There was no advertisement or soliciting from the minister for public
March 26, 1976

Input. There were unusually long sessions voted on, not by this side but by the majority government side. The committee would not adjourn until the bill was railroaded through committee. Had the Liberal members taken their time and listened to what we were saying they would not have to be back in this Chamber with these amendments today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: You cannot on one hand stifle the opposition and on the other hand say that you want co-operation when you find out in the end that the opposition really had something to say and was right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: However, the thrust of my remarks is to centre on the morality of the anti-inflation program and these amendments. Why is it that by legislation Canadians have to adhere to a guideline of 8 per cent or 10 per cent with reference to their incomes? Why is it that wages are controlled and yet the services offered by all levels of government are not within the confines of this legislation? It is morally wrong to lock in the incomes of Canadians and on the other hand to let all levels of government, particularly the federal government, remain free of controls. We are talking about the expenditures of the federal government. Hon. members opposite stand in their places bursting with pride and announce that this year the spending of the federal government will be up only between 16 per cent and 20 per cent, yet the costs at all levels of government, particularly the federal government, are passed on to every taxpayer in this country and are at least double the increase allowed the average income for the average Canadian.
Why is it that Manitoba Hydro is allowed to go up 20 per cent, school taxes by 20 per cent, all property taxes by 20 per cent, gas by 25 per cent, and yet incomes are allowed to increase only 10 per cent, and that is supposed to be enough money to pay for all these things?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Where is the morality of the government when it expects this kind of schoolboy arithmetic to make any sense to ordinary Canadians in Manitoba? If I had one single criticism written to me more than any other by people in my riding and all over Manitoba it was that they cannot understand how they can make ends meet when the government passes on all these costs and yet their incomes are locked in by legislation at the 10 per cent level.
I want to allow some time for others to wrap up the debate, and we have only ten minutes left. Out of courtesy-which is something the whip on the other side does not understand-I will wind up my remarks by saying that if I asked the Minister of Finance or the government to resign, I would not expect them to do so, but I can tell the minister one thing, and that is that the people of this country not only want inflation wrestled to the ground but they want him wrestled right out of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Anti-Inflation Act


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) in cutting his remarks short so I might say just a word in this important debate.
It is not astonishing that the matter is back before the House because the need for an amendment asking for an extension of the coverage of this operation was quite clear from the time the government first brought in controls because it brought them in in an incorrect fashion. Everyone said that an incomes policy should cover everyone. It should be universal, fair, and should have started with a 90-day freeze. We now have the statement of a former minister who, presumably, was responsible for some of this program, saying in retrospect that that is the way it should have been started. The fact that it did not happen that way means we are back with the kind of amendment we are talking about today. I expect that as time goes by we will find there will be further amendments as the government finds that the way in which it has approached this program is not working.
A couple of days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), speaking in this debate, seemed to suggest that controls will be instrumental in curbing rising expectations and that they are capable of solving this country's inflationary difficulties. I say to him, as many others have said-and this should be repeated constantly-that controls will not solve inflation. They cause distortions in the economy and inequities, and we are reaping the results today of some of those inequities in terms of the response of the labour movement of this country to the way in which the controls program has been operating.
If the government had followed the advice of the opposition, and of most economists who have spoken on the subject, and adopted an across-the-board freeze, many of the problems we are seeing at present would have been avoided. I rather hoped, when the present Minister of Finance was appointed, to see an improvement in the country's economic policies. I thought no one could be as bad as the previous minister of finance. However, having heard the present minister speak, and read his speeches, it seems to me that we are not yet out of the woods.
I find it absolutely astonishing that the Minister of Finance should have spent considerable time accusing the opposition of lacking consistency in its approach to the controls program. Does the government not realize that controls, like any other economic policy, must be designed to solve a specific problem? In some circumstances controls are not proper and correct; in some circumstances they are. The position of the Minister of Finance that, regardless of economic circumstances, we shall face controls for another one and a half or two years, is fraught with difficulty.
I am also worried because the minister is still talking about a trace-off between inflation and unemployment. Surely if one thing has become clear in the last two or three years in the developed countries of the world it is this: the trade-off between unemployment and inflation does not exist within reasonable limits.
We know that Canada's economic policies have been bad. Nobody can be proud of a no-growth year, double digit inflation-it is getting slightly better now-and 7 per cent

March 26, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
unemployment. When you say that there is less inflation in the United States and hear the minister respond, "Yes, but their unemployment rate is up," you know the Government of Canada still believes in the old trade-off principle, a principle rejected all over the world because it is not valid.
It was also startling to hear the Minister of Finance say that we should cavalierly adopt an expansionary policy and not worry about deficits. If there is one thing that is certain and on which there is almost total agreement, it is that the cause of inflation in western industrialized democracies is the enormous deficits governments have continued to run. The Minister of Finance seems to suggest that when members of my party, and economists, say that our long term goal should be a balanced budget, without which there will be no recovery, our approach is reacti-nary. Unless the government realizes that it must balance expenditures against revenues, we are in for a lot of inflation for a long time.
We have 50 per cent more inflation than the United States because we have not introduced the right monetary policies and have done nothing about our deficit. That is why we suffer from our present inflation. The view that we shall solve the country's inflation with this ill-conceived, poorly run incomes policy, and not with the proper fiscal and monetary policies, is most discouraging.
In his last speech the minister quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That governor came before the parliamentary committee in the spring of 1973 saying that we do not need any sort of incomes policy to restrain our economy. That same governor was in favour of an expansionary policy, when everybody said we needed a policy of contraction. That same Governor of the Bank of Canada today is talking about a roughly 10 per cent expansion in our money supply, when the United States is talking about a 2 per cent expansion of its money supply. It is regrettable that the Minister of Finance should depend at this time on advice of that sort.
It is apparent that the economic outlook for Canada in the next year or so is dismal because the government is again saying, as it always has said, that what happens here depends on what happens in other countries.
As we approach four o'clock let me say this: the remarks of the Minister of Finance made the day before yesterday reveal that there is no change in the way the Government of Canada is approaching economic policy, no change in its understanding of the fundamental causes of inflation in the country. There is no evidence that it recognizes that high interest rates are no solution to inflation. We are still clinging to the old trade-off idea, to the theory that you can trade off inflation against unemployment. Therefore the economic prospects of the country in the immediate future are dim indeed-unless we can reduce our deficits, borrow less through the public treasury and introduce sound fiscal policy. Otherwise inflation will continue. We may be pleased at the recent drop in inflation rates, caused by what happened recently in the agricultural food industry, but the point is that it was an aberration. Statistics show that we shall face a difficult time for the balance of the fiscal year.
Many hon. members were discouraged last Thursday when they heard the Minister of Finance speak on this bill.
(Mr. Gillies.]
We had hoped for something better, for more understanding. We lived through the difficult times of the former minister of finance, and thought there would be some improvement. But what the minister said on Thursday was most discouraging. May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier when we discussed procedure with respect to the bill we are debating there was some indication from the opposition of an agreement to complete debating this bill today and vote on it on Monday, subject of course to disposing of the argument raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) called it four o'clock; apparently he received no communication from the opposition House leader.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order too. According to my understanding, House leaders today discussed the length of the debate. I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a point of order. The Chair reserved decision on the point of order until this first day of next week. We therefore undertook not to debate this matter beyond four o'clock. I cannot presume what the Chair will decide with respect to the point of order. At any rate that was the understanding, and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) called it four o'clock in accordance with the undertaking.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is not my understanding of the exchange which took place. It took place in the House and will be recorded in today's Hansard, which hon. members can consult. If there is to be some adjustment in the terminology used by the opposition House leader, perhaps he may wish to make that adjustment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) should press so hard and be indiscreet in the matter. Thus far matters between House leaders have gone along well. I want to maintain that relationship. I suggest the hon. member is doing nothing to help it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), York South (Mrs. Appolloni), York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), Trinity (Miss Nicholson), Welland (Mr. Railton), York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), Ontario (Mr. Cafik), Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) and York West (Mr. Fleming), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2,
March 26, 1976

R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
It is also my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), Ontario (Mr. Cafik), Nipissing (Mr. Blais), Welland (Mr. Railton), Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), Lincoln (Mr. Andres), Fort William (Mr. McRae), Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), and Algoma (Mr. Foster), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.


OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is also my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Roy), Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), Levis (Mr. Guay), Matane (Mr. De Bane), Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres), Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), Labelle (Mr. Dupras), Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) and Lincoln (Mr. Andres) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Another objection signed by the hon. members for West-mount (Mr. Drury), Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), Laval (Mr. Roy), Dollard (Mr. Goyer), Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith), Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) and Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Another objection signed by the hon. members for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres), Laval (Mr. Roy), Matane (Mr. De Bane), Levis (Mr. Guay), Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), York West (Mr. Fleming) and Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Another objection signed by the hon. members for Berth-ier-Maskinonge (Mr. Yanakis), Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay), Nipissing (Mr. Blais), La Salle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), Matane (Mr. De Bane), Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) and Labelle (Mr. Dupras) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Emergency Telephone Number

If the House agrees, I suggest we follow past practice and print the text of these six objections as appendices to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all of these objections being filed, I should like, with the support of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), to indicate that we in Manitoba are registering no objections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Agreement has been reached through the usual channels to deal with order No. 52 on page 32 of Monday's order paper, Bill C-252, standing in the name of the hon. member for Toron-to-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all bills preceding Bill C-52, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), be stood at the request of the government and that we proceed with that bill immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-252, to establish a universal emergency telephone number, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the National Transportation Act by adding immediately after Section 22(1) (i) the following:
(j) provide for the establishment by all Canadian telephone companies of a universal emergency reporting telephone number.
My purpose for proceeding with Bill C-252 this afternoon is not so much in the expectation that the bill will be passed, a rare occurrence in this House for legislation initiated by private members, but rather in the hope that hon. members will see fit to allow the subject matter of the bill to proceed to committee for detailed study and discussion.
Such discussion, I believe, would serve useful purpose in arousing public interest at the local community and municipal level, which is virtually a prerequisite if a universal

Emergency Telephone Number
emergency telephone number system is to be successful. Indeed this was the goal of the former member for Surrey-White Rock, Barry Mather, who for many years introduced the same type of bill we are debating today. He was known as a member who introduced legislation not so much in the expectation that it would be adopted, but as a prod to the appropriate officials through debate in the House of Commons to move more quickly. On the subject of a universal emergency telephone number, more prodding is needed and, in this regard, I am pleased to take up where the former member left off.
The establishment of a single emergency number through which people can summon police, fire or ambulance help in any city, not only in Canada but in all of North America, and progress in the United States has been very impressive, would be a very important step in the field of public safety. The idea is not new.
An article in the New York Times of Saturday, January 13, 1968, by David Burnham, entitled "U.S. Code Planned for Phoning Help" reads in part as follows:
A plan to establish a national emergency telephone number-911- with which police, fire and ambulance services could be summoned from any telephone in the United States was announced yesterday by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
Under the plan, a person needing emergency help would dial 911. His call would be switched to a unified dispatching office established in each community by the police, fire and other emergency services, such as hospitals, and appropriate help would be sent.
The establishment of such a number was recommended last year by the President's Crime Commission.
At least one other country, Britain, already has a simple three-digit number-999-with which to summon emergency help.
Almost since its inception, the telephone has been the primary means for reporting an emergency. For years, people have been either dialing the number of a required safety agency or going through an operator for help. Of course, such methods have had inherent disadvantages.
In an emergency, dialing "zero" for the operator or finding the number of a particular agency involves several steps. A call to a telephone company operator requires a second call by the operator to an emergency agency, and this involves time. Fluctuations in the volume of traffic handled by operators sometimes can delay the immediate response to a call. Also, unless one has a keen memory or a handy reference, there is an unavoidable delay in finding the number for an agency.
To anyone who has required emergency assistance, the number of minor problems and nuisances which can make the situation very agonizing are well known. Perhaps just finding a telephone book can be difficult. Often attempting to pick out which police or fire number should be used, in a list of many, requires an in-depth knowledge of municipal boundaries, something many long time residents do not have, let alone visitors. Of course, there is the problem of the pay phone, difficult enough when the person trying to call first had to find a ten cent coin, doubly so now when you need two such coins. Finally, there are the numbers themselves each with a different mind-cracking combination of seven digits, almost guaranteeing that nobody will be able to remember them when they need them most.
I believe the value of one emergency telephone number is obvious. The existence of a single emergency telephone number makes it quicker and easier for anyone to acquire

emergency assistance. The three digit code "911" was chosen because it is a brief and easily remembered number, and because it is compatible with the long range numbering plans and switching configurations of the telephone companies. It has now been reserved as a universal emergency number so that there will be one standard North American emergency service code.
The 911 number is designed to be used, at no charge to the calling party, for direct reporting of emergencies to an answering bureau serving a given area. The answering bureau is staffed and controlled by the major emergency agencies in the community-fire, police, and ambulance services.
The 911 service provides for a faster response to time. The centralized answering bureau where 911 calls are handled, is staffed by specialized personnel who know how to react. Priority calls can be identified and the proper agency sent out on call. An additional and often overlooked benefit is that by co-ordinating all emergency services in the one bureau a community can collect data and analyse the effectiveness of its emergency services and take immediate steps to correct any deficiencies.
The successful implementation of the single emergency telephone number systems has produced a growing awareness of 911 by many communities in North America. I mentioned the great progress which has been made in this regard south of the border. There are now more than 900 "911" systems operating in the United States, ranging in size from 2,000 to 8,000,000 telephones and estimated to be serving more than 30,000,000 people in all.
As for Canada, progress has been steady if not so noticeable. In 1959 Winnipeg became the first North American city with a three-digit emergency reporting system when it cut over to 999. Brandon has a similar service also utilizing the 999 code. Both of these communities have plans under way to convert to 911. Now there are eight operational 911 systems in the communities of Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Red Deer in Alberta; London and Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario; Fredericton, New Brunswick, and St. John's, Newfoundland.
I do not feel that a single emergency telephone number system is the be-all and end-all in the field of public safety. It is only one part, and there are a number of problems which still must be resolved. Perhaps the most important of these problems relates to municipal responsibility.
The concept of 911 is a new idea for most local governments. For the first time, the total emergency resources of a community must be coordinated into a total communications network. This is not achieved by simply changing over to a new telephone number. When a municipality considers 911 it must evaluate the existing procedures and systems for handling emergency calls and be prepared to tackle two basic problems.
First, jurisdictional boundaries of emergency agencies seldom coincide with either telephone exchange boundaries or municipal boundaries, but to avoid confusion agencies must be prepared to serve all those within an individual exchange, or in exchanges having local calling with a core exchange where they may not have jurisdiction. Second, all three major emergency services should be
March 26, 1976

included-police, fire, ambulance. Sometimes individual agencies are reluctant to change their autonomous status because agency administrators may consider command and control of their field resources as a process too important to be shared or delegated to another agency. But regardless of individual agency reluctance to cooperate, an agreement has to be reached at the local level on the establishment of a common answering arrangement.
Free emergency calling and 911 are naturally associated since both provide the public with improved telephone service in time of emergency. The 911 system in London, Ontario, has 73 yellow call boxes located strategically around the city. The call box caller picks up the receiver and gets the answering bureau immediately. No dialing is necessary.
Bell Canada is converting coin telephones across Quebec and Ontario to allow free emergency calling. "Dial-tone first" for coin telephones will enable the user to have access to the operator without a coin in case of an emergency.
In a community offering 911 service the calling party will be able to dial 911 without the deposit when "dial-tone first" is provided. The time-saving advantage is obvious; it will make every public pay telephone a signal box.
Technical innovations and the concentration of sophisticated telephone equipment can greatly enhance emergency services. Techniques are available on order like, "call-hold-and-trace" which holds up the line, the 911 caller uses; the line is frozen and there is a "ring-back" which allows the emergency bureau to ring back a caller. With these features, false alarms and errors can be virtually eliminated thereby increasing public confidence and respect.
I know some will argue that because of jurisdictional and technical problems the subject matter of this bill would best be left with a particular department which has the appropriate expertise to study this subject, rather than to a committee of the House composed of laymen. However, I believe this is an important public matter, one in which the public should have some input. All too often services and programs are structured and designed behind closed doors, and the intended beneficiaries have no say until the services or programs are operational.
There are a number of questions, such as the role of the telephone company and the role of the federal government in the implementation of a universal emergency telephone number, which a committee of the House could and should look into. It may be suggested that this legislation should more properly be an amendment to the Railway Act. However, regardless of this argument the subject matter could still be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
I therefore urge hon. members to allow the subject matter of the bill to proceed to committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for bringing this bill forward. In my own view the House could well give the bill second reading and send it to the standing committee. Its sponsor seems to have some perception, however, that this is not likely to happen, so if there is a motion to send the
Emergency Telephone Number
subject matter to the committee that motion would have our support.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for giving credit to my former colleague, Mr. Barry Mather, who was the member for Surrey-White Rock, for having made this proposal among a number of imaginative ideas he presented to the House from time to time. Since I am in a grateful mood I thank the hon. member also for drawing attention to the fact for some years we have had a 999 system in Winnipeg and also in Brandon. The hon. member is correct in saying the Manitoba telephone system is prepared to make the change to 911 if the proposal can be accepted universally throughout Canada.
As the hon. member pointed out, this is not the be all and end all of public safety, but it is a move in the right direction. I think the proposal he makes does create a situation in which something could be done to establish this universal emergency telephone number. I commend him for the part he has played, I have given him our support, and we hope that during this hour either the bill or the subject matter will be sent to the standing committee.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate, as I did back on September 14, 1973, when the then member for Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Mather, advanced his bill for consideration by the House. At that time I said something to the effect that the principle of the bill was so sound in terms of public safety that it ought not to founder on the rocks of any technological difficulty.
I understand there are some jurisdictional difficulties with respect to the measure in terms of the interface of the government with the regional municipalities, and perhaps provincial authorities in the laying out of areas. That is my recollection of some correspondence I have had. This is not to say parliament ought not to take action with respect to the bill, and along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I believe that if the bill does not go to the committee then the subject matter should go before the committee for discussion.
I want to say something else with respect to my old friend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), who advanced the bill today. I have known him for many years. I trust his friends on that side of the House will not hold that against him, and I do not want my hon. friends to hold it against me, either.
If this bill goes to committee today, then perhaps the hon. member will have established a record for himself in that he will have been successful with two bills in the same session of parliament, under a government that has not been known to allow such bills to proceed.
In any event, I think the principle of the bill is sound. The technology is available. There may be some jurisdictional difficulty in terms of the telephone system, but I am informed that the difficulty is not insurmountable. I think the bill ought to go to committee and I commend the hon. member for advancing the principle of the bill. It is a bill which, by the way, has been advanced on other occasions
12208

March 26, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
by members of the opposition, but without the same success that I hope he will enjoy today.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with other members in commending the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) on bringing the question of the adoption across Canada of a universal telephone number before the House. I believe it was Bell Canada that in 1968 took the initiative and chosea number to be set aside to serve the whole of North America for emergency use only, the number 911. The value of such a number is obvious. In an emergency people sometimes have difficulty finding the proper number to call. The idea of a central switchboard that would direct calls to the police, firefighting services, drug intervention centres, and poison control centres is a very good one.
Any legislation that we would pass would primarily apply to Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia in view of the jurisdiction we have over the principal telephone systems in those three provinces. Naturally legislation would have to be passed relating to other provinces that have their own telephone systems. I understand that most telephone companies in Canada are co-operating completely in establishing such a system. For example, Bell has new equipment in place to accommodate this single number emergency call.
There is one area in my riding where I hope within the next 12 months new equipment will be put in place to handle not only emergency calls but regular telephone calls. I refer to the Silver Water exchange at the west end of Manitoulin Island where, when equipment is out of service, a person has to drive 25 or 30 miles to re-establish contact, let alone call someone such as a doctor in cases of emergency. I am glad to know that Bell Canada is co-operating, and I hope they will continue to co-operate to the extent of establishing good, workable equipment in all areas, but especially in those rural areas of Canada that still lack proper telephone service.
I understand there is a problem with the bill as presently framed in that it should be an amendment to the Railway Act rather than the National Transportation Act. At the hon. member's suggestion perhaps the subject matter of the bill could be sent to committee rather than the bill itself, if it be the case that the provisions of the National Transportation Act are inappropriate.
To make adoption of this number successful the co-operation of the municipalities and regional governments would be required. It is not merely a case of passing federal legislation approving adoption of this number; there would have to be co-operation with the various municipal agencies such as fire departments, police, drug and poison control centres, and so on. However, any leadership that we would give at the federal level would surely only expedite matters.
I understand that the city of Vancouver has already ordered equipment to handle this universal emergency number, and installation of such equipment is also under consideration in the Cranbrook area. In Alberta, Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer already have this kind of service under consideration. There are no cities in Saskatchewan that have this service available, but the Saskatchewan telephone system is prepared to offer the service if the

municipalities will make a commitment. Negotiations were under way to serve Regina and Saskatoon in 1973.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore mentioned that in Winnipeg and Brandon this emergency service is available. In the province of Ontario it has been available in London and Kitchener, covering the services of the fire department, police, poison control centre, ambulance dispatch and so on. So some progress is being made, and any leadership given at the federal level would only speed the process across the country. It would also clear away any additional legislative red tape that might be holding things up. I conclude with those few comments. The hon. member has my support in bringing the matter before parliament so that it can be fully aired.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, may I commence my remarks by saying that the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) has, in my view, introduced an excellent bill. I disagree with some of the criticisms of it made in various documents made available to us.
What interests me most about this bill is that we have reached a point where a good idea is being lost because of the way our system works. Virtually every Friday afternoon we go through this ritual. The hon. member who proposed the bill has rather limited hopes of it ever reaching the transport committee. He is not quite sure whether it will be a member of the opposition or a member of this party who will contribute to talking it out. I am not quite sure of that either, but possibly we might devolve that duty upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fleming) whom I see returning to his seat in a fit of panic lest he is called upon to stand up within the next few minutes to speak to the bill.
The point I want to make is that we have gone beyond common sense in terms of this ritual we use to dispose of private members' bills. Unless we can be assured through the means of the Procedure and Organization Committee that this type of destruction of a good idea is stopped and an end is put to the abuse of the proceedings of this House in this way, I suspect at least in my own case this will be one of the last times I will ever again contribute to the disposal of a private members' bill by talking it out or even using up the available time.
I want to point out for the benefit of hon. members, who may have some interest in how we deal with this system, precisely what happens. Every session something like 150 or 200 private members' bills are put down by members. About 50 of these are drawn out of a barrel in the Clerk's office. Those 50 bills are put forward in the order drawn and are brought forward for first reading. Of the 50 I do not recall the actual number but I would doubt that more than three or four ever reach committee. Right from the start no distinction is made between bills that are improperly drawn and perfectly good bills.
If one looks at the British system one will see the contrast. What happens there is that when a member's name comes up or is drawn, he is entitled to go to the government and look for such legislation as might be supported by the government. Then he can go to the com-
March 26, 1976

raunity and invite the community or the country to put forward ideas which he might be able to incorporate in that particular piece of legislation. What happens at the end of the process is that he has access to the government and the departments thereof in the preparation of his bill, instead of what we have today.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has put down a perfectly worthy bill. I would refer to the fact that a similar bill was brought forward a few years ago by Mr. Mather of the New Democratic Party. Instead of the government being of any assistance to the hon. member we find that the government, both in the departmental sense and in the conduct of its members in this House, does everything possible, including the provision of argument against this bill, to stop it.


An hon. Member:: They do not have to.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member says that they do not have to. The difficulty we are faced with is that naturally for the opposition it has become an amusing tradition to suggest that all such bills go to committee. The committee system and the House are already so jammed with legislation, because of the terrific slowing down of the pace by the opposition, that additional legislation cannot be handled.


An hon. Member:: That is not the reason.


Roderick Blaker: I do not intend to instruct the hon. member, but this is common knowledge. The hon. member knows full well that the function of the opposition is to delay legislation. I would suggest to him that he not shake his head, because that is precisely what he is here for.
Let us look at some of the benefits of this piece of legislation we have before us, and some of its history. This 911 system was made the subject of an executive decision of Bell Telephone throughout North America and of British Columbia Telephone back in 1968.


Mr.   De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Matane on a point of order.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is drinking a glass of milk, and I think he is not giving a good example. It is not the place for it.


An hon. Member:: He just hid it in the drawer. He has to withdraw behind the curtains.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only tea and I am halfway out of the Chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the point of order is valid. Really the hon. member whose name was mentioned should withdraw a little further behind the curtains. [Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on this same point of order, I would like to point out to you that there is not any
Emergency Telephone Number
representative from the NDP in the House at the present time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the fact that even though the hon. member might have been drinking something other than water, he is in this House all day every day, and he is also a Manitoban and a good parliamentarian, so I side with him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say to hon. members that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to take a roll call of the House. I recognize again the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker).


Roderick Blaker: That was a very interesting interlude, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been so heavily attacked for drinking tea in the House when we all know that not too long ago in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald it was the habit to replace the water in the glass with another fluid equally clear, but more powerful than tea. However, those days are gone.
I want to stress what I said earlier about the validity of this bill. One of the first arguments we get against the bill is that it is redundant in that the principal telephone carriers that are subject to federal jurisdiction, Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone, already have expressed willingness to co-operate with the municipalities in this regard. That kind of argument further suggests that if we were to pass legislation in the face of their willingness this would somehow irk the two telephone companies and that it would be better if we did not pass the legislation because we would get the 911 system faster. I do not think it is very difficult to point out not only the fallaciousness but the absolute naivete of such a silly argument. The argument that these two companies are prepared to go into this business and therefore we ought not to pass the legislation is a completely useless argument.
The next argument we get against the bill is that there are jurisdictional or constitutional difficulties. Well, we cannot pass any piece of legislation in Canada without some kind of jurisdictional difficulties. I think the citizens are fed up listening to that argument, and as a member of parliament I am getting fed up with that argument.
The 911 system is a perfectly valid idea. There are 45 million Americans being served in that way now. I think a red herring is being dragged across the face of the hon. member's bill. At the very least it can be argued that the bill should be referred to the Transport Committee so that the jurisdictional aspects could be considered and reviewed. Instead of that we have this attack in which no one makes any valid representations.
The final argument I have heard-and I should mention that these arguments appeared three years ago-is that it should be under the Railway Act rather than under the National Transportation Act. That is neither here nor there. The hon. member has pointed out that nothing under the procedures of this House prevents us sending the subject matter to the relevant committee. That argument, rather interestingly, goes on to suggest that in any event the governor in council may soon be authorized by regula-
12210

March 26, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
tion to put in a 911 system. This is another insanity. If the governor in council may be authorized to put in that type of system then obviously the 911 system is valid, and obviously a solution will be found to the constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties.
What we get during the private members' hour is a situation in which a particularly good suggestion made by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore now must be dealt with through a lot of circular and fallacious arguments, to the effect that the tradition has grown up that a private member's bill will not be allowed to go to committee.
Members may or may not be aware that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has recently established a sub-committee, headed I believe by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), on this subject of private members' bills. I would point out to hon. members my hope that we will adopt the British system according to which, when members come in with a good idea, instead of their own party and hon. members opposite fighting the idea, we all get together, agree it is a good idea, and send the bill in question to committee.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Go ahead and tell your colleague that.


Roderick Blaker: I just did. We have spent three years on this emergency No. 911. Going back, we find the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-who left the House for a moment, I suppose-spoke three years ago on September 14 on this subject. Mr. Barry Mather, who was the member for Surrey-White Rock, spoke on the same subject. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) spoke on the subject. He raised arguments about constitutional problems.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), now Minister of National Revenue, spoke on the subject and expressed concern about a universal emergency telephone system not being feasible without the co-operation of municipalities that must agree to consolidate in emergency services. We are hearing all this again today.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) also spoke on the subject. He said that this should be put under the Railway Act rather than the Transportation Act. We are hearing the same arguments today.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) spoke on the subject. He did not spend too much time on the No. 911 issue but he spent a fair amount of time trying to define what emergency is. We are hearing that again today.
None of these arguments validate the practice we have developed in the private members' hour of rejecting a bill which, on the face of it, every member who has yet spoken, has suggested we should send to committee. In the normal process, we hear members speak for 20 minutes-I did not notice the time at which I started. This means that after I conclude speaking some other member of the House will have to rise and face the unpleasant duty of having to repeat the same arguments. Than, when we come to five o'clock, if things go as they usually do 99 times out of 100, the bill will be talked out.


Donald W. Munro: How about letting it go to committee? Move the motion right now.


Roderick Blaker: That may be a good idea. The hon. member knows as I do, that the moment I sit down, another member will get to his feet and will go through the same procedure; possibly it will even be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications who has been the object of some of my needling in that regard this afternoon.
I would like to conclude by saying that I think this process could change. I am hopeful that hon. members the parliamentary secretaries, as well as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) who I know takes a great deal of interest in procedural matters, will hear what I am saying and give us a reform of procedures so that ideas such as the one in the bill of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore can be sent to committee and will no longer be talked out in this improper and completely silly fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to be the one to which my hon. colleague from Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) has alluded when he spoke before me, and not to be responsible, as we say in the usual parliamentary language, for "killing" the bill, that is to try to make the discussion last till five o'clock with the result that unfortunately, the bill would be put off undefinitely.
I simply want to make some remarks and warmly congratulate my hon. colleague and friend, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), the representative of this beautiful and great City of Toronto which, as we know, is going through a tremendous expansion in the social and economic field as well in the culinary and artistic ones. I am proud, as a Montreal representative, to take every opportunity which comes my way to consolidate a little more the friendship between the City of Montreal, one of whose riding I represent, and the City of Toronto he is representing with such dignity.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say that, Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Of course my hon. colleague applauds with some delay because he has just heard my remarks, since with interpretation you have to wait a little and not talk too fast so that the nice compliments I made to the beautiful city of Toronto can arrive to the other end of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I could speak for a long time about Toronto which, as everyone knows, is certainly one of the most progressive-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the bill before us proposes the installation of a universal telephone number which Canadians could use in emergencies and, in my opinion, the moment is not appropriate to praise the city of Toronto or talk about the Olympics in Montreal.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I am at fault and accept your call to order. You, who know me so
March 26, 1976

well, know that I take every possible opportunity I am given in the House to try, through my remarks, whatever the subject, to show that people from another part of the country, who speak another tongue, also like to take advantage of those opportunities to indicate that there can be unity in our country. I therefore did not hesitate to go slightly beyond the subject before the House and take advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I do thank you for having called me to order. It is your duty to do so and you do it with 30 much spirit. This is one opportunity of saying so because we know presiding over this House, especially during Friday's private members' hour, is no simple task. I see nothing out of order in congratulating you in passing, while we are studying this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is really serious. Unfortunately, my hon. colleague for Lachine-Lakeshore-I do not know whether there is a connotation between Lachine-Lakeshore and Toronto-Lakeshore-but he is right in saying that hon. members can take this opportunity to use it ill-advisedly, frivolously, in thoughtless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject before the House.
But as long as we will persist in this House in refusing to change the orders, and I regret that my good friend the President of the Privy Council is not in the House at the moment because I wish he could hear this, as long as we will persist, and more particularly the opposition, in refusing to change the orders of the House, we will unfortunately always be forced to study legislation such as this-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that everybody in the House is for the bill because they realize it is an important bill, I wonder if we could not have unanimous agreement to have the bill sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fleming:: I simply want to point out that I said "no" in case there is any question as to unanimous consent, and I hope later on to have the opportunity to address myself to the reasons why.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the other official language of this country to reassure my friend, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, that I do not intend to kill the bill. There are still a few minutes left and if the bill is killed it will not be by the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Donald W. Munro: You are not giving it the guillotine treatment.
Emergency Telephone Number


Marcel Prud'homme: If the hon. member from the great, beautiful island of Victoria has anything to say, I am ready at any time to sit down and listen to his views, but if he does not want to participate I do not see why he should interrupt me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: It is obvious that time after time we come back with good proposals which we either suggest be sent to committee or which we kill here during these private members' hours. I was saying that as long as we refuse to change the rules of this House, I intend to use them to show, perhaps by not being too serious, how important it is now to change the rules of the House so that the House can be more productive. There is no way-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will go back to the subject matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House was very understanding when the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) spoke about this aspect of the problem, but in all his comments he did succeed in expressing at least one valid opinion about the bill. I hope that the hon. member will also have the opportunity to speak about the subject of the bill before closing.


Marcel Prud'homme: I shall do so immediately, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have all recognized the speeches that were made in 1973 on this same subject, and especially that made on September 14, 1973 by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Barry Mather, former member for Surrey-White Rock, who unfortunately no longer sits in this House. As the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore said, we could use nearly the same arguments today.
However, I would like to tell my hon. friend from Toronto-Lakeshore not to get discouraged. I have myself introduced the same bills for several years before the government accepted the facts and decided to enact them. I am speaking about Bill C-20, amending the Citizenship Act, which will soon be enacted, and which will, I hope, reduce from five to three years the period of residency required before becoming a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that among the major arguments that have been used today, there is one which is more striking, that is the one stating that we shall need the co-operation of municipal authorities. By saying municipal authorities, we mean the creatures of the provincial governments, which means that we shall therefore need the co-operation of provincial governments.
I therefore wonder why we could not deal with the provincial authorities which, in fact, are constitutionally responsible for municipalities, so that they may together find an effective way to act as quickly as possible on this excellent idea of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.

March 26, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
When one considers the number of bills which are at present involved as a result of the hon. member's suggestion, one realizes, for example, that the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton, those large metropolises of the Canadian West, Lethbridge in southern Alberta, an extraordinary city which I urge all hon. members to visit some day, Red Deer in Alberta, Toronto and London in Ontario, this bastion of the great other Canadian culture- I emphasize those words-Kitchener, Waterloo, in Ontario, Fredericton in New Brunswick, St. John, all could benefit by this, which means the hon. member should not be discouraged, since the idea which had been brought to the consideration of the House in 1973 by our good and distinguished colleague from Surrey-White Rock has been gradually making its way and we are now moving in that direction.
But I would not like this initiative to be exclusively federal. I would like my hon. colleague ... I will not say any more after that, Mr. Speaker, I would like all of us to realize that we are dealing primarily and above all with an issue under another political jurisdiction and a marvellous idea such as this one could become the centre of idle controversies. Therefore I urge him to keep fighting to broadcast this idea, which is intrinsically good, while remembering to seek federal and provincial participation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since everyone seems to be for this bill but there are one or two more who want to speak, could we not have unanimous consent to sit until 5:30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who said no?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in the events of the last few moments I am not sure who said no and who said yes to what, and where, and when. I recall saying no several times and yes several times, and I will try to sort it out later and let hon. members know on which side I was yes and on which side I was no.
I hope in the several minutes remaining that I can make it clear, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, that while I too commend the spirit of this private member's bill, and I understand the point made by the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) about the system, the fact of the matter is that I am not convinced that it would be practical to refer the subject matter, much less the actual material, to committee. I say that for reasons which I think to some degree have already come out in debate, but principally because too often people look to the Government of Canada, the senior level of government, as the cure all for their problems.
Here is a proposal to do something which would be of real benefit to all Canadians, to establish by passage of this legislation, as put forward, an emergency number for all Canadians in Centres across our country which is not only a common number across Canada but which would be common to all North America. We have great numbers of tourists coming back and forth, but the fact is that passing this law will not mean a blamed thing as far as carrying it out and making it effective is concerned, whether we pass this on in spirit or in fact, because we have jursidiction over only four of the ten provinces in Canada, and therefore we cannot force the telephone companies in six of our ten provinces to do a blamed thing about it.
For practical purposes, discussion and bringing this subject forward are worth while. I can appreciate the frustration of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) in not seeing something developed more quickly because of the very nature of Canada and the division of authority, but I would be very disappointed if hon. members on all sides really believed, when we have so many problems day to day in trying to explain to our constituents the misunderstanding of where authority lies for what problem, that today on this issue we would try to convince them that we can solve it through simply passing this off to committee. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 29, 1976