1976-03-22

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the anti-inflation measures advocated by the government have contributed to increase the number of unemployed in Quebec and since conditions are worsening, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House urge the government to review immediately its anti-inflation policy and launch an extensive public works program in co-operation with provinces and municipalities to control the rise of unemployment in Canada and in Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED STUDY OF THE POSSIBLE USE OF WIND AS SOURCE OF ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the search for traditional oil resources has declined more rapidly than the National Energy Board had anticipated; since in 1976, wind power appears again as a replacement solution, especially for a country such as ours where the winter season limits solar energy potentialities; considering also that the wind power potential of wind, this phenomenon caused by changes in density, pressure
and temperature of the atmosphere, is colossal; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House request the government to effect as soon as possible a complete inventory of the wind resources in Canada and establish the true potential of wind power since the age of cheap petroleum is ended and that of petroleum is nearing its end.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. During this morning's meeting with the cabinet, Mr. Morris made an extremely strong protest that the so-called consensus talks which took place over many months were bilateral only and that labour never had a chance to enter into discussions with other sectors of the economy and government together. In view of Mr. Morris' statement this morning that you will never get agreement until all the players are in the ball park, can the minister advise whether throughout the series of meetings between government and labour up to the announcement of controls the Canadian Labour Congress requested, directly or indirectly, multilateral discussions on steps to control inflation? If so, why were such multilateral meetings not arranged by the government?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the CLC, at any time during the consensus discussions, requesting multilateral discussions. I might say that aside from the discussions to do with inflation, the Canadian Labour Relations Council, by its very nature, has all the players in the ball park; the employers, the unions and government have been meeting on an ongoing basis to devise ways of improving the present collective bargaining system.

March 22, 1976
Oral Questions
Mr. F raser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Canadian Labour Relations Council was not used with respect to the anti-inflation program. In view of the Prime Minister's remarks this morning to the effect that he desires the co-operation of labour in preparing for the situation at the completion of the control program, and in view of the Minister of Labour's hope that labour will co-operate by continuing membership in certain boards, such as the manpower consultative committee, the UIC advisory council, the Economic Council of Canada and the Canada Labour Relations Council, can the minister tell this House whether the government, in order to secure what we all realize to be the necessary co-operation of labour, is now prepared to discuss with the CLC some process for multilateral discussions outside of the Canadian Labour Relations Council to ensure better understanding and co-operation among all sectors of the economy, especially with regard to the culmination or completion of the anti-inflation control program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister indicated this morning at the meeting with the CLC that that suggestion on Mr. Morris' part would be well worth exploring.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. The Prime Minister said this morning that the government would want to discuss with the CLC what kind of economy and society we will need for the future. Does this indicate that the government plans significant changes in the process of free collective bargaining after the control period is ended and, if so, in order to have meaningful discussions when will the government put precise proposals to labour and to parliament for discussion? I am not referring to the same discussions that have taken place in the Canada Labour Relations Committee but to any new ideas with respect to the role of free collective bargaining in this new society that the right hon. Prime Minister spoke of this morning.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the discussions that go on in the Canada Labour Relations Council, that is precisely where changes and improvements in the whole collective bargaining system might very well be agreed upon which would help us in terms of the type of society that we have after the control period is over. That is where these discussions are in fact taking place.


SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF LABOUR REPRESENTATION FROM GOVERNMENT BODIES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Since the Canadian Labour Congress is considering withdrawing from the Canadian Labour Relations Council and other
bodies, and in light of the statement by Mr. Morris this morning that the CLC is prepared to discuss with the government policies for the decontrol period, has the minister received any significant indication that the CLC will leave these bodies, and in any event is the minister going to speak directly to the executive of the CLC about this situation?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been made public and is well known that the CLC has been considering withdrawing from some of these bodies. They have not been too explicit on precisely which bodies they will consider withdrawing from and have taken no action yet. I believe they will be meeting tomorrow and the next day on this particular question. It is my hope, and I believe the hope of the government, that the CLC will not withdraw, on the basis that it would not be in the interests of the labour movement, its membership or the Canadian people generally.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF SHORTENING CONTROL PERIOD
William Gordon Ritchie: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the input of the Minister of Labour as to the time when the decontrol will start still firmly and absolutely aimed at the 3-year period provided in the legislation or could the time be shorter, in view of the situation in which the CLC and the Canadian Economic Policy Committee of the C.D. Howe Institute have suggested that wage and price controls should be terminated in as short a time as possible, possibly within 18 months?


John Carr Munro: There has been no indication, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the government, certainly in any way to the labour movement that this period will be any shorter than that stipulated in the legislation.


SUGGESTION LABOUR SHARE IN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS- REQUEST FOR INCREASES IN MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Although the minister knows that companies can have virtually unlimited profits under the government's program if they show that excess profits are due to unusual productivity gains, the restriction on Canadian workers for increases beyond the guidelines have been set at 2 per cent, at least according to our understanding up to this morning anyway, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Minister of Labour was stating new government policy when he suggested that workers in Canada would be able to share precisely in the same way as corporations in unusual productivity gains?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Minister of Labour was making that comment in the context of doing away with restrictive labour and other practices.
(Mr. Munro (Hamilton East).]
March 22, 1976


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that answer makes even less sense than the ones we usually get from the Minister of Finance. Let me ask the Minister of Finance whether Canadian workers, in terms of productivity gains, are restricted to the 2 per cent ceiling, unlike management which has no restriction, or are they not?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, since I was the one who made the point perhaps I would be permitted to answer the hon. member. I will get the precise wording of the regulation for him. If we find there are savings as a result of the unions or the employers doing away with or negotiating away restrictive working practices which result in significant productivity gains, then the workers can share, in those exceptional circumstances, with the employers in those savings, and those savings are not then brought within the guidelines. Also in respect of a piece-work basis, if this results in increased productivity the same would apply under an incentives scheme. I would be pleased to get the precise wording for the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance, if either can give us a single example of the workers being given the advantage of this regulation in the five months the program has been in existence? Secondly, given the government's reiterated commitment to the poorly paid workers in Canada, I should like to ask why the government does not immediately increase the minimum wage in Canada to at least $3.50 an hour?


John Carr Munro: To answer the latter part of the hon. member's question first, he may be aware that it was just a short time ago that we raised the minimum wage from $2.65 to $2.90, to be effective April 1. This was a significant percentage increase and only 10 cents an hour lower than the latest position taken by the CLC, being $3. I think the hon. member should be aware of that.
As to whether the Anti-Inflation Board has permitted the exceptional circumstances, in which there might be that type of high productivity as a result of technological change, or the circumstances I have identified, in which workers might share in the savings, I am not aware but I can check.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the unemployment situation is getting worse, particularly in eastern Quebec, and given the announcement last week that some 400 small slaughterhouses will be closed in Quebec, which will cause further unemployment, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will recommend that his government increase the budget of the Department of Public Works, so that funds be allocated especially to the eastern Quebec region, in cooperation with the province and the municipalities?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the President of the Treasury Board announced two or three months ago that the federal government would seriously try to cut its expenditures, and so we have reduced the rate of growth of the Department of Public Works and of several other departments. We have also put an end to some voluntary assistance programs, like LIP. We have reduced expenditures. However, I take note of the hon. member's words and I will see if, within authorized expenses, there is a way to help the region he refers to.


UNEMPLOYMENT-EFFECT OF COMBINE IN SASH AND WINDOW MANUFACTURING IN EASTERN QUEBEC
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
In view of the comforting reply of the Prime Minister, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that currently, in the same area I have just spoken about, steps are also being taken to centralize the manufacture of windows and doors, and a very specialized organization is buying up all the small businesses that are now offering considerable employment in eastern Quebec. Would the Prime Minister also be willing to take that situation into consideration and see to it that we are able to offer the largest possible number of jobs to our local manpower?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly point out the problem to the ministers concerned. In addition to the Minister of Public Works, there is also the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who will certainly make it his duty to look into those problems. I cannot help but remind the Social Credit Party of Canada that it was very severe in condemning the government claiming that it was spending too much. Had they been more understanding in this regard, I might be less astonished to hear them now encourage us to spend more.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put one last supplementary.
I do not recall having chided the government for spending logically, for the good of the whole population. In any event, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would be willing to make reforms in the financing of the public sector of the federal administration, enabling the government to accept the performance of public works without affecting the budget further.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to look into all reforms, specially those that would allow us to spend more without increasing our budgets. If the hon. member has the key to that one, I would be very eager to hear about it.

March 22, 1976

Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM
Mr. Alexander:: In other words, the minister is stating that it will be a tough year.


EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. During the 1974 election he indicated to the people of Canada that controls were not needed and would not work. Be that as it may, in respect of the flip-flop the minister is reported as stating that the guidelines have introduced an element of uncertainty as to the final outcome of bargaining but they are not proving to be the death warrant, a kind of midnight executioner, for collective bargaining. There can be no doubt about the uncertainty. I should like to ask the minister what steps the government will propose or what steps he has recommended to remove this uncertainty from the collective bargaining process, save and except the removal of the controls, which of course is the answer in the long run.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not recall the words the hon. member is attributing to me. I would be quite prepared to have him give me the source so I could check on it, but it is unfamiliar to me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am so accustomed to speaking to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that I made an error. I meant my remarks to be directed to the Minister of Labour. I am sure he heard it, but perhaps he would like me to repeat the question.


John Carr Munro: Repeat it, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the minister was so concerned about wage and price controls during the 1974 election when he indicated they would not work and were not needed, then all of a sudden he flip-flopped and now says they will work and are needed, may I refer him to his own statement when he said:
The guidelines have introduced an element of uncertainty as to the final outcome of bargaining but they are not proving .to be the death warrant, a kind of midnight executioner, for collective bargaining.
There is no question about the fact that controls have brought about uncertainty. I wish to ask the minister what steps will be taken by the government or what has the minister recommended to ensure that this uncertainty is removed, keeping in mind that the removal of controls would of course be the ideal answer but that will have to wait for the future?


John Carr Munro: I believe the hon. member is referring to a speech I gave to the United Steel Workers at Whitehorse on Friday. What I was referring to, if he wants to read the full speech and not just take a paragraph or two which might be out of context, is the fact that when the Anti-Inflation Board injects itself into the process as the law requires, it creates uncertainty so far as the employees are concerned as to what the final award will be, and that is one of the inevitabilities of the legislation in any control system.


FINANCE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As I understand it, the Minister of Finance stated today that he looked forward to advice in preparing his budget which is expected within the next two months. In order to keep this multilateral discussion going, would the minister advice the House whether any arrangements have been made to hold extensive talks with labour and other groups on fiscal proposals in that budget and, if so, what are they?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, what I said this morning in response to CLC's comments on economic and fiscal policy was that I disagreed with the trend of their recommendations which would seem to call for a tighter and more restrictive fiscal policy because of the risk of additional unemployment in Canada. I called on them to rethink their approach to the fiscal and monetary policy and reminded them of the fact that I would be presenting a budget within the next two months and that if they along with others had comments they wished to make, they would be most willingly received. I am glad to repeat that here. Of course, I am receiving from various interest groups across the country recommendations with regard to individual tax changes, but I would be glad to hear from the opposition, the CLC and others their views on the fiscal and monetary policy which they think is appropriate.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture stated in the House on Friday that if he were in Russia he would be given a medal for producing commodities in the very efficient manner in which they are produced here,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: -would the minister immediately stop patting himself on the back and presenting medals to himself and investigate the charges that importers of eggs into Canada are making excess profits at the expense of producers as well as consumers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under investigation for some time and recommendations have been submitted to me by
March 22, 1976

the National Farm Products Marketing Council to overcome this.


An hon. Member:: Send the minister to the salt mines.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the high regard which the Minister of Agriculture has for his ability to produce and his reference to Russia, will he be applying to Mr. Brezhnev for the position vacated by Dmitry Polyansky as Soviet minister of agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a press report from London stated in considerable detail that the addition of an extra layer of bureaucracy to the operations of Canada House in London has produced confusion and inefficiency which is baffling to those who are seeking information from Canada House, and they are the ones whom Canada House was originally established to serve, has the minister investigated this matter since I drew it to his attention last week and has he been able to take steps to correct this rather disturbing situation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as I do that Canada House has performed extremely well and with a very high standard of service. Accordingly, all of us were surprised at this news report. However, I have communicated with the High Commissioner, and I expect that corrective action will be taken very quickly.


George Harris Hees: As this report was very detailed regarding the considerable number of instances in which confusion and inefficiency have grown up in Canada House, is the minister looking into the operation of our embassies around the world to see if what has happened in our most important embassy, London, is happening in other places as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The service performed by our missions abroad, whether they be embassies or high commissions, is constantly under consideration and under constant upgrading and improvement, and I am sure that the complaints which have developed in London will be corrected because of staff reassignments and staff procurements.


George Harris Hees: Let us hope so.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


SUGGESTED USE OF CANADIAN CHEESE ON ALL DOMESTIC FLIGHTS
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is further to my question of November 26 last on the subject of the use of imported wines on domestic flights. I should like to ask him if he would also consider the use of Canadian cheese, replacing imported cheeses on all domestic flights. We have many fine products in Canada such as Canadian brick, Gouda, Swiss, Colby, Boursault, Provolone, Canadian Oka, Camembert and the fine Cheddars, to name just a few.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


George Harris Hees: A nice bit of advertising, Joe.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM   PROPOSAL TO AMEND GUIDELINES TO PERMIT WORKERS TO SHARE IN INCREASED PROFITS FROM SALE OF EXPORTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the removal of the guideline limits on profits made by corporations from exports as a result of higher prices-such as the one announced today for copper-or greater productivity, and in view of the limits put on wage increases for workers in those industries, will the government consider amending the wage guidelines so that workers in those industries could share fairly the greater profitability of the corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that would seem to me to be unfair to other workers in Canada who are subject to the guidelines.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: What about the other corporations?


MEASURES TO ENSURE CORPORATIONS WILL NOT SELL ALL HIGH QUALITY GOODS IN EXPORT MARKET TO REAP HIGHER PROFITS
David Orlikow: In view of the fact that companies which export part of their production, such as lumber, will be permitted to make larger profits on their export sales than they could make on sales in Canada, what steps, if any, is the government taking to ensure that companies, in order to make these larger profits, will not export their highest quality products which they produce and sell in Canada the second grade, inferior products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, through the anti-inflation program the returns of exporting corporations will be monitored in relation to their business, both Canadian and export, and through the

March 22, 1976
Oral Questions
operations of other departments of government the quality of physical volumes moving will also be watched.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the very tragic drowning of two men in the northwest arm of the Halifax Harbour yesterday afternoon, although they hung on to their boat, apparently, long enough to be rescued had there been any adequate, integrated rescue plan in operation in the harbour, and although there were, apparently, appropriate boats ready to do the job had they been notified and called upon to do so. Since this harbour comes under the jurisdiction of a board within the minister's department, I should like to ask why there does not appear to have been an adequate, integrated search and rescue operation available for situations like that.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given us notice of his question. I certainly share his feelings about the very regrettable nature of the incident. We will be investigating the very question which the hon. member has put to see if indeed there was a deficiency in co-ordination, and whether we can ensure against it in the future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Might I ask the minister what sort of investigation he will launch? Will he launch quite an extensive inquiry into what happened rather than simply making informal inquiries himself? Will he launch at least a quasi-formal inquiry as to what actually transpired and with authority to recommend what needs to be done to avoid the danger of a recurrence of this kind in the future?


Otto Emil Lang: I will take steps to determine the facts, which is necessary, and I will not prejudge what further action is required until I have all the facts. There are a number of agencies involved, and it is a problem of co-ordination. I will be glad to report from time to time about the nature of my inquiries, the conclusions I have arrived at and any action I recommend.


PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO INVOLVEMENT OF HALIFAX SEARCH AND RESCUE CENTRE IN LOSS OF &quot;SAN JUAN&quot;-DATE OF DECISION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. A short time ago he advised the House that he was considering the facts surrounding the loss of the fishing boat San Juan and the response of the Canadian coastguard at the Halifax Search and Rescue Centre in that particular tragedy in which two fishermen were lost. He gave an undertaking that he would take under advisement the possibility of holding a public or judicial inquiry into this tragedy. Has he reached a decision on that yet?


Otto Emil Lang: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


DATE OF REPORT OF TASK FORCE REVIEW OF SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. In view of the fact that there are lifeboat bases strategically located in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland which supposedly look after such rescues, and in view of the fact that it has been indicated that the lifeboats which are provided in these bases cannot even cut through two inches of ice, I wonder if the minister has received the task force report on the review of rescue policy and when we will get the results of that investigation. What action is the minister taking to investigate the lack of capability of these lifeboat bases?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, work on the question of co-ordination of our whole rescue effort is still under way, and I do not have at this point a final report.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister recently denied saying that Lockheed had misled his negotiators, but rather that there had been a misunderstanding with regard to financing. Could the minister advise the House just when he became aware of that misunderstanding?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would say it was when we reached the final stage of the contract, which was being negotiated by my colleague in the Department of Supply and Services. It became clear at that time that Lockheed was not going to be able to provide the financing, as we had understood it would be able to do.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: When I asked the minister to be specific about the time, I should have liked to have had it in days, months or years, not in a nebulous framework that this House has never been advised of, for example, the way the negotiations were going. Would the minister please tell us the date he became aware of the misunderstanding?


James Armstrong Richardson: From memory, the cabinet decision to purchase the Lockheed long range patrol aircraft was in late November, and I made an announcement to that effect in the House. It would have been during the month of December, 1975 and early January that the final negotiations of the contract were taking place.
March 22, 1976


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM UNITED STATES ON PAY-OFFS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister answered the question quite satisfactorily. Further on this subject, the Wall Street Journal of March 8 in a front page story said that:
Data on overseas payoffs by U.S. companies will be shared with foreign governments through the Justice Department, the State Department said.
Has the Canadian government availed itself of this opportunity to obtain information from that relatively open government concerning Lockheed payoffs?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I think that we have satisfied ourselves directly in conversations that the Lockheed Company, as I have explained before, made no payments or commissions to any Canadian. We have not concerned ourselves directly with their practices in other countries.


INCREASED COST OF ELECTRICITY AND HEATING OIL IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Because some people are losing their homes in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as a result of the rocketing of electric and oil generated heating costs and hundreds of thousands of others in those two provinces are in very difficult circumstances for the same reason, will the minister be presenting new initiatives to the next federal-provincial conference which deals with energy matters and if so, what sort of initiatives?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, at the last energy ministers' conference it was agreed that this particular item would be put on the agenda of a committee called IPACE, the Interprovincial Advisory Committee on Energy. The purpose of this committee is to consider a number of proposals including a proposal that the representative of the province of Nova Scotia put forward at the energy ministers' conference.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the plight of the 8,000 people in the town of Dalhousie regarding modern postal delivery service, I wonder if the minister could inform the House when this recommended letter carrier delivery service can be implemented?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the criteria for the introduction of new door to door letter service was improved upon, and made more difficult to be precise, last October when the government felt it should practice more restraint, particularly in the employment of postal workers. In view of the hon. gentleman's representation, however, I shall ask for a review of the number of people affected by the lack of service to see if it meets the new criteria.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On March 2,1 asked the minister whether he would be willing to intercede if he received a request from Mr. Boris Bibershtein of Toronto who was undergoing a hunger strike to protest the refusal of the Russian government to allow his wife and eight year old daughter to join him in Canada. In light of the fact that the minister replied he would be prepared to assist if he received such a request and the fact that Mr. Bibershtein wrote him the next day to, in his words, "beg for his help" may I ask the minister whether his department has contacted the Russian authorities to indicate this government's interest in the case and if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we did receive a request and my officials have been in touch with the gentleman himself on this case. We are now considering what steps we can take to assist constructively. There is no question but that we will lend our services in the hope that we may be able to secure the admission to Canada of his wife and child.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that it is some 19 days since Mr. Bibershtein wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request his assistance in this very urgent case, why has the government taken so long to make a decision to even contact the Soviet authorities to indicate this government's interest in reuniting this family?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not held off making any such decision.


PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT IN JAMES BAY AREA-AVAILABILITY OF QUEBEC PREFEASIBILITY STUDY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is based on the fact that following the 1975 CANADIF study into an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area, both the province of Quebec and the

March 22, 1976
Oral Questions
federal government expressed interest in carrying out further studies on this project. In view of the report that the prefeasibility study by the province of Quebec has now been completed, will the minister indicate whether this study has been made available to the federal government because of the mutual interest in this case? If not, what plans does the minister have to obtain a copy of the report?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge it has not been made available to us yet. I would expect it might be made available to us very shortly, perhaps when we have completed our own parallel study.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to table both of those documents in the House of Commons when they are available for the study and the information of members of the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would want to consider the position of the province of Quebec before agreeing to that.


Mr. Clark:: Why?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of reports from Thailand to the effect that one of history's worst and crudest tragedies has occurred in Cambodia over the last 11 months, have the minister and his department taken steps to acquaint themselves with the situation and can the minister make a brief report to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council, who took this question on Friday I believe, has already communicated the information requested to the hon. member. I shall look at it myself and if I can add anything further I shall be glad to do so.


INCARCERATION OF RICHARD ALLIN IN UNITED STATES- REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SECURE RELEASE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and he has notice of the question. In view of the fact that one of my constituents, Mr. Richard Allin of New Denver, British Columbia, a Canadian citizen, is presently in jail in Houston, Texas on a charge of draft evasion as a result of attending university in the United States and refusing to enlist in the United States army, and in view of the fact that information pertaining to his arrest has been more readily available from the United States Embassy than from the minister's department, will the minister assure the House that his department will now take active and positive steps to assist this man to be released and returned to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I heard about this particular case just before coming into the House. I understand that the gentleman in question has been released from prison and has consulted a lawyer. I shall follow it up, however.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR WAGE INCREASES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that less than 10 per cent of wage agreements so far submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board have been ruled on, most of them beyond the promised 30 day waiting period, and in view of the fact that even in cases where decisions have been made, such as the Sudbury Board of Education and its 600 teachers who have been waiting for months for a decision, also in view of the fact that the staff of the board's compensation branch has expressed complete frustration with the board's lack of direction, can the minister inform the House and the thousands of workers who have been waiting for months for their wage increases what steps will be taken to speed up the work of the board? Also, how soon can we expect this backlog of applications to be cleared?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the largest number of applications, as I understand it, are in the non-organized sector of the work force rather than on behalf of organized labour groups. This is a condition which has come about principally because of the filing requirement as of the end of February that employers must make under profit guidelines in particular, inquiries by employers who wish to confirm the appropriateness of the compensation settlements they have made with their own unorganized employees as part of the over-all profit control program. In that sense the board, as the chairman indicated last week, cannot give any specific timing in which all these cases will be cleared. The board is working hard to do so and hopes it may overcome this particular bulge in applications which has occurred for the reasons I have stated.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM SUGGESTED CONTROL OF HOUSING AND ENERGY COSTS, MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that daily it is becoming more apparent that for the anti-inflation program to work as the government has outlined would necessitate a massive bureaucracy, is the government now prepared in the light of the slowness of the program and its outright rejection by the working people of Canada, to abandon this program and instead


adopt a program of special measures controlling housing costs, mortgage rates, energy costs and other areas not touched by the present program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. The long answer is that energy costs in the area of petroleum are already controlled, in the area of electricity they are controlled by provincial hydro and so on. There is a very long answer to which I may enjoin the hon. member to listen, and perhaps at some time debate.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. What are the implications for the Canadian dollar in the international market of the withdrawal by France from the Snake agreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, judging by the experience of the international markets in the last five to seven days there have been no implications for the Canadian dollar as yet. It remains, of course, one of the strong currencies on world money markets but we would have to say in general terms that we have to be concerned about any destabilizing effect of world money markets. In particular, we regret it has not been possible to continue a closer integration within the European community of something as important as exchange policy.


James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that there is bound to be pressure developing on the Canadian dollar, is the government going to continue its policy of allowing it to float, regardless of where it may go or will it move to a support operation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the pressure we are concerned with at the moment is upward rather than downward pressure. We do not propose at this time to intervene in order to move away from the floating dollar.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was not clear from the answer he was aware of what was going on in Cambodia. Can he tell us whether his department or the government is taking any steps whatever to draw these tragic events to the attention of the United Nations Commission, on Human Rights for action?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on that specific point, I will be happy to inquire whether such representations have been made recently, and advise the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the federal Department of Agriculture have a policy that restricts payments under the beef stabilization program to the land owner rather than the herd owner, and is there a regulation that would make a beef stabilization payment void for more than one herd that is kept on the described land?


Eugene Whelan: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, it does not restrict it just to land owners.


Arnold John Malone: Why then does the department refuse payment to women who owned their own herds and maintained them on separate land prior to marriage, but sold them after marriage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that information ought to be obtained in another way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the hope that the situation has now stabilized somewhat, can the minister advise whether all Canadians known to be in Guatemala are reported to be safe? Also, can he give us a brief update as to whether his department had consultation with the missionaries there to determine the best form of aid beyond the initial aid given by the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the latest count I have is that all Canadians in Guatemala have been reported safe. The hon. member may know that in addition to the initial food aid in the form of milk powder, we have embarked upon a program of providing shelter that we hope will house a large number of people in two towns in Guatemala. We have on an individual basis been co-operating with missionary groups in Guatemala, particularly a group that was organized in the city of Hamilton. To my knowledge, we have responded to all the non-governmental efforts that have been initiated in Canada, as well as having undertaken a very extensive program of direct assistance from the government.

March 22, 1976
Oral Questions


FEDERAL MORTGAGE EXCHANGE CORPORATION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the long promised Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation. Will the minister advise whether this corporation will commence business on April 1, 1976, as promised by the government? If not, why not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate it probably will not do so. The principal reason for the delay is that we have had meetings with people familiar with the current secondary market for mortgages in the private sector to discuss ways in which the instrument might be used. These are not yet completed. Given the nature of the market and the demand for setoff mortgages as investments, particularly by pension and trust funds, we hope to be able to work out an effective regime through which the corporation will be an instrument for achieving this.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the minister advise the House whether his department has advertised in any of the newspapers in Canada for a president of that corporation and whether he has interviewed anybody through other means?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not advertised by newspaper, although representatives of my department have talked to a number of individuals in this context.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. It is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Restigouche. Until now, the number of postal drops necessary for a community to qualify for letter carrier service has had to be 2,000. I understand the restraint program has put a postponement on the introduction of new applications over 2,000. However, the minister's reply indicated a new criteria. Has the number of postal drops been increased before consideration will be given to door-to-door delivery, or is it just that this is being postponed temporarily?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is a
combination, Mr. Speaker. We have postponed temporarily the introduction of new postal walks. We have also weighted a little more heavily the question of density which has, as the hon. member can well understand, an appreciable effect on how many letter carriers and backup staff we would have to hire if we remained with the old criteria.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the recommendations made by the Textile and Clothing Board concerning the impact on Canadian manufacturing of low cost imports of cold weather clothing were submitted to the minister on February 16, and since it will soon be time to place orders for the next cold season, what action will be taken on the report. Will the government be deciding that it is still interested in keeping labour intensive secondary industry in Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had a very lengthy and productive meeting on Friday with the representatives of the textile industry. We discussed the whole question of low cost imports. A number of steps have been set in motion. There will be discussions between my officials and spokesmen for the industry. I have also asked the Textile and Clothing Board to give me some specific recommendations as to how present arrangements may be changed. A number of other steps have been launched as well. The hon. member will find that the textile representatives present felt that the meeting was productive. I hope that before the snow flies again, if it ever stops flying this time, we will have some answers to these very important questions.


HOUSING
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House whether he read a report by the Montreal economic research and development board on a program to favour building rental houses through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans? If so, could he comment on the conclusions of this study that this loan program will degenerate into an outbreak of bankruptcies in about a decade when the owners will have to retire the loans and increase their rents to reimburse the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be more explicit on the report. I have no precise information to give on a report concerning a person whose name is not mentioned.
March 22, 1976


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's statement that spent fuel from a potential Korean CANDU reactor would not be returned to Canada due to environmental implications, whether the sale was completed or not, will he advise what are the environmental implications that preclude the return of spent fuel to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question does not arise because the agreement does not provide for any such return.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What was the source of information upon which the minister made the decision that spent fuel could not be returned? Regardless of whether the agreement was completed or not, the decision was made that spent fuel would not be returned. What was the basis for this decision and is the minister prepared to either table or circulate that information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the main point in reaching a decision of that kind was that the provisions requiring the return of spent fuel would not add, except marginally, to the safeguard system that we had enunciated.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to announce a new date for the tabling of the report of Dr. Noel Hall on railway pensions? If he is not able to give it today, could he find out this week and let us have a date?


John Carr Munro: I will endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker. I know Dr. Hall is working as fast as he can and has undertaken to try to make his report soon, but I shall try to get a more specific answer than that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In reply to a question of privilege raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Privilege-Mr. Sharp
Sharp), I indicated I would want some time to deliberate on the matter. The question arises from certain remarks made in the course of debate on Thursday evening of last week. I shall try to deal with it as briefly as possible but it is an extremely important matter and may require consideration at some length.
The basic rule of the House with respect to the procedure and practice in this regard can be found in citation 140 of Beauchesne's. It is probably familiar to all hon. members, and it reads as follows:
The rule relating to personal reflections occurring in debate may be stated thus, namely: that it is doubly disorderly for any member, in speaking, to digress from the question before the House and to attack any other member by means of approbrious language applied to his person and character or to his conduct, either in general, or on some particular occasion, intending to bring him into ridicule, contempt, or hatred with his fellow-members, or to create ill blood in the House.
In addition, there is another precaution which the House has always observed. I would direct attention to Standing Order 35, again one which is no doubt familiar to all members and which, paraphrased, says basically that no member shall speak disrespectfully against any other member of the House. The rationale behind this, the practice which has grown up in this respect, has been set out in another citation of Beauchesne's, citation 136, which refers to the Bruce case in 1944. I also refer to the Lacombe case in 1943. The ruling is to be found at page 565 of the Journals of that year. The practice with respect to both these cases illustrates clearly what has grown to be the custom of the House with respect to allegations of any sort against a member or group of members in circumstances where those allegations are challenged.
The rationale behind all these cases is easy to understand. A member who speaks disrespectfully of another in the House, whether the other person is a member of the House or not, is not subject to prosecution; he is immune from prosecution under the ordinary laws of libel and slander. This does not mean, however, that within the House of Commons the rights or protection available in ordinary civil courts are abandoned. The House itself has developed a regime or practice which has grown up to protect members who feel themselves aggrieved by an allegation; it is a protection in the form of a challenge that the allegation either be substantiated, explained, qualified sufficiently or withdrawn.
The question, therefore, becomes whether the language used by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) last Thursday night was a transgression of the terms of Standing Order 35; in other words, whether it can be described as being unparliamentary language or whether, in light of the precedents, it constitutes an allegation which, having been challenged by the raising of a question of privilege last Friday, ought to be withdrawn, qualified or pursued by way of a substantive motion.
The intervention of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) relied rather heavily on the fact that in the past, on the two most prominent occasions on which I have had to make a ruling in this area, I have tended to lean in favour of allowing vigorous and strong language in the chamber. I must say, having looked at some of the precedents over the weekend, I find that most of the language which has been disallowed in the past and which might offend members with relatively weak stomachs,

March 22, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Sharp
involves language which I find to be not only appropriate but rather stimulating.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: In addition, may I say that the word "illegal", which is the subject matter of this particular controversy, is one which was referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in the course of an argument to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave support in delivering his contribution, that is to say, the case which arose a few years ago where the government was accused by the opposition of going beyond its statutory authority by using drawing rights, if I remember correctly, in order to pay its obligations under a statute to certain grain farmers. Not only was the word "illegal" constantly used in that debate, but it seems to me it would not be an unparliamentary term in that particular context. It was used frequently, and the whole subject matter of the debate concerned the allegation that the bill was retroactive justification, or legalization of acts which had been committed by the government and which were illegal. That was the whole substance of the argument, and in my view use of the term, in that context, was not only parliamentary but essential to the debate.
The question I have to ask now, however, is this: Does the same term offend the Standing Order in the different context in which it was uttered last Thursday night? It cannot be denied that the expression was used by the hon. member for York-Simcoe in a much different context, a very narrow context referring to the action of ministers with respect to the judges' affair which was referred to specifically. Since those actions have been the subject matter of constant attention and attack in this House for eight consecutive sitting days, there can be no doubt as to the context or about the actions which were involved. There would not, I think, be much value in speculating on how many meanings or contexts that word might have in other circumstances. In the circumstances in which the hon. member for York-Simcoe used it last Thursday might, there could, after those eight days of concentrated discussion here, really be no doubt. Therefore, I find it had a very narrow context with respect to the ministers involved. It also had a very narrow context with respect to the actions which were referred to.
The term "illegal" or "illegality" has been an integral part of those discussions over the eight days. The government expressed the view that the actions of ministers have not been illegal and made much of the fact that the courts did not find those actions illegal. The position of the opposition has been, if I may summarize briefly, first, that it lacks the information to make such a judgment but would perhaps make it, if it had the information or, in the alternative, that the distinction between "illegal" and "improper" is really not as important as the government has made it out to be. In either case, the definition of "illegal" has been an extremely urgent and important matter in the entire debate.
There are differences of opinion, of course. No one even suggests that there should be any restriction of the right of members or, in this case, of the right of the hon. member for York-Simcoe to hold a contrary opinion. No one need question that. What we are talking about is solely the right

to express that opinion and whether Standing Order 35 and the practice which has grown up over the past in any way circumscribes the right of expression or use of that opinion in this particular context.
To attempt to bring the matter to a conclusion, may I say it is illuminating to examine the language used by those who, very ably in my opinion, came to the defence of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. To begin with, at page 11952 of Hansard for Friday last, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, referring to the debate I mentioned at the outset in connection with the use of warants, said that the term "illegal" employed in that debate was in order. I agree with that. But it is noteworthy that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), whose intervention in that debate was used in quotation by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, stated as follows:
I would add in this regard that if the action of the Minister of Finance who, under the act, is charged with responsibility is, as I assume it to be, the collective action of the government and the cabinet, then they are all tainted with the same misdemeanour and this would be in effect a collective agreement to break the law, a form of conspiracy.
Another intervention which I think is noteworthy was made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who said:
In respect of the term "illegal", how can the Prime Minister or any other minister prejudge the issue of conduct and whether it is legal or illegal, proper or improper? Surely, that is not their province. I can lay a charge and I can express the same kind of opinion, with equal validity, as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and, obviously, the government House leader came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) was not illegal but was improper. It is just as proper for me to reach the contrary view. A reading of section 127 of the Criminal Code leads me to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case of obstruction ...
I do not think it is my province to reach a judgment as to whether that conduct is legal or illegal, proper or improper: that is the province of the courts, or of a special inquiry.
Finally, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), as reported at page 11959 of Hansard, said as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I deal with one point which the hon. member raised. He is suggesting how the House should condemn the use of the word "illegally." I point out that this involves a matter of opinion. The Prime Minister is of the opinion that, on the basis of what his ministers said to him, nothing illegal or improper was done. We have not had the advantage of knowing what the Prime Minister said to his ministers or what they said to him. It seems to me that we are entitled to say that in our opinion actions have been taken which, until further information is divulged, could be both improper and illegal.
I think hon. members will perhaps realize that I am getting to the point of saying that those who very ably came to the defence of the hon. member for York-Simcoe were evidently at some pains to tell the Chair and the House what the hon. member had the right to say and in fact what he said. I agree with them completely in their interventions and in the conclusion that they reached in respect of what the hon. member for York-Simcoe had the right to say. Unfortunately, however, I disagree with their interpretation of what in fact the hon. member for York-Simcoe said. The hon. member did not say that if other information were available-as others had put it-there might be a conclusion drawn that there was illegality: he did not say that it might be possible to come to that
March 22, 1976

conclusion. I suppose, to be accurate, I should return to his exact remarks that are pivotal to this whole matter. They occur at page 11926 of Hansard for that day and later, of course, at several other places. They are as follows:
"Do as I say, not as I do'' appears to be the creed of the present administration. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this type of thinking is shown up so clearly in the judges' affair that is now before us. What administration at a senior level of government in Canada other than this administration would be allowing cabinet ministers who have acted illegally to carry on in their posts?
That, to my knowledge of the debate-which, as I say, has gone on for the better part of two weeks-was the first time that that direct allegation had been made. There had been others couched in other language, but that direct allegation was distinct from others that had been made up to that time. In other words, after several days of such intensive focus upon the acts of ministers and whether those acts can properly be described as illegal, I feel compelled to find that in that narrow context the words of the hon. member for York-Simcoe last Thursday evening constitute the very kind of judgment that the colleagues who came to his defence said it was not within the province of a member to make. Furthermore, they do not, in the expression by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, constitute further argument, but really constitute a statement which, in my opinion, offends against the words of Standing Order 35 and are therefore unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that upon reflection on this ruling and on the precedents to which I have made reference, the hon. member for York-Simcoe would want some time to reassess his position before making any further statement to the House. It may be that the statement may be withdrawn or qualified, as it has been by other hon. members; or, in turn, it may be the wish of the hon. member to proceed with the matter, to stand by the allegation he has made and to suggest that it forms part of a substantive motion, as has been the case in the past. In any case, I would think that the hon. member for York-Simcoe would want to examine and reflect upon the ruling and I think he ought to have at least 24 hours in which to do so. I would, therefore, look to the hon. member for York-Simcoe for his intervention at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon, unless it is convenient for him to do so now. The hon. member for York-Simcoe is indicating that he seeks the floor at this moment.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has certainly never been my intention to act in a manner contrary to the precedents of this House. Accordingly, in view of Your Honour's ruling, I should like to substitute for the word "illegally", appearing in my statement at page 11926 of Hansard, the words "improperly or wrongfully", so that the last sentence of my statement would have read: What administration at a senior level of government in Canada other than this administration would be allowing cabinet ministers who have acted improperly or wrongfully to carry on in their posts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to thank the hon. member for York-Simcoe for his very important inter-
Order Paper Questions
vention and simply conclude the matter by indicating that, in the opinion of the Chair, in any event, whatever offensive language was used in the hon. member's intervention has now been rectified.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), Nipissing (Mr. Blais), Timmins (Mr. Roy), Algoma (Mr. Foster), Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), Fort William (Mr. McRae), Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), and Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), 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 Ontario. In accordance with the practice already adopted in these matters of recent days, I take it it is ordered that we would print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,534, 3,724, 3,837, 3,876, 4,133, 4,134, 4,135, 4,136, 4,137, 4,443 and 4,597.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to Schedule "C" of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, signed in 1969 (a) what progress has been made toward attaining (b) what are the reasons for any shortfall from the goals stated therein of (i) removing 93,000 acres of poor agricultural land to other use and adding 270,000 acres to the pool of land available for farming (ii) making basic improvements in marketing facilities for agriculture (iii) zoning control and licencing to concentrate tourist and recreation developments where they will not detract from the best use of farm land (iv) attracting substantial private development capital into the resource sectors of the Island economy (v) increasing the rate of growth of net provincial product to 1% per annum throughout the life of the Plan (vi) assisting fishermen, especially those in the lobster fishery, to move to other occupations (vii) cutting and replanting 4,780 acres of forest lands a year (viii) building of 10 to 11 thousand new housing units by the end of the Plan (ix) an industrial growth rate of 10% a year (x) the employment of 6,500 persons in industry by 1976 (xi) the provision of increased short-term credit for fishing and agriculture at a lower cost than previously?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the

March 22, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (i) (a) In the five-year period ending March 31, 1975: 40,363.62 acres were transferred to other uses. During the same period, 43,070.90 additional acres were pooled, or sold to individual farmers, (b) The goals to which reference is made were for a ten-year period. The Land Development Corporation, the provincial agency which administers the program, commenced operations in mid-1970. The primary strategy has been to acquire lands voluntarily offered to the Corporation. Therefore, the corporation's operations tend to vary inversely with the strength of private land markets, (ii) (a) Basic improvements have been made by enabling the creation of producer-controlled marketing boards, (b) No shortfall has occurred, (iii) (a) Progress has been made in this area as evidenced by the creation of the Land Use Commission and the pilot zoning work carried out in Kings county, (b) No shortfall has occurred, (iv) (a) Total capital investment in the Family Farm Program was in excess of $22 million. No other statistics are available, (b) No shortfall has occurred, (v) (a See answer to question No. 3,532. (b) Levels of output will be assessed in the 10th year (1978) and the 15th year (1983) with reference to predicted growth rate, (vi) (a) During the early years of Phase I the fishing community showed little interest in measures to rationalize the fishery. However, this view has recently changed and a program to assist fishermen to move to other occupations is now being discussed by the Department of the Environment, theDepartment of Regional Economic Expansion, the provincial government and the Fishermen's Association, (b) Not available, (vii) (a) The objective of cutting and replanting approximately 4,780 acres of forest land a year was based on the assumption that some 400,000 acres of such land would become available during the life of the Plan. To date, only about 1/10 of that amount has become available. Accordingly, planting activities have been as follows:
Crown Lands	Private Lands	Total	Approx-Planted	Planted	No. of	imateYear	No. of Trees	No. of Trees	Trees	Acreage1969	238,500	181,000	419,500	4201970	215,000	110,000	425,000	4251971	160,000	330,000	380,000	3801972	81,600	122,000	203,600	2001973	53,500	272,000	125,500	1251974	96,500	80,000	176,500	1751975	272,500	60,000	332,500	330
(b) Ice damage to crops in 1971 and 1972 is evident in reduced production in years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974. It takes 2, 3, and 4 years to produce plants suitable for planting, hence damage during one season is felt for as many as four years. Nursery production has increased dramatically in the last two years and more extensive acreage will be reforested commencing in 1976. Private land planting has been decreasing due in part to lack of labour and equipment in the spring and poor weather, (viii) (a) Housing Starts (CMHC. Figures) 1969, 767; 1970, 784; 1971, 1363; 1972, 1,079; 1973, 2,122; 1974, 1,334; Total for 6 years; 7,449. (b) No shortfall has occurred, (ix) (a) According to the latest figures available from Statistics Canada,
[Mr. Mclsaac.j
value added in manufacturing reached $26.3 million by 1973. This compares with the 1969 figure of $19.7 million, (b) Sufficient data are not available, (x) (a) Since 1969, Statistics Canada has revised its estimates of employment in manufacturing industry by province. According to the revised figures, employment in manufacturing in Prince Edward Island has risen from 2,500 in 1969 to 3,500 in 1974, the latest year for which these date are available, (b) Sufficient data are not available, (xi) (a) Lower cost for short-term credit has been achieved by the creation of the provincial lending authority, (b) No shortfall has occurred.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What was the total revenue of Canada Savings Bonds in the years 1974-75 and 1975-76?
2.	How many citizens bought such bonds in 1974-75 and 1975-76?
3.	What was the current interest rate of the bonds in 1974 and 1975 to date?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Gross sales of Canada Savings Bonds during the fiscal years 1974/75 and 1975/76 were $6,175 million and $3,719 million respectively. Net sales of Canada Savings Bonds, after allowance for bond redemptions, during fiscal 1974/75 were $2,514 million compared to $2,721 million during the fiscal year 1975/76, to February 29.
2.	It is not known how many citizens bought Canada Savings Bonds in the fiscal years 1974/75 and 1975/76. Individuals in many instances submitted more than one application and bought bonds as gifts. Individual applications received for purchase of the bonds in the fiscal years 1974/75 and 1975/76 were 2,375,000 and 2,020,000 respectively.
3.	The current coupon rates on outstanding Canada Savings Bond issues for 1974, 1975 and 1976 are shown in the table below. For all outstanding issues prior to the 1974/75 Series the average yield to maturity has been raised to 10Vi per cent from September 1, 1974, by means of cash bonus payments. Investors will only be eligible to receive this higher yield provided they retain their bonds until the specified cash bonus payment dates. Complete details of the features of the cash bonus scheme are provided in the Department of Finance press release No. 74-68 of September 9, 1974.
		1974	1975	1976
		Coupon Coupon		Coupon
Issue	Maturity Date	Rate	Rate	Rate1962 Series	Nov. 1, 1976	5.50%	5.50%	5.50%1963 Series	Nov. 1, 1975	5.50%	5.50%	1964 Series	Nov. 1, 1974	5.50%	1965 Series	Nov. 1, 1977	5.50%	5.50%	5.50%Centennial	Series	Nov. 1, 1979	5.75%	6.00%	6.00%1967/68 Series	Nov. 1, 1980	5.50%	5.50%	5.50%S.R. Series	Oct. 1, 1978	7.00%	7.00%	7.00%1968/69 Series	Nov. 1, 1982	7.00%	7.00%	7.00%1969/70 Series	Nov. 1, 1978	8.25%	8.25%	8.25%1970/71 Senes	Nov. 1, 1981	7.75%	8.00%	8.00%
March 22, 1976

1974	1975	1976Coupon	Coupon	CouponIssue	Maturity Date	Rate	Rate	Rate1971/72 Series	Nov. 1, 1980	7.50%	7.50%	7.50%1972/73 Series	Nov. 1, 1984	7.00%	7.50%	7.50%1973/74 Series	Nov. 1, 1985	7.00%	7.50%	7.50%1974/75 Series	Nov. 1, 1983	-	9.75%	9.75%1975/76 Series	Nov. 1, 1984	-	-	8.75%


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, is the Fisherman Family Resettlement Programme still in effect and (a) if so, how many families have been resettled (b) if not, for what reason?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: For the reasons outlined in paragraph (vi) (a) of the reply to question 3,534, no Fisherman Family Resettlement Pro-
Order Paper Questions
gram was initiated in Phase I of the Comprehensive Development Plan, (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.
UNUSED GOVERNMENT SPACE Question No..3,876-Mr. Bawden:
1.	Regarding the report of the Auditor General that the government may spend $4.5 million in the National Capital Region this year on office space not being used, what accommodation paid for by the government is not in use at the present time?
2.	How much is being paid for each location and what are the lease arrangements?
3.	What are the reasons for each location not being used at the present time?
4.	How long has each premise been vacant while under government contract and for what period of time will the unused accommodation space be left vacant?
5.	How much does the government anticipate will be spent this fiscal year on unused office space?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1 to 4. See
statement following.
5. $4,648,035.
*Amount Paid
for Vacant Space	Lease Arrangements Term and	Period ofLocation	FY 75/76	Rate per Square Feet	Option	Reason not in use	VacancyL'Esplanade Laurier (East) 140 O'Connor Tower 1, Ottawa Part of Floor No. 16	$ 60,273	May 1/75-20 years $6.95 plus estimated operation and Maintenance costs for 1975/76 of $1.33 per square feet. Effective April 1/76 Operation and maintenance costs in 1975/76 dollars are estimated at $2.30 per square feet.	Lease Purchase	Awaiting construction sequence layouts and fitting up for conference facility and health unit.	May 1/75 to March 31/76Part of Floor Nos. 15 and 16	256,558	Awaiting client to accept space- layouts and fitting up for Department of Insurance	May 1/75 to March 31/76Floor No. 14	161,482	"	"	Preparing layouts and fitting up for National Defence	May 1/75 to March 19/76Floor No. 12	158,015	"	"	"	May 1/75 to March 12/76Floor No. 11	157,859	"	"	"	May 1/75 to March 5/76Floor No. 10	152,334	May 1/75 to February 27/76Floor No. 9	147,354	May 1/75 to February 20/76Floor No. 8	140,441	"	"	"	May 1/75 to February 6/76Floor No. 7	137,035	"	[DOT]	May 1/75 to January 30/76Floor No. 6	133,880	May 1/75-20 years $6.95 plus estimated operation and maintenance costs for 1975/76 of $1.33 per square foot. Effective April 1/76 operation and maintenance costs in 1975/76 dollars are estimated at $2.30 per square foot	May 1/75 to January 23/76
March 22, 1976
Order Paper Questions
'Amount Paid					
for Vacant		Lease Arrangements			
Space	Term and	Period ofLocation	FY 75/76	Rate per Square Feet	Option	Reason not in use	VacancyFloor Nos. 3, 4 and 5	502,808	"	"	Preparing layouts and fitting up for	May 1/75 toPublic Service Staff Relations Board	March 31/76L'Esplanade Laurier (West) 300	287,805	July 1/75-20 years	"	Requirements, layouts and fitting	July 1/75 toLaurier Tower 2, Ottawa Floor Nos.	$6.95 plus estimated	up for National Museums of	March 31/7621, 22 and 23	operation and maintenance costs for 1975/76 of $1.33 per square foot. Effective April 1/76 operation and maintenance costs in 1975/76 dollars are estimated at $2.30 per square foot.	Canada	Floor No. 18	106,611	"	"	Layouts and Fitting up for Public	July 1/75 toService Commission	January 30/76Floor No. 17	99,870	"	July 1/75 to January 16/76Floor No. 16	96,374	July 1/75-20 years $6.95 plus estimated	"	July 1/75 to January 9/76operation and maintenance costs for 1975/76 of $1.33 per square foot Effective April 1/76 operation and maintenance costs in 1975/76 dollars are estimated at $2.30 per square foot.	Floor No. 14	113,852	July 1/75 to Fcbuary 13/76Part of Floor No. 5	75,139	July 1/75 to Febuary 20/76Part of Floor No. 5	49,500	"	Preparing layouts and fitting up for	July 1/75 toManpower and Immigration/Unem-ployment Insurance Commission	March 31/76Floor No. 4	137,356	July 1/75 to March 31/76Floor No. 3	137,449	"	July 1/75 to March 31/76Place Vanier, Tower "C" 25 McAr-	42,170	April 1/75-March	3( 1 year	Fitting up for Manpower and Immi-	April 1/75 tothur Rd., Vanier Floor No. 9	31/80 $7.20	each)	gration	Febuary 15/76
'Estimated


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is it Treasury Board policy to allow employees access to all written assessments made of their work?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: This matter is covered by Section 13.(2) of the Public Service Employment Regulations, made pursuant to Section 33 of the Public Service Employment Act, as follows: "The assessment of an employee's performance shall be based on selection standards, completed by the supervisor, shown to the employee and signed by both the supervisor and the employee".
(Mr. Drury.)


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Since January 1973, has the percentage rise in remuneration to the Defence Science group been lower than the percentage rise in (a) the cost of living index (b) the average remuneration for comparable groups within the Public Service and, if so, in either case, will this modify the application of the anti-inflation guidelines to the Defence Science group in their present contract negotiations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
percentage rise in salary for employees in the Defence Scientific Service Group from January, 1973 to December 31, 1975 is 15.35 per cent while the Consumer Price Index has risen 23.12 per cent for the same period. The average cumulative salary increase for comparable Groups within
March 22, 1976

the Public Service since January, 1973 has been in the order of 26 per cent, but it should be borne in mind that the renewal negotiations now underway for the Defence Scientific Service Group will determine a salary increase to have effect in 1975. It is not expected that the circumstances of the Defence Scientific Service Group will require the modification of the application of the AntiInflation Act Regulations in respect to them.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): On what date did the Defence Science group come under the jurisdiction of Treasury Board and, at that time, was their previous contract with Defence Research Board considered void?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
Defence Scientific Service Group came under that portion of the Public Service for whom the Treasury Board is the Employer on April 1, 1974. The collective agreement that was in force between the bargaining agent and the Defence Research Board on April 1, 1974 was not considered void by the Treasury Board in that the terms of that collective agreement continued to be applied by the Treasury Board.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is the Defence Science group presently under contract with Treasury Board and, if not, for how many months have they been without contract?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
Defence Scientific Service Group is not currently under a collective agreement with the Treasury Board. The terms of the previous collective agreement expired on September 21, 1975 and the parties have been in renewal negotiations since September 11, 1975.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What percentage of personnel in the Defence Science group does Treasury Board consider to be exclusions exercising certain management functions?
2.	Does this percentage of exclusions compare to other groups within the Public Service and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
Treasury Board considers that 99 out fo 507 employees or 19 per cent of the Defence Scientific Service Group are excluded from collective bargaining.
2. The average percentage of excluded employees in the Scientific and Professional Category is 14 per cent The status of 51 of the 99 employees whom Treasury Board considers to be excluded is currently the subject of discussion between the bargaining agent and the Treasury Board.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What was the total cost of the Department of National Revenue publication The Customs Drawback Road ... to Success and Profit?
2.	Who was responsible for the (a) research (b) storywriting (c) layout design?
3.	How many tenders were called for the contract and, of these, how many were from printers and publishers located in Ontario.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by Revenue Canada and Supply and Services Canada as follows: 1. $29,599.73
2.	(a) York Advertising Limited, Ottawa; (b) York Advertising Limited, Ottawa; (c) York Advertising Limited, Ottawa.
3.	Thirty-one invitations to tender were issued, of which twenty-two were to printers and publishers located in Ontario.


Mr. Hargrave: What was the five year average market price, as currently used or to be used in determining farm stabilized support prices, for the period ending December 31, 1975 for (a) fed cattle (A1 and A2 finished feed lot cattle) (b) cows (c) calves as traditionally marketed after weaning during the last quarter of the year?


Eugene Whelan: (a) The
five-year average market price for cattle, for slaughter, basis A1 and A2 finished cattle, for the period ending December 31, 1975 was $40.60/cwt. This five-year average price will be used in determining the prescribed price for cattle in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Act. (b) and (c). Cows or calves are not named commodities under the Act nor have they been designated by the Governor in Council for the period ending December 31, 1975. As such, farm stabilized support prices have not been determined.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question 4,145?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Stanbury: What is the total amount of benefits paid to personnel of educational institutions employed on a school-term rather than an annual basis from the inception of the present Unemployment Insurance Act to date?
12006

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the information required to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. As the Commission does not keep records pertaining to the employment contracts of individuals, the technical difficulties and administrative cost involved preclude the gathering of such material.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 3,588 which I placed on the order paper on November 20. This question was put on the order paper to elicit information in respect of the practices of employees of foreign governments in Ottawa and whether they have been living within Canadian laws. As it has now been over four months, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would endeavour to speed up the answer to this question.


Mr. Blais:: As always.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 18, 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.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude the speech on Bill C-89 which I started last Thursday, March 18. There are contractors who might suddenly have a flurry of business. The question being asked is, at what point do they stop working? Last fall, Mr. Speaker, I said that controls can have a distorting effect on the economy and that the time period is crucial. I still believe that. When he last spoke on the anti-inflation bill, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) questioned the constitutionality of this legislation. At that time the right hon. member stated, and I quote from page 9587 of Hansard for December 1, 1975:
-I suggest the question is whether this legislation is constitutional. It could easily be made constitutional by a simple provision in the preamble that an emergency exists, but the government did not dare admit that because it had contended for several years that there was no emergency.
I would suggest that if the government had taken the right hon. member's remarks into consideration and had consulted the various constitutional experts prior to putting this legislation through parliament, they would not be in the sorry state of having it challenged before the Supreme Court. It has now become clear that the government were not the slightest bit concerned over the consti-

tutionality of their anti-inflation legislation. The very fact that this matter has been referred to the Supreme Court only adds more confusion to the over-all anti-inflation legislation.
The Progressive Conservative party has proven, by its consistent performance and leadership, that it does believe some program of restraint is in the best interests of Canadians. We have no intention of making a political football of the anti-inflation program; our intention is to point out the shortcomings of the program so the government will rectify the situation and continue battling inflation. Double-digit inflation must be stopped. While the Progressive Conservative party has offered a positive program and one that would work, we want to make it clear that the time has come for the government to quit stalling and to show some initiative.
On February 16, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) called upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to amend the legislation by changing the appeal system, and even last fall there were appeals from this side of the House to clean up the flaws. Most of these changes should have been made in the original bill. Of course, this government only recognizes mistakes when it is too late. The Anti-Inflation Board, according to reports, has a serious backlog of cases to be cleared up. But what does this government do? Rather than devising a system, it quickly adds 41,000 new companies to the list of those subject to the guidelines. I question what is to be accomplished by such a move.
In light of the government's continuing lack of consultation and its persistent reluctance to make the guidelines applicable to all segments of society, I seriously wonder how they expect organized labour to co-operate. For example, in the area of municipalities there is no jurisdictional control from the Anti-Inflation Board, so we have cases such as rising water rates in Manitoba and soaring power rates in Nova Scotia. How can we really ask the people to tighten their belts if prices are not completely controlled in all segments of the economy? The Anti-Inflation Board, as it presently exists, is a complete and utter farce. I challenge the government to clean up its act.
I should like to conclude my remarks by pointing out that in a public relations document acquired by the Canadian Press from the Anti-Inflation Board it was stated that the Anti-Inflation Board had doubt about the Prime Minister's commitment. The document went on to demonstrate a fairly uneasy relationship between the AntiInflation Board and the government. If this sort of attitude continues, then inflation will in future go uncontrolled and, I for one, am confident that the Canadian people will not tolerate this nonsense.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like today to speak in support of Bill C-89. In recent months, in speeches on various public platforms in North Bay and in Winnipeg, for example, I have pointed out the urgent need for improvements in the appeal procedure set out in Bill C-73, the legislation which created the prices and incomes control program. I argued that this was necessary if the program was to have the wide public support and understanding required to enable it to work effectively. This bill does propose such improvements. I also pointed out that for these purposes the program must be
March 22, 1976

enforced and, more importantly, must be seen to be enforced as vigorously on the price side as on the wage side. These speeches were brought to the attention of members of the House and the Senate. With regard to the appeal procedure, I said that the law did not give all parties affected by decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board with regard to wages either an automatic or an equal right to make use of the limited appeal procedure already existing.
Under the law as it presently is, to have reviewed a ruling of the board the party must, in effect, openly defy the law, risking a penalty for this, and when it comes to a ruling on wages that party has to be the employer. As I have said previously, I believe such an approach has been hampering the creation of a climate for voluntary acceptance on the part of labour of the guidelines on wages and the board's rulings about them. I have argued that if there are automatic rights of appeal in our legal system for matters as trivial as fines for parking tickets, then there should be rights under something as important as the anti-inflation program for labour as fully as for management.
It has been found that the Anti-Inflation Act, in its original form, froze employees out of the appeal process entirely if the company simply accepted an Anti-Inflation Board ruling and refused to pay any wage settlement not in conformity with it. In such a case, there is no way, under the present law for employees, even though their interests are vitally affected by that ruling, to have the matter reviewed by getting it before the administrator and having the right to further re.views by the appeal tribunal or the cabinet.
I have argued that if such rights could not be set up through changes in the policy of administration of the act, the government should ask parliament to make the necessary amendments to it as soon as possible. This is what it is doing, and this step is necessary to remove the sense of injustice many workers may feel when they look at the present procedure for having board decisions on wages reviewed. However, in order that there may be an automatic right of appeal for labour no less than for management, I think it should be a condition that both sides must abide by the ruling in question during the time it takes to dispose of the appeal. This is needed in order to ensure that the system does not break down if there should turn out to be a large number of appeals. However, I think that sound administration of the program at the board level, together with a more fair appeal procedure, will in fact mean the number of appeals will not be unduly high.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-89 remove the difficulties in the appeal process which I have outlined. They are welcome, and I believe the government should be commended for presenting them so that any injustice connected with the present appeal system would not undermine the high degree of public support for the program which is so necessary for its success.
There is, however, one aspect of the appeal process with which Bill C-89 does not deal. I should like to ask, what if a company increases some, or all, of its prices? What if the board rules that these price increases do not exceed the guidelines? What if the board does not give a formal ruling, but simply advises the company informally that it
Anti-Inflation Act
does not object to the increases in question? Neither the Anti-Inflation Act, Bill C-73 nor Bill C-89 provide any recourse to the consumer who does not agree with this kind of advice or ruling on the part of the Anti-Inflation Board and who wishes to have the matter reviewed at a higher level.
I think, therefore, there should be some procedure for bodies like the Consumers' Association, the National AntiPoverty Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, or even individual consumers, to appeal a decision or opinion of the board accepting a price increase. At present, if a company does not agree with the ruling of the board that a price is to be rolled back or not increased, it has the right to have the matter appealed, first to the administrator, then the appeal tribunal, and even to the cabinet. There is no equivalent right for a consumer who does not agree with a price increase allowed or agreed to by the board. I think consideration should be given to creating this kind of right. This is something we should pursue when the bill is before the finance committee for detailed study.
As I said previously in the speeches I have mentioned that the program will work most effectively if it has wide public support and understanding. This means the program must be enforced and, more important, must be seen to be enforced as vigorously on the price side as on the wage side. To do this, the board must publicize its findings and conclusions on prices as fully as it presently does on wages. I said that if the act has to be amended for this purpose, the government should ask parliament to take this step without further delay.
However, it has been my belief that the board can do more to make the public aware of the results of its work on the price side even with the act continuing in its present form. You will recall that recently I raised with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), here in the House of Commons, the need for more formal decisions by the board on prices and the need to make them available to the public. He replied that he would be discussing these points with the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board.
Last Saturday, the Canadian Press reported that "stung by criticism of its failure to control prices, the Anti-Inflation Board plans to make public a list of companies that have agreed to reduce planned price increases after talks with the board." This announcement is welcome. It is a wise departure by the board from its original policy, which appeared to be that if a company would make price reductions voluntarily, accepting the board's informal advice, the board would likely not think it necessary to make a formal ruling which the law allows it to publish. However, the Canadian Press report in question also went on to say that "late this week the board was still contacting the companies to get their permission for the public statement expected about Thursday."
In my view, the firms in question should be identified, whether or not they give their permission. The act permits the board to publish its formal rulings, and if the board simply states, as a formal ruling, the advice it gives to a company on price rollbacks, then that ruling, including the company's name, can in fact be published. This is so even if
21419-67%

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
the company complies voluntarily with the board's advice and even if it does not agree that its name be publicized.
In the Toronto Star for last Saturday, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board was quoted as saying that the board was looking for business volunteers "whom we can hang up in public and chastise" when it releases examples of reductions in planned price increases next week. Assuming he is quoted accurately, then I think the chairman has not taken the best approach. Of course, his words were likely to have been said with tongue in cheek. However, when rulings are published, I believe there should be no more stigma attached to a firm which voluntarily complies with a board ruling on prices than there is attached to a union which voluntarily accepts a ruling on wages.
The purpose of publishing information on price rollbacks is not necessarily chastisement of business but, instead, is confirmation of the effectiveness of the program when it comes to prices. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board did not express concern about the sensibilities of groups of workers who have been mentioned in the rulings the board has already published on wages, nor did he express concern about the possibility that they would be looked upon as having been publicly chastised for seeking a wage increase which the board ruled to be above the guidelines.
Protecting the sensibilities of companies is not, in my view, as important as having the board's effectiveness and credibility established to the satisfaction of the general public. In order to maintain its support for the program, the public must be shown that the program is in fact being administered in an even-handed way.
Bill C-89 is limited to dealing with some measures urgently required to make the controls program work more fairly and effectively. However, we have to go much further than this as the months go on. I believe the prices and incomes policy deserves wide support since its objectives are to protect and, in fact, to improve the real income of all Canadians and maintain our competitiveness in international markets. The program has been showing encouraging signs of effectiveness on the price side, judging by the most recent cost of living figures. However, ultimately it is not controls but, rather, greater productivity that will get us out of our current economic difficulties and enable us to achieve these objectives on a long-term basis.
It is through improvements in productivity that Canadians will get improvements in real purchasing power and real living standards. The government and the public alike have come to recognize that the prices and incomes program at best provides a breathing space in which to develop and apply policies to bring about a more efficient and productive economy. We must begin now to consider how we are going to accomplish this. In fact, we must soon move beyond such consideration and begin taking action to improve the productivity and efficiency of our economy.
Improvements in Canada's productivity require the cooperative effort of government, business and labour. But this effort must be spearheaded by federal government leadership in terms of both co-ordination and action. Productivity in Canada, in the sense of output per employee, has been falling in recent years, especially in manufacturing. What are some of the reasons for this decline in productivity? We have had a rapidly growing labour force, but proportionately less of it has been going into manufac-

turing which is high in productivity compared to the service industries.
Investment in plant and equipment has not kept pace proportionately with the growth in the labour force. There is the matter of the state of management skills and the declining amount of research and development done in Canada, as well as the attitude of workers toward their work. Only one of the factors I have outlined pertains directly, and even then not completely, to workers themselves. Dealing with all the other aspects means a direct challenge to and responsibility on the part of government and business.
Productivity has, like the weather, become one of the things that everybody, especially the government, is talking about. Unlike the weather, the government and the private sector can, in fact, do something to improve it. There has been increasing talk by government regarding the need for improving productivity, but so far little tangible action. I believe we should have a national productivity centre to bring together management, labour and government to do research, to identify blockages in efforts to improve productivity and to work out consensus plans for improving it. We have nothing like this as yet. The work of federal government departments and agencies in the field also appears to be minimal compared to the need.
There are a number of areas that require government attention. These include measures to improve techniques to voluntarily resolve labour-management disputes without strikes, measures to improve the physical conditions of the workplace, and techniques for greater involvement by workers in decisions about their jobs and how they are carried out. These, I think, will have a favourable effect on the positive motivation of workers and their attitude to their jobs, and therefore on the quality of their output. There is a great need for government action to reduce the downward trend of research and development in Canadian industry, something which I believe is linked with the continuing high degree of foreign control of our economy; and the latter also requires further government attention.
There is also the need to review the anti-inflation program to ensure that it gives proper attention to the need to encourage greater productivity on the part of both management and labour. The changes in the anti-inflation regulations announced by the Minister of Finance at the opening of this debate with regard to bonuses and profit-sharing by workers are a step in the right direction. In short, federal government leadership through tangible action is essential to improve Canadian productivity. Let us hope that over the next few months we will see programs of action as well as expressions of concern by governments at both the federal and provincial levels.
In a speech in Vancouver on Feburary 12, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking of the breathing space provided by the control period, suggested that it be used- -to define the kind of society we want, the kind of choices we want to make as a nation and to find the best methods for achieving our goals.
If this period is to be used for this purpose, what is the best way to go about it? I have said on other occasions that there are several alternatives. However, I believe that defining these choices and goals certainly should not be
March 22, 1976

done only by some planning group working confidentially within government, with the results sprung on parliament and the public to be accepted or rejected without individual Canadians or their elected representatives having taken full part in developing them. There must be wide involvement of Canadians generally. There also should be a way of ensuring that any consensus developed will in fact be a basis for action by government where such is the most appropriate way of helping achieve the goals sought.
One approach is the establishment of a royal commission. However, there is a risk that such a body will seem remote and apart from the ongoing process of Canadian life, and the commissioners may not turn out to be sufficiently representative of Canadian regions or sufficiently attuned to the concerns of individual Canadians. There is also the matter of additional expense.
I would propose, instead, the setting up of a special parliamentary committee on national goals. Its make-up would reflect the regions of Canada. Its members would have that sensitivity which comes from being part of the political system. The committee would be able to hold hearings in all parts of the country, hearings which would be made easily accessible to individuals and groups. The cost would be much less than that of a royal commission. There would be no extra expense for salaries and offices, and with only limited additional expense for staff and administration.
Finally, the report of such a committee would be produced by people who are part of the process which is part of the making and implementing of federal government policy. Where the report called for action by the federal government, that government would be accountable to the Canadian people for such action or the lack of it through the caucus of its supporters and through the House of Commons and its committees generally. The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution did excellent work and is, I think, one precedent for the kind of committee I am proposing. I would, therefore, urge that the government ask parliament to create a special committee on national goals at an early date.
The success of the anti-inflation program requires the involvement and effort of all Canadians. The working out of measures to deal with the underlying problems of the Canadian economy as we move through and go beyond the period of the controls programs requires this co-operative involvement and effort as well. I hope there will be an early statement by the government as to how it envisages this work being carried out.
To conclude, let me say that I believe that meanwhile the changes in the program proposed in Bill C-89 are urgently required, and therefore the bill deserves speedy approval by this House.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, about five months ago the government introduced to this House Bill C-73 with a great deal of bravado-certainly much more bravado than planning. I was interested to hear the comments this afternoon of the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) asking for support for this legislation in its amended form. I was encouraged by some of the things he said. He said that there has to be increased productivity in our country. I could not agree more. How-
Anti-Inflation Act
ever, I do not know whether the rewarding of workers for increased productivity by a maximum 2 per cent bonus will really encourage productivity, as the hon. member hopes.
Second, he suggested that what the government should do is exercise some leadership and he proposed the inauguration of a national productivity centre. I beg to differ with the hon. member on that point. It seems to me that any kind of government program, even a national productivity centre, would be totally unproductive. We would have bureaucracy finding more job-creation programs and this would not increase one iota the productivity of the country. It would simply be shuffling around some of the bureaucrats.
The hon. member went on to enumerate some of the reasons for there being no greater productivity in our country. I agree with the reasons he cited. But what he failed to do was question those elements in our society which are the reason for our not being as productive as we should be. He did not say why, for example, there is no more money going into better management or into secondary industry. Perhaps we should ask whether the government should not offer some leadership in productivity by creating incentives for these industries, so that there will be more desire for management to reproduce the industries that we so desperately need in our country.
Some weeks ago I was shocked to hear, in a news report from Vancouver, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Pepin, who was being questioned by some businessmen in Vancouver-I know that news clips can be misleading-saying, "I really do not know anything about this business." I wondered whether I was hearing something out of context-or is this really where it is at? Does the chairman know how to handle the heavy responsibilities which he has?
There are serious questions facing us in this legislation, even in its amended form, which make me question the viability of the entire program and whether or not we should support it. Basically, we oppose the bill for two main reasons. First, even a casual glance shows that it will produce endless cases of unfairness and inequity for the people of Canada. Second, there is no end in sight to the rapidly accumulating regulations as a result of this program.
The fears that we voiced when this bill was first introduced to parliament have proven to be very true. Just the other day there was a headline in one of the local papers saying that the board now has a backlog of 1,000 cases on which it must rule. The other day I saw an article which stated that the Anti-Inflation Board is now too busy to handle the orientation program for some of the union officials who want to be trained in the program so they can meet it on its own ground.
There is a growing suspicion in our country that the AIB will be harder on wage earners and consumers than it is on industry and prices. What frightened us even more was the fact that the original program contained no process of appeal, no final court or appeal. I recall the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) time and time again being questioned on this topic. He always answered by saying, "What is the matter with that? Why should we need any court of appeal?" The Minister now presents himself to this House

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
as a picture of injured innocence because we had to keep suggesting that. In spite of that, he now congratulates himself for having listened to the opposition and is now patching up the legislation.
The problem with this amendment is that it is patchwork. The question we must answer is, how long we are expected to add patches to repair a basically poor product? How many times is the minister going to come back to us with additional amendments in order to repair what is damaging and poor legislation? I am reminded of the famous parable that no man sews a new piece of cloth on to an old garment lest the rent be made worse. Another analogy comes to mind. I remember the days during the war when there was gas rationing in our country. Everyone was a victim of that rationing, and everyone tried to find ways to accommodate himself. Hon. members will recall that there were three or four different kinds of stickers for vehicles. If a motor vehicle was used purely for pleasure, it bore an "A" sticker. If there was a little bit of work involved, it bore a "B" sticker. For commercial use, vehicles bore a "C" sticker, and trucks bore a "T" sticker. If a person had a truck sticker, he could obtain an almost unlimited quantity of gasoline. During the war, people naturally wanted trucks. What did they do? All a fellow who owned a coupe had to do was take the trunk lid off his car, manufacture a box, stick it into the trunk, and he would have a truck. He could register it as a truck, get a "T" sticker and obtain almost all the gas he wanted. He could have taken this sedan, chopped it down right behind the front seat, put a wall there, put a box on the back end, and have that vehicle qualified as a truck.


Mr. MacFarlane:: He couldn't have been from Ontario or Quebec: that must have happened out west.


Benno Friesen: Yes, there were many of them out west, but I am sure there were some in Ontario as well.
The trouble was that no matter what was done with those vehicles, they were still not trucks; they were cars and their basic structure and undercarriage did not qualify them as trucks. They could not carry better loads. All they did was look like trucks. A truck sticker could be obtained for them, but they were no better except for their appearance. They were not designed to work like trucks; they only appeared to be trucks. That is really what this program is like. For months, even years, the government had been under pressure to do something about inflation and its typical response has been: What inflation? Finally, when the government succumbed to the repeated barrage from the people of the country to do something about inflation, it acted impetuously, without due care and in a very piecemeal and patchwork way to bring together a program which was supposed to look like an anti-inflationary program but really was not.
If this program really is to be an anti-inflationary program, it should be designed to attack inflation and the major causes of inflation. Whether hon. members agree or not, the major cause of inflation in this country is the government itself. But far be it from the government to attack itself on this matter. Even in the amended version

of this program there is nothing which puts an effective control on government spending.
I have before me an article from last week's Vancouver Sun. In it are statements made by Maxwell Henderson, the former auditor general of Canada. I should like to read one short section because I think it is relevant to this debate. Maxwell Henderson wrote about the committee system in this House and the control the committee system is supposed to have on government spending. Part of the article reads as follows:
This was in November, 1968, when as auditor general I was the adviser to the public accounts committee of the day. The Honourable C. M. Drury, then president of the treasury board, presented the government's proposals. One of these was a still further reduction in the number of votes or debating opportunities available to MPs.
In 1964, when Canada's yearly spending was around $6 billion, the government had persuaded the members to reduce the number of votes from 495 to 236.
At the 1968 meeting when yearly spending was $9.8 billion, Mr. Drury proposed a still further reduction of 100 votes-from 236 to 136-to "facilitate the work of MPs and to better serve the needs of more effective government administration."
The members of the committee seriously questioned this further reduction but the Liberal majority of the committee ensured passage of the proposal.
The reduction may have served the needs of the treasury board administration, but it has not facilitated the work of the MPs. The 136 votes left are so large and the information available in the blue book so minimal that for many MPs it has become an exercise in frustration and futility.
There we see the nub of the problem in the committee system and one of the reasons high government spending goes on unabated while to the public eye members of parliament have some control over government spending. However, over the years the treasury benches have manoeuvred the committee system into such a position that it really has no effective control on spending at all. The government goes merrily along giving to members of parliament its estimates and its votes, and we are expected to vote on large blocks of money without really finding out how the government intends to spend it.
First, if the government really wants to deal with inflation it will put its programs under the influence of the Anti-Inflation Board and let that board exercise some jurisdiction over them. Second, if the government wants to attack inflation where it really exists, it will do something about the increase in the money supply. The other day the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out that in one year the money supply increased by 23 per cent. We cannot expect the public to get serious about attacking inflation if the government works in this way. How can we expect private enterprise to take a serious look at the anti-inflation program if the government itself is violating every possible principle of the economy in its anti-inflation program?
Third, the government must put itself under the restrictions it has imposed on the rest of the economy, namely, the 10 per cent maximum. I again point out what the government has done in this regard. The increase for the Unemployment Insurance Commission for 1976-77 over 1975-76's is 91 per cent; for Statistics Canada, 50.5 per cent; for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, 40 per cent; for the Public Service Staff Relations Board, 40 per cent; for the Auditor General, 27.5 per cent; for the Post
March 22, 1976

Office, 25 per cent; for the Public Service Commission, 25 per cent; for the National Research Council, 22 per cent; for the National Film Board, 19 per cent; and for the Department of Finance, the department which gave birth to this whole program and is asking the general public to live with 10 per cent, 16.5 per cent. What kind of contradiction is that?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: What kind of hyprocrisy is that? The second great reason we opposed Bill C-73, and most certainly oppose this amendment to it, is that the criteria to judge this and other legislation is where it will take us in the end. it is now obvious, as we predicted earlier, that there is a growing government bureaucracy involved in this program and that government bureaucracy is itself one of the great contributors to inflation. It is now obvious that there is a growing influence of the Anti-Inflation Board.
The hon. member for Windsor West quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as saying that this bill would provide a stable climate-I believe those were his words, or he used words to that effect-in which we could appraise our position. I really cannot see how, in the vacillating jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board, we can ever hope to have a stable climate. I cannot see any more stability in the economy today than five months ago when the program was introduced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. How much stability is there in our economy?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must weigh this legislation and ask where it will take us and what its portent is for the future. What are the powers of the administrator? At the outset we were very concerned about the unlimited powers of the administrator. Certainly, the legislation before us corrects one of the great injustices in the program, in that there will now be a means of appeal. That provision should have been in the original legislation. But what about after appeal? How pervasive will be the powers of the administrator?
The minister said today he expected there will be a three-year limit on the program. Can we be assured of that? How far is this program going to reach into the future? I believe many of us hold to the old Jeffersonian principle that the best government is the least government. This government is taking us in the opposite direction. Seemingly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance believe that the most government is the best government. I would again caution the House on the validity of this program, Mr. Speaker, and say that we must oppose it. It ought to be scrapped, and we should start again from the beginning and bring in a genuine anti-inflation program.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speeches, one cannot avoid contrasting the quiet of the House with the turmoil that prevails outside over this question of anti-inflation legislation. Perhaps that is the way it should be. This question should be discussed with reason and with logic and, of course, it will be decided here because an incomes policy of any kind is not an economic decision, it is a political
Anti-Inflation Act
judgment. The difficulty with the acceptance of this program is that we are afraid of the kinds of political judgments that are going to be made about incomes in this country, not the economic decisions.
I think almost anyone will agree with the need for restraint, and almost anyone will agree that the kind of world we live in calls for some kind of incomes policy. But the question is, what kind of incomes policy is it going to be, and for whose benefit is it to be instituted? Unfortunately, the way the program now stands, and with the things we now have in place, it turns out to be largely a profit-maintenance program rather than a true incomes policy. Wages are relatively easy to control. The government has taken the easy way out and dealt with wages. Other forms of income, even if the government wanted to control them-and, in fairness, I think I have to say that whatever the feeling over there, they would like to control other forms of income-are almost impossible to control. When talking about prices, profits, interests or dividends we are talking about very difficult subjects.
The angry display on Parliament Hill today by the wage earners of Canada can be understood in that kind of context. The "Why me?" buttons, while they look very simple and straightforward, express a deep-felt emotion. It is, "Why me?" It is because, in fact, they are the ones being asked to bear the brunt of what the government calls its anti-inflation program. In the long-run, I think the success of this program is going to hinge on its fairness. If the government cannot control other forms of income directly through the measures in the Anti-Inflation Act, it will have to find other ways. It will have to do it through the Income Tax Act, through redistribution policies of one kind or another, or through the introduction of tax credits.
If we look at the legislation before us and examine the appeal procedure, there is not a great deal to argue about. Certainly, the New Democratic Party supports in principle the idea that there should be an appeal even if the legislation is a bad piece of legislation-and we think it is. Nevertheless there has to be some opportunity for appeal against it. The problem comes when you get down to defining what you are going to appeal. It is not like a court of law with a long established history, with precedents, with a system of determining what is justice under the criminal law: what you are appealing is an arbitrary decision made by the government on what the maximum income of a wage or salary earner should be. In fact, you are appealing what is a political decision-or you should be appealing what is a political decision, rather than what looks like an economic judgment.
Ultimately, the appeal of the workingman will not be through the appeal procedures outlined in Bill C-89, but it will be a political appeal at the next election. The judgment is really a political judgment on how much one person is worth as against another, or how much one person should get compared to another. That is a political decision, and it will be decided politically.
When you look at this procedure, you have to ask how someone will be judged. You appeal against the administrator and go to the appeal board. What will you argue? For instance, will the appeal board accept the kind of argument that the government has accepted on behalf of the exporters of Canada: the kind of argument that says you should

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
not restrict the price of exports because that makes it very difficult to make sales abroad-the kind of argument that asks: What should you care what we charge international markets? The government took controls off the exporters; it listened to them and took the controls off. That means the exporters are free to get whatever price the world market will permit and are free to make, whatever profit arises from them. But what about the people employed in the export industry? Is the appeal board going to listen to them and say that they can make a great deal of profit because the government has said that industry is free from all restrictions? Is it going to say that in view of that, they are entitled to take some of the profits that arise from the higher prices exporters are charging?
There is no evidence that the government intends the anti-inflation legislation to deal with questions of that kind. There is no evidence to indicate that an appeal board would have the power to recognize that kind of argument. Therefore, while it to some extent gives an opportunity for another kick at the cat, so to speak, does it offer any meaningful appeal; and on what basis can the appeal be instituted? It talks about this, that and the other, and that is all on which you can appeal. I wish to give an example. If the United Automobile Workers go to the appeal board because they dislike the kind of restriction placed on what they can bargain for, they may say they have an historic relationship with the American Automobile Workers as well as the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement which is supposed to establish the same kind of conditions continentally. Is the appeal board going to listen to that kind of argument? Will it accept the historical relationship of the Canadian autoworkers to the American autoworkers and grant them something in excess of the guidelines, if that is the case? There is no evidence to suggest they would, or that they would even have authority to consider that kind of argument.
While the appeal board provides some kind of emotional outlet against a bookkeeping error or judgment in the arithmetic of a previous decision, I do not see how the appeal procedure will in any way be meaningful, especially if you are trying to appeal what in fact is a political judgment rather something you can argue on economic terms.
I said earlier that the restraint is essentially on wages and not on other forms of income. It might be useful to look at some of those other forms of income to see to what extent, if any, the restraint program applies to them. We know the government has exempted food at the farm gate from controls. They probably had to do that. I do not think there is any way you could restrict the price of food at the farm gate without having a devastating consequence on the future food supply. The government indicated it has no intention of controlling interest rates. Obviously, it cannot do that and might as well admit it. However, interest rates are an important factor in the cost of living and they have a psychological element in a society whose co-operation the government is seeking when instituting a restraint program.
The government would have been far better advised, and this program would have been more widely accepted, had the government been honest with the people of Canada. It

should have admitted, when it brought in the program, that no incomes policy, no matter how well designed or how well intentioned, can be anything other than the rough justice that the former leader of the Conservative party called it. It is going to be rough justice, and it will be so for a considerable period of time.
Had the government said that, and had it coupled it with an understanding or statement that it was going to move to correct it, perhaps the program would have been accepted on that basis. Instead, the government is trying to persuade us that it does in fact have an incomes policy. In their more frank moments they admit there are problems with the program. Actually, it comes more often from Mr. Pepin than the government that there are problems with the program and that adjustments have to be made. However, nowhere does the government face up to the reality that it is the workingman being called upon to make the sacrifices and that hardly any other group is being asked to do the same.
Recently, the government made a great play with regard to controlling or freezing dividends, as if that makes any difference. If you freeze dividends and say that you cannot pay out more this year than you paid out the previous year, and the profits of a corporation rise or continue at a level that would justify a higher dividend rate, what have you really accomplished? All you have done is capitalized the income the dividend-holder might have received in that year. Instead of giving the dividend-holder cash in the year, you claim to have frozen his dividends. What you have done is allow the stock to rise because of the surplus cash and profit position of the company, and increased the value of that stock. The stockholder may not get it in cash as a form of dividend pay-out, but he gets it in stock appreciation. In fact, there is no control to the effect that the cash flow is going to be somewhat different. Certainly, there is no serious restriction on the amount of money the stockholder has been able to earn or to calculate for the future.
I pointed out in the case of dividends that if you do not get paid this year, that will result in an increased value of the stock and the dividend-holder will receive it at some time. However, the wages that a wage earner does not get in any particular year under this program are lost forever. That wage earner has no way of capitalizing his or her wages; they are gone. That is hardly a fair division of sacrifice between the wage and salary earner, on the one hand, and the person who gets theirs through dividend appreciation or pay-out.
If there is resentment about this program, it should not come as any surprise to anyone, particularly the government which says it cannot understand the opposition of the trade union movement. They point to other countries where in fact the trade union is co-operating. What the government conveniently forgets in the case of other countries-and I think it is almost universal-is that the trade union movement is co-operating with governments to restraint programs because there is an understanding between the trade union movement and the government. What it cannot get for the workingman at the bargaining table because of the limits on bargaining, it can get through the political process. This is true in Sweden, where there is an enormous amount of co-operation. It is
March 22, 1976

true in Great Britain, where there is a tremendous amount of co-operation despite the history of the trade union movement in that country.
What was the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to that sort of response? He said, "You have to join the Liberal party". He stated that if you do not join or support the Liberals, you do not look for any benefits. In fact, he said that if you are not a member of the Liberal party you will be punished. The fact that the history of the Liberal party dobs not instil confidence in the trade union movement, and the fact that the New Democratic Party exists because of the failure of the traditional parties in their country to satisfy the aspirations of the workingman, does not seem to occur to the Liberals. They still do not want to recognize that fact. If one considers how difficult, if not impossible, it is in a country like Canada, with two established political parties, for a third party to rise, survive and grow, one has to say there is a genuine grievance for that party to continue to be in existence.
If the Liberals and Conservatives had been friends of labour while in office, the NDP would not be in existence today. The NDP exists today because the working people had no choice except to work toward forming a party of their own. For the Prime Minister to suggest that the right answer is to join the Liberals in order to get something done is hardly proper. As a student of history, he should have more respect for the history of his own country, the formation of the New Democratic Party and labour's affiliation to that party.
I should like to talk about profit control. The government has, with some wisdom, decided not to try to control prices directly. It recognizes, as I believe most people recognize, that in order to enforce price controls effectively more people would probably be needed to check prices than to produce the goods. In a complex society like our own, it is almost impossible to control prices effectively at the retail level when one considers the thousands of products on the market and the thousands of new products which come on to the market each year. It is almost impossible to maintain price relationships in these circumstances. People say it was done in wartime. That is true, of course, but even in wartime, with the great patriotic spirit which existed then, the system did not work particularly well. Moreover, during wartime not many new products came on to the market. Most products were intended for the war effort and consumer products did not vary very much from year to year.
The government has decided to approach its objectives by controlling profits. This course is likely to be just as unsuccessful, Mr. Speaker, unless of course the government wishes to change the present system entirely. Perhaps that will be the one great thing to emerge from this effort on the part of the government-the destruction of the very system they believe they are protecting. The rationale of a capitalist economy is profits. If you restrain profits, you wreck the selfish motive which animates this whole capitalist hegemony. Perhaps the government wants to do this, but I do not think so. Let me give hon. members an example of the kind of thing that happens. In the Globe and Mail of March 17 there is an article headed "Crispo contends defeat of inflation causes is key challenge". Like
Anti-Inflation Act
most headings, that one has nothing to do with the contents of the article, so do not be misled by it. In the body of the article Mr. Crispo recounts something which came to his attention. He said:
One banker finally got permission from head office this year to redecorate his branch because, he was told, the banks' costs must go up to keep within AIB guidelines.
There is going to be more and more of this. There is one thing the government can count on as far as business is concerned. To the extent government restrictions on profits are effective-and I do not think they are likely to be very effective-and I do not think they are likely to be very effective-and industry sees itself in a position where its profits are going to exceed the guidelines, what is likely to happen? In the past, to stay within the guidelines companies could have paid higher wages. Today they are restricted in their ability to do this. They could have paid out more by way of dividends. They will now be restricted in their ability to do that, too. They could, of course, pay more taxes to the government, but that is the last thing they would be willing to do; they would burn the money before doing that. So what they will do is pad the costs of their operations; this is really what the article is suggesting. I am not adducing this one article as being evidence or proof; I am simply appealing to the common sense of those who have some knowledge of the way business works.
The capitalist system operates on the premise that you run as lean as you can; you cut costs because you are trying to make a bigger profit. If it is said that profits will be restricted, then the whole motivation of the system is removed. A businessman or business executive will ask, "Why should I drive a small car when I can just as well drive a big car, since in the end it will have no effect on our profit situation; to the extent that our profits are high, the Anti-Inflation Board will cut them down?" Or executives will tend to say, "We will simply take things much easier because we do not want large profits; we do not want to draw attention to ourselves." So even if the system works, the present rationale of private industry will be destroyed and we are likely to see the decay of private industry as well.
I am not saying this because I do not think profits should be controlled in some way, or because I do not believe we should be siphoning off some of the surplus generated by the system; I am saying it cannot be done directly without wrecking the mechanism itself. The result should be obtained in some other way. The real test of the government's willingness to operate an effective program will not be strict adherence to the guidelines, or the provision of appeal procedures which are really not going to change the picture very much. The test will lie in its readiness to capture this surplus in some other way and redistribute it through the income tax system or through some other program under which those who are making the money will find some of it siphoned off to compensate those who are not.
But there has to be a differential established to ensure that the people at the bottom will get more than those who are already well provided for. The people at the bottom have no money because they have never been able to get any. They have no more bargaining power since the AntiInflation Board was established than they had before the
12014

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
control program was brought in. It is sophistry to say that the AIB program will result in redistribution of income. To redistribute income effectively one must tax money derived, not from wages and salaries but from professional fees, dividends and other sources and distribute these funds through a tax credit system to those at the bottom.
To some extent, my party can take satisfaction in the bill before us. We have throughout this period stressed the need for some changes at least in what we believe to be a grossly unfair program, and changes are now being made in certain areas. On two occasions my leader has suggested to the government an appeal procedure that would be the very minimum required to make the program more acceptable. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has also spoken on this subject.
I should also make it clear that the New Democratic Party is not opposed in principle to the restraint program. This is something that has to be repeated, since there has been a tendency to misquote the party or to misinterpret the purpose of our objection to this particular program. We think that the restraint program can in fact be very useful, if it is fair. This is really the point we have been trying to make in the suggestions we have put forward and in calling for improved appeal procedures.
One of the sad things about this entire debate is the way the government is placing the trade union movement in a position from which it cannot co-operate in any honourable way. There is a tendency on the part of the government to forget that in the past the trade union movement has indicated its willingness to go along with restraint programs if those programs applied equally to all elements in society. I recall the Christmas before last a brilliant speech made by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I should like to read it into the record-I think I have sufficient time to do so-because it is worth recalling that the trade union movement has spoken up repeatedly on the need for social cohesion and co-operation. Only because the government has refused to recognize the gross unfairness of its present program has labour been put in a strong adversary position against the program itself and against the government of this country in the sense of being willing to co-operate with the government. This is the New Year's message from Joe Morris, president of the Canadian Labour Congress:
Looking back at the year that is about to end, I doubt that many of us will remember it with particular fondness. It was a year that began with an artificially created worldwide shortage of energy that threatened to bring about widespread hardship and increased unemployment.
It was a year during which the real earnings of Canadian working people steadily declined while the profits of many corporations reached record heights. A year where the cost of food climbed to levels where many people in the lower and fixed income brackets found it difficult to feed themselves and their families. A year where unemployment continued to be rampant. And a year where the cost of housing rose sky-high and made it impossible for the majority of young Canadian families to afford a home.
Looking ahead, there is little to be optimistic about for 1975. Not enough is being done to combat the many problems that beset us.
The challenge to the labour movement in the year ahead is to drive hard to protect men and women workers against the blight of inflation, to stop the merciless attack on the purchasing power of their hard-earned wages and salaries.
[Mr. Saltsman.)
Apart from the hardship inflation poses to wage and salary earners, pensioners and, in general, all middle and lower income groups, there is a definite danger that the problem may, if it is not curbed soon, destroy the very social fabric of our country and other countries almost as radically and surely as violent revolution.
On the international level, the danger is that countries will take steps to protect themselves without any consideration for the damage such isolationist steps may cause other countries and the world as a whole.
In Canada, individual groups may tend to look out for their own interests alone in order to protect themselves from the dangers of inflation, often unconcerned or simply unaware that by doing so they are hurting other groups, thereby ultimately hurting themselves.
Such a return to the law of the jungle may become so divisive and destructive to the social conscience of individuals and groups alike that the things Canadians now share in common may deteriorate and, with them, the orderly and generally peaceful manner in which we live and conduct our affairs.
With them may also go the moral obligation, the understanding and the compassion which our society, if it values itself, must have for all its disadvantaged people.
The working people through their organizations must guard against becoming just another selfish interest. While continuing the struggle for a fair return for their labour, they must also continue to be concerned with social and economic justice for all those who are defenceless and have no organization to speak for them. Some we can help to become organized and gain the strength that comes from joining support by pressing for improved social legislation, by drawing the public's attention to their problems, or simply by extending to them the warmth of human friendship and understanding.
As the most powerful social movement in this country, the trade union movement has always been concerned with the total human condition. Ours is a movement of compassion. In the truest sense of the word we are our brothers' keepers.
During this season of good will, let us rededicate ourselves to these ideals. Let us pledge all our resources to help make Canada and the world a better place to live in, a place where justice, freedom and material necessities of life are not reserved to the fortunate few, but to all.
That is hardly the speech of a man who wanted to fight his government and did not wish to co-operate in making progress. The problem is that the government never gave the trade union movement a real chance; it never really understood what they were trying to do. The government has been unable to persuade the trade unions that its program is anything more than restraint of their wages but nobody else's. Until some assurances are given, not only in words, but until some evidence comes from the government side that in fact the government has effective ways of asking all Canadians to share equally in restraint, it is just too much for the government to expect the co-operation of this most important segment of our economy.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no more significant day than this to speak on this legislation, the amendments thereto and on all aspects of the program as it affects the citizens of this nation. We from Altantic Canada have indicated our very real concerns over what this legislation might do to us. One of the first major decisions made by the AntiInflation Board was an indication to us that the concerns we had were justified, in that the board brought down its ruling in the Irving wage settlement case. In addition, it imposed a fine of $125,000, something that could not have been anticipated by anybody when the legislation was brought in, and which should not have been anticipated by anyone from the Atlantic provinces in view of the fact that it is a well known, cardinal rule of economics in this nation
March 22, 1976

that we in Atlantic Canada fall far behind the rest of the nation so far as income is concerned.
This was a company that was willing to try to assist raising the level of income in our part of Canada, yet it received a fine of shocking magnitude without there being at that time any kind of procedure for appealing the decision of the board. This is the kind of legislation we have before us, and it is the reason 25,000 people were marching outside this building today indicating their very real and sincere concern over what this legislation could do to them and their future livelihood.
I might say that one of the other indicators from the Atlantic provinces was touched upon in the question posed today by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). He was concerned about the kind of increases people in Nova Scotia are facing in their electric power bills. When we talk about 8 per cent, 10 per cent and 12 per cent increases, that is just fairyland talk as far as the electricity consumer in Nova Scotia is concerned. People in that province are facing increases of 300 per cent to 400 per cent in their electricity bills, and there is nothing in this legislation that protects them against the horrendous increases they are being forced to pay.
Indeed, a great many Nova Scotians today, because of increases in the electric power rates, are paying more in electricity bills than on mortgages on their homes. Unfortunately, I would have to say that the Nova Scotia Power Authority sucked in very many Nova Scotians when they convinced them to put electric heating in their homes. They told them it was a great bargain. These people are now facing bills of $300 to $400 for every two-month period, just for heating their homes; and they have no alternative: it is either electric heat or freezing. For many, it is going to be freezing sooner than later because they just are not able to pay this kind of power bill.
That is just one of the facts of life in Nova Scotia today. When the employee has the opportunity to catch up a little with his counterpart in the rest of the country, he is slapped down and the company he works for is also slapped down and fined for trying to assist him. On the other hand, when it comes to paying electricity rates in Nova Scotia, the employee has to pay 200 per cent or 300 per cent more than he was previously paying, and this legislation gives him no protection whatsoever.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame! How can they do that?


Robert Carman Coates: The game here is credibility. How can this government expect credibility when it comes in with estimates indicating a 16 per cent increase in the amount of spending it intends to do in the next fiscal year, while trying to convince Canadians that it is trying to do what it can to restrain spending in this nation? This government says it has many joint sharing programs, it has this and the other thing, but it is really doing its best to cut back. Even if it is doing its best, government spending will cost taxpayers 16 per cent more this year than it did last year. All I can say to the government is, it had better look at some of its provincial counterparts. Every provincial government that has brought down a budget lately has indicated a much smaller increase in its estimate of expenditures than
Anti-Inflation Act
this federal government. Even the rich province of Alberta has indicated its credibility by paring its expenditures in an attempt to keep in line with a concept of restraint it feels is prudent for our nation at this time. We do not see that in the proposition the government is putting forward for its spending. We do not see that on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or his cabinet colleagues in their spending programs.
Let me refer to another aspect in an attempt to project to the people of Canada that we are really serious in the concern we have about what is happening in this nation. What is this government doing in its attempt to stop inflation by restraining itself in what it is doing? There is no better indication of what is happening in the federal government regarding the concept of restraint on the part of cabinet ministers and those who work for them in the public service than the type of opulence produced in their offices and in the way they look after themselves. This has nothing to do with members' of parliament or cabinet ministers' indemnities; it has to do with the way these people set up palatial surroundings so that when they leave this bear-pit they can go back to their offices and relax. This is a degree of opulence that is not available in even the boardrooms of the biggest corporations in this nation.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Carman Coates: This is one of the things about which the people of Canada are really cheesed-off. While the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues run around this country telling us we should restrain ourselves and take it easy on spending for this and that, at the same time they phone and order this and that and something else for themselves in order that they may feel better when they leave the House of Commons and go to their offices. Even worse, this is like a cancer in that it spreads and ping-pongs right down through the ranks, with everybody else in the department saying, "If they can do it, why can't I?" They suggest that if it is good for the ministers, it should be good for them.
I am glad to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) here, because he certainly looked after himself regarding his House of Commons office. In the last two or three years he has renovated his office at a cost to the taxpayers of this country of $16,868.22. That is not bad for a fellow who is restraining himself. He is not unique in this regard. The man who really should be setting the pace, as far as I am concerned, is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). When he is not on the telephone he should be speaking to some of the people who work for him, telling them to set examples for other government departments in order that they might produce a degree of austerity that would be an indication not only to his colleagues but others in the public service. The Minister of Public Works, in the last two years, has purchased new furnishings for his departmental office at a cost of $1,527. By itself, that is not too bad; but he decided to renovate his office at a cost of $3,920. He was not satisfied with just his departmental office and thought that while he was at it he might as well renovate his House of Commons office at a cost of $7,750. His deputy minister then said to himself, I presume, "If he can do it, I can do it too," and he proceeded to renovate his office. I think he said, in effect, "double or nothing," because he
12016

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
spent $15,981 to renovate his office. I guess the policy is, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


An hon. Member:: Don't speak of Newfoundland that way.


Robert Carman Coates: I do not know much about Newfoundland, but the poor Newfoundlanders would be shocked if they ever learned what some of these ministers are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Then we have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister spent $8,540. He restrained himself, but he didn't talk to all the fellows down the line. His deputy minister decided he might as well go gung-ho and renovated his office at a cost $4,150. Then he looked at his office and said to himself, "The office does not look quite right. It has been all renovated, but we had better have some new furniture"-and he spent twice as much on that as he did on renovation.
The same sort of thing took place in respect of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). He was very restrained but he, too, forgot to talk to the fellows down the line. His deputy minister thought his office was not quite right, so he spent $1,200 to renovate it. He did not like its looks after he renovated it, so he spent $14,117 producing new furniture. I am sure he is now very pleased with all the classy furniture in his office.
The situation is different in respect of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He has been sort of frugal, but he is not around the office very much; he is away compaign-ing in respect of capital punishment. I suppose all he wants is one of those United States electric chairs, which are no longer in operation, so he can put it on display as some sort of a museum piece for the abolitionists in the country to look at. Maybe we can find a chair for him somewhere else outside this House. However, his deputy minister did about four times as good as the Solicitor General: he spent $5,254.88 for new furnishings for his office. I suppose he figured he needed a better office than the Solicitor General who is never around anyway.
Then there is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) who is trying to have all the builders injected with some kind of Canadianism so they will construct buildings from which they cannot secure sufficient rent to pay for their cost. He thought he would do something to renovate his departmental office. There is a reference to lights. Certainly there is a need for light in this regard. The lights cost $2,349. The furniture to go with the lights cost $3,763.87. Then his deputy minister said, "If the minister can furnish his office in this way, I had better see what I can do." He spend $15,094 on furniture for his office.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is a very frugal man. He tried to maintain a certain degree of restraint in what he was doing. He spent $772 on his departmental office and $3,767 on his House of Commons office. But let me tell you about his deputy minister. He spent $15,000-odd in renovation and new furniture. These people have to live the right way.

When we come to the Minister of Communications, that is a different story. He did not like his departmental offices at all, so he had them all redone. He spent $9,477. Let me tell you something. His deputy minister thought that if the minister could spend some $9,000 on furnishings for his office, maybe he could spend $1,484 on new furniture and perhaps people would not be too upset about it. But his assistant deputy minister did not like what he did, so he spent $20,915. That is restraint!
That is exactly what this government tells the people of Canada: Restrain yourselves and do not spend too much money. As a matter of fact, there will not be too much money for them to spend because when the government finishes its spending there will not be too much money left for anybody else.


Mr. Lalonde:: Wait until I get to the offices of the Tory MPs.


Robert Carman Coates: I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that any time he wants to, I will change offices with him and be very happy to do so.


Marc Lalonde: You will be disappointed.


Robert Carman Coates: I will not be the least disappointed. As a matter of fact, it will not be long before we change offices and he will get used to the kind of offices we have now. Mr. Speaker, this is very enjoyable, but I really do not think it would be proper for me to name more than the Minister of Communications at this time. I will come back at eight o'clock and give the second chapter of the same thing.


An hon. Member:: Speak to your whip about your office.


Robert Carman Coates: So far as the provision of offices by the whip is concerned, I am satisfied with the office I have. What I am interested in is our whip taking the office of the whip of the government party now, tomorrow, next week or whenever we have an election. It will not be too long before we will have those offices provided to us.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are dreaming.


Robert Carman Coates: For the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who seems to be so interested in this topic, may I say I should like him to explain to the people of Canada how much restraint there was in the $62,000 he spent on "Why not" buttons? I suggest to him there are many people in this country who would say "Why not" and give the answer in respect of the $62,000 expenditure on buttons.
Since it is getting close to five o'clock, I only have time to provide the information about the Minister of Communications. He did not like his office in the department, so he spent $9,477.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the hon. member make it clear that he is talking about the former minister of communications. The present minister is not a he.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Apologize.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We submit an apology. Let us have a little order over there.
March 22, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I am not sure that it is a point of order and I am not sure it is not a point of debate. In any event, it may be recognized as being five o'clock, and that being so, pursuant to the order made on Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Before I put the notice of motion agreed to for today, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Reduction in farm broadcasting-Position of minister; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Health- Request for expansion of pilot project for school milk program; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport-Proposed removal of subsidy on export flour-Request for reconsideration.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It is the understanding of the Chair that notice of motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-West (Mr. Alexander), notice of motion No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), notice of motion No. 19, in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), and notice of motion No. 20, in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), shall stand at the request of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


David Orlikow: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the appointment of a special committee of this House which shall have the power to hold hearings in various parts of Canada, take testimony and hire experts, with the following terms of reference: That it shall examine the role of the Senate within Parliament and its general constitutional functions and report with recommendations on whether the Senate should continue as it has been and is, or whether it should be abolished (and, if so, by what means) or whether some form of reformed Senate is worthwhile (and, if so, what reforms).
Senate Reform
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that members of this House will be surprised if I begin my short speech by making it very clear that personally I would prefer to see the Senate abolished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: However, I am extremely doubtful that such a proposal would meet with the favour of members of this House, either government members, some of whom hope to be appointed to the Senate in the very near future, or members of the official opposition who might hope to be appointed to the Senate in a few years from now. So because I do not believe that kind of motion could carry, I put forward a much milder resolution which is simply to suggest that a House of Commons committee look at the whole question of the Senate as it is now constituted, the role which it plays and the role which a reformed Senate, if such a thing is possible, might play.
If one were to make a study of second chambers which exist in the various countries in the world, one would find a number of things. First of all, we would find that second chambers have disappeared in many countries, and have disappeared in all provinces. I think there were five provinces in Canada which originally had second chambers. They have disappeared because the original idea of a second chamber, which developed when the parliamentary democratic system was being established, was that somehow the voters could not be trusted to choose a group of representatives who could really manage the affairs of the country, and that you had to have some second chamber constituted of wise, older people who could at least give second thought to the proposals being made by the elected representatives.
Those second chambers are disappearing in many countries and in many jurisdictions, and in all of them I know, with the exception of our Senate, the powers of the second chamber have been sharply limited. The best example I can give of that is the British experience beginning many years ago but certainly while Lloyd George was chancellor of the exchequer back in the early part of the twentieth century, around 1910, when he had, for that time, pretty drastic tax proposals to make which the House of Lords were opposing and which they had blocked for several years. The British government of the day got its legislation through by warning the members of the House of Lords that, if necessary, they would appoint a sufficient number of new members to the House of Lords who supported their proposals so that the legislation could be passed. From that day until today, gradually the power of the House of Lords in Great Britain has been whittled away. Most recently, the power of even delaying money bills was taken away from the House of Lords in Great Britain.
What was the original reason for having a Senate in Canada? MacGregor Dawson, in his definitive book on the government of Canada, in the chapter on the Senate, quotes Sir John A. Macdonald in the confederation debates as saying the following:
There would be no use of an Upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It

March 22, 1976
Senate Reform
must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.
If we applied that definition of the role of the Senate to the history of the Canadian parliament in the last 25 years at least, we would have to come to the conclusion, whatever our party affiliation, that the Senate has no real function. In the same chapter dealing with the Senate, MacGregor Dawson lists some proposals for changing the character and the function of the Senate, as we know it, as follows:
(a) the senators should be elected, directly by the people, or indirectly by some other body; (b) they should be partly elected, partly appointed; (c) there should be a fixed and limited term of office; (d) senators should be retired at a definite age; (e) the powers of the Senate should be limited like those of the House of Lords-
It seems to me that the only change that we have made in the power of the Senate is the one dealing with the age of retirement. In 1971, Senator Ernest Manning, who was premier of Alberta for over 25 years, was interviewed on CTV on the program "Question Period." They were discussing the role of the Senate, and Senator Manning said:
If the government's position is, and the House of Commons' position is, that the Senate really has no meaningful role then the proper thing for them to do is move for its abolition and not play games at the public's expense. It either has a meaningful constitutional role or it hasn't.
Should the Senate defy the House of Commons? My answer ... would have to be "no". The basis of our democratic system is that the people whom the citizens elect are the ones who have the right to determine what will become of the laws of the country. No appointed body has the right to override the decision of the elected representatives.
The Senate has not done that. Do they have a role? I suggest that they have the power to block, to amend or to refuse to pass any and all legislation enacted by the House of Commons. The fact that they have not used that power, I submit, is to a large extent immaterial because there is no reason to believe that, given a House of Commons elected by people to change things very substantially, the Senate could not, if it wanted to, change or amend important legislation. The Senate is undemocratic. Its members are appointed until they reach the age of retirement. It is filled with members who have been active in politics for one or the other major parties. It is filled with members who have been elected, have run for election or have been financial collectors for the parties. The Senate is filled with people who are directors of important corporations. Senators who are directors are on committees which deal with legislation which affects the companies of which they are directors. Not so long ago, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which met to consider the application of a group which wanted to establish a bank was himself a director of a bank.
One of the best and most forceful critiques I have ever heard made of the Senate was by a man who is now a senator. At that time, Professor Eugene Forsey said, and I quote from a couple of paragraphs of an assessment of the Senate which he made about 20 years ago in the mid-1950s but everything he said then is still true:

The Canadian Senate is one of the most thoroughly undemocratic bodies in the world, and has far larger powers than many Canadians suppose.
Senators are appointed, not elected. They hold office for life. They cannot be removed, except by the Senate itself.
The Senate can amend any bill whatsoever, including a money bill, and go on throwing it out, as often as it likes; ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand times. There is nothing in Canada corresponding to the Parliament Act in Great Britain.
He went on to compare the Senate with the British House of Lords and said:
The House of Lords' veto on legislation is only "suspensive", temporary; the Canadian Senate's veto is absolute.
Even apart from the Parliament Act, the Lords' veto can be overridden by the creation of extra peers, as many as may be necessary. The Lords can be "swamped" ... The Canadian Senate cannot be swamped.
It used to be said that we should not get very excited about the Senate, because prime ministers use vacancies in the Senate to appoint party faithful and cabinet ministers who have outlived their usefulness, and to make things easy for them. But in recent years that is not what has been happening. In recent years a substantial number of people have been appointed to the Senate who are, to say the least, relatively young. Let me mention just a few: Senator Davey, Senator Austin, Senator Everett, Senator Buckwold.
I am not suggesting for a moment that all senators are incompetent, nor am I suggesting that all senators are disinterested. As a matter of fact, at least three of the four I have mentioned are young, active, aggressive and competent. Some senators have done some very useful work. Without going over all the senators, let me mention a few of them. Senator Croll has chaired two Senate committees which have done very useful work. The committee on aging and the committee which dealt with poverty both produced excellent reports.
Senator Lamontagne chaired a committee which held hearings and gave very careful study to the question of a science policy in Canada, or I should put it in a more precise way and say the lack of a science policy in Canada. I cannot say that I agree with every recommendation which they have made, but they were certainly worthy of careful consideration. Senator Everett chaired a committee on finance and economic policy which heard some very impressive and useful witnesses. Senator Buckwold is now chairing a committee-not a Senate committee-which is involved in planning for the Habitat conference in Vancouver. All these committees have done useful work. The tragedy is that the government has paid virtually no attention to any of these committees.


Mr. Lachance:: That is false.


David Orlikow: The hon. member says it is false. I invite him to get up and talk about this in detail.


Claude-André Lachance: I will do that.


David Orlikow: Let us examine this. Senator Croll's committee documented the extent of poverty in this country. We can differ on the definition of poverty, but whether we use the definition of Senator Croll or the definition of the Economic Council of Canada, it is clear that between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the people in Canada, by any

definition hon. members want to use, are living in poverty. However, if we look at the statistics issued by Statistics Canada every year on the income distribution in this country, we see that the bottom 20 per cent of our income earners got a smaller percentage of the gross national product in 1974, which is the last year for which we have figures, than they got 25 years earlier. They got about 4.3 per cent of the gross national product 25 years before 1974, and they got just about two-tenths of 1 per cent less in 1974. So I say that we have done nothing about poverty, despite an excellent report by Senator Croll.
If the hon. member wants to question my statement that we have no science policy, I advise him to ask for, as I have done, the correspondence which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the minister in charge of science policy have received in the last couple of months about the lack of funding for scientific research and medical research. Close to 500 letters have been received by those ministers from scientists all across this country.
With regard to housing, there is no question that we have not provided affordable housing for the people in the bottom 40 per cent of the income bracket in this country. So I say that these senators who have done a commendable job have had their advice virtually completely ignored. That is why I say that the Senate as we know it today performs no useful function.
I go along with the sentiments expressed by Professor Forsey before he became a senator. He both questioned and rejected the idea that a reformed Senate could play a useful role in the democratic system of government which we have in Canada. But as I said at the beginning of my speech, I know very well that any proposal made by any member of parliament or any person outside parliament that the Senate be abolished would be rejected by the members of this House of Commons. I will not now speculate as to why they would reject. I simply make the assumption, and I am sure I am correct, that members of this House would not vote for a resolution to abolish the Senate.
So I have made a practical proposal, which is that if we are to have a Senate, as we have had since Canada became a country, if we are to appoint people to the Senate, and if we are to pay the expenses of maintaining the Senate, we ought to have a very careful look at the role of second chambers. There is a second chamber in Great Britain, in France, in Italy and in Germany. It may be that their second chambers are much more effective and useful than ours. It might help if we appointed people to our Senate for a fixed period of time. It might be useful if we let the provinces recommend a certain percentage of the people for the Senate. I do not think it is my job, and I certainly would not have the time, to list all the possible changes which could be made. I simply say, as have many people inside and outside this chamber over the years, that the Senate as it is constituted at the present time simply cannot, and does not, do the job which a useful second chamber should and could do.
That being the case, it is my suggestion that a parliamentary committee should look at the question, should hire
Senate Reform
people expert in government to research the subject and should travel across the country, and possibly to other countries, to look at what other second chambers do and how they operate. If such a committee were appointed and took its job seriously, as I think it should, it could come back with proposals which would have merit and which I hope would be adopted by the House of Commons. Necessary constitutional changes could be made and we could, if we need a second chamber, have one which would perform a useful role.
Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that the work of governments of the world and our country become more complex as government becomes more difficult and time-consuming. We could use some help, and if we had a second chamber with a real role to perform in this country, we would get it.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which has been canvassed a good many times in this House over the years. In fact, I think one might say at a guess it has probably been debated more often here than in the other place, though it is also true there have been some very interesting debates on reform of the Senate sponsored by the other place itself. For example, I read an excellent address by Senator Croll two or three years ago in which he and other senators presented plans for reform of the Senate. Senator Croll's plan in particular was a very detailed one.
To this House the subject is a bit "old hat." I do not think we should overlook the originality of today's proceedings, however. I think we see a real step forward in our debate today, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has broken with the tradition of his party. He is now not only taking the absolute position that the Senate should be abolished, but he is coming to terms with reality, as he might have put it himself, and is suggesting that there is perhaps indeed a role for the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But he has got
abolition in the motion.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North is a man of great courage, but I do not think even he, because of his close association with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has the kind of courage which would enable him to bring forward a motion such as this unless it also had the support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not think he would want to face the charge of revisionism which he would encounter. I can only believe this indicates a fundamental change, a new look on the part of our socialist friends opposite, a coming to terms with reality. Perhaps it will be expanded shortly to other areas as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on, senator!


Mark R. MacGuigan: We are holding the post of Speaker of the Senate at some future date for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an unfriendly remark.

March 22, 1976
Senate Reform


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North was mistaken in one respect. Much in his address was worth while, but I think there was a certain misconception of the original and fundamental purpose of the Senate. He spoke of the fact that second chambers around the world are disappearing. That is true, of course, but it is not true that they are disappearing in federal systems. In federal systems the role of second chambers is as strong as ever. That, of course, is the principal justification for having a Senate in Canada. It is not merely for the sober second thought, the review by an upper house, with presumably more time and, some might claim, more ability to review the decisions of this House; the more important point is the fact that in the Senate we have representation by region-representation which can give acknowledgement to interests of various parts of the country that would not occur on a strictly representation-by-population basis.
The hon. member quoted Sir John A. Macdonald and his views on the origin of the Senate. I think it is worth-while putting on record the views of the famous Grit of that day, the Hon. George Brown. Speaking in the debates in the House of Assembly in 1865 after the resolutions that had their genesis in Charlottetown and which subsequently were approved in Quebec, he said:
The very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step-
I think it is clear in the viewpoint of George Brown-[DOT] and it is the viewpoint of most historians today that this was one of the crucial steps toward confederation-that in the Upper House representation would be on the basis of region and that would give protection to the maritimes and to Quebec which would not otherwise be there.
Parenthetically, it is rather unusual for a federal union to have representation on the basis of a whole region. I believe in all the other federal systems where there are upper houses, which I think is about all of them, representation is on the basis of the constituent governmental unit; that is, on the basis of the province or state rather than on the basis of region. In Canada it is only in the case of Ontario and Quebec, and I believe Newfoundland, that we have representation on that basis; for other provinces it is a regional concept.
I think it is important to understand that our purpose in having a Senate is primarily that of protecting regional interests and not of reviewing legislation already adopted by this House. Occasionally it is true the Senate makes a real contribution to the legislation passed by this House by way of correcting it in matters of detail. For example, there may be revisions made by the Senate to one of our pieces of legislation which will be coming back to this House for reconsideration. I do not think anyone would deny that in matters of this kind the Senate can make a real contribution.
In wider investigations in recent years the Senate has also proved itself to be extremely valuable to our political system. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned, Senator Croll has been particularly prominent in leading several Senate committees to reports which have been of great value in the subject areas with which they

dealt. Further, with respect to certain bills which have been introduced in this House and have not been introduced in the Senate, the Senate has held hearings at the same time as ours which have enabled them to proceed with the bill more quickly later, and, in the case of income tax legislation, they have been able to provide helpful suggestions. There are also cases where legislation which has not yet been introduced in this House has been introduced in the Senate, and as a result of Senate consideration it has been decided by the government that there are great areas of the act which should be changed. I think of matters like the new bankruptcy legislation where the Senate investigation last year proved so valuable to the government and to this House.
The Senate does, then, make a real contribution to the legislative process, but I think we would all regard it as intolerable if the Senate were to set itself up in an undemocratic fashion to try to determine by a second look what members of this House should be passing as legislation. After all, we are the people elected by the citizens of Canada-by those who have the right to vote in Canada- to determine what the policies and laws of this country should be. We could not accept any challenge from an appointed Senate on this point.
This accounts for the fact that in 1973 or 1974, when a change was made by the Senate to the wiretapping legislation passed by this House, legislation which was the result of a deliberate enactment of this House and not an oversight, when the Senate presumed to challenge that, even those of us who had been on the losing side of the vote in the House of Commons united to defeat the attempt of the Senate to change the will of this House as expressed by its elected representatives. I think all parties would agree this is not the kind of Senate we would like. We must approach any Senate reform with this in mind. I think it is not always understood by witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees and by those who would change the Senate system.
As a matter of fact, when the joint House and Senate Committee on the Constitution of Canada held hearings across this country we heard a good many witnesses in general, and in particular, on the Senate. I do not recall the exact number of witnesses who spoke on the Senate, but there were some 13,000 people at those meetings across Canada, and 1,486 witnesses on various questions dealing with the constitution. My recollection is that the Senate was one of the subjects most frequently treated by the witnesses who appeared before that committee.
Sometimes the proposals they made were proposals which would have strengthened the Senate as an opposing legislative body to this House and, therefore, would not have been acceptable to us as a means of reform. I would include in those suggestions the proposition that the upper House should become an elected House and, therefore, have a real elective power which would enable it to challenge the decisions of this House. It is true that in one federation, Australia, that is the way the system functions. Their upper House is elected as well as the lower House, but it is questionable if their system gains very much from that.
March 22, 1976

As we have seen with the constitutional struggle in Australia in the last two years, there are many problems which result from this kind of arrangement, and I do not think we would want to make such a fundamental change in our system. With responsible government and the government being responsible to the lower House, it is appropriate that only that House should be elected, and that that House should make the basic determination of policy.
There are a number of areas in which I think we might reach some agreement across the Chamber as to what changes might be made to the Senate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned the power of the Senate. The constitution committee recommended that the Senate should have no more than a suspensive veto, that it be able to give a kind of six-month hoist to bills, but that if the House of Commons chose to pass a bill again after six months, it would then become law with or without the consent of the Senate.
There would probably be general agreement in this House on that kind of proposal. In fact many members would probably feel that a period of six months is too long and that the longest hoist the Senate should be able to give a bill is three months. Therefore the suspensive veto would be three months rather than six. That may be a matter of detail, but I think there would be very general agreement here that a change of that kind should be made.
There have been proposals for changes in the selection of Senators. The present selection, as we know, is by appointment of the government in Ottawa. There have been proposals that half of the Senators should be appointed by the provincial governments.
The constitution committee adopted a medium solution. While the provinces would not appoint Senators, and Senators would continue to be appointed by the federal government, half would be appointed from a panel drawn up by the provincial governments. They would be drawn from the group of nominations made by the provincial governments, but the actual power of appointment would remain with the federal government. Undoubtedly there are a number of members who would like to move in that direction.
There might be general agreement as well that 70 be the final retirement age rather than 75. Some feel that would be a good point at which to express our gratitude to the Senators for their active service and to allow them to serve in a different way. The constitution committee suggested that different way might be one which would allow Senators to continue to serve without pay and without official voting status. They would, in a general way, still be considered advisers to parliament, have the right to appear on Senate committees, and take part in the hearings so as to make contributions. Therefore a method might be found to enable Senators to make a contribution after their mandatory retirement age had been reached.
One of the crucial questions as to the actual provisions concerning retirement would have to do with whether or not there should be a term appointment. At the present time Senators are appointed until age 75. I have suggested that could be until age 70. However, even that would probably not go as far as many members of this House would wish to go.
Senate Reform
It has been proposed that Senators should be appointed for a five-year, seven-year or ten-year term. My own feeling is that Senate appointments should be on a term basis, but that the term should be slightly longer rather than slightly shorter. I would favour a ten year, rather than a five year or seven year term.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly not a 40 year term.


Mark R. MacGuigan: No, not a 40 year term. I prefer a longer term because it would be difficult to get people to accept a position in the Senate if the Senate had even less legislative power than it now has, and appointments were only for a five year period. People would not want to disrupt their other career at its height-and we would want people to come in at the height of their powers-for only a five year period. That might not be worthwhile for those being appointed.
I suggest we would be more likely to have a wide choice of appointees if we had a seven or even ten year term as an inducement. That might also be beneficial because, every five or ten years in this House, there is a fairly extensive change of personnel. In fact we know from our statistics that after every election there is a substantial, usually involuntary change as far as membership of this House is concerned. If you adopt the longer period, a Senator's term would not come up for renewal before the same people who initially appointed him or her. With a ten-year term there might be an entirely different cast of appointers. Therefore a different kind of judgment would be brought to bear, one which might be more objective and perhaps more strict than reconsideration by those who made the initial appointment. There would be other advantages as well.
These are details that could be canvassed one way or another with respect to changes in the Senate. However, in all of these changes we have to guard against a Senate that will become so active that it will want to challenge the powers of this House. On the other hand, if we are not to have a Senate that is any more active than it is now, it really is not going to be able to safeguard regional interests very well.
One consequence of a suspensive veto, especially if it is for only three months, and that would not be a very large inhibiting factor with regard to government legislation, would be that the Senate would likely use its suspensive veto much more often than it now chooses to delay a bill. This change would probably remove the Senate's inhibitions, and it might act much more callously toward government legislation than it now does. While this may not be very palatable to governments or members of this House, unless we are prepared to have a more active Senate, one which will exercise its powers on more occasions than it now does, there is no point in changing its present powers, because any change in the direction we have been talking about would certainly mean a Senate which wants to exercise its powers more frequently. We would have to accept that as a consequence of the changes we would make.
I would personally like to see changes with regard to regional representation in the Senate, which I talk of as being the great justification for the Senate's remaining as part of our system. However, the amount of representation
12022

March 22, 1976
Senate Reform
which we now have is not satisfactory to the western provinces. They have a real grievance. The western provinces, with a total of only 24 Senators, do not have a sufficient counterweight to balance the 24 from Ontario, 24 from Quebec, and 30 from the Atlantic provinces.
I very strongly support the recommendation of the constitution committee that the number of Senators from the western provinces should be doubled from 24 to 48; 12 appointed from each of the prairie provinces and 12 from British Columbia. This would provide a much better balance in our system than we now have. It would allow western Canada which, if we speak of alienated regions of the country is the region about which we hear that term used most frequently, to feel it has more input into the legislative process than is now the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could you find 12 Liberals in Alberta?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Just wait until the next election and we will find lots of Liberals in Alberta.
I see my time is almost up, but there is one other point I should like to make. I do not think we want to conduct the hearings of the constitution committee all over again. We have heard more than 1,000 witnesses already. We surely do not want another committee which would travel across the country and go through all that again.
What is needed now is a decision. Whether that decision should be reached through a committee or whether it should be made by the government is for hon. members to say, but I do think we ought to avoid the expense and the time of going through the whole process again before arriving at a conclusion when the groundwork has already been laid and all that remains is the need for a decision.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the motion before us relating to the appointment of a special committee of this House to examine the role of the Senate within Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I think this motion deserves a lot of consideration, and as far as I am concerned, I shall be brief so that it may be passed by Parliament and a committee appointed to make an in-depth study of the role of the other House within our Parliament.
The motion raises a question: Should the Senate continue as it is now? In my view, the answer is no. Major changes should be made. It is not that I have anything against any senator, absolutely not. I have very good friends in the Senate. I have come to know some senators quite well from meeting and talking with them and they deserve great praise for the way they do their work.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government does not always accept the recommendations made by the other place, particularly in the case of Senate committees which work in a normal fashion, travel across the country and report to the House.
I have in mind the committee on poverty, whose members went throughout all Canada to study the circum-

stances of Canadians, see whether there was poverty across Canada, determine what are the causes for this poverty and on what level this poverty is found. The president of this special committee of the Senate, Senator Croll, has presented his report, a tremendous report, but to my knowledge, the government has never taken their inspiration from this committee's report. Thus, the Canadian taxpayers' money has been spent for absolutely nothing, although this committee's report contained tremendous recommendations which should be implemented and be enacted by Parliament. They were not implemented. What is the use then of spending money to send our honourable friends of the other House all over Canada to study some particular matter, if we do not use that study afterwards? Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that even after that study was made across Canada, poverty is still with us. All kinds of charitable organizations try to help the victims of poverty and it seems that the government, with the provinces, is considering the implementation of a guaranteed minimum income plan. But all that is going at a snail's pace, it is not going very fast. Poverty is leaving us behind, poverty is going faster than our legislation.
That is why, I suggest, we see in Canada a very serious situation and discontent. While I was on my way to work in Ottawa today, I heard on the radio a program on the causes of delinquency. People were asked their opinion on the legislation now before the House, that is if we should maintain or abolish capital punishment. What leads some people to murder? The main reasons given were economic and social conditions which are not equal to economic possibilities. That then is what explains why some people are guilty of housebreaking and murders. Those are some of the remarks I heard over the radio this morning on my way to Ottawa.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I feel we should study those questions more seriously, taking into account the recommendations, the reports made by the members of the other House when we entrust them with a job. If we have no intention of changing our attitude, if the government refuses to change its mind, then I feel the Senate has no useful role to play.
At times we get bills from the other place. That procedure always astonishes me, that bills should be introduced in the other House and then come to us for study or approval. More often than otherwise, those bills concern economic, financial or big business matters. We therefore find ourselves in the situation where we wonder why such and such a matter was accepted by the Senate. Should we accept it or reject it? We thus have to work even harder trying to find out why the other place passed such and such a bill we are sent later on and asked to accept.
We, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, have an item on our program concerning the other House.
We should try to improve the other place to make it more efficient, more apt to give better services and to prevent it from being a mere refuge for political appointees.
In this regard, I must congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who changed a little the usual practice two or three years ago. I think this was due because in the other House there should be a balance
March 22, 1976

between the political parties in Canada so that the Senate really represent the opinions of the Canadian people as a whole.
I congratulate the Prime Minister for having sought appointees from outside the ranks of the Liberal Party, but this does not settle the problem. We of the Social Credit Party have a very concrete suggestion in our program: one third of the appointments to the Senate should be made by the federal government, one third by the provinces and one third by the intermediate bodies so that the provinces are consulted when it comes to appoint people to the Senate. That way, the provinces would be in consultation with the federal government about the possibilities of having some protection in this Parliament on the Senate side to safeguard the rights of the provinces.
Automatically, we would have fewer useless discussions concerning that famous constitution we want to repatriate. Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister when it was expatriated? Repatriation supposes expatriation. Since it was not expatriated how do you want to repatriate it? I would be in favour of leaving it there and making a constitution of our own, a Canadian constitution.
Indeed I think that with the reform of the Senate if it were possible for senators to be appointed one third by the federal government, one third by the provinces and the other third by intermediate bodies we would really have a House representative of the interests of all the people and when our bills would be introduced in the other House we would have people qualified to analyze them, to take into consideration the interests of each and everyone, of intermediate bodies, the provinces and the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to bring quite sincerely to the attention of this House in support of the motion now before us. I hope it will be passed, that the committee will be appointed, and that it will function normally as soon as possible so we will stop talking about reforming the Senate and proceed with that reform, that it will be given new means of fulfilling its role properly, being efficient, for the benefit of all Canada.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I decided to take part in this debate because I for one think that the matter of the Senate has been settled once and for all, both by the report prepared by the joint committees on the constitution and by the many reports of constitutional conferences that took place at the end of the sixties.
That being said, I would not like either to go into historical considerations which prevailed in 1867 when that body called the Senate was created, at a time when Lower Canada was expressing very strong reservations about the fact that there was only one elected House and that the rights of Lower Canada and those of the Maritime provinces could suffer from that. It was then asked for the creation of a body whose members would be designated by the government, one that would represent the regions and ensure the protection of the rights of the minority.
I will not enter into the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) regarding the internal operations of the Senate and the many amendments pertaining to its operations or even its
Senate Reform
reform which have been presented by the constitutional affairs committee and which were also suggested in the course of certain debates in the Senate by the senators themselves, as they are very concerned with the welfare of their House. For example, on March 13, 1973, there was a debate there during which Senator Croll to whom reference was made previously, made very valuable comments on the future of the Senate such as he viewed it.
Therefore I will not enter into those arguments, since the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville gave us many details and many patterns according to which the Senate might evolve. Instead I shall lay the emphasis on the present operations of the Senate such as they affect us as members of this House.
The fact is that for many years, I can even say over the last fifty years, the Senate has been the target of many criticisms and rightly so. The then prime ministers had the unfortunate habit of systematically appointing to the Senate members of the party in power, which resulted in reducing the degree of competency to a lower level, when those members of Parliament or organizers were appointed only for the political favours they provided. But we must pay tribute to the last three or four prime ministers, particularly to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who brought some changes in the way of viewing the Senate and the appointments to the Senate.
Indeed, they chose a new procedure, namely appointing resource persons, people from the community. The best example I have in mind is the appointment of the current Speaker of the Senate, the hon. Renaude Lapointe. Those are people who left their marks and who were working in the world of business. Some of them were working for the protection of the consumers, others for the press, as in the case of Mrs. Lapointe, others were involved in mining or in the legal sector, and many other fields of endeavour.
And that way, I believe, we now have a Senate with a degree of competence that all Canadians should be proud of. The Senate is now a resource organization that can be relied upon because it is composed of people with a very high degree of competence, and I can say that when I have problems dealing, for instance, with the Canadian constitution, I readily request the advice of the Senator Golden-berg or Senator Forsey who are people with a really penetrating knowledge of the constitution, or of labour relations in the case of Senator Goldenberg.
As a matter of fact, I think that over the past few years, especially with studies by numerous joint commissions and also by Senate commissions, and reports such as the one on poverty by Senator Croll, the one on the broadcasting policy, and others, the Senate has, as people say in Quebec, "gagne ses epaulettes". And this is the aspect, I think, we ought to dwell on. The Senate is in the process of proving itself as an institution and I do not think that it should be abolished at this time. We can say there is room for improvement. I must admit that this is true but no so much to increase its power. I think the Senate has enough power at the present time to fulfill its mandate. We should rather facilitate its relations with the House of Commons.
In fact, we quoted earlier the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow); we also quoted Senator Forsey who in 1955 or so eagerly criticized this very institution. I want
12024

March 22, 1976
Report of Committee
to tell him only one thing: only fools do not change their mind. Mr. Forsey, who is now a senator, stated this in 1973:

The Senate as now constituted does much good and is politically too weak to do any serious harm.
What good?
First, detailed revision of legislation, with an opportunity for all interested parties to have a full hearing. The Senate has an immense reservoir of legal and administrative talent and experience, and its committees do this revisory work efficiently, thoroughly and cheaply.
Second, investigation of public problems. Senate committees do a great deal of this, and, again, efficiently, thoroughly and cheaply.
Thirdly, if ever an emergency arose the Senate would be a great help in resolving it.

Mr. Speaker, for the remaining time allotted to me, I would like to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North who asked a while ago what the Senate did which had a direct impact on the legislation here in the House of Commons. I would like to read him a letter from a law student in answer to some criticisms. He said that eligibility for old age pension benefits had been reduced from 70 to 65 because of a report of the Senate on poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I notice it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. It now being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock, when the House will resume consideration of Bill C-89.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a committee report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.-Mr. Bechard.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-89, to amend the AntiInflation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was discussing some of the reasons why people in this nation just cannot take the government seriously when it talks about restraint. I was placing before the House some examples that I feel show the people of Canada just why they should not take the government seriously when it tells them they should restrict their spending. These are the kinds of examples being set by the ministers, their deputies and their assistant deputies, all of which lead one to believe there is no credibility at all to be associated with what the govenment proposes and does at this moment in time.
When the proceedings were interrupted at five o'clock I was talking about the Department of Communications, and I pointed out some of the expenditures which were taking place in that department, and which would lead one to conclude that unless government ministers are willing to set some kind of positive example there is no way we can hope to bring government spending down to realistic levels.
The government tells us that even in this year of restraint we can expect to face at least a 16 per cent increase in government spending. That 16 per cent, I suggest, will be followed by supplementary estimates, and there is no way of knowing at this stage of the game just what that 16 per cent increase will end up actually being at the end of the next fiscal year.
Let us consider again the Department of Communications. We see that the minister spent on her departmental office, for new furnishings I would presume, $9,477.92. I guess the deputy minister felt he should spend a little bit himself. He was very gentle and only got a little new furniture at a cost of $1,484.80. That did not stop the assistant deputy minister from going to work. He looked at the offices of his minister and his deputy minister and ordered himself $20,915.92 of new furniture. He now has the right kind of environment to sit down in and consider the Anti-Inflation Board proposals before him. He will be able to communicate like nobody in this world with that kind of furniture.
Even the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) has not been left out. He was pretty careful and did not spend anything on either his departmental office or his House of Commons office, but I guess his deputy felt that since he was new to the game he really should have some new furniture to brighten up his office in order to get the cigar smoke out which was left by the former deputy minister. He spent $5,911 on new furniture.
Next we come to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson). He is a mover and supposed to
March 22, 1976

be a doer, although there is no example of it when you look at the figures these days. He decided he needed his departmental office fixed up a little bit, and he spent $5,200. His deputy looked at things and decided he needed new furniture himself, and he spent $6,000.
Lo and behold, the assistant deputy minister, looking at what the minister and the deputy minister had done, went whole hog. He spent $13,973 on new furniture, and an additional $14,501 on renovations. So he is pretty well set up. We have quite a mixture here.
Let me go to Justice. Of course in that department they are preparing a new package and so on. They must look smart because they are anticipating interviews and so on with people. Justice is broken down between the previous minister, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). It is shown here that the previous minister spent $10,738 on his ministerial department and that his deputy minister-I do not know whether it is still the same one-followed along and spent $7,287. The present minister did not spend anything, but let me tell you that his assistant deputy minister made up for it. He spent $32,327 on new furniture alone. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is certain. The furniture manufacturers in this country-if it is Canadian furniture that is being purchased, and I would not be sure of that-are doing well these days with this government in office. Few manufacturing firms will vote against this outfit regardless of price restraint or any other kind of restraint.
Now, let us go to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). He has been through some difficult times. He spent a good deal of time in his office not too long ago. He was anticipating what would be happening in the days ahead. I am sure he is still anticipating what will happen in respect of the SIU. He did not like either the office the way it was or the furniture, so he spent $5,389 on his House of Commons office insofar as renovations are concerned. Then, when he had done that, he did not like the way the office looked and spent an additional $12,814 in order to be sure that he had the proper furniture for his new office.
Now we come to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). Manpower and Labour really should be together. He did not want to be outdone by his colleague the Minister of Labour. He said to himself, "Well, if the Minister of Labour can spend $4389 on renovations I see no reason I should not spent $6,150," which he did. Then he decided that if the Minister of Labour could spend $12,814 on furniture there was no reason why he should not have better furniture because he would be taking over the other minister's job anyway. So he spent $19,020 on furniture.
Then the assistant deputy minister of manpower, looking at his minister, said that there was no reason if the minister could have it that he should not have the same thing. He was very good in respect of renovations. He spent only $305. However, he did not like the way the office looked. The furniture did not fit his point of view. He did not want to be quite as gregarious as the minister so he just spent $11,470 on new furniture.
We have a new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). He went into that office and thought that it
Anti-Inflation Act
should be dressed up a little. The departmental office was not to his liking. He decided to spend $5,500 to have that office straightened out to his way of thinking. His deputy minister said that the minister was new to the game, decided he rated twice as much as the minister, and spent $11,600. The assistant deputy minister decided he was not quite as good as the deputy minister but was just as good as the minister, and therefore spent $6,735 on renovations for his office. They are not doing too bad. These people who are restraining themselves and trying to set an example for the Canadian public are spending about $23,000 and are saying that this is the way you are supposed to restrain your expenditures.
This document I have shows the name "Marchand". I am not sure where he fits in in all this except for the fact that he really likes to have things done up for himself. He is the biggest spender of all by far. The amount shown for renovations is $24,357. If one is to have such renovations one must also have a palatial office and palatial furnishings, so $20,000 was spent on furnishings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think the hon. member who has the floor should address himself to the Chair.


Robert Carman Coates: I am quite willing to address myself to the Chair even if it might not be very palatable. I just want to say that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) did not like his departmental office and so he spent $44,000. He felt that if he were to do that for his departmental office he should also do it for his House of Commons office because he would be there once in a while. He just spent a minimal amount of $10,275 on his House of Commons office. He only spent $54,000 or $55,000 to make sure that he had the proper comforts when he went to his offices. The same fellow told us transport was in a mess. The whole government is in a mess, and the country is in a mess. The reason for this is this almost obscene spending on the part of members of the government who tell the Canadian people that they had better tighten up their belts and restrain. These are just some of the examples.
One of these ministers, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who did a lot of talking here, became upset, and forgot about that $62,000 he spent on the "Why Not" pins which he produced. I say to him that he should put his money where his mouth is and tell us what he, his deputy minister and his assistant deputy minister have spent, because this information is not produced. I suggest that if he wants to find out the reaction of Canadians about the "Why Not" pins they will give him 62,000 reasons why they should not have been produced for $62,000. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.
Let us now look at some of the individual expenditures. I was very interested in seeing just on what these ministers were spending their money. I looked at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see how the minister spent money on office renovations and new furnishings. This is rather interesting. For instance, in 1974-75 he bought three new steno chairs at a cost of $189.75 I say that is pretty reasonable. I looked further down on the sheet and I see that he bought one posture chair. I assume that is for him, a man of posture. He has been posturing for

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
a long time with the Indians. But he spent $277 for the posture chair, which is three times as expensive as a steno chair. On top of that-and this was very interesting-he spent $500 for a water cooler. No doubt he takes a lot of aspirins every time the Indians come to see him to ask him what his policy will be with regard to them.


An hon. Member:: Have you a water cooler?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes, I have one, although there are very few things that the government has been willing to give me. I think mine is a lot cheaper than that one.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: And you do not even have to worry about it, you do not have to report it.


Robert Carman Coates: Look, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I do not have to worry about the kind of hollering that is coming from the deputy whip, who very seldom makes a speech except from his seat and very seldom says anything that is worth listening to.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is another untruth.


Robert Carman Coates: If the deputy whip speaks for parliament, he certainly has no monopoly on truth, or can you tell the difference between truth and Trudeau in this country? I do not think so.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just one great big water hole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: I was impressed by the kind of expenditures that were outlined by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), but I have to say that he is rather frugal in comparison with some other ministers and how they are spending their money. For instance, we have a chap in the other place who is supposedly a minister in the cabinet. He was a nobody when he was in the House, but all of a sudden when he got to the other place he became a member of the cabinet. If you think that the $277 chair of the Minister of Indican Affairs and Northern Development is expensive, just look at the way in which the minister in the other place is spending and you will get some idea of how grandiose your ideas can become when you get to the other place. One of his walnut and natural leather chair happens to have cost the Canadian taxpayer $635.71.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: That is the kind of chair to have. I can see him relaxing in it, forgetting all the troubles he has, thinking about all the responsibilities he has and how the country will be run. He sits back in that beautiful walnut and natural leather upholstered chair which has cost the Canadian taxpayer $635.71. But if you receive an invitation to his office and go there, you will also find there nine other walnut chairs which cost the Canadian taxpayer $1,890.50.
Apparently, when you fix up your office you have to do it properly, even in times of restraint, even in times when you have to tighten up your belt, and so on. After all, if

there is any money going around the cabinet ministers happen to have it, so they can look after themselves while everyone else tightens his belt.
The minister in the other place felt it was not appropriate to have only those nine walnut chairs at $1,890.50, and the walnut and natural leather chair. He also had to have a nice sofa. So he got himself one walnut and natural leather sofa on which he can lie back, recline, and think about those heavy problems he will have to face when he puts the government's position forward. So for a minimal expense of $1,084 he got himself a sofa.
But then the minister in the other place looked around his office and noticed that something was still missing there. "There is not enough here and I must do something about it", he said to himself. "I know what it is, I need some drapes", he said. So he thought about the kind of drapes that would fit in that office, he went out and found the drapes, which were very inexpensive when you consider the $635 chair, because they only cost the taxpayer $1,997.75. Now he has nice drapes which he can pull together, he can lie down on the sofa and look at the chairs, and, man, he is where one wants to be, he is where this government should be.


An hon. Member:: Sharp.


Robert Carman Coates: They think they are, but one of these days they will have to face the unfortunate fact that they have to see the electorate, and when they see that electorate they will have to tell them how they put restraints into effect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Let him carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I do not see the
hon. member rising and asking for more time.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, he is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: If the hon. member will do so, then he must have unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is not the first anti-inflation measure presented by the government. Today the same government is asking us to approve some amendments aimed at making the anti-inflation legislation more logical and acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, during the next few months, we could see in the House a whole series of bills amending the antiinflation legislation. Being as it is today, that is an inefficient, illogical and unfair measure full of loopholes, the government will have to amend it regularly to make its application possible.
March 22, 1976

Mr. Speaker, I will not hesitate to vote against the bill now under consideration, because I know that Bill C-89, as the anti-inflation legislation, is a poultice on a wooden leg, or an aspirin to relieve a minister of his headache, that is a measure with no useful effect.


An hon. Member:: You don't know anything about it!


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members are good to shout: "You don't know anything about it", but they are not good to rise in their place and speak out, as is the case with the hon. member opposite.
That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we do not know the government's good intentions. The question does not lie there. What Canadians are concerned about is not whether the government has good or bad intentions in introducing the Anti-Inflation Act, but rather whether the act will be efficient and put an end to the ravages of inflation.
The worker who gets only a small salary just wants to know if his salary will enable him to buy the goods necessary to feed his family and give them a decent living. He very well knows that due to the inflation rate we have experienced in the last few years, he could no longer give his family a decent living and is going bankrupt. With an inflation rate of 10 per cent a year, the value of each dollar earned by the sweat of his brow is reduced by ten cents every year. It is something that no one could tolerate for any length of time. After five years, his dollar would be worth only fifty cents, which is about what it is worth now.


An hon. Member:: Hang on, you are doing well!


Armand Caouette: I hope you will have the guts to take the floor once I finish my speech.
After ten years, Mr. Speaker, the poor beggar's dollar is worth nothing. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) can understand that, and that is why a few months ago the government finally decided to propose steps to fight inflation. Unfortunately the government have once again put their foot in it with their anti-inflation legislation.
Once again we have seen proof of that today. Public order is threatened everywhere in the country. Some revolting decisions, like the one taken in the infamous Irving case, have completely discredited the Anti-Inflation Board and its chairman. Canadian workers and even corporations will long remember this decision taken by the board. For the first time in the history of our country, we have witnessed the condemnation of a corporation which wanted to share its profits with its employees by granting them a wage increase. In other words, the Anti-Inflation Board has told those corporations: Keep your profits to yourselves. Get rich and prosper as much as you will, but don't give a thing to your employees. Don't share your profits with your employees, unless you want to pay a fine. And to make sure those same companies understand the message well, the AIB imposed a $125,000 fine to the Irving Company as a warning to other companies that are too generous towards their employees.
Anti-Inflation Act
Who, Mr. Speaker, can blame other employers and companies for basing themselves on that ruling to refuse legitimate increases in salary? The companies can say: We would love to give you higher increases in salary. Last year was a good year. Profits were never as high. In fact, profits are the best ever but, unfortunately, we cannot give you a salary increase because we stand the chance of having to pay a high penalty. We would like to share our profits with you, our employees, but the AIB will punish us if we don't keep all our profits for ourselves.
That is what corporate employers say and will continue to say to Canadian workers. That is all the fault of the AIB, and the government comes and laughs right in our faces. Today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) comes to see us and tells us: I have a good idea. Here are a few changes that will make the AIB more efficient. The English have the expression "to whip a dead horse".
This is just about what the minister does and what he want us to do. Even if we whipped a dead horse for centuries, we could not resuscitate it. We could at best keep flies away from it. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in whipping a dead horse. I do not want at all to be associated with this bill which tries to make the Canadian people believe that a patched up AntiInflation Board will be an efficient tool against inflation. We must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the Anti-Inflation Board is nothing more than unemployment insurance of $50,000 to $60,000 to pay people like Jean-Luc Pepin, who was defeated in his constituency of Drummond by a member of the Social Credit Party in 1972.


An hon. Member:: By how many votes?


Armand Caouette: He did not come back, even if he did not get many votes. The population did not want him. So his good friend Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the present Prime Minister, found a cushy job for him, just as he did for his other good friend, Paul Gerin-Lajoie, the pope of CIDA. We read in the press that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board-


An hon. Member:: You are always reading! Read your paper correctly. Try not to make mistakes!


Armand Caouette: I might well be reading, but the hon. member should have the guts to rise and talk on that issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think it would be appropriate if the Chair could hear the statement of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Armand Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We learned through the newspapers that the Anti-Inflation Board Chairman is not a very "economical" person. We are aware that he travels at the Crown expenses and first class. Even cabinet ministers do not travel first class. At least, this is what is officially known.
We must admit that we are caught with a very expensive Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, earning $50,000 a year, not taking into account his expenses. We know that the board's budget will be over $13 million in 1976. Mr. Speaker, that is where the money of the taxpayers and the

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
workers goes. People who live richly and who take the right to deny small and middle wage earners raises that are in fact justifiable. Mr. Speaker, Canadians will never accept that. They will not tolerate such injustice. The government must find serious ways to fight inflation. It must find and apply real solutions to that problem, not a board composed of civil servants generously paid who tell people to tighten their belts, but serious solutions, no patching up, but a deep reform which would root out the disease from which our economy is suffering. That is what Social Crediters are proposing.
If members opposite are serious, they will have to read the bill introduced by the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada. An hon. member said a moment ago that he would like to be a senator, the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette), talking about the fight against inflation. Bill C-328 offers a new approach, specific means to control and eradicate inflation from our economic system. Now and again some hon. members criticize Social Crediters for being negative and for doing nothing more than opposing measures. I invite them to read the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). They will see that Social Crediters propose a well defined strategy to fight inflation. They will see that they can give a lesson of logics and common sense to the civil servants and the ministers who laid that square egg which is the Anti-Inflation Board.
I do not intend to talk further about Bill C-328, as we are debating Bill C-89 today. But I believe it is important to point out to my colleagues opposite that the government's approach is neither the only one nor the best one to fight inflation. As I said earlier, the bill under study today is aimed at correcting the most obvious deficiencies of the Anti-Inflation Act. For this reason, the object of Bill C-89 is to extend the right to appeal from a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board and its administrator to all those who are affected by a decision.
This obviously would make less unfair a situation like that which prevails at Irving's and to which I referred earlier. We all known that in this particular case the workers could not, under the Anti-Inflation Act, appeal against the board's decision to turn down the salary increase granted by the Irving company. Indeed, the antiinflation legislation gave the right of appeal only to the person or group to whom the administrator's order applied, in this case, the Irving Company. The bill before us now would also give this right of appeal to all those affected by an order, so as to include the workers who are the real victims of an order issued against their employer.
Mr. Speaker, do this provision and the other amendments proposed by Bill C-89 justify the expense of time, energy and money that this government is now making the House go through? For example the fact of making it possible for workers to appeal a decision issued against their emloyer seems to be, in our opinion, an improvement on the present situation.
To be logical, however, one must point out the fact that it is not normal or fair that the board and its administrator take the liberty of ignoring bona fide agreements between employers and employees.

Mr. Speaker, when a company considers that its profits have been substantial enough to justify considerable wage increases for its employees, I find it senseless and unacceptable that the Anti-Inflation Board says to the employer and his employees: There is no way for the company to share its profits with its workers. It must keep its profits for itself, and workers must tighten their belts with a poor 12 per cent wage increase, whatever may be the company's profits.
Mr. Speaker, instead of granting a right of appeal to the workers involved in an order against their employer, it would be wiser for the government to withdraw from the Anti-Inflation Board the right and authority to get into the collective bargaining between employers and employees. Then, a prosperous corporation having made high profits could have its employees allowed a share of the profits, without having to be afraid of a $100,000 or $200,000 fine.
We should ask ourselves the following question: Is Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, worth being discussed now in the House? If one thinks in terms of the importance of the problem, the answer is yes, as we are all aware of the frightful havoc inflation is playing with the economy. On the other hand, if one thinks in terms of the value of government measures and the minor alterations the government is planning to bring to them, the answer is no. The government's anti-inflation program is a monumental failure. It has only resulted in public loss of confidence in the government and in governmental ability to solve problems.
Who can trust a government which tells the people: Tighten your belts and be content with a 12 per cent salary increase while government's expenditures keep soaring. What a fine example this is for the people who see government expenses jump by 16 per cent.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am glad I had the opportunity to demonstrate that the bill is definitely not going to put an end to damages due to inflation and that the House will have to consider much more radical measures and more drastic reforms of our economic system if we are to obtain results in our struggle against inflation.
That is exactly the kind of reform and radical change to our economic and financial system the Social Credit is suggesting to the House and to the people of Canada. More and more, Mr. Speaker, we will have to admit that solutions put forward by Social Crediters represent our sole chance to beat inflation. A few years ago people used to say that the Social Credit theories would generate inflation. They used to say that with the Social Credit money would lose its value.


An hon. Member:: Exactly!


Armand Caouette: It is true. There is one who is
frank.
Today our money has almost no value. And the Social Credit party is not responsible for it but the present system is. Therefore our opponents have no other choice than to recognize that the inflation is due to our present economic system. And I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that if Canada does not soon apply the economic theories of the Social Credit party, our economy may well be too close to total bankruptcy to be saved. This is why, Mr. Speaker, it
March 22, 1976

is urgent to undertake a review and implement the proposals put forward by members of our party.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, by measure of restraint, I did not intend to take part in this debate. As a matter of fact, I preferred to leave the opposition criticize the waste of time that takes place here, because let us not forget that at a yearly income of $24,000, the working people expect us to do justice through the bill before the House.
I have heard the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) explain how he would protect workers through Bill C-89. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Villeneuve has failed to understand the essence of Bill C-89. He said earlier that the Irving Company wanted to redistribute profits among its employees and had been prevented from doing so. I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve whether he has any evidence that the company really wished to redistribute its profits. Was it not rather the other way round, namely that the company, knowing that controls were applied so efficiently, knew it could make such a proposal and be assured that the Anti-Inflation Board would reject it. That is more like what really happened. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether these companies, the way they act, really want to put things where they belong, whether they really wish to give their workers the excessive profits they are making. I have very serious doubts about that. The amendments in Bill C-89 are aimed at providing workers with a still higher degree of justice. Those who feel they are affected in their collective agreement derived from fair and reasonable demands, those who think the Board may have erred in their decision, want the right of appeal they were not initially provided with.
With this legislation, we are going to give those people that right of appeal. This in my view is something quite extraordinary in this time and age. I believe it is only fair and reasonable that every worker in Canada have a right of appeal against the board's decisions, and such is the aim of Bill C-89 now before us. I would like to understand the rationale behind the contention of the hon. member for Villeneuve that Bill C-89 goes directly against workers. This legislation gives them rights, it confirms the rights they have as workers.
I am at a loss to understand. I wonder whether in the first place the hon. member read the bill that established the control board. The board's role is to review monetary offers at the employer-employee level. I am at a loss to understand how the Social Credit Party of Canada, the self-appointed free enterprise champion, wishes to defend huge monopolies as the Irving companies and others. I find it hard to understand how they, the self-appointed defenders of widows and orphans, are now taking sides with multinationals and big corporations. I am at a loss to understand. It is one of two things: either they lie outside Parliament, or they did not seriously consider what is in Bill C-89. This is the question the Canadian people ask themselves.
Mr. Speaker, all I want to try to explain to the Social Credit Party of Canada is that there are people, even
Anti-Inflation Act
unorganized workers, who have a right to fair increases. Some companies chose not to give any increase. Do we control them? No. But other companies decided simply to play a game and to offer much more knowing that our control measures would be very efficient, that they would prevent the proposed increase. They simply made extravagant offers, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) understood their game, so that the Anti-Inflation Board would reject them and the blame falls squarely on the government and on the hon. member for Villeneuve because he is a member of Parliament. The hon. member for Villeneuve ought to communicate with this kind of companies to try to teach them how to be good citizens as well as lots of things he and other members of his party would perhaps need to understand.
Mr. Speaker, I think the very essence of the proposed amendments with respect to the control board is to protect workers and give them a right of appeal. Earlier I heard another member of the official opposition read a list of expenses by ministers or deputy ministers. He did not read the expenses of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he read those of the Prime Minister but not those that every member makes and is entitled to make under the law. He did not tell us that, he did not say how much a year he was spending under the regulations that allow us to spend. He forgot to say that, Mr. Speaker. I want to say here that out-of-context figures are being used, and there is an attempt to try and bias the very philosophy of our amendments.
Well, I would like to set the record straight. If people spent money it is certain that it was done under certain regulations or laws, and if those things were not done under certain regulations or laws, or if those things were illegal, I hope hon. members will denounce them. I hope hon. members will submit evidence and denounce those kind of things if it is not done under laws and regulations. I would like them to do so; the money of the public must absolutely be protected. And if there are people here who spend money uselessly and illegally it is the duty of every member of this House to stand up and say so and prove what they suggest, and not leave doubts that only members on one side of the House make excessive expenses and those on the other side are mere angels who do not spend but, on the contrary, take some out of their pockets and give it to Her Majesty every day.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are people here who will have to be more realistic. Let those who are here to vindicate workers, unions that deserve our respect, discuss Bill C-89 despite the fact that those who are against unions are on the other side of this House. I see the NDP members who did not yet take part in the debate on Bill C-89; are they going to show us the inherent justice in introducing a bill like C-89? Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, they will have failed in their duty, they who always said that they were here to protect not union members but unions-there is a nuance here. I am prepared to protect workers, union members, but I am not ready to prepare structures that represent nothing at all.
And the hon. member for Villeneuve wanted to protect multinationals and companies earlier. I am more prepared to protect workers and those who are underprivileged, who are not unionized, than big companies and big unions.

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this bill before us is an amendment to Bill C-73 which was introduced last fall to attempt to control the increase in prices and wages across the country. At that time I voted against second reading of Bill C-73, not only because it was bad legislation but because it was inflationary. This particular bill before us, Bill C-89, is simply amending bad legislation. Members of the government did not think in the fall that there had to be appeal procedures when you give such arbitrary power to a board, and that is what is now in these amendments.
What I want to drive home to the government, particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), who will carry the can for this particular legislation before the public in the next two or three years, is that this has turned out to be, as most people who talked about it for a while recognized last fall, a bill that was not only antilabour in this country but was also against business. This is evidenced by the fact that in the small print at the end of the guidelines of last fall, there was a question about the export tax. When I asked the government when this was forthcoming, I was told it would be forthcoming before Christmas, and it was. But it did not last too long.
When business realized they were caught in the same sort of trap as labour was caught, and that it would not work and would not be fair, and labour recognized that they were in the same mess as business, labour and business got together. They went to see the provinces and forced the federal government out of the anti-inflation bill in so far as the export tax was concerned. That is what is going to happen to the whole bill. The bill, by the very nature of the human being, has to be unfair and unjust. Therefore you are going to find increasingly that the number of institutions and groups of people who are adversely affected are going to coalesce, like labour and business did with the provinces on the export tax, and throw this bill out. If they have to, they will throw the government out with it. That is to be the fate of this bill.
This is not a bill to fight inflation. This bill that we are debating and amending legislates inflation. That is why it is an evil that we all must fight. I was surprised indeed to hear the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) speak in favour of this principle this afternoon. He noted that the labour movement and the NDP were not opposed to this type of legislation "as long as you made it fair and as long as you applied it to prices as well as to labour."
That is nothing else but the acceptance on the part of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge of Galbraithean economics, which were an intellectual exercise 15 years ago but are passe today. The hon. member is not with it. He is apparently not aware that we have moved on from those intellectual half-truths of Galbraith and that Galbraith is known today as a humorist, not an economist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am surprised indeed to see that intellectual of the NDP, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, endorse this pseudo-intellectualism passing under the name of Galbraith. I wondered about it until I read the Globe and Mail. There I

found quoted a story taken from the NDP paper, advising the left not to get tied up with support of controls across the board, but just selective controls.
The minister should listen carefully because he cannot stop this type of controls with just 1,500 companies. It has now been expanded to thousands of companies. Soon they will recognize they will have to go further and further and extend it to all companies and to all individuals. We will have a complete system of controls all across this country for every form of activity. Once you start on the slippery slope of restrictive legislation to try to control wages, profits, dividends, prices and all the rest, in order to make it work you have to keep on expanding your power. It is like playing Canute with the tides.
I simply point out that this is bad legislation because of the danger of trying to put a system of controls into a free market economy which has proved to be, even with all its faults, the most productive system yet devised. Therefore I say to the minister that he will have to bear the can when the roof falls in on this attempt by ordinary mortals who try to lay down a plan that will work.
On December 2 last, instead of just being critical of the government for its great conversion to a concept of price and wage controls, I tried to put forward the doctrine on third reading of Bill C-73 that there was an argument for controls for a very short period of time to check the psychology of expansion of prices and wages. However, I stated that the only hope to make that concept of a freeze by selective controls work was that since the psychological effects could only be applied for a short time, in that short time the government should use all its strength and efforts to get at the basic causes of inflation. These basic causes of inflation have been well defined over the past ten years.
There is no argument about it. The number one cause of inflation today in all our western countries is the cost of government. We heard a few examples of that type of cost from the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). It is going to be pretty hard for the members of the government to go into their constituencies, where people are living on fixed and low incomes, and tell them it is necessary every time there is a change of ministers or high officials in the government to redecorate the joint, and put in new furniture to suit their personalities.
After incurring costs as high as $10,000, $20,000 even $50,000 apiece to live the life they assume they ought to live as members of the present administration, they go around saying to the rest of us, "Tighten your belt, I may have a swimming pool in my yard but you can manage without". How are they going to explain these things to the people of New Brunswick, to those living in the rural areas of Quebec, on the eastern side of the Island of Montreal where some are living, or trying to live, on $2,000 or $3,000 a year? How can they explain why it is necessary to have the prestige of sitting on a $2,000 sofa or a $700 chair so that a minister can deal with his opposite number in dignity? It is going to be hard. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North knows that ministers and senior civil servants must set an example.
At the present time 80 per cent of the cost of government at the federal level goes into programs over which the
March 22, 1976

government has no control. Parliament has passed laws turning power away from parliament and the executive and placing it in the hands of independent boards and commissions which operate unchecked by effective control mechanisms.
Fixed expenditures of this type account for 80 per cent of the $35 billion or $45 billion which the government collects in taxes and general revenues. Until the government reexamines its expenditures, both the fixed type to which I have just referred and the kind which the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North is talking about, there is no chance of getting people to pull in their belts and live up to the level of restraint which is desired.
In the last two speeches I have made in this House I tried to put forward some constructive ideas about the best approach to these statutory programs, and to indicate directions in which the government could save millions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard anyone on the government side make one response to those positive and constructive suggestions, though I felt them deserving of a great deal of attention since they would not only help the government save money but do the same for each of the provinces taking part in these statutory programs.
The number one problem responsible for inflation in the western countries is the fact that governments are taking for their own purposes such a large proportion of the wealth their nations produce. In Canada the figure is around 40 per cent. Out of every dollar produced approximately 40 cents is utilized by the government. Spokesmen for the administration say a great deal of this money is transferred back to people who need it. But no matter how you twist and turn, if you take a figure of that magnitude and translate in into transfer payments of any sort, the point is reached at which you push up the cost to the person who is working, and who has to provide for these transfer payments, to such an extent that an inflationary situation is created.
I would very much welcome an opportunity on a future occasion to speak about the possibilities which exist for governments of the future to utilize the tremendous savings propensity of the Canadian people in getting at inflation instead of seeing so much of our money going into transfer payments.
What do transfer payments mean, in simple terms? At the present time approximately four people are working and carrying one on their backs. Well, the minister could take this principle and arrange matters so that there is more money for everybody, provided the government is willing to adopt a more constructive approach. The way we are going now it will not be long before there are three people working and carrying one on their backs. There comes a time when the load is so heavy on those who are working that rebellion breaks out.
All of us want to do what we can to continue to provide necessary services such as hospitalisation, medicare, unemployment insurance, old age pension, accident insurance, and so on, because they are necessary part of an industrial economy. But if the load of transfer payments from the man who is working to the man who is not working becomes too heavy, the system collapses. That is why I plead with the government-please consider where you are taking us, because we want to save these programs. There
Anti-Inflation Act
is a way to save them. It is to have faith in the individual; if he is given a positive incentive to save he will do more to save money than any form of bureaucratic device.
I have put proposals forward twice in the last few months in the hope that the government will take notice of them before inflation grabs hold and makes this silly little bill to amend the Anti-Inflation Act meaningless.
I repeat, the first cause of inflation in all the western countries is the amount of money governments are taking out of national revenue for use as transfer payments which place too heavy a burden on those who are working. At present, as I say, the ratio is four to one. Soon it will be three to one. Ultimately those who remain at work will decide to carry the load no longer and then we shall lose the thing that everybody wants, these universal plans and so on.
A second major cause of world inflation is high interest rates. Everyone touches on this question of interest rates and then shies away from it. the hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge touched on it-he is smart enough to know that high interest rates are a cause of inflation-but he said, finally, that governments could do nothing about it. On that point I disagree with him.
I have tried to put the matter in simple terms. If a person buys a home in one of our major cities at a cost of $50,000, a sum which nowadays would pay for a modest worker's home, taking out a mortgage for 30 years, the eventual cost of that $50,000 home will be $200,000. Interest payments account for $150,000. That is inflation, Mr. Speaker. That breaks the backs of a young couple who must work their way through that debt until they become old people.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is not to pour out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to help pay this interest, but to attack the root of the problem. The nation could stand it when the interest rate was 4'A per cent, but an interest rate of 12 per cent is not only killing the young couple trying to build a home, it is killing the whole nation because so much money is being taken to pay for something which is not productive in itself. The same applies to big business. I use the example of the oil sands.
If you get into an oil sands development calling for a $2 billion plant, the cost of oil per barrel, taking interest rates on capital into account, works out at $11. That is cost. Yet if you allow that oil company, in co-operation with the owners of the oil, the people, to pay off that debt quickly, you bring the cost down to $3 a barrel in four years. Then the oil company will be able not only to compete with any other country in the world in the production of that oil, but the owners of the oil, the people, would have a tremendous amount of money to divide, the bulk of which could go to the owners of the resource, the people, and for a very small amount the companies could be satisfied that they have a fair return for their money.
As I have mentioned in previous speeches, this could be done on a contractual basis, and there are precedents for it. I have referred to the British system. The British government is a so-called socialist government. They would not have got their North Sea oil developed in any other way. In the case of the Chevron company, which is a subsidiary of Exxon, that company was not going to go into risk develop-

March 22, 1976
Anti-In flat ion Act
ment. But the British government got it to do so by telling it that they would not charge it anything except the traditional royalties if it would agree to pay off its debts first. As a result of this, the Chevron company paid off its debts in four years and two months.
The government then brought in its great big petroleum revenue tax, but the people of the United Kingdom still get as much money out of their oil as the Arabs, who went at this through a process of nationalization. Although there is a so-called socialist government in the United Kingdom, using a taxation technique called a rapid write-off the United Kingdom will have cheap oil when the rest of us are tied to $11 a barrel oil from Alberta.
I use this as an example to show that business is to blame as much as the government. When I put this proposal to the previous minister of finance in 1974 he had his officials study it and he came back with the answer that it was a fine suggestion, but unfortunately the companies do not finance in that way. That is the very point I am making. Somebody ought to take the lead and put this proposal on the table and, as I say, there are precedents for it in Canada.
We are talking about an inflationary force, Mr. Speaker. Just as a person who buys a $50,000 home wants some relief from the $150,000 in interest that he is going to pay, so does business want some relief from the billions of dollars of interest that it will pay on a $2 billion investment. This applies to every capital intensive enterprise in the country. The province of Quebec is going into this fantastic adventure in James Bay which will cost in the region of $20 billion. When I think of all the capital intensive enterprises that we will have to undertake within the next 30 years, interest will be the biggest part of the cost, the way we finance at the moment, accounting for roughly 75 per cent. This is the inflationary force that is killing our young people in the cities, our young farmers, and businesses.
To those who say there is no answer, I say that common sense is the answer. I have said in this House many times that if these two kinds of proposals do not give the government ideas, I have lots more to offer of the same nature already proven by other people.
It is a matter of record that in the new brave deal over in the North Sea, BRAE off the Orkney Islands, Canadian companies, that could not possibly make a living in Canada finding oil and gas under the present tax laws of the provinces and the federal government following the 1974 budget of Mr. Turner, have made one of the newest finds in the North Sea. They know that all the money that they have risked and invested in that oil field will be paid back in about four years, because the government over there will not tax them until the debt is paid off. The companies will not get any money either during that time, but in four years they will own and run a huge oil field, with the people of the United Kingdom getting around 60 per cent of the proceeds, so much being allowed for the expense of operating, and about 25 per cent going to these Canadian companies.
Most Canadians have not even heard the names of these Canadian companies which have had to go to the North Sea and develop the resources of the North Sea, under a government over there that has some common sense and recognizes that the enemy of these companies and of the (Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).]
people is interest rates. There you have a socialist government taking this course in order to reduce inflation by getting at the real enemy of interest rates, not across the board in some God given solution that cures all the problems in one act, but case by case, either by contract or by special concession, as this was. I think this is the sort of thing that the Canadian government should be doing, instead of tying down the Minister of Finance in order to try to make an act work that will not work. Let him take a look at these various proposals that get to the basic cause that is forcing up prices today, cost-push. Government is cost-push, interest rates are cost-push.
My third example, which I have raised before and will do so again, is this: I wish that the government would go to labour at this point in our history, when they are so troubled about the implications of having a government take away their traditional freedoms they have fought for 200 years to win, the right of collective bargaining, and say to labour, "Will you sit down and talk to your opposite number in business; there has been fault on both sides; see if you can't get together and solve your problems". It is very clear to students of modern labour-management negotiations in the last 25 years that these negotiations have fallen into stultified, formal procedures that are costing the working man many dollars more than they should, hurting both the consumer and business.
In other words, too many of these negotiations end up in useless, wasteful strikes which hurt everybody. Now that labour is worried about losing its traditional right of collective bargaining, and now that business is worried about losing its freedoms to these controls, is it not time to sit down and take a look at each industry and see what can be done?
Let me give more tangible evidence of the truth of what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. If you took a look at nearly every industry in Canada and measured productivity over the last 25 or 30 years-and we have done so-measuring the amount of productivity coming both from capital investment and from labour, you would find there is a percentage formula all through the history of industry. If this traditional productivity formula were used instead of the strike technique, there would never need to be a strike because people would know ahead of time what their share was going to be. All you would need to do is negotiate occasionally in order to see that that percentage formula was commensurate with the amount that was put into the operation.
There are many examples of this. If the Minister of Finance wants to give the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) a chance to be in the light of the sun, to get off his seat and use the knowledge gained at the present time by management and labour in certain industries, let him see if he can bring in the type of legislation that provides that all future contracts be based on a no-strike understanding. We should never take away the right to strike, but rather base negotiations on productivity and on job security. This would mean portability of pensions and insurance, with labour controlling new jobs. There are also many other things done in isolated cases that are not done in labour-management negotiations across the country. In that event, Mr. Speaker, you would find that the most

March 22, 1976

enthusiastic supporters of this kind of new labour contract would be not only business but also labour itself.
Labour is fed up to the teeth with being marched up to the Parliament Buildings and marched up to the offices of management in confrontation. Workers are fed up to the teeth with professional people on both sides who bargain on their behalf, and who make money by keeping the fight going for as long as possible. The people of this country, whether working men, businessmen or general consumers, plead with the government to recognize the fact that the sterile techniques of negotiation today need to be changed radically. This change will be made not by legislation but through leadership which shows how to do it. I think I know something of what I am talking about, and I hope the whole country will know a good deal more of what I am talking about when certain things develop in the next two or three weeks.
The fourth cause of inflation has been the money supply. I do not want to quote percentages because I think they are well known, but the money supply in this country has been controlled as though there was no awareness whatsoever of the relationship between the money supply and goods produced. This year we are suffering under tight money. Just what does tight money mean today? It means the government is only going to increse the money supply this year by 15 per cent. That is called tight money!
What has to be brought to the government's attention is that history in the last 25 years indicates that the use of the money supply mechanism is not the final answer to the monetary and fiscal problems of governments. This is a factor, but a very minute one. The government or Bank of Canada should be given a formula and told to keep with it. That formula should be based on the real gross national product interest plus the velocity of the increase in goods and services. With that two-point formula they should be able to maintain the money supply in relation to the gross national product and in that way take the cost push part out of the equation.
Let me go to the fifth point which is land costs. More correctly this should be called the urban policy. One of the great factors pushing up costs today has been the rush of people from the rural areas, along with immigrants, to our big cities. There are many reasons for this. When your growth rate in the cities is greater than a certain percentage you get this sudden increase in costs which shows up most dramatically in the cost of land, in the cost of your transportation systems and so on.
We have been talking about this for 20 years and the country is still lacking an urban policy that is concerned with the geography and people, and is concerned with the relationship between housing, transportation, and recreation. These are the things about which we have been talking.
The Association of Mayors and Municipalities has been passing resolutions for years and years, but always the government has taken the stand that it cannot do anything about this. The government has always taken the stand in respect of such resolutions from the Association of Mayors and Municipalities that it can do nothing about them because the city is the creature of the province. Boy, what
Anti-Inflation Act
a creature the city of Toronto is; what a creature Vancouver is! And the populations of Calgary and Edmonton are greater than the rural population. These are some creatures, including Halifax in Nova Scotia, and Winnipeg in Manitoba. We should get away from this crazy notion that these huge cities are just babes in arms, creatures of the provinces, with all these rising costs affecting the economic level of the cost of living of all the people of Canada, otherwise we in the federal parliament are not doing our duty.
Our duty is related to the economic health of this nation, keeping people employed and getting maximum production and wealth, and seeing that there is an equal distribution of that wealth. We must come up with an urban policy and, believe me, there are lots of opportunities available to keep the minister in charge busy for some time finding out what it is all about, taking his mind off the refurnishing of his office and doing what he is supposed to be doing.
With all the legislation in place, including the Housing Act and CMHC, and with all the experience we have gained from many countries, land costs could be brought under control. In that way we could be of assistance to the municipalities instead of there being the hurdles that every provincial government, the federal government, and every individual have to face today in the attempt to develop in the big cities.
There is no evidence whatsoever in any of the literature I have read in the last few years to indicate that the Government of Canada has a clue as to how to use the fact that Canada now has a floating exchange rate. The government does not seem to realize that once you let your dollar float in relation to every other currency, instead of inflation being a world problem it becomes a domestic problem. You could not find a single economist on the whole face of this earth who would deny the truth of that statement.
Once you let your currency float in open relationship to other currencies then the power to control inflation comes right within the national power. How do you use this power? I have not heard one speech of all those speeches the minister has delivered, from one end of the country to the other and around the world, that even attempted to deal with this opportunity.
If you take a look at the inflation rate in Great Britain and the inflation rate in the United States and in Canada for a period of 30 years, you will find that it corresponds exactly to the rate they have deflated their currencies, and this is a very well documented point of view. I have not seen one single sign on the part of the advisers to the government, the Bank of Canada or any of the ministers to indicate that they are even aware that this tool to fight inflation is right in their hands.
I hope a budget debate comes along soon so that some of us can put forward some of the information that is available to any person who has the time to read it. The way the government operates it is too busy running around showing itself to everybody and being visible. It is too busy wondering what the press is thinking about it to have any time to read, and certainly to think. I would hope in the interest of the nation that the government would consider dedicating the time of at least one of its ministers to getting around to looking at the basic documents, and I am thinking of the 1964 report on finance by the Porter Royal

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Commission and the modern theories of the last two or three years known as the Mundell-Laffer policies.
I would suggest that these six types of cost push inflation are the things on which the government should spend some time. These are the real causes of inflation, and the government should direct its attention to these, forgetting its public relations and its posturing with Bill C-73 and the amendments in Bill C-89. If the government forgot this nonsense in its fight against inflation this country would be better off. Bill C-73 and this amending bill are inflationary, and the more you repress inflation the worse it is when you take off these controls.
I am going to suggest that the minister is on a slippery slope with this type of legislation. He should spend his time getting at the basic causes of inflation. He is getting into this deeper, and now he is getting into the very doubtful constitutional aspects of dealing with the provinces. He knows that the courts must eventually rule on the legislation. He knows that the axe is going to fall for that reason at any moment, and by "at any moment" when dealing with the courts I mean several months. Therefore he knows in his heart he should get out of this silly control mechanism and get into the fight against inflation by using his time usefully.
I hope that in the budget, that should be coming up sometime this year or next year, and with these sessions of two or three years you never know when the minister will take into account this principle, taking to heart that in the budget he should take advantage of the fact that Canadians are the most saving people in the world, and the fact that savings are the key to the fight to stop inflation. I hope he will take to heart the fact that savings will provide the capital we need; the capital that is the cause of so much consumer expenditure. Everything in that budget should be to encourage the little people, the middle sized and the rich to save. The budget should be designed to encourage companies to save so that this money can be put into these tremendous development projects we need.
Secondly, I hope in this budget the minister's taxes are related directly to rewarding people who save and give us greater productivity. If you reward productivity and savings, automatically you get at most of the causes of inflation. Then you can turn this country away from a restrictive type of posture into one which expands in a positive constructive way. In this way we can get this country away from the attitude of restriction.
I know the chief advisers to the government for many years have fully believed that the way to run this country is to have everything possible controlled by them. They believe in restriction like a socialist used to at one time. They will work every minute of the day to give you restrictive policies. What we have learned by now is that when you have a government taking 40 per cent out of the wealth of the nation you reduce the efforts of the nation by that amount. Suppose that government money that was taken out of the nation's wealth was taken through a budget program of taxation aimed at rewarding savings and productivity, then instead of the government part being a load on the economy we would be co-operating and

harmonizing with the economy and would get this country back to 100 per cent operation.
I have noticed in this last year or so that hardly anyone speaks any more about the fact that we have a 7 per cent unemployment rate. One of the ways to get extra wealth and to get at inflation is to get our people back to work. Give us the productivity so that we will have the savings in order to have the capital. This is a strong country. Let us get the country off the backs of the people and get it working with business and with the working man. This is the type of approach we should take.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance brings down his budget, let him get rid of those silly resource taxation proposals of the two Turner budgets of 1974. Get off the backs of our provinces. They have a right to live. Get off the backs of our resource companies. We will need them to develop our country. We do not want to drive them to the North Sea or to Indonesia. We have a great future in Canada if we could get the restrictive people in the Department of Finance off our backs. Make the budget a private enterprise budget. Make it one which rewards the person who saves and the person who produces. This country is strong and will be strong if we can get this government off our backs.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-89. For those in this House who do not understand, or indeed who do not want to understand why 15,000 to 20,000 working men and women in this nation would converge on Parliament Hill as they did today, let me tell them, as one who grew up in the labour movement in this nation, that these men and women have fears, and indeed justifiable fears, that this legislation spells the end of the collective bargaining system in this nation.
As one who can recall the time he had to work in a coal mine for one dollar a shift, in the great, halycon and glorious days of a Liberal administration under the late lamented-I do not say demented-Mackenzie King, I can say this was a disgrace. This was the situation until a fool by the name of Hitler came along and gave us all a job. In 1940 we had reached the great sum of $3 a shift. I have done some research and have found an envelope which shows I worked 4 3A shifts at $1 a shift for a total of $4.75. That was under a Liberal administration.
As one who worked in the mines in those days I knew that the only salvation for me and many like me was the unionization of the coal mines so that the miners could look forward to bargaining for fair play, fair pay, and fair working conditions. The collective bargaining system has been the cornerstone of security for the wage earner in this nation. This legislation, and the amendments we are debating at this time, do so much damage to the collective bargaining system as we have come to know it and rely upon it that, to all intents and purposes, it is destroyed.
The minute limits are introduced upon what a person or a union can bargain for is the very minute collective bargaining is replaced with compulsory arbitration. Of course it is easy for the government and others of like thinking to say this had to be done because otherwise these characters would go on strike. We have had many strikes. However, had there been leadership from the government
March 22, 1976

we probably would not have had as many strikes as we have had. Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that the leaders in the labour movement are angels or that all the unions do the right thing all the time. But they never make one tenth or one hundredth the number of mistakes the government has made since 1968 in the so-called just society which we have never seen, or in the judges' society, as someone said.
As a member from the maritimes I say this can only result in the destruction of any hopes workers might have had in my area that there would be a chance to catch up with workers in the more prosperous parts of our country. Not only is there the fear that this will be the case, but we have the hard evidence. It is indeed the fact, as has been shown by the Anti-Inflation Board in its reaction to the Irving settlement. Those employees will not get what their employer felt they had a right to receive, and which their union felt they had a right to receive. The board has served notice on other employers in the maritimes and in Canada that they better not try to provide increases over the proposed guidelines or they will face the additional financial losses that the Irving Company must now pay to the tune of $125,000.
Some time ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said his proposed legislation would be frightening. Man, was he ever right! As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said, to the extent that it is necessary to bring in more and more rules and government controls, where does it stop? During the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the empty barrel, the Liberal whip, kept saying that Muir agrees with him. I do not know what he speaks about half the time but I wish, Mr. Speaker, you would suggest that he might use what little brains he has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be a point of privilege. I would like to say to the hon. gentlemen who has been speaking that if my constituency received one third of what he has received in his over the last eight years I would not get up in the House and say anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I realize that this is intended to be a wide-ranging debate because of the very nature of inflation, but some of the exchanges which seem to have developed around the hon. member who has the floor do not seem to be quite within the spirit of even a wide-ranging debate. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Robert Muir: As usual, the point of order or question of privilege was as phony as the hon. member himself. There was no question of privilege there and no point of order.
If things are as bright as the hon. member says they are in my constituency in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and in the Atlantic provinces, why do we have at present unemployment in Cape Breton Island of 25 per cent to 30 per cent? Let him answer that.


Mr. Landers:: Answer it yourself.
Anti-Inflation Act


Robert Muir: The juvenile member for Saint John-Lancas-ter (Mr. Landers) will not be around here too long, so he can interject. He can make his maiden speech from his bottom also, but he better get to his own seat before he does it.
As I said, this legislation only serves to increase the degree of regional economic disparity we now face, but that is not something new, for in Cape Breton Island we are facing unemployment that is even more extreme, I suggest, and more chronic than was the fate of our people during the dirty thirties.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Keep on reading.


Robert Muir: At least I have notes and make some sense, which is more than the member does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: All this under the just society of the musing Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Remember that just society we heard so much about? We do not hear much about it any more. The new member in the back row opposite is trying to take part in this debate. We have not seen him around very much. The just society is not in existence any more and it has not been since 1968, but the number of those who join the army of the unemployed increases rather than decreases.
Whether you work or are unemployed, these days in Nova Scotia it has almost reached the point where you cannot afford the luxury of living in our area. The power bills with which people are faced today provide them with the prospect of seeing the often quoted phrase of last year "let them freeze in the dark" become a reality for the people of my constituency in Cape Breton and all of Nova Scotia. We have received neither support nor protection from this legislation which tells workers they can only expect wage increases of 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent, yet they see their power bills increase 50 per cent, 100 per cent or 150 per cent.
We do not even receive as much as a consoling word from the Grit appointees on the Anti-Inflation Board who must try to run protection for our globe trotting premier who is so seldom in Nova Scotia that he has little real appreciation of the plight of the people whom he is supposed to be protecting. The grim realities of life in Nova Scotia are that premier Gerald Regan and his government's policies, coupled with the decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board, are quickly putting into effect the philosophy and policies recommended by Walter Gordon in his infamous royal commission report that we buy one-way tickets for our people to other parts of Canada. This policy is being put into action more effectively than anything that has happened in the close to 19 years during which I have been here as a member of the House.
Instead of policies which give us hope, we get kicked in the teeth over and over again. For every step we manage to take forward we find that federal government legislation takes us two steps backward. Is it any wonder one sometimes reaches the almost inescapable conclusion that there is no one in Ottawa who gives a damn for our area and our people?

March 22, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
We have discovered that the cabinet minister from my province has reached the point in his career at which he is more interested in riding camels in Egypt than in the unemployed of Cape Breton. If there are any doubts about that fact, they were eliminated when he told a recent gathering of Grits in Halifax that they should pay little or no heed to my efforts and those of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) as we fight for a better deal for Cape Breton. Apparently they should rely upon him in his new globe trotting role as he tries to emulate the premier of Nova Scotia, who appeared to have about the same amount of concern, as he wandered through the Far East or the Middle East distributing largesse, grants, and long-term 50 year loans at a low rate of interest.
Perhaps if we separated from Confederation we could apply for foreign aid, and perhaps then our request would be heeded. If you look at the record of foreign aid in the form of grants and long-term 50 year loans at a very low rate of interest you find it is very easy for foreign countries to receive that type of assistance from our government.
The cynicism of Cape Bretoners is about the same as the cynicism of the 15,000 to 20,000 marchers on the Hill today who forfeited their pay cheque so that they could back the immediate, real, and continuing concern of the CLC over this legislation, a concern which has been consistent, responsible and constructive.
There is no protection in this legislation for the wage earners of this nation, either in Bill C-73 or in Bill C-89. In the short period that the act has been in effect it is already obvious that the only benefactor is the new army of public officials who will interfere to a far greater degree than at any other time in the past in the lives of the people of this nation. Yes, the just society is just for them, but the task they will perform is to place a far greater number of those who are now gainfully employed on the unemployment rolls of the nation. This is the last thing we need or can afford at this time, but that is what we have and will continue to have as this cancerous operation weaves its tentacles into every aspect of the life of this nation, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said.
I see this new society about which the Prime Minister spoke during his year end philosophizing, or musing as some termed it, and I do not want any part of it. My constituents want no part of it and, from what I can glean, the people of this nation want no part of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: This government has frozen the wages but not the prices, as has been noted by everyone in this country who has an ounce of brains.
The Prime Minister tells the Canadian people in so many words, "Why, you have been on a spending spree! You have been spending like a drunken sailor. You have to cut back, you have to show restraint". He blames it all on the Canadian people. The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates) outlined a few of the expenditures of the cabinet ministers and of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or his government shown any restraint since 1968? I say, no. I say to the Prime Minister and his government: heal thyself. I say to this govern-

ment-I think members in the House will recall that-that the blame also lies with their former cohort, John Turner, who went along with them for years, who went along with those crazy policies which got us in such a mess today. For God's sake, I say to this government, get cracking and get us out of this mess in a hurry, despite the feeble moans of the Liberal whip.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have only a few minutes left, and as a good brother, I agreed with my counterpart of the Progressive Conservative party to let another Conservative member speak immediately before me, but nevertheless, I will do my utmost to say what I have to say within the time at my disposal.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor at this stage of the debate on Bill C-89 which is now before us. This legislation contains some provisions which enable those who are affected by the application of the anti-inflation legislation, Bill C-73, to appeal to a non-partisan body. Bill C-73, which was put forward last fall and is now in the statute books had the effect of controlling wages for a period of three years or more. However, in spite of all our claims the present government has recognized the growth of companies, multinationals, interest rates, food prices, and increases in the communications, speculations and energy fields.
A question comes to my mind: What caused the inflation? If one looks at the statistics, one sees that from 1970 to 1974, labour income in Canada has risen from $46.7 to $75.9 billion, an increase of 62.6 per cent. As for the increase in aggregate profits, they have gone from $7.5 to $18.3 billion, that is an increase of 138 per cent. As far as interest rates are concerned, they have jumped from $3.4 to $7 million, an increase of 104.6 per cent.
In 1972, the average weekly wages of the Canadian worker were $108.13. Two years later, in 1974, they were down to $105.50, due to inflation. And in 1975, all workers who want to catch up with the cost of living increase are restrained by an unfair legislation, Bill C-73. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has not gained wide public support; it is at the expense of the working people and does not protect the working class. Should this government some day respect and protect the human being instead of capital and profits, there will no longer be any inflation. And at that moment, life will be better. There will be fewer drugs and murders, more frankness and co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, if this government changes its goals and applies its legislation in a fairer way for all the Canadian people, I am convinced that the situation will improve. And how will this be possible? By stimulating production. And to improve production, it is essential to produce more. And to produce more, it is essential to work harder.
There are several solutions to this problem, several capitalist solutions which are more or less valid, but for a Social Crediter like myself, there is only one solution.


An hon. Member:: Be specific!

March 22, 1976


Eudore Allard: Mr.Speaker, I would like a chance to speak. I think that I have a very civil attitude, and when my hon. friends are speaking, I let them do so without interruptions. I therefore ask them to be quiet and tactful and to let me speak.
I was saying that for the Social Credit Party, there is only one solution, and that is compensated discount. What does compensated discount mean? It means additional purchasing power. With this additional purchasing power, the consumer can meet a greater number of his needs, which means a greater demand for the producer and more work to meet this demand. This is quite logical!
In these days, production is not a problem. Here is the proof. In spite of an average unemployment rate of 10 per cent or more in the labour force, we produce so much that there are surpluses. The true problem is consumption, but unfortunately taxes, levies and commitments of all sorts reduce the purchasing power of consumers. And when less is consumed, surpluses accumulate, and this results in unemployment.
In 1974, 1975 and 1976, there have been complaints that unemployment will cost the state $4 or $5 billion. Why not have a more human and more realistic program while providing work for the unemployed and making them do profitable work, like building senior citizen or low income housing, helping farmers, building roads, since we know that we all need roads, protecting wildlife and cleaning our beaches. I come from the Gaspe Peninsula, where there are beautiful beaches. Unfortunately, the tides often leave behind them seaweeds and uprooted plants that naturally mar their beauty. Our unemployed, who are paid to do nothing, could easily be sent there where, doing useful and pleasant work, they would regain their dignity.
If the government really wants to fight inflation, it must take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that Canadian workers do not lose their taste for work, and keep their pride and dignity. You do not increase production and develop a country by paying men and women to twiddle their thumbs. The surest way of killing a human being, morally or physically, is to pay him to remain idle. Those then, Mr, Speaker, are ways of reducing unemployment and allowing the unemployed to build instead of destroy. If such an idea can be applied by good governments, I am convinced the result will be marvellous and for the betterment of all Canadians.
The government would be killing two birds with one stone: it would stave off inflation and gild Canadian patri-otis manew. That, Mr. Speaker, is the objective of the party I represent.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight because there is something seriously wrong with CBC farm programming, and especially with its radio farm news coverage. First the quantity of broadcasting hours has been diminishing gradually but steadily over the years. In Toronto at station CBL the reduction of air time has been 50 per cent in the last ten years. Second, the quality of broadcasting has suffered a similar fate. Coverage of major agricultural events has diminished or disappeared, replaced by quasi agricultural matters under the guise of farm broadcasting. Third, I believe there is a personnel problem. At one time not very long ago the CBC farm staff was absolutely outstanding. Because of a series of policy changes, according to my information, the CBC has lost some excellent people and the morale, among those remaining, is at an all time low.
Finally the CBC, in my opinion, because possibly of its emphasis on decentralization has ignored its national responsibility. I do not quarrel particularly with the need to develop regional broadcasting. What the corporation has overlooked is the value of a national farm perspective.
Many aspects of agriculture in the prairies, for example, have a direct effect on the farm producers of my area of Perth-Wilmot. May I quote the recent bulletin of the Canadian Broadcasting League which outlined the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's position in this regard:
The loss of a national thrust to agricultural programming is very unfortunate when there is such an urgent need for national understanding and federal-provincial co-operation to make national policies and programs effective.
On February 27, because of a steadily increasing number of complaints across Canada, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) what he was doing with respect to restoring CBC radio farm news broadcasting to a reasonable level, in terms of both quality and quantity. The minister in reply said in part:
I think it is deplorable that they-the CBC-are curtailing farm broadcasting especially in the Toronto area.
While I do not always agree with the Minister of Agriculture, I certainly am in complete accord with him on this issue. In my opinion the CBC has abrogated its responsibilities in terms of its obligation not only to farm listeners but to many thousands of city dwellers as well who are keenly interested in agricultural issues because of their importance in today's economy.
Therefore, also on February 27, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), to whom the CBC is responsible, if he favoured that corporation's policy, that is, the downgrading and gradual elimination of radio farm news, because the CBC regards such programs as "ghetto" broadcasting, according to some press reports. The Secretary of State in reply suggested I raise the matter with CBC officials when they bring their estimates before the appropriate standing committee and I certainly intend to do just that; however, as the Secretary of State knows full well, when we are studying such estimates in committee we do not have the time to examine, in sufficient detail, CBC broadcasting policies. We are lucky if we have any more

March 22, 1976
Adjournment Debate
than two or three hours to study CBC proposed expenditures of almost $416 million.
I suggest tonight to the Secretary of State a course of action which I hope will be acceptable to him, his cabinet colleagues and to all hon. members. I suggest a course of action that has good precedent. The Secretary of State will remember that some two or three years ago the CBC reduced or eliminated broadcasting its Gaelic programs in certain parts of the maritimes. That matter, at the instigation of a member of the opposition, was referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts where, in an atmosphere of concern, diligence and non-partisanship, it was resolved. That was a good precedent and one that, in my opinion, is applicable to the situation with regard to farm news broadcasting.
The situation is obviously of concern to the Minister of Agriculture who calls it deplorable. The situation is obviously of concern to the Secretary of State who, on February 27, told me that the government's concern has been communicated to the CBC. Such being the case, I urge that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I am prepared to instigate this if I can detect some willingness on the government's part to agree that the whole matter of CBC farm broadcasting be aired thoroughly in committee.
I believe that this, first, would be responsive to the concern and complaints expressed by many radio listeners in various parts of Canada. Second, I believe committee hearings would be a responsible course of action. I can put it no better than the editorial in a recent edition of "Farm and Country" which said in part:
The issue really goes deeper than actual farm programming. Basically, it is one of who really determines policies that are in the best interests of the general public. Certainly, Secretary of State Hugh Faulkner, who has the CBC under his wing, must intervene, as must Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan. Also we urge all our M.P.s in Ottawa to take up the cudgel in defence of good CBC farm and consumer coverage.
I, for one, and I am sure there are many other hon. members, am willing to accept this challenge because I believe it is important and I believe that it is urgent.
The Minister of Agriculture seems to believe that privately owned radio stations should replace the CBC in farm broadcasting. He said on February 27:
So, if the private sector can do this, and maybe better than the CBC, more power to them.
That possibly is true, and the broadcasting committee should hear evidence and witnesses in this regard from both the CBC and private stations. Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me these few minutes to draw to the attention of my colleagues in the House this problem which is a national and a serious one, but, more important, one with which we are capable of coming to grips. I look forward with optimism to the Secretary of State's reaction to my proposal.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the CBC that no such cutback in CBC material directed to rural listeners has occurred. In some instances the actual time of presentation of the agricultural material within the noon hour period has been adjusted to reflect the listening habits within that region, but in all cases CBC maintains

the same service to rural listeners in the early morning, throughout the noon hour period, and in many instances with late market reports in the late afternoon.
In addition, within the past 18 months CBC radio news has appointed its first agricultural specialist, Mr. Glenn Powell, and this appointment has resulted in increased agricultural coverage in mainstream programming during those periods of the day when CBC Radio enjoys its highest audiences, for example, "The Worlds at Eight and Six", "Sunday Magazine," and so on.
The CBC through its management has been engaged recently in meetings with such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, with a view to assessing and improving its service to rural listeners.
There is in every region a report and analyses on agricultural matters following the 6:30 news in the morning. I can speak personally of one radio station in my area. On Monday morning when I am on the road back here I listen to one of the agricultural representatives who does a very good job. There is definite market and other specific information for farmers between 12 noon and one o'clock, and frequently between one and two p.m. more extended coverage of agricultural concerns either through reports or phone-in programs, or both.
An attempt is also made to link agricultural and consumer information in order to give urban listeners a better understanding of the food cycle.
In addition, as has already been mentioned, CBC radio provides late afternoon market reports before "The World at Six". Because of the changes in radio broadcasting patterns generally over the past ten years, agricultural material tends to occur in many parts of the schedule where it did not appear a decade ago, for example "As It Happens" and other national programs.
However, as this extension into other program areas has occurred, CBC has always retained the essential agricultural information which we know that our rural listeners require in the noon hour period. One example of this extension has been the development of two syndication services. One of these contains general daily agricultural items for broadcast on all stations and the other is produced from Ottawa by the national agricultural representative, Mr. George Price, and is tailored specifically to the needs and interests of rural listeners in all points of the country.
I remind the House that the main estimates will soon be before the committee until the end of May. As the hon. member mentioned, perhaps during that time he can discuss further his questions with representatives of the CBC.


HEALTH-REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF PILOT PROJECT FOR SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, it grieves me that we in parliament seem to have lost all perspective of our responsibility to Canadians. One most grievous area of concern prompts my appearance here tonight to debate my question addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on March 2 with regard to the plight of hundreds of thousands
March 22, 1976

of Canadian children who are undernourished. More important, the government could take great strides to correct this deplorable situation with a little common sense, human compassion, and understanding for the youth of our country who are victims of poverty through no fault of their own.
My question that day was prompted by an announcement by the Canadian Dairy Commission that there were 400 million pounds of surplus milk products and that they were in a dilemma with regard to finding methods of disposing of it, either offering it to communist countries for less than 14 cents a pound after paying producers 64 cents a pound or, alternatively, selling the surplus as animal food.
I have to wonder, and indeed it is impossible for me to realize, that the government is worried how to dispose of the surplus when to use just one example, the answer is right in front of its eyes. I refer to the National Council of Welfare report on children in poverty, which gives figures indicating that 1.6 million Canadian children are living in poverty. The simple answer is, as I have said on several occasions, to introduce a national school food program, already the subject of study by various provinces.
I feel very strongly about the alarming and frightening facts brought out in the report entitled "Poor Kids." This report should be read by every member of parliament. More, it should be read by all those in our bureaucracy who spend so many millions on such programs as Sports Canada or Recreation Canada. They seem to think the road to success is to produce champions who win gold medals, by directing all efforts to the few who, thank God, happen to have the basic attributes to be developed to that stage where they can compete.
I ask the question: what do we do with those one and a half million of our children who don't have the basic start in life to be able to participate in sports because they happen to be poor? I should like to refer to only one paragraph of that report to emphasize that they either don't know, or don't care to realize that the answer to ensuring a physically fit Canada is not to produce a few champions but to ensure the physical development of all Canadians. The championships and the gold medals will then take care of themselves.
I wish to quote from a paragraph in the report as follows:
School is where the child of the poor ... who is restless ... cannot concentrate ... is cranky and sleepy ... is seen as a case for the psychologist ... when what he needs is a real breakfast or lunch ... and not an analyst's designation as a problem child.
The reason he falls within this category is because he is not getting the fundamental, basic nutrition, either because his parents are too poor to provide the proper food or are unaware of what a child needs to eat to build up his or her young body and mind properly.
Commenting on representation with respect to a school food program, the minister advised me that pilot projects were taking place in two of the eastern provinces. I found that one project in Prince Edward Island is operating on a research study grant financed by the federal government and is being undertaken by the University of Prince Edward Island, with three schools involved, as are many of
Adjournment Debate
the other provinces in Canada. Many individual schools are exploring the best methods of initiating school lunch programs. But I say to the minister that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the lead in implementing a national school food program for one fundamental reason-to ensure the proper physical development of children who are the victims of poverty or lack of parental guidance and concern.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I became very disturbed when I received in my office a fancy folder entitled "The Fit Kit", which is designed to show adult Canadians how to keep fit, and I say to the minister that we need a Kit on Youth Canada or Nutrition Canada. I also say that in order to have a strong Canada we must concentrate more effort on our youth, even to the point of establishing a ministry of youth.
The frightening and embarrassing situation which exposed the 400 million pounds of milk product surplus had its day in court on March 2 and, unfortunately, was not the sexiest of topics with which we in parliament are concerned. But I have to say that it is a blemish on government and even on this parliament that such a topic is passed over so lightly by each and every one of us here. I conclude by making this plea: In view of the government's responsibility to all Canadians, whether they be rich or poor, and in view of the disturbing number of under-nourished children in Canada and the consequence this will have on the quality of future Canadians, the government should provide emergency assistance, making use of the known surplus of milk products, and create immediately a food distribution program in all Canadian schools to raise the nutritional level of Canada's poor children and ensure thereby the discharge of our responsibility to Canada's future.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned let me assure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that this is not a subject that the government regards lightly. There is no moral defence to the wasting of enormous quantities of surplus skim milk powder or its apparent spoilage, not only because the world is full of malnourished people but because in our own country, as the hon. member has noted, there are far too many of our own children suffering from inadequate and improper nutrition.
I want to explain to the hon. member that the surplus milk we are talking about is not a permanent stock. It is not a surplus that will endure and upon which a sensible long-term or even short-term program can be built. It is a temporary surplus. It is a surplus that should never really have come into existence and which will not exist in the future.
The Government of Canada is very concerned about the nutrition of our children. At present various initiatives are under way. For example, guidelines for school lunch programs, developed in collaboration with provincial health officials, are nearing completion and will be available for distribution this coming summer. In addition, in collaboration with the government of Alberta, an evaluation is being conducted of a school lunch program for native children, and this evaluation is in its third year. Also a

March 22, 1976
Adjournment Debate
national health grant of $90,000 has been awarded to the University of Prince Edward Island to evaluate the effectiveness of a school lunch and nutrition education program. We are looking into ways of supplementing the nutrition of Canadian children.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the skim milk powder to which he is referring is not free. It is not even the property of the Government of Canada, but the property of the producers. If we were to decide to take that property from them and allocate it to some national program, this has to be done on the basis of its value. It has to be bought. When one considers buying it, one has to ask: is skim milk powder the right thing to buy in order to meet the nutritional needs of the young children of Canada?
Skim milk powder is not an attractive food. Its nutritional value is undoubted, but as we can see from the market it is not something that is in great demand. When one is considering having a reserve and allocating it to this program, one has to think of other alternatives. What else can we use? In what other ways might we best proceed to deal with this problem?
I simply note in closing that on this important question we must rely very heavily under our constitution on the jurisdiction of the provinces. We are in the process of developing a new social services act, but this act will not change the fundamental constitutional responsibility of the provinces to determine the type of programs and the type of social services that are to be purchased within the provinces for people. We are bound by their decisions.


TRANSPORT-PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SUBSIDY ON EXPORT FLOUR-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), gracing the chair this evening. If I were not caught within the seven minute limit I would recall at some length my satisfaction and pleasure at this event and our association as "old boy speakers" of the twenty-ninth parliament of Canada.
Now, sir, in a few weeks time we are likely to be told that Russia is seriously reconsidering a deal under which, in normal circumstances, that country would purchase 375,000 tons of Canadian flour this year. How should such a situation that I forecast come about? The answer is that recently the government announced that its subsidy on the movement of flour and grain for export through eastern ports, that is, Montreal, Saint John, and Halifax, would be abolished. Presumably this also would mean that the holddown on floor rates which has existed since September 30, 1966, would also be abolished.
This policy change has come without warning to the flour milling industry of Canada, and I owe most of my speech to the research of the Canadian National Millers Association and its brief, as presented by Mr. J. F. Blakney, its chairman, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and other ministers of the government.
This is a serious situation, Sir, and the significance of the decision is that it means that perhaps we will see a rail rate increase of from $17.64 to $22.05 per metric ton on flour

exports. When Canadian millers went to argue with those hard nosed and hard headed Russian importers they were told very flatly that if they came along with an increase in the cost of Canadian flour, because of Canadian freight rate changes, they were going to be in for great difficulties indeed.
How serious is this matter? In 1954, 21 years ago, Canadian millers were exporting over 20 million one hundred weight of flour annually, about 31 per cent of the world trade. Twenty years or so later that figure dropped to about 8.5 million hundred weight, or 11 per cent of the world flour trade. That is a substantial decline indeed.
I should like to recall briefly the circumstances under which this help to the export flour trade originally came about. It was established first in 1961 by the Diefenbaker government, but it was continued by the Pearson government, for four principal reasons; to encourage the continued use of eastern ports, to help keep Canadian flour companies competitive in world markets, to promote and assist in the development and expansion of Canada's grain industry, and to benefit the Canadian economy by providing mill, transportation and port employment as well as helping Canada's balance of trade position.
Let me quote from the brief given to the minister as follows:
The implications of the cessation of the subsidy are clear. Perhaps we can demonstrate with one example. The present compensatory rate for flour exports from a bay port mill to Halifax is $1,109 per 100 lbs. Of this amount the milling industry pays $.3975 and the federal government through the payment of assistance to the railways $.7115. The projected rail rate for 1976 (the railways estimate) is $1,242 per 100 lbs.
This will mean a net cost increase of $.8445 per 100 lbs. For Canadian mil'ers; in other words, a 212 per cent increase in rail rate costs which will be added to the cost of export flour.
What will be the practical results? I have noted some of these, and I am sure there will be more, totalling over $100 million. First, Canada will lose out in competition with the United States and the European economic community because they do have subsidies, which no longer will be our case. We are likely, as a practical example, to see that contract with Russia go down the drain.
Secondly, the elimination of the subsidy could mean the loss of $28 million in what economists call "added value processing activities," most of this occurring in depressed areas of our country, which perforce would become even more depressed. Thirdly, there is the effect on the railways, pilotage and dock labour, and the like. The figures there are in the tens of millions of dollars.
Fourth, there would be more plant closures in the milling industry which worked at 76.8 per cent capacity in 1975, as well as more layoffs of the 3,000 personnel directly engaged in that industry.
Fifth, because a number of mills would be operated at less than capacity turning out our domestic flour one can only assume that flour would have to go up in price.
Finally, Sir, in my own area the devastating effect on morale at the Atlantic ports is something about which I occasionally have nightmares. I find it very difficult to put it into language, but I know that for many longshoremen and other labour people on the dockside in Halifax, and I am sure also in Saint John and probably in Montreal, the devastating effect is just beginning to make itself felt.
March 22, 1976


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the removal of the subsidy on export flour is of course related to the repeal of Section 272 of the Railway Act, Atlantic and East rates. The minister, in referring to the depressed nature of the world trade in flour, has noted that this has occurred in spite of the subsidies and is in fact totally unrelated to them. Since the trend is toward national self-sufficiency in
Adjournment Debate
milling capacity throughout the world, the prospects for expansion of existing export levels or their retention in the medium term do not appear favourable. The minister had none the less carefully considered representations made to him by the Canadian National Millers' Association but does not feel that a case has been made for the continuation of the subsidy.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


END OF VOLUME XI