1976-04-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the Anti-Inflation Board roll-back of a settlement reached between United Steelworkers local 6166 and International Nickel Company of Canada which concerns a work force of
3,000	employees in Thompson, Manitoba. In view of the fact that there is a clear historic relationship between the Manitoba Division of INCO Limited and its employees and settlements between INCO Limited and its employees in Sudbury, Port Colborne and Shebandowan, Ontario, which settlements were reached prior to the implementation of AIB regulations and which historically always precede Manitoba negotiations by six months; and in view of the fact that an AIB imposed settlement in Thompson significantly lower than in the Ontario operations will result in a critical shortage of employees in Thompson, and in view of the fact that maintenance of operations in Thompson is vital to the continued existence of the city of Thompson because the INCO payroll is 80 per cent of the total payroll in that city, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to table forthwith a telegram from three thousand citizens of Northern Manitoba protesting the roll back and the Government's misleading statements in this matter, and that the Prime Minister and Cabinet immediately consider the destructive consequences of the roll back to the city of Thompson, other northern communities, and the mining industry of Canada and take appropriate steps to alleviate the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion proposed by the hon. member can only be put forward with the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the standing committee on external affairs and national defence filed a report on international development on Wednesday, April 14, and in view of the fact that this report calls attention to the urgent importance of the forthcoming meeting in Nairobi of UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be representing Canada at the conference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche):
That this House request the Secretary of State to give to the House an outline of the constructive proposals to be made by Canada with a view to ensuring the success of the UNCTAD IV conference which is allimportant to the relations between Canada and the developing world.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter.
Since last spring the manufacturers of chemical fertilizers were not in a position to provide normal supplies to farmers; since chemical fertilizers were so expensive in 1975 that a great many farmers were unable to buy some to meet their needs; and since there were price fluctuations, even taking into consideration the location of supplies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House take all the necessary steps in the shortest possible time to establish a special committee to undertake an immediate study on the availability and prices of chemical fertilizers and thus exercise a control on the prices of chemical fertilizers to prevent farmers from being exploited at that level and to guarantee a sufficient supply of fertilizers to meet the demand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be moved without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 27, 1976
Abortion


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On Tuesday, December 23, 1975, the Prime Minister in a television conversation with Bruce Phillips and Carole Taylor said, and I quote;
In the first half of this year, for instance, the public sector salaries have grown by something like 22 per cent as against 14 per cent in the private sector because in the private sector there is a limit that's called bankruptcy. In the public sector there's not, so we obviously have to change that.
The change introduced by the Prime Minister is called the Anti-Inflation Board. The Financial Times-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Motions pursuant to Standing Order 43.


ABORTION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the latest report of the ARCAL referral clinic of Ottawa that out of 859 women referred for abortion after counselling only 50 were able to obtain a therapeutic abortion in Canada, the remainder being performed in the United States, and in view of the lack of debate in this House on this important national issue, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House request the filing of the Badgley Committee report within two weeks, and further that the House leaders set aside a reasonable period of time for debate on this important national issue to commence no later than one month from this date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who I assume will be reporting on the questions I asked yesterday whenever he is ready. Today I would ask him, or perhaps his colleague the Minister of Supply and Services, whether he can assure the House that to his knowledge there were no improprieties or irregularities surrounding the tendering for, and letting of, some of the contracts for the installation of a sound reinforcing system at Mirabel airport.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member generally that I know of no irregularities with regard to the tendering system. If he is going to stand up every day and ask about irregularities on some other contract-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -then in that case he may be seen by his colleagues opposite to be doing a service, but I do not think that he will be seen by the country or by anybody else to be doing a service.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am only trying to be helpful to the minister; he certainly needs help. Can I then ask the minister whether he will inquire into the circumstances surrounding this particular contract with a view to explaining how it is that the single and only bidder whose tender was found in the tender box when it was opened was not the bidder who won the contract?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is rather intriguing that the hon. member chooses to make these sorts of allegations and insinuations without-


Mr. Fairweather:: Let us have an official inquiry, then.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Cleanliness is next to Godliness.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member does so, even though he attaches so little importance to the matter that he does not even give me an hour's notice about the situation so that I can return with the answer. I recognize that hon. members opposite, who are only interested in making a point and getting a headline on the basis of a question, will not be interested in an answer and therefore do not want any notice to be given. For instance, having given me notice of a certain matter yesterday, which was rather a puff of nothing, he now goes to another issue rather than returning to yesterday's issue.
April 27, 1976


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It may be a puff of nothing, Mr. Speaker, or it may be a puff of something. May I direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the right hon. gentleman indicated that if there were a system or pattern of irregularities, he might consider a judicial inquiry in order to clarify matters. In order to ascertain whether the Prime Minister is establishing new political jurisprudence in which he may be saying more than one incident is required for an inquiry, will he inform us if he has formulated guidelines as to the number and types of events which are conditions precedent to an inquiry, or will he be having his own parliamentary pre-enquete?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is up to parliament to decide whether it wants a pre-enquete.


An hon. Member:: We want one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the one hand when I say parliament should decide the other side seems to object, and when I say that I should decide, they say it is up to parliament to decide. I suggest they should make up their minds, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We want you to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have just had a week's holiday; don't get testy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the astonishment expressed by the Minister of Transport, that having asked a series of questions yesterday, which the House obviously thought important and which the Minister of Transport has looked into, the opposition is no longer interested in having the answers but just wants to ask questions. I suggest that if they want to ask questions, in order to ascertain truths and get answers, they should ask the questions and not move on from one thing to another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. I wonder whether the minister would inform the House who authorized the visit of the RCMP to the offices of Jean Rivard, journalist for Tele-Media, on April 15, 1976? Did the interrogation originate as an internal initiative of the
Oral Questions
RCMP or was it inspired by requests from political sources?


An hon. Member:: You are insulting the RCMP now.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not authorized by anybody in a political position, but I will be pleased to find out which officer authorized the visit.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate to the House whether there is any direct or indirect relationship between the visit to Mr. Rivard and conversations held between the Prime Minister and RCMP Commissioner Nadon just two days previous?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no information that there is any such connection, and I would be interested if the hon. member has any.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you check it with the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be allowed to answer that. There was no question of Mr. Jean Rivard in any discussion I had with the Commissioner of the RCMP, and I am astonished that the hon. member is insinuating to the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We are not insinuating, we are asking questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister and I do not at all share the criticism levelled at the hon. member for Central Nova for doing exactly what a good MP should be doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question that does have reference to an answer given yesterday, and that is the question I asked about the role the Treasury Board may or may not have played in the decision reached to extend the franchise of Sky Shops. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated he hoped to have an answer to that question later on in the day. Therefore, I should like to put it to him, has he found out whether the Treasury Board was consulted with respect to the extension of the franchise to Sky Shops and, if so, will he tell the House what Treasury Board's advice was on the matter? If Treasury Board was not consulted, why was it not consulted?

April 27, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this answer was given to the House several weeks ago by the Minister of Transport when he answered in a rather detailed way about the renewal of the Sky Shops lease. He indicated then, and perhaps he could give the exact reference as I do not have it before me, that the Sky Shops lease, which originated with the Diefenbaker government, was renewed under our government at very substantially improved conditions to the benefit of the government. He indicated that was done in a routine way without any political intervention whatsoever. It was done in a routine way by officials. I would suggest that the House should return to the answer of the hon. Minister of Transport, reflect on it and give it some publicity, rather than pretending he had not given that answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON FOR ORDER IN COUNCIL EXTENDING SKY SHOPS LEASE
John Edward Broadbent: Before you clap too loudly, wait until you hear this one. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has just said the decision was made by officials, would he mind telling the House why the cabinet passed an Order in Council dated August 24, 1972, just prior to the election of that year, which extended the franchise of Sky Shops at Dorval by another five years when the normal process would have been to call for a re-submission of tenders, a procedure which, in fact, had been stated to be the case by the then deputy minister Mr. O. C. Stoner and which was overturned by the cabinet by order in council.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these are allegations which I cannot-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you clap?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely, the House must understand that I cannot vouch for the exactitude of every fact of every decision which is quoted by the opposition which they presumably think is accurate. In this particular case, if there was an Order in Council I will look it up. I will look at the minute of cabinet, see what happened and report to the House, assuming the opposition is interested tomorrow in getting the answers rather than just putting questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I went back to the Prime Minister today following up on a question I asked him yesterday, so I resent that pettiness. On the question of whether or not there was an Order in Council, 1 could tell the Prime Minister that I checked myself with the Privy Council office this morning. So I repeat, Mr. Speaker; will the Prime Minister check because he will find out from the Privy Council office that there was an Order in Council passed on August 24, 1972 which extended the franchise and will he undertake to make a report back to the House tomorrow concerning the reason the cabinet reached that particular decision?


Otto Emil Lang: I will, Mr. Speaker, also let the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby have the reference to the previous discussion some months ago concerning the nature of the extension of this particular lease involving the Sky Shops concession. It is in Hansard. It is all on the record. The actual decision to recommend the extension of the lease was made on the basis of a much increased revenue in the remaining three years which the lease still had to run, and was the basis for its renewal. I will give the hon. member the detailed information on that. That was in the nature of a decision, and recommendation which in due course in the ordinary way had to go forward to the Treasury Board for confirmation. That is the order of confirmation to which the hon. member referred. It is a routine one in relation to the awarding of a contract of this nature, in this case a five-year lease.
I would advise the hon. member that he might go back and look at it. In the original contract which still had three years left to run a rather lower revenue was specified and a very much higher revenue, particularly on liquor sales, was specified for the remaining three years of the lease as well as for the renewal and the five-year period. We will, from time to time, have renewals in a variety of circumstances. If the hon. member will look back at this one he will see as well that it had to do with the fact that this was an area and an airport where a great deal of change was going to occur at the end of the period because of the transfer of the international traffic from Dorval to Mirabel, and of course a duty-free shop is essentially related to international traffic.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS IN QUEBEC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
According to the Quebec government's latest estimates concerning the recent floods throughout the province, the damage has been assessed to roughly $34 million. Has the Minister of Finance been contacted by the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources or of Finance and has he received a request pursuant to the federal act providing for assistance in case of natural disasters, amounting to $1 per capita in the province whenever the damages exceed, let us say, $6,500,000?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, there exists indeed a federal program to cover part of the expenses due to such flooding. I did not, personally, receive a telephone call from my Quebec counterpart but I can inquire and report to the hon. member.
April 27, 1976


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that if the Anti-Inflation Board ruling regarding steelworkers in Thompson, Manitoba is allowed to stand, the continued viable existence of the city of Thompson is in jeopardy, because if INCO cannot get workers they will seriously cut back operations which slashes the pay roll upon which the city depends, and in view of the fact that this specific situation will be repeated in other northern communities as wage settlements are negotiated later this year, what assurance is the minister prepared to give labour in Canada that the Thompson situation will be corrected, and further, that it will not be allowed to be repeated in other Canadian communities?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I believe that after full representations the Anti-Inflation Board took all these considerations into account when they made their final award, and I trust they will do so in the future.


John Allen Fraser: I would point out through you, Mr. Speaker, that the payroll of INCO is over 80 per cent of the total payroll of that town and that the town will die if this ruling is allowed to stand. I should like to ask the minister the following question. On October 20 last the Minister of Labour advised Mr. Wilf Hudson of the steelworkers in Thompson to continue bargaining as usual. The answer which the minister gave was in reference to the concern as to whether the historical relationship between Sudbury and Thompson would be maintained. In view of the situation today in Thompson where normal bargaining did not result in maintaining historical relationships-contrary to the advice of the minister-how will the minister restore the confidence of labour in the restraint program when the Thompson case illustrates how the minister himself has failed to understand the implications of his government's policy on the collective bargaining process?


John Carr Munro: Certainly, I do not agree with what the hon. member has stated and I would like to know the source of his information. I think that any reference I made-and I stand to be corrected here-was relative to the INCO and Falconbridge situation in the north. I am also aware-and the hon. member might be interested in this-that the United Steelworkers of America were down here to make representations last week to the Anti-Inflation Board with reference to Elliot Lake and the situation developing there, and following that with reference to Thompson. I am not fully aware of the precise reaction of the Anti-Inflation Board to the representations made by the United Steelworkers in support of a request for a review of the situation, but I will try to find out and let the hon. member know.


John Allen Fraser: I should like to advise the minister that there is a telegram signed by 3,000 people living in the north with respect to this situation which was delivered to the office of the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday or the
Oral Questions
day before and I ask the minister to look at that. It is not just Thompson; it is Snow Lake, Flin Flon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ALLEGED STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE CONCERNING PARITY BETWEEN INCO WORKERS IN THOMPSON AND SUDBURY
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On the program "Cross Country Check-Up", several months ago the minister was asked whether the INCO steelworkers in Thompson would be allowed the same increase in wages and benefits that the INCO steelworkers received in Sudbury. The minister said they should receive the same but no more. Can he tell the House why he made this statement in light of the fact that the AIB ruling is in direct contradiction to the assurance the minister gave?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: would want to check to see whether the hon. gentleman's quotation is accurate. I have always pointed out that it is for the Anti-Inflation Board to make this decision, as recommended by parliament.


Cecil Morris Smith: Can the minister give the House and the people of Thompson an assurance that he will immediately raise this matter in cabinet and press for an appropriate solution?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Parliament has created the Anti-Inflation Board for the purpose of dealing with this particular question. Indeed, the hon. member probably voted for it at second reading, and I think we should obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: What about the town? What are you going to do?


Mr. Stanfield:: It couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow than you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You voted for it, too. You advocated it and voted for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. It seems that the government, and specifically the Department of Public Works, has incurred the wrath of the architects of our country as a result of the provisions which have been set out for taking part in the competition for design of the new national gallery. Would the minister consider calling
21804-SS

Oral Questions
for a new competition for this design, which would allow more individual architects to submit plans?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out to the hon. member that so far as the architects are concerned there have been some expressions of contrary view, and that the competition was organized along lines in agreement with the representative associations for the architects of Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last April 7 Dr. Stephen, a senior official of the Canadian Wildlife Service, in giving evidence before the Berger Commission admitted that certain prosecutions had not been commenced because they might have a political impact. On being challenged on that Dr. Stephen made this statement: "I consider it my job to put a halo and wings on my minister." While I will refrain from comment on the very impossible job that civil servant has, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if instructions were in fact given to this and other civil servants in the minister's department to report first to the minister before engaging in prosecutions of oil companies, which might have a political impact.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is definitely no.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the statement which obviously was made before the commission of inquiry, and which has the effect of sworn evidence, will the minister make an inquiry into the question of these prosecutions and why it was admitted that certain prosecutions for shooting were brought against ordinary individuals, but prosecutions against oil companies were not launched as they should have been? Would the minister inquire into that and report back to this House?


Jean Marchand: I asked my deputy minister to make a full inquiry and make a report to me, and after that I will see if I can give some information.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that over a year has passed since the RCMP launched an investigation into the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, and in view of the fact that the minister's seat-mate and another ministry have spent over $1 million of taxpayers money in this organization, which is now defunct and bankrupt, is the minister now in a position to

advise us whether he has received a full report and whether the investigation of the RCMP is now complete.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP complete investigations, they present their reports to the Crown prosecutors in the different provinces, but I could get a report from them on what progress has been made in this investigation and report.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I appreciate the answer of the minister, but in view of the fact that the matter has been brought to the floor of this House, and in view of the fact that numerous questions have been asked, would the minister not consider it routine to advise the House as to whether the RCMP had completed their investigation?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member had given me notice of his question, I would have been pleased to give him an answer today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Thousands of police investigations are going on across the country, and I do not have reports on all of them for the House at all times.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since Canada had to close its offices in Beirut following the political turmoil in Lebanon and since many Lebanese whose second language and culture are akin to and shared by many Canadians of French expression intend to migrate to Canada and since it is important to ensure a better linguistic balance among immigrants in Canada, would the minister tell the House whether he is prepared to consider the applications from Lebanese citizens who request a visa to immigrate to Canada as political refugees and thus facilitate their settlement in Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving high priority to processing Lebanese, particularly those Lebanese who are related to Canadians or to landed immigrants in Canada.
Incidentally, our immigration officer in charge travelled to Beirut on April 22 to begin the administrative processing of some 200 files which were pending. However, in the sense of the UN definition of the word, these people are not refugees in that they are not fleeing persecution on political grounds, although there is no argument that they are in a very disturbing and unstable situation, which we hope is temporary. We will give sympathetic consideration in the sense of not asking Lebanese people here in Canada who are not related to Canadians, to return while this disturbance continues. We are giving high priority to processing those who have been nominated or sponsored.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR CABINET CONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF BOARD ON WAGE SETTLEMENT OF INCO WORKERS AT THOMPSON
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question relates to the subject already raised by the hon. member for Churchill and the hon. member for Vancouver South, but there is one further direct question I should like to put to the minister.
In view of the seriousness of the situation at Thompson, Manitoba, where a ruling by the Anti-Inflation Board seems to ignore completely a historical relationship, and in view of the fact that it will be perhaps some days before the new appeal procedures will be in place, will the cabinet consider this case, review it and make it clear to the Anti-Inflation Board that a change ought to be made in favour of the INCO workers at Thompson?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly there will be a great many cases to be considered by the Anti-Inflation Board under this program, and where the board is going to have the full opportunity to review the facts in these cases through its representatives and to be in contact with the parties, I do not think it is appropriate for the cabinet to try to set its judgment over and above that of the board in the vast majority of these cases.
With regard to the appeals procedure, I hope I might engage the support of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues for an early passage of Bill C-89 so that we can indeed have the appeals procedure in effect, which would be available for this union as for others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister then saying on behalf of the cabinet that it will not review this case? Is it saying no to the delegation from Thompson before it even gets here?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand that the delegation from Thompson is coming down to meet the representatives of the Anti-Inflation Board.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. It is very important today. As Bill C-83 was rammed through parliament by closure and now the committee will have five hearings a week on it, would the minister assure the House that the debate on Bill C-84 will not go on while the committee is studying Bill C-83? Many of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs are interested in the debate on Bill C-84. Can the minister assure the House that that debate will not proceed until the committee has considered Bill C-83?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is necessary that we proceed with Bill C-84 some time soon, although we will take the recommendation of the hon. member into consideration so there will be as little conflict as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because the two debates will go on at the same time in different places, one in the committee and one in this House, is the Solicitor General saying that there is no relationship between what might happen to the bill in committee, Bill C-83, and the debate which will take place at second reading of Bill C-84? Is that the position of the Solicitor General?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. There was an admission last week by a member of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it is required to operate from lists of notaries and lawyers supplied by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Transport, the former minister of justice, confirmed this fact and described it as political patronage. I should like to ask the minister if he is now prepared to revise this procedure in order to give Canadians who find this procedure repugnant, the opportunity to choose their own solicitors when they are looking for mortgages from CMHC?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to welcome the hon. gentleman as official critic in this area; I know we are in for some interesting and lively times. With reference to the listing of solicitors, all institutions of course must provide a list of solicitors who are qualified and who they would choose. I would be most interested in finding a system that is more satisfactory and fair. Indeed, I just came from a meeting with directors of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and posed this problem to them for their consideration so that their interest can be observed by all. As long as people are competent and fulfil their role well, that is our main consideration. I might add that in most instances of public housing and non-profit housing where the organizations themselves provide their own solicitors who have been acting on their behalf, we generally accept the recommendation providing he is a member of the bar in good standing.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he is prepared to give consideration to revising the procedure to make provision for patrons of CMHC who would want and demand the right to use their own solicitor? Since they have to pay for the convenience anyway, is he prepared to allow for that procedure?
2 1804-5514
April 27, 1976

Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is common practice that the lender must choose his lawyer. The borrower can also name a solicitor of his choice but the taxpayers' interest must be served and I think that is the case.


IMPACT OF DELAYED DECISION ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE ON UNITED STATES AND CENTRAL CANADA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to comments made recently in northern Canada by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, I should like to ask if new information is now before the government which would put the feasibility of the pipeline in the north in question? I should like also to ask the minister to explain how this new turn of events can be reconciled with the decision of the government recently to commence drilling in the Beaufort Sea?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is making an absolutely straightforward observation when he says that until the hearings are over and all the information is in the hands of the National Energy Board and in the hands of the government, no decision can be taken.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House whether he has been able to assess the impact of this casual and off the cuff statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the decisions the United States would have to make in securing supply for their own purposes and also the impact the decision would have on the security of supply for central Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the United States has its own set of regulatory hearings. It is considering this matter as well in Congressional committees and has by no means as yet sorted out the particular timetable.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM EFFECT OF DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE DONATION AS RESTRICTED EXPENSE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and I have given him notice of it. It has to do with charitable donations being defined as a restricted expense under the Anti-Inflation Act regulations. The result is causing considerable confusion among corporate givers as to whether they are able to increase their charitable donations or will have to register them if other items within the restricted expenses column rise?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me

notice of the question. With respect to the category of restricted expenses, I am advised by the Anti-Inflation Board that the total of restricted expenses which may be expended by a firm may not be increased at any greater rate than the total revenues. It is possible that a firm may allocate the amount within the six categories of restricted expenses and may choose to reduce advertising, for example, but increase the amount to be made available by way of charitable donations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I take it the reverse is also true, that if a corporation decides to increase the amount in the five other categories they may have no alternative but to reduce their charitable donation or even eliminate it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if that particular corporate management chooses to spend more on convention fees, management fees or advertising rather than on charitable donations that would indeed be the result.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOWED FOR RESEARCH AS A RESTRICTED EXPENSE ITEM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's last reply and bearing in mind that one of the restricted expense items is research and development, would the minister consider giving more leeway to corporations that wish to increase their research and development, especially with the productivity problems we have in industry today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
said, Mr. Speaker, a firm could, if it chose, reduce the amounts paid by way of management fees or convention expenses and increase both research and development and charitable contributions. It has to be a matter of priorities for that particular management.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister assure Canadians of Lebanese origin who during the current tragic situation in Lebanon, would like to have their relatives come to Canada as tourists for a temporary period until the fights are over, that they will be allowed to do so?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport concerning a matter that affects the economy of the Canadian National Railways and the interests of all taxpayers in Canada. I ask him to use his authority to investigate this matter. According to today's press, why were the low tenders of Carleton Buslines of Antrim and Wagar Coachlines of Napanee totally ignored by the Ontario Highway Transport Board on the respective King-ston-Ottawa and Kingston-Belleville feeder services runs to convey passengers to Ottawa and Belleville from the Kingston stop of the Montreal-Toronto turbo train, ignored in favour of the higher tender of the Voyageur Colonial?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member fails to establish to me how that comes within the jurisdiction of the federal department. Is it the Ontario Highway Transport Board to which the hon. member refers?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I realize it does not come within the jurisdiction of the minister, but I want him to investigate this. This question goes beyond the provincial pale and is of national scope affecting the economy of the CNR and every taxpayer in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree and I thank both Your Honour and the hon. member for pointing out that this is a matter for the Ontario board which has been allowed jurisdiction under the law. Since it does concern the Canadian National Railways however, I have already taken note of the matter and have asked for an explanation. Of course, I await the actual judgment of the board with interest. I agree with the hon. member that it is a matter of serious concern.


AGRICULTURE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that the price of chemical fertilizers has increased considerably and scandalously in the last year and considering also that because of that increase one can wonder if enough fertilizers will be available this year, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to take certain steps to control prices so that farm producers are not exploited as they were last year in that regard and to ensure an adequate supply to meet farmers' needs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the records of my officials show that fertilizer is in adequate supply if farmers would take delivery of it instead of waiting until the day they are going to plant. The price has come down $10 to $60 per ton from last year.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. An advertisement has appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, April 12 which on the face of it appears to be aimed at the recruitment of Canadian personnel for mercenary operations. In light of the Foreign Enlistment Act, Section 11, which clearly prohibits recruiting of any person in Canada to enlist in the armed forces of any state or other armed forces, will the minister cause an investigation to be made by the RCMP to find out whether or not there have been or are contemplated breaches of the Foreign Enlistment Act?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the hon. member's notice to my office earlier, I have asked that an investigation be made on that particular point. I hope to be able to report to him very shortly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the minister to also take into account correspondence coming from the office named in the advertisement which refers to foreign countries requiring men with specialized skills to make a modern force?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It is related to the discontinuation of postal service to four Indian communities, namely Wassagamack, Poplar River, Blood Vein and Garden Hill in northern Manitoba which I understand, following talks with individuals in Manitoba yesterday, continues and has been in effect since April 1. In view of the fact these isolated communities rely on the postal services for such important matters as receiving of old age pensions, family allowance and outside news, will the minister indicate if he is aware of this situation and, if so, can he indicate when the postal service will be reintroduced or alternate services will be instituted to ensure an immediate return of this vital service to these communities?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice. The services, particularly to a community known as Island Lake, has been temporarily suspended, as is the practice of the post office, because an audit indicated a shortage of close to $6,000, possibly through error, possibly through inefficiency or possibly through fraud. In that particular instance, a post office is closed and other temporary post offices are found, hopefully close by. This morning we were able to make arrangements to deliver the mail for that particular community to another post office six miles away situated in a Hudson Bay office. I hope that will

April 27, 1976
Oral Questions
satisfy the situation until such time as we find another postmaster in the community.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When is the minister going to announce the new health of animals regulations, especially those concerning the payment of compensation to farmers for cattle ordered slaughtered under the slaughter eradication program?


Eugene Whelan: Soon I hope, Mr. Speaker.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Since farmers in the B.C. area are facing serious economic losses with the recent outbreak of blue tongue resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of cattle, will the minister apply the new schedule of compensation payments, which I understand are much more favourable in keeping with inflationary costs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we feel we have been quite fair in the past and we intend to be fair in the future. However, the treatment with regard to the loss of cattle is the same regardless of the disease, whether it be blue tongue, brucellosis or whatever. They will all be treated the same.


EFFORTS TO ERADICATE BLUE TONGUE DISEASE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that anaplasmosis and blue tongue are transmitted primarily by biting insects, yet the minister for weeks on end has claimed that Canada is free of the disease, will he inform the House how he stopped the insects from crossing the United States border? Since it is common knowledge that Canada does have the disease and Australia and Britain have cut off all semen imports, will every effort be made to eradicate the disease in co-operation with the United States department of agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I know that one cannot stop pests from moving about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -or insects either. However, I am told these insects do not move very far. Our records show that blue tongue disease was not brought into Canada by an insect, but by people importing cattle which had the disease from the United States. We feel sure this is the way it was spread in Canada. We feel we can be successful in eradicating this blue tongue disease in the same way as we have other diseases that could have damaged the livestock industry. I am surprised that the hon. member, perhaps unknowingly, suggests that we do not control this disease

by eradication and damage our livestock industry as far as exports are concerned, which amount to millions and millions of dollars a year.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the confusion which has arisen because of a statement made by the minister over the weekend that he was removing restrictions because of the start of the lobster season in some areas and the adjudication of appeals, can the minister elaborate on that statement for the benefit of this House and the country? Will he indicate what areas he was referring to and if any have been left out?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to delay the implementation of the policy for one season, that is for the spring and summer lobster seasons, was made because of the large number of appeals to me as minister. I had to ask for additional information and doubtful cases could not be settled before the season began. In order to be fair to everyone, it was decided that licences would not be withheld for one season, and this applied to the maritimes area. In the case of Newfoundland, where the access to the lobster fishery has only been limited in the past year, the regional director asked for a few days delay in order to consult. In fact, I am to see him later this afternoon. We may have some statement tonight or tomorrow.


Jack Marshall: I just visited the west coast of Newfoundland and found inequities in many areas and many decisions made by appeal boards that I intend to bring to the attention of the minister. Will the minister consider that the season opened in district 11 on April 20 and does not open in district 12 until May 5. Therefore, the province of Newfoundland should be given consideration. I hope the minister will make the right decision.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if there were inequities, I would be very worried because the appeal boards did their work very well and very carefully with local input. However, I am very open to the hon. member's suggestion. I should have more to say this afternoon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government has been telling the Canadian fishing industry to wait until the end of the New York Law of the Sea Conference since it would likely produce a
April 27, 1976

settlement. As officials of the minister's department do not feel any decision will be made at this conference and as the United States has already declared a 200 mile fishing limit to come into effect on March 1, 1977, can the minister give the House and the industry a progress report on Canada's position on a 200 mile fishing zone, which to date has not even been dissociated from the economic zone activities at the conference?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Law of the Sea Conference. I agree with the conclusion the hon. member has reached that it is not likely by the end of this particular session either a partial treaty relating to fisheries or a general treaty will emerge. The possibility of a second session this summer is under consideration. I have not been advised whether a decision has been taken to resume the conference in Geneva later in the year. However, whatever may be the results of either the first or the second session, I stated in my speech to the plenary session that in so far as Canada is concerned, 1976 is the year of decision and that if the conference failed to reach a conclusion this year, in all probability it will not be able to reach a conclusion for a long time in the future. I should also say that we are obviously watching the conference in its concluding days and we are obviously influenced by the action taken by the United States.
Parallel with these developments we are continuing our bilateral negotiations with countries fishing in what will be Canadian waters in future; recently, we had discussions with the Russians which registered very substantial progress. My general attitude is a positive one. I feel that at this time Canadian policy is well in hand and moving well in the direction of achieving the overall objective of a 200 mile extended fisheries jurisdiction.


CANADA'S POSITION ON REMAINING WITHIN ICNAF
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One brief supplementary. Between June 6 and June 24 of this year ICNAF will be meeting in Havana, Cuba. In the event that this meeting produces no agreement, is it Canada's intention to declare its own fisheries management zone or will it remain with ICNAF?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It appears to me-and here I am subject to the superior judgment of my colleague, the Minister of State for Fisheries-that in any foreseeable regime of extended jurisdiction by the United States or other coastal states the function of ICNAF, though it may be useful, would be changed considerably. I am sure the hon. member realizes that these changes are inevitable should coastal states acquire jurisdiction which at the present time is in part exercised by a consensus at ICNAF meetings. We have presently under consideration instructions to be given to the delegation which will attend the meetings, taking into account the particular factor I have mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar raised a point of order at the conclusion of the question period in which he was supported by
Ministerial Responsibility
the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. Arguments were advanced in favour of a contrary opinion, and I undertook yesterday to give the matter careful review. That review included a reference to remarks I made in the House on April 14, 1975, which, as hon. members may recall, was just after the Easter recess of that year.
I made those remarks for two reasons. First, it was just at the time we had begun to operate under new procedures with respect to the question period and, second, as a new Speaker I felt hon. members would wish to know as soon as possible my attitude toward the handling of the question period. I attempted to make that statement a thorough review of my attitude toward questions that ought to be permitted. I tried to make it as positive as possible and in line with a theme different from that of the past. Instead of there being a number of restrictions such as had grown up, somewhat vaguely, affecting the right of members to put questions, I attempted to put forward a positive statement as to what could be done, rather than a negative statement expressing what could not be done.
In respect of the responsibility of ministers and the areas which could be covered, I said this as recorded at the top of page 4763 of Hansard of April 14, 1975:
Sixth, a question must be within the administrative responsibility of the government or the minister. Obviously, the government in general cannot be responsible for those areas which are beyond its own administrative responsibility. Furthermore, the minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his ministry; that is, his present ministry. He is responsible to the limits of that ministry, but not beyond that. In this regard I find no reason to change the earlier decision I made in respect of the capacities which ministers enjoyed in previously-held portfolios.
I think that statement is clear, and by and large it has not been challenged, I have to be concerned whether that ruling unduly restricts the right of members to put questions in respect of a situation facing us where information is sought about influence which members-indeed, ministers-might have exercised with respect to decisions affecting tenders. I am satisfied that the ruling I have quoted is a fair one still because, of course, questions can always be put to the Prime Minister concerning the conduct of any minister; questions can be put to the minister responsible for the tendering in the particular department involved, they can be put to the President of the Treasury Board with respect to general tendering practices, and they can certainly be put to the Solicitor General or to the Minister of Justice if there seems to be any suspicion of irregularity.
In some cases there is no doubt that questions are deflected to ministers who have served in previous capacities, but it seems to me that this is within the limits of jurisdictional responsibility as we have always known it and extends ample opportunity for hon. members to put questions at least during the question period. We have to remember, after all, that we are not attempting to afford complete investigative powers in the question period, but simply trying to manage the question period which is an extremely important aspect of our procedure and one whose duration each day is limited.
Finally, I am sure hon. members will understand that there are circumstances in which the enforcement of this rule is not easy for the Chair: ministers, in making one answer, may voluntarily go across the line and it is dif-

April 27, 1976
Energy Policy
ficult for the Chair to interrupt further questioning on the same point. There are also circumstances in which statements may be made by ministers with respect to their former capacities, and the Chair has to hear at least one or two preliminary questions in clarification of such statements before it can rule definitively that the questions appear to go beyond the limits of the administrative responsibility of the minister concerned. These do not constitute exceptions; they are simply circumstances which cause the Chair some difficulty in specific enforcement.
All members will, I hope, agree with the practice I have followed. When in doubt as to the acceptability of a question, I have sought to resolve that doubt in favour of the member putting the question, rather than the member having to answer it.


Mr. Ellis:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the questions I directed to the Postmaster General yesterday. The Postmaster General said that certain distributors "get a discount which is below the regular retail value". We were talking about the price of stamps. On page 12859 of Hansard for yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General, answering a question on the order paper by the hon. member for Don Valley, is reported as saying that sales of Canadian postage stamps are not made at a price less than face value. I think those two conflicting statements should be clarified so that I might proceed a little further with the investigation of this matter.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I appreciate the hon. gentleman bringing the apparent difference of view to my attention. I will have the matter clarified by tomorrow. By way of a short cut I called it a discount. The Post Office prefer to call it a subsidy of rental, travel expenses and other types of expenses associated with the selling of stamps in Europe. I will ascertain the precise official, bureaucratic terminology. I may have fallen into the error of incorrectly calling it a discount.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of a document entitled, "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-reliance" and a summary of the same document.
Mr. Speaker, it is now almost three years since this government published "An Energy Policy for Canada- Phase I". That publication, issued in June of 1973, presented a comprehensive overview of the Canadian energy situation, its history, prospects and problems. Our intention was to begin a process of consultation, reflection and debate which would enable us to develop a set of national energy policies.

Barely four months later, war broke out in the Middle East and the Organization of Petroleum exporting Countries raised the international price of oil substantially. In the fall of 1973, oil in the Persian Gulf sold for $2.20 a barrel. Today the price is $11.50. This fivefold increase in the price of the singlemost important energy commodity, occurring as it did in a period of less than two years, has sent a series of shockwaves through the international economic system. It has contributed directly to the worst recession in the industrialized world since the 1930s, coupled with continuing rapid inflation. No country has been unaffected.
Canada has been more fortunate than most countries. Because we have domestic oil reserves we have been able to cushion the effects of higher international prices. The price of oil in Canada is currently about $4.60 per barrel lower than the price eastern Canadians would have to pay for imported oil if there were no subsidy program. However, proved reserves of Canadian oil and low-cost proved reserves of natural gas are declining. Canada now imports more crude oil than it sells abroad. As well, drilling results in Canada's frontier areas have been disappointing and the recent experience with the Syncrude project indicates that the further development of the oil sands will be extremely expensive. Finding new oil and natural gas reserves, developing them and transporting them to market will now cost substantially more and will require Canadian prices higher than those currently existing.
While our proved reserves of oil and low-cost gas continue to decline, Canadian demands for these energy forms continue to increase. The growing gap between our energy demands and our ability to supply them from domestic reserves suggests that we could become increasingly dependent on the rest of the world, and the OPEC cartel in particular, for our future oil supplies. This prospect carries with it economic and political risks that the government views with concern.
We have, within Canada, the people, the equipment, the expertise and the potential energy resources to reduce substantially our dependence on imported oil. We can do this by reducing the rate at which our energy requirements grow in the future, by substituting those energy forms which are in relatively abundant supply in Canada for those that are not, by accelerating the search required to find new oil and natural gas-to convert the potential of our undiscovered energy resources to proved reserves from which our needs can be supplied. These options will be expensive, but all must be pursued. The alternatives are energy shortages which will require increasing dependence on high cost, insecure oil imports or rationing available supplies among Canadians. It is within our power to avoid both of these alternatives and we must act to do so.
The publication that I am tabling this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, sets forth a national energy strategy for Canada. It is a strategy that is consistent and comprehensive. The strategy consists of three well defined parts: first, an objective-energy self-reliance; second, a series of specific energy targets; and finally, in support of this objective and target, nine policy elements or priorities.
April 27, 1976

The national energy strategy for self-reliance presented in this paper is directed, through the next ten years, at minimizing the risks of growing dependence on imported oil. Self-reliance in energy means reducing our vulnerability to unanticipated changes in price or prolonged interruptions in supply. It means supplying Canadian requirements from Canadian resources to the greatest extent practicable, but it is not a strategy of self-sufficiency at any cost. It recognizes that we will have to rely on imported oil to a certain degree and an important policy element is emergency preparedness to ensure that Canadians using imported oil will be adequately protected if supplies should be curtailed.
Above all, it is a strategy that is both balanced and flexible: balanced in the sense that it recognizes that the policies we adopt will have costs as well as benefits, and a choice that provides the maximum advantage to Canadians must be found; flexible in the sense that many aspects of the international oil market and our own domestic energy situation are uncertain and continuing to evolve. The approach we have adopted will be dynamic enough to adapt quickly to changing circumstances.
The first target is to move domestic oil prices toward international levels, and to move domestic prices for natural gas to an appropriate competitive relationship with oil over the next two to four years. Domestic energy prices must continue to increase, to reinforce efficiency and restraint in energy use; to encourage the development of additional Canadian supplies; to reduce the magnitude of the transfer of real wealth from Canadians to oil exporting countries; and to reduce the subsidization of oil consumers by the general taxpayer. They need not move to international oil prices if it is clear that new Canadian resources can be found and delivered to markets at prices that are lower.
The second target is to reduce the average rate of growth of energy use in Canada over the next ten years to less than 3.5 per cent per year. This can be attained by appropriate pricing measures and energy conservation initiatives. It represents a reduction of the historically observed growth rate by over one-third.
The third target is to reduce our net dependence on imported oil in 1985 to one-third of our total oil demands, that is, to approximately 800,000 barrels a day by 1985.
The fourth target is to maintain our self-reliance in natural gas until such time as northern resources can be brought to market under acceptable conditions.
Finally, the fifth target is to double at a minimum, from $350 to $700 million a year, exploration and development activity in the frontier regions of Canada over the next three years, under acceptable social and environmental conditions. This is a minimum target that will facilitate the development of the information necessary to make appropriate decisions about our energy options.
In support of the objective of energy self-reliance, the government proposes nine major policy elements. These are; 1, appropriate energy pricing; 2, energy conservation; 3, increased exploration and development; 4, increased resource information; 5, interfuel substitution; 6, new delivery systems; 7, emergency preparedness; 8, increased
Energy Policy
research and development; 9, greater Canadian content and participation.
These policy areas are elaborated in the paper. In many cases specific examples of the kinds of programs and measures we will be introducing are indicated. For example, to further increase exploration and development we will be introducing a mandatory, company by company reporting system to monitor the cash flow of the petroleum industry. We will also move to reduce the period during which geophysical data remains confidential. To increase resource information flow we will be acting to require companies holding potentially important geological structures to have exploratory drilling undertaken within a reasonable time period. To promote new delivery systems for coal we are taking the position that before new export commitments are made producers should endeavour to determine whether a market exists within Canada for the additional coal production. Other specific measures such as conservation, research and development and greater Canadian participation that have recently been introduced or will be introduced shortly are described in the paper.
The precise nature of all future energy policy initiatives will continue to be determined within this framework but will, of course, be dependent on the course of future events. Such initiatives will embody the balance and flexibility that is essential if our policies are to be appropriate, and will reflect a changing relative emphasis among these nine policy areas as circumstances warrant. They will be developed with appropriate federal-provincial consultation and with due regard to the social, environmental and economic objectives of Canadians.
With the constructive co-operation of provincial governments and industry, and with the support of Canadians in all regions of the country, Canada can achieve the objective of energy self-reliance. Success in this endeavour will increase both the confidence and the options with which we can plan for years beyond 1985.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we, like all Canadians, welcome this report today-a report of fundamental significance and importance for the development of Canada over the course of the next few years. I am sure that in the course of the next two or three weeks we will be discussing it, commenting on it and asking the minister questions about it in the House. This afternoon I want to take only a moment to point out two or three things which we think are of significance in respect of this important document.
The document has implicit in it three fundamental decisions on energy policy, and all but the final word on a fourth. The fact that these decisions have been made behind closed doors at 580 Booth Street, with barely a word to provincial governments and consumers who are so vitally concerned with this policy, makes a mockery of the so-called federal-provincial consultation mechanisms for energy development in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
12912

April 27, 1976
Energy Policy


James McPhail Gillies: The government seems to have forgotten the constitutional principle that the resources of this nation belong to the provinces and decisions made in that respect must be made in consultation with them. That this document should come down without that sort of consultation is, indeed, too bad.
We are now also told to expect higher oil prices. Consultation with the provincial governments in respect of this important situation is not even mentioned in the document's blueprint for a phased increase toward international levels, and no assurance is given to Canadians that our prices will not exceed those of the United States, our biggest competitor. Surely the cornerstone of the development of our resources and the development of our energy policy in this country has to be established in the face of our enormous international trade deficit. If Canadian buyers and consumers of energy are not to face a comparative disadvantage because of present policies toward energy, then an assurance of this kind will have to be given.
Secondly, it is quite clear that the government has apparently decided to ignore the special energy problems faced by Atlantic Canada. In the immediate future, mari-timers can look forward to nothing but the hardship of escalating energy costs, in particular electricity prices which continue to mount and which will undoubtedly result in many more families being forced to find other ways to heat their homes. Nothing is planned to ease the burden of these costs, nor is there any federal assistance suggested to help in the generation of more electricity where the maritime provinces have some particular advantages. Nothing is said about the construction of a national grid, a policy which the Progressive Conservatives have advocated since 1969-indeed, since 1958. This matter must receive a great deal more support than this document suggests, if Atlantic Canada is ever to benefit and if ever such an energy grid is to become a reality in the nation.
Thirdly-and the minister said very little about this in his statement-the government has decided to press ahead with nuclear power as a major source of energy in this nation. The document cites a need to develop between
20,000	megawatt hours and 27,000 megawatt hours of new nuclear capacity within the next 15 years, a figure which is about equivalent to five reactors constructed every year. This is a massive commitment to an energy source which has attached to it many unanswered questions. How will we manage the highly toxic and radioactive wastes produced? How do we protect plants from natural and manmade disasters? Nothing is said about that. How are we going to protect ourselves against these disasters which can occur with the use of nuclear energy within our nation?
What is the competitive nature of this source of energy? A recent report prepared for the United States Energy Research and Development Administration showed that at current prices quoted for CANDU reactors, electric energy developed from the use of coal is competitive with nuclear power. Although the Canadian people are, by virtue of this document, committed to nuclear power, there is little discussion, especially in respect of the conclusions and the implications of this development. We simply cannot

embark upon this road without more thought and discussion.
The fourth decision is one which is implied throughout the document but never stated; that is, that the government has all but made the final decision to go ahead with Arctic oil and gas development. If the so-called policy of self-reliance upon which the document puts such emphasis is to be realized in the timetable set forth, it is apparent that Arctic gas must come on stream by the early 1980s. Even though the document states that no policy commitment yet exists, if the self-reliance policy is to succeed in reducing our projected oil imports to one-third of total demand, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline must surely become a reality. The question of whether or not we should have a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley has now become a question of when, not whether. The Berger Commission and the National Energy Board hearings, in light of this document, are not about whether a pipeline should be built but how it should be built and when it should be built. The decision has obviously been made.
There are a number of other features to this paper. The first is the government's virtual admission of ineptitude on a substantial scale in the budgets of 1974 and 1975. It is quite clear now that but for the prompt action of the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta, irreparable damage would have been done in respect of finding new supplies of gas and oil in Canada. It is to be hoped that when the new budget comes down the government will take into consideration the reflections in this report on its mistakes of the past, and we will then have a new and appropriate policy for oil and energy development in this country.
The government seems now to recognize the need for increased producer revenues. The minister has not outlined what specific measures he will take to ensure that this increased revenue will go back into exploration and development of energy in the future.
Finally, one can conclude that no matter how well or how badly conceived these policies may be, they have been put forward as a fait accompli without even the pretence of provincial consultation. Decisions have been made of fundamental importance without public hearing or debate. The minister has said in the past that his energy policies must become the policies of all Canadians, not just the government's. This document will not assure Canadians that that policy is being followed.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the document which the minister has tabled, entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-reliance", represents the greatest retreat that has been seen since Napoleon withdrew in disarray from Moscow. In 1970 this government was telling the people of Canada that we had all the energy resources we needed for the foreseeable future. In 1973, when the government woke up to the deplorable situation in which we were, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister of energy, mines and resources at that time told us the government was launching a program which would make us self-sufficient in energy supplies by the end of the 1970s. Last year the government modified that pledge and said it would make Canada self-sufficient in energy requirements by the mid-
April 27, 1976

1980s. Now the minister tells us he is introducing a policy for self-reliance.
When we consider what the minister means by self-reliance, we find it is this: whereas this year, 1976, we are a net importer of oil to the extent of 240,000 barrels per day, by 1985 we will be a net importer of 800,000 barrels per day. If that is self-reliance, I would look with horror on a policy of dependency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If one
considers what that means, he will find that 800,000 barrels per day in 1985 means that we will be an importer of some 292 million barrels a year. If the price at that time is $15 a barrel-and that is not an exaggerated figure because Syncrude was undertaken on the basis that the price at that time would be about $15.50 a barrel-and if we are importing 292 million barrels of oil per year, we will have a bill of $4,380 million a year for imported oil.
I ask the government to look at the catastrophic effect this will have on Canada's balance of payments and what position it will put us in with regard to our competitive status with American industry. The United States, by means of a blended price, has been able to keep the price of oil in that country $2 or $3 a barrel below the international price. Moreover, in the past few years we have witnessed, and may witness again, oil being used as a political weapon. By 1985, under this policy Canada would be very vulnerable both economically and politically.
What does the government propose to do about this as outlined in the report the minister tabled today? First of all, the minister said that the matter is mainly to be left to the private sector. He says that Petro-Can will have an important role, but he does not spell out what the role will be. As a matter of fact, this morning's paper carries a story by Mr. Maurice Strong, the chairman of Petro-Can, in which he says that that Crown corporation is seriously considering investing money overseas in the North Sea and in developing the oil sands of Venezuela. We have billions of barrels of oil in the Canadian oil sands, but our publicly-owned oil company is considering the possibility of developing the oil sands of Venezuela. Is that the role for which the Canadian people are putting up money?
The government proposes to deal with this situation by the old policy it has followed throughout the years, which I think is a disastrous policy. It proposes raising the domestic price to the international price within two to four years, which it is estimated will be $13 a barrel and perhaps higher. What guarantee does this House or the consumers of this country have that these additional millions of dollars we will pay to the oil industry will be plowed back into exploration and development in Canada rather than in the North Sea, Venezuela or the Middle East?
The minister says the government will monitor these companies to make sure that they use these additional earnings for exploration in this country. We were promised that by the minister's predecessor last year when the government raised the domestic price of oil from $6.50 to $8 a barrel. Has this monitoring taken place? What monitoring machinery does the government propose to set up?
Energy Policy
In the last three years the price of oil has gone from nearly $3 a barrel to $8 a barrel. If one looks at the record it will be evident that the money spent in exploration in Canada, as a percentage of the oil companies' earnings, has actually declined. The minister asks us to pay within the next two to four years $13 a barrel for oil and says that this money will be spent on finding oil and gas in this country. As a result, it is the Canadian consumer who buys the oil products-the Canadian taxpayer-because of the concession the government has so generously given the oil companies who will supply the funds for new exploration which will take place.
When the oil is found, the same people will buy it. This is known as a policy of pay now and pay again later. In the next ten years, the Canadian people will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in higher oil and gas prices in order to pay for the fact that this government for years allowed 60 per cent of our oil and gas to be exported to another country at prices only a quarter of what we will have to pay now for imported oil and domestic oil.
In this connection I want to say this is not a policy of reliance but it is a policy of drift. The tragedy is that once again the government is accepting the advice and acting on the recommendation of the very same powerful corporations which got us into this mess in the first place. The government is now proposing that we place our major reliance on pipelines into the Arctic and on nuclear power plants. In so far as pipelines into the north are concerned, the minister himself admitted that we do not have supplies or even proven reserves of oil or gas to justify the tremendous investment which will be necessary.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), in the statement he made yesterday in Yellowknife, said that unless we can prove up significant additional reserves we throw into very grave question the whole matter of the pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley. Some of us have been saying that for many years. The best estimate of the National Energy Board is four trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta. We require 12 trillion cubic feet as a minimum.
Why are we asking the Canadian people to approve an expenditure of $8 billion to $10 billion for a pipeline, the main function of which will be to transport Alaskan gas from Pudhoe Bay to the United States? The fact is that if we invest these tremendous sums of money in pipelines and in nuclear power plants, we will have nothing left with which to finance or to further develop alternate sources of energy. We are locking ourselves into two programs that will shut out what could be much cheaper sources of energy and in some cases would be less detrimental to the environment.
The government has not announced its policy with regard to looking at alternative energy sources. At page 145 of this report we are told that the government will spend, in 1975-76, $1.6 million and will spend in this current year $1 million in looking at such things as solar energy, wind energy, tidal power, and so on. That is a mere bagatelle. Other countries spend tremendous sums of money looking at these sources of energy. The government has done no realistic investigation into secondary recovery of oil. There are billions of barrels of oil in western Canada which have not been economically viable to extract, but with second-
21 804-56'/2

April 27, 1976
Energy Policy
ary recovery methods and with higher prices this should be looked at. The government has not come down with any policy about secondary recovery or any policy of gasification of coal.
I say this is is a policy of treading old paths. It is a policy which is lacking both in vision and imagination. We face a situation in Canada in which our energy resources are running out. Apparently the government has no clearcut policy. Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach. A modern industrial state moves on energy. If, in the years ahead, as a result of this policy of drift we find ourselves in difficulty with regard to supplying our people with the necessary energy, then this country will face very serious years. I see no hope, from the statement of the minister today, that the government even conceives the seriousness of the problem, let alone producing a policy to grapple successfully with it.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, a policy based on requirements is long overdue instead of a policy based exclusively on trade or consumer demand. Let me explain.
It is paradoxical today, when the minister is reporting on a relatively alarming energy situation, that we should-wonder whether there will be another energy shortage, especially as concerns oil and natural gas. The fact that Canada is still exporting daily hundreds of thousand barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas proves without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, the lack of foresight of a government that has failed to develop the required policy when it was needed.
We really should establish the energy requirements in Canada on the basis of our actual needs instead of foreign trade. I do not believe that in a country as vast as our ours, so full of all sorts of energy sources, with only 23 million inhabitants spread over a territory larger than the United States and larger than the whole of Europe, we should be talking about an energy shortage. It is only the mismanagement of governments that leads us to such an economic dead end in the field of energy. Indeed, how can we possibly have an oil shortage if we continue to export it? Mr. Speaker, the government should reply to such simple questions before sounding the alarm.
On a few occasions, I had the privilege in this House under Standing Order 43 of asking the government to make an inventory of the Canadian energy potential. Obviously, such an inventory would require the closest possible co-operation of the provinces, and I agree with the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Party a while ago when he said that meaningful discussions and a coherent energy policy is not possible without the co-operation of the provinces. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Quebec has a great energy potential as concerns hydroelectric power. It seems to me that this energy, which has required an apparently substantial capital investment, which is easy to preserve and relatively unexpensive, may compensate for the oil shortage that might happen in eastern Canada. But there is no co-ordination, no planning whatsoever in this regard. Thus, some provinces have energy surpluses while others are at grips with shortages

and there is no co-ordination. The federal government should promote such co-ordination between all energy sources existing in the various regions of Canada. Of course, this cannot be done without extremely close co-operation.
Therefore, a precise inventory should be drawn up sometime. It should be kept up to date to enable us to know precisely what is available and what can be developed in Canada. We must no longer base our economy on those famous balances of trade with other countries or on exports. Let us simply ask ourselves, and this gives us the opportunity to do so, what we can do as Canadians. What are our energy requirements for the 23 million Canadians? Moreover, we must consider our energy potential. Mr. Speaker, once this has been seriously done, we will find out that we have all the energy required to meet our needs.
As long as the government refuse to see things as they really are, I suggest that we will always come to the point where we are told, as we were a few years ago, to turn down our thermostats, to shut the windows and not open too many doors. This is in my view a narrow policy, and it is time for the government to consider the introduction of a more serious, more positive policy, so that we know exactly where we are going.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister. I am looking at the summary of the proposals in the paper and the 13 programs for self-reliance on page 8. Is the fact that there is a total absence of the mention of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy specifically, or tidal power anywhere in this country, an indication of the government's views with regard to this potential source of energy and the low priority it gives to it? If so, what a disappointment that is to many Canadians who thought tidal power would be part of the self-reliance program.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley pointed out that he was referring to the summary which is a shortened version of the larger document on strategy-the blue book. If he were to refer to it, he would find reference to tidal power; indeed, specific mention is made of the importance of the potential of tidal power and the fact that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, has already undertaken a particular program.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that in the more comprehensive text on policies for self-reliance, tidal power is mentioned along with other sources of power. I believe that the statement-which I do not have before me at present-is that further research is necessary. My point is that certainly in Atlantic Canada, where the sound of tidal power is as strong as some of the talk about its development, research in terms of the studies that have gone into this energy package is not much further down the line than in other areas of Canada where it was suggested that the extraction of energy from such sources was perhaps not feasible for ecological or other reasons. Research into energy from James Bay is pretty far down the road, while research into the Bay of Fundy tidal power is being reviewed and reviewed following the review of the Fundy Power Authority. Can the minister give us any hope that some stimulus and priority will be given to this non-polluting,
April 27, 1976

renewable resource in the Bay of Fundy which could revolutionize the economy of Atlantic Canada, as did TV in parts of the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: The answer to the question is that we are betting $1.5 million that an updated research study, which is a $3 million joint study between the two provinces and the federal government, will show that there is, in fact, a realizable asset there. The hon. member must know that many research projects have been undertaken with respect to the tidal power potential in his area, but every one of them actually turned down the realizable potential when it came to putting it together. In other words, until now the experts have not been able to put together a package which is technically and economically feasible. We think that as a result of the increase in the price of energy generally caused by the OPEC oil price increase, a new, second look is now appropriate at tidal power sources.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister well knows, even though I think it was before he came into the House-and I might have been in the House-that in the first report on Fundy Tidal power it was always technically feasible, but at that time interest rates seemed to be a little high and it was suggested that the matter be reviewed a year or so down the road. We all know what has happened to interest rates. We all know what has happened to construction costs. They have affected James Bay. The estimate was several billion dollars, and now I think one figure is somewhere between $12 billion and $20 billion.
I find the answer of the minister difficult to understand in that in the summary of these policies, especially when eastern Canada and Atlantic Canada is so adversely affected by the increase in oil prices-and we have very few alternative sources-there was no priority given to the words "tidal power" when it is tied into research. I do not think that is a very good answer in terms of Atlantic Canada, and with respect, I think it illustrates some of the lackadaisical approaches of the government on the whole matter of energy.


Alastair William Gillespie: In reply to that question I would draw the attention of the hon. member to page 29 of the summary of "An Energy Strategy for Canada" to which he was referring. There he will find a reference to tidal power under the general heading "Increased Research and Development" as follows:
The gasification of coal on a commercial scale will only be fully realized if preceded by an adequate program of research, development and demonstration. In the longer-term search for new energy options, the promise of power from nuclear fusion should not be neglected and the feasibility of using renewable resources (represented by solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and biomass) should be fully explored-
And it continues.


Mr. Forrestall:: God protect us from the minister. I should like to expand on that a little bit. The minister is indicating that there is substantial interest in the policy laid before us this afternoon and he elaborates on that by listing, amoung other things, wind power. We could rub sticks together and get energy, too. He lists biomass and tidal power somewhere in the middle, so there might be some hope for us. Unless the minister misunderstands us,
Energy Policy
we very much welcome initiatives with respect to coal, gasification of coal, and so on. I think the people of Cape Breton, particularly industrial Cape Breton, have some hope and welcome some good news: they are not totally negative about this.
However, can the minister elaborate with respect to the time parameters with regard to the extension of the Trans-Canada pipeline to the maritime provinces, so that we might at least have the comfort of the national security of our own resources? Those of us in the Atlantic provinces must now rely 100 per cent on foreign imports.


Alastair William Gillespie: I cannot give the hon. member any indication of the time-frame for the extension of the Trans-Canada PipeLine system. I hope, though, that the kind of activity which is now going on in the Scotian shelf-really brought back as a result of the efforts of Petro-Canada in forming joint ventures, a program of $25 million per year over the next five years-will locate off the Scotian shelf the kind of proved oil and gas reserves which will serve not Nova Scotia but the other Atlantic provinces and perhaps central Canada as well.


J. Michael Forrestall: As the minister is very well aware, the problem is the enormous impact on energy bills, particularly energy in the form of electricity, for the residents of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I know he is concerned about this and I am not attempting to suggest he is not. It is just that we find it passing strange that in the energy strategy there has not been a particular reference- not necessarily particularly to the problems we are facing now because they are under active consideration, hopefully, with some conclusion in the not too distant future-to the approach the government would tend to follow in a general way when this type of problem arises again at some point in the future. In other words, are we to believe that any approach to the resolution of our energy problems in the maritime provinces will continue to be ad hoc in nature?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the contrary, I think when the hon. gentleman has had more time to review the document- and I agree that it is a very substantial document and it could not be done in the time he had available-he will be able to see that indeed there are a number of areas in which the federal government has introduced initiatives. We already discussed one this afternoon with respect to the development of potential tidal power resources; but the federal government has also made a number of moves with respect to regional interconnections, including the offer of financing one-half of the first nuclear power plant.
As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, there is a very substantial coal subsidy which runs into millions of dollars, and quite clearly the oil compensation program is of major benefit. The numbers I have seen indicate that very close to $1 billion has been paid indirectly to the consumers of Atlantic Canada as a result of the compensation program; that is, very close to $1 billion will have been paid to them by this summer. It seems to me that that is a very substantial contribution to Atlantic Canada. It is a very substantial way of assisting citizens of Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada generally, who would be paying $13 or higher if they were paying the going international price, to adjust over a period of time to a new

April 27, 1976
Energy Policy
reality. That is to say, the days of cheap energy are now over.


J. Michael Forrestall: Don't be condescending about it.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. Perhaps he does not know the answer; but as the minister, he should. Is the minister aware that as far back as 30 years ago or more there was a qualified consulting firm named H. G. Acres which did a thorough and complete study of Fundy tidal power? I think it was financed by the federal government. Is the minister aware that if the calculations were quickly brought up to date by a mathematician qualified in his field, and quickly computed, they would show that Fundy tidal power is not only feasible but practical and necessary? I suggest that federal governments from time immemorial, at least for the last 30 years, have been foot-dragging on Fundy tidal power. It is time the government got off its backside and did something about it. It is necessary and needed, and we in the maritime provinces are deserving of it.


Alastair William Gillespie: Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that H. G. Acres are involved in the present reassessment of tidal power potential.


Leonard C. Jones: If that is true, we are paying twice for information which the government already has. I have that report, and I am sure the minister could use it.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a copy of this document; I just borrowed one from a colleague. I hope the minister will excuse the fact that I have not had a chance to read it. Will the minister tell the House whether there has been a discussion about the decision to move Canada toward the world price, which is a monopoly price? As a result of the research done by Professor Adelman, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was offered to the American government, it was suggested that the United States government and the Canadian government combined, rather than multinational corporations, should buy from members of the OPEC cartel and seal biddings in order not immediately to destroy the monopoly price but gradually to lower it. It is obvious that within that cartel some countries are worse off than others.
We are going on the assumption made recently by the vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia that the thing to do would be to push up the price to world levels in one jump. As he knows, this would give a great push to inflation as well as to the problems of economic growth in the country. Professor Adelman's studies show that this has been done so as to help break off that cartel gradually and not go ahead and meet what is not an American price but is a monopoly price.
I submit to the minister that we are setting a stupid precedent in trying to meet what is a monopoly price, and is continuing to be so, without any effort on the part of a large consuming nation in oil such as we are becoming. This is my first question:	Have there been such
discussions?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken the position that the most effective way of bringing counter-pres-

sure against OPEC nations is to join with other large consuming nations who were part of the International Energy Agency. As a member of that agency, we have reached agreement on a number of different measures which we think will have the force of providing counter-pressure against the OPEC nations.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. Has he considered the enormous work that has been done by professor Adelman and has been offered to the American government over a period of years? He suggests that sealed price-bidding by both Canada and the United States would quickly lower the monopoly price that we have to meet. Has that been specifically considered by the National Energy Board and the minister's department when forming policy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the representations of the hon. member to the attention of the agencies to which he has referred. I shall also make inquiries as to whether the International Energy Agency has looked into the work of Professor Adelman.


Andrew Hogan: A final question, Mr. Speaker. Recently the minister is alleged to have stated that the federal government will pay a $25 million subsidy on oil shipped from Sarnia to Montreal. I do not know whether the minister actually said that, but it was carried by the press. Is it true, or not?


Alastair William Gillespie: Who has the floor?


Andrew Hogan: Can the minister tell the House how much the government intends to pay?


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you giving me the floor?


Andrew Hogan: I will give it in a minute. Can the minister tell the House how much the government intends to pay in subsidy to Nova Scotia to offset the oil price increase that will hit the economy of that province very hard if the July agreement is reached? It is evident from the minister's statement today that the price will go up considerably. I want to contest his statement made earlier. I should like him to table it in the House that it has cost, or will cost up to this sum in subsidy-$1 billion for the Atlantic region. When I discussed this in the House three weeks ago the hon. parliamentary secretary said the $1 billion estimate- although he did not show how it was worked out-was for all consumers east of the Ottawa Valley and not just for consumers in the Atlantic region.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions there. As to the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline, the federal government did take a decision that it would pay the deficiency costs in transporting the oil the additional distance from Toronto to Montreal which were not picked up in the tariff structure that then existed from Sarnia to Montreal. That, very likely, will run to something in the order of $20 million to $25 million. It is strictly temporary and will cease immediately the National Energy Board produces its findings on what the appropriate tariff should be on moving oil from Sarnia to Montreal. It is strictly a temporary measure to bridge the existing situation.
April 27, 1976

As to the price in the maritimes, if the hon. member would like to come to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works this evening, I shall appear before that committee and we will try to give the hon. member more precise numbers then.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if we could conclude the questioning with a question or two from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my questions will be brief. First of all, I should like to refer the minister to his statement, which reads:
-to further increase exploration and development we will be introducing a mandatory, company-by-company reporting system to monitor the cash flow of the petroleum industry.
Is such a monitoring system in place now and, if so, to what extent does the minister intend to change or improve it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is an informal reporting system; but as the text of my remarks makes clear, we are now making it mandatory.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In his statement the minister says there will be a role for Petro-Canada to play. I wonder if he could tell the House briefly what role the government envisages for Petro-Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: A very important role, Mr. Speaker. The exploration budget for Petro-Canada this calendar year would be in the order of $100 million, I would expect. That will place it amongst the majors in the exploration and development field. The vast majority of those funds will be devoted to the frontier areas. As the total exploration budgets last year were in the order of $350 million in the frontier regions, the hon. member will appreciate that a sum of roughly $100 million is a very significant proportion of the kind of exploration activity that we foresee for the frontier regions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Finally, Mr. Speaker, does the minister have in mind that this $100 million will mainly be spent in the Arctic and on offshore drilling, and nothing for development in the Athabasca oil sands or any other activity such as secondary recovery?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is a sum of money- this is off the top of my head, and I would not want to be held to it-of something in the order of $7 million in this year's budget for participation in the polar gas project for technological research activity. There are further funds which are being sought for participation in various types of oil sands technology over and above the Syncrude
Order Paper Questions
project. I do not believe the additional funds have yet been authorized, but I think it is important to recognize that Petro-Canada will become the Canadian government's agent respecting Syncrude's participation, and that is in the order of better than $300 million.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; 3,949, 3,982, 4,144, 5,020, 5,021, 5,022, 5,113 and 5,148.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What was the original estimated cost to the government for the Toronto Harbourfront Park?
2.	What will be the final cost?
3.	What is the scheduled date of completion?
4.	What were the (a) administrative costs, (b) total overall federal expenditures in (i) 1973, (ii) 1974, (iii) 1975?
5.	What committee, commission or group was in charge of the Park at inception in the fall of (a) 1972, (b) 1973, (c) 1974, (d) 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The
original estimate for site acquisition cost was $36,000,000, including an anticipated expenditure of $6,000,000 for the provision of port improvements and port facilities for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in exchange for land under their control.
2.	It is anticipated that some settlements may be resolved by the Federal Court of Canada in accordance with approved provisions in the Expropriation Act. On the basis of settlements to date it is estimated that the final cost of site acquisition will be $55,000,000, including payments for port improvements and port facilities to be provided to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
3.	Under the terms of settlement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners it was agreed that the Government of Canada would complete the port facilities by March 31, 1981. It is anticipated that all settlements now outstanding with private owner, even if referred to the Federal Court of Canada, will be completed by at least that date or earlier.
4.	In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
Site Acquisition
Capital Operations and Payments including Improvements Maintenance Port facilities
$	$	$(i)	1972-73	Nil	Nil	3,862(ii)	1973-74	302,610	110,000	35,682,926(iii)	1974-75	1,386,252	412,936	1,442,9241975-76 (estimated)	1,000,000	500,000	2,371,000
April 27, 1976
Order Paper Questions
5.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) The Minister of Public Works filed Notice of Expropriation on October 17, 1972. No programme activities were initiated on the site during the balance of 1972-73. During 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was responsible for the provision of programme activities on the site. The Department of Public Works has supported these programmes with related expenditures on capital improvements and site operations and maintenance. During 1973-74 and 197475, Urban Affairs chaired an Intergovernmental Committee that provided direction to the project team planning the development of the site. In July 1975, the Harbourfront Council was created by MSUA with the agreement of the Mayor of Toronto and the Chairman of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This council of Toronto citizens was charged with the responsibility for directing the operation of the site and for making recommendations to the three participating levels of government on the future of the site. Their report was submitted January 30th and is under review by the three levels of government.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Board of Directors of Museums Canada meet in Halifax during 1975 and, if so (a) on what dates, (b) for what purpose, (c) at what locations, and (i) in what manner, (ii) by whom were the decisions made regarding the location for each meeting?
2.	In each case (a) how many persons were in attendance, (b) what was the total cost for (i) accommodation, (ii) travel expenses, (iii) food and drink, (iv) sundry expenses?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	Yes, (a) September 15, 16, 17, 18, 1975; (b) according to the by-laws of the National Museums Corporation the NMC Board of Trustees must meet quarterly. The Halifax meeting was a regular quarterly meeting. Board meetings are held outside the National Capital in order to give Trustees an opportunity to meet with Canadians in all regions who have been closely involved in the policies of the National Museums of Canada and to give them a first hand view of how well the programmes and policies are being implemented. In Nova Scotia, Trustees also visisted Louisburg and the Miners' Museum in Glace Bay. The latter is assisted by the NMC and is one of the best examples of the NMC cultural decentralization policy in action; (c) Halifax, Louisburg, Glace Bay; (i) in the normal manner, which is determined by the Trustees at their meetings; (ii) by decision of the Board of Trustees at their quarterly meetings.
2.	(a) Twenty-six persons were in attendance; (b) (i) $1,721.17; (ii) $7,837.28; (iii) $2,872.47 (In addition to the 26 persons who were in attendance for all or part of the Board meeting, the costs include entertainment for provincial officials and leaders of the museum community from the Atlantic region); (iv) $2,371.29 (The sundry expenses covered simultaneous translation costs).


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Does the Societe d'habitation du Quebec consult with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before building (a) homes, (b) low-rent housing for senior citizens and, if so, does it submit its plans to the Corporation?
2.	What is the name of the person who determines the amount of the contribution by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to a project?
3.	Does an agreement exist between the two Corporations and, if so (a) what are its details, (b) as of what date?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. (a) and (b) Following normal procedure for housing financed under the NHA, Quebec Housing Corporation submits plans and specifications to CMHC before loans are approved for housing for families or for senior citizens.
2.	The processing of applications for loans under the NHA is an aspect of the internal administration of CMHC which is the responsibility of its President and Board of Directors, and it is not the policy to disclose details of such administration.
3.	(a) and (b) An agreement between CMHC and QHC was entered into on September 12, 1974 for projects to be financed in 1974 and 1975 for housing for elderly persons under Section 15.1 of the NHA and for public housing projects under Section 43 of the NHA.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month, (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month, (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month, (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month, (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month, (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month, (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month, (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month, (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month, (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month, (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month, (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month, (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month, (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of March 31, 1976, the number of retired Armed Forces personnel receiving monthly pensions totaled 48,018 within the following monthly brackets: (a) less than $20.00, 50; (b) $20.00 to $29.99, 64; (c) $30.00 to

April 27, 1976

$39.99, 130; (d) $40.00 to $49.99, 251; (e) $50.00 to $59.99, 239; (f) $60.00 to $69.99, 186; (g) $70.00 to $79.99, 246; (h) $80.00 to $89.99, 336; (i) $90.00 to $99.99, 474; (j) $100.00 to $149.99, 2,480; (k) $150.00 to $199.99, 5,621; (1) $200.00 to $249.99, 7,893; (m) $250.00 to $299.99, 6,935; (n) $300.00 and over, 23,113.
2.	The number of widows receiving monthly pensions totaled 4,866 as follows: (a) less than $20.00, 44; (b) $20.00 to $29.99, 44; (c) $30.00 to $39.99, 37; (d) $40.00 to $49.99, 45; (e) $50.00 to $59.99, 43; (f) $60.00 to $69.99, 79; (g) $70.00 to $79.99, 102; (h) $80.00 to $89.99, 165; (i) $90.00 to $99.99, 193; (j) $100.00 to $149.99, 1,086; (k) $150.00 to $199.99, 1,101; (1) $200.00 to $249.99, 725; (m) $250.00 to $299.99, 497; (n) $300.00 and over, 705.
3.	The number of Retired Armed Forces personnel and widows of Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province is as follows:
Provinces
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Territories Outside Canada
Personnel	Widows
215	16
413	47
4,652	422
1,756	172
4,065	516
18,732	2,053
2,035	210
653	84
4,159	346
10,085	831
90	6
1,163	163
48,018	4,866
4.	Number of orphans, 164, Average monthly amount, $55.50


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974 (c) March 31,1975?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974, (c) March 31, 1975?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974, (c) March 31, 1975?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1, 3 and 4. This information is tabled in the House of Commons annually in accordance with Revised Statutes, and also appears annually in the Public Accounts.
2. Rates of interest for: (a) 1972/73 Quarter ending June 30, 1972, 1.4601 percent; Quarter ending September 30, 1972, 1.4659 percent; Quarter ending December 31, 1972, 1,4778 percent; Quarter ending March 31, 1973, 1.4931 percent; (b) 1973/74 Quarter ending June 30, 1973, 1.5042 percent; Quarter ending September 30, 1973, 1.5252 percent; Quarter
Order Paper Questions
ending December 31, 1973, 1.5364 percent; Quarter ending March 31, 1974, 1.5490 percent; (c) 1974/75 Quarter ending June 30, 1974, 1.5642 percent; Quarter ending September 30, 1974, 1.59 percent; Quarter ending December 31, 1974, 1.6259 percent; Quarter ending March 31, 1975, 1.6363 percent.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1975, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1975, both inclusive, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (a) to retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel, (b) to widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1975, both inclusive, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) The number of Canadian Forces personnel from 1959 to 1975 inclusive who commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) was as follows: 1959, 752; 1960, 1,048; 1961, 1,418;
1962, 1,343; 1963, 1,623; 1964, 2,454; 1965, 3,419; 1966, 3,407; 1967, 2,983; 1968, 2,787; 1969, 4,050; 1970, 4,075; 1971, 4,267;
1972,	4,405; 1973, 3,357; 1974, 3,478; 1975, 3,459. (b) The number of widows of Canadian personnel from 1959 to 1975 inclusive who commenced drawing pensions under the CFSA was as follows; 1959, 98; 1960, 121; 1961, 166; 1962, 179;
1963,	207; 1964, 208; 1965, 283; 1966, 263; 1967, 303; 1968, 303;
1969,	371; 1970, 323; 1971, 375; 1972, 420; 1973, 441; 1974, 478.
2.	(a) The number of pensions to retired Canadian Forces personnel for the years in question which were discontinued because of the death of the annuitant was as follows: 1959, 91; 1960, 103; 1961, 114; 1962, 127; 1963, 1421964, 169; 1965, 190; 1966, 208; 1967, 243; 1968, 295; 1969, 353;
1970,	356; 1971, 331; 1972, 323; 1973, 379; 1974, 524; 1975, 496. (b) The number of pensions to widows of Canadian Forces personnel which were discontinued because of the death of the annuitant was as follows: 1959, 9; 1960, 12; 1961, 17; 1962, 19; 1963, 26; 1964, 28; 1965, 34; 1966, 39; 1967, 45; 1968, 56; 1969, 50; 1970, 52; 1971, 24; 1972, 11; 1973, 12; 1974, 30; 1975, 39.
3.	The number of contributors to the CFSA or the former Part V based on the strength of the Armed Forces as at March 31 of each year indicated, was as follows: 1946, 212,692; 1947, 36,535; 1948, 34,762; 1949, 41,676; 1950, 47,185; 1951, 68,427; 1952, 95,394; 1953, 104,427; 1954, 112,529; 1955, 118,077; 1956, 116,678; 1957, 117,092; 1958, 119,038; 1959, 120,412; 1960, 119,597; 1961, 120,055; 1962, 126,474; 1963, 123,694;
1964,	120,781; 1965, 114,164; 1966, 107,467; 1967, 105,584; 1968, 101,572; 1969, 98,340; 1970, 93,353; 1971, 89,563; 1972, 84,933;
1973,	82,402; 1974, 81,822; 1975, 79,817.


Mr. Forrestall: For each Atlantic province, by year since 1965, what is the government's best estimate of the payments made under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act?

Anti-Inflation Act


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act received Royal assent on July 19, 1969 and payments under this legislation have only been made since that date. Such payments are made to carriers in relation to the movement of traffic within and westbound from the region. As such traffic originates and terminates within and/or between all provinces in the Atlantic Region it is not possible to allocate payments to a specific province. Such information could only be established by abstracting origin and destination statistics from the millions of shipping documents submitted by carriers in support of subsidy claims. No data gathering system currently exists to accomplish this purpose.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total amount expended, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, by the government directly or indirectly on the Pickering Airport up to March 31, 1976?
2.	As of that date, what further monies have been committed, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, with respect to the project?
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale	(Parliamentary	Secretary toMinister of Transport):	Accumulated Expenditures	1976-77(1) to March	(2) Estimates31, 1976 ($000's)	($000's)Site	543	-Planning Team	10,798	-Land and Related Costs	83,586	5,604Headquarters Charges- Loan Interest, Fringe Benefits, etc.	24,303	12,651Total	$119,230	$18,255


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, as reported (with amend-

ments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-89, An act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, be amended in clause 11 by striking out lines 10 to 23 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) This act expires on May 1, 1977, or on such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation or a motion taken up and considered by the House of Commons that is adopted by the House and concurred in by the Senate pursuant to subsections (8) and (9) unless, before May 1, 1977, or any earlier date fixed by proclamation or any such motion that is so adopted by the House and concurred in by the Senate, an order in council is made to the effect that this act shall continue in force for such period of time as may be set out in the order in council."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of my motion I would first like to say that I hope hon. members will participate at lenght in the debate with respect to this motion and also Bill C-89. I believe that one of the most important matters before this parliament is the question of the wage and price control program inflicted on the Canadian public by the government.


John Edward Broadbent: And supported by you on second reading.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In that connection I would say that the minister's comment earlier today in the question period, that he hoped for speedy passage of this bill, was not unfortunate, bearing in mind that at committee stage with respect to the bill the guillotine was used once more by government members to force the bill through without proper review of the clauses therein. In short, we spent three meetings at committee stage reviewing this bill.
The same mistake was made by government members as was made respecting Bill C-73, the original anti-inflation legislation. That was giving too little time for thorough review at committee stage on this important matter which, unfortunately, ended up with amendments being required as we are now dealing with in Bill C-89. I say that because at the committee stage initially with respect to Bill C-73 it was made quite clear that we felt there were not proper appeal provisions under the legislation that the government was advancing.
My motion is, in effect, a very simple one. I suggest that we should deal with motions Nos. 1 and 2 jointly because they are interrelated. Motion No. 2 is consequential upon motion No. 1 being accepted. Motion No. 1 simply proposes to change the expiration date of Bill C-73 from December 31, 1978, to a more realistic date, namely, May 1, 1977.


An hon. Member:: Bill C-89.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may clarify that, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are dealing with today is Bill C-89, which in turn amends Bill C-73, but the expiration provision is in Bill C-73. What I am saying is that Bill C-73 contains the expiration date of December 31, 1978. The clause which is amended in another way by the administration is now being reamended through my motion to make the expiration May 1, 1977, as opposed to December 31, 1978.
April 27, 1976

I urge members of this House to support us in our desire to ensure that the wage and price control program of the present administration be held to a minimum period. It is our view that the honeymoon period with the Anti-Inflation Board appears to be on the wane. Six months after its creation, there is little evidence that the board has helped to contain inflation. Current moderation in inflation is due in the main to a decline since October in the prices of beef, pork, poultry, fresh fruits, cereal and bakery products. None of these items, however, come under the Anti-Inflation Board's direct purview, even in principle. Wage settlements reviewed by the board have ended in average first-year increases of 16.2 per cent, well above the board's target of 8 per cent plus 2 per cent for so-called productivity. More and more it appears that the present administration established the Anti-Inflation Board for political rather that economic reasons. Jean-Luc Pepin, chairman of the board, has apparently been asked to keep a high profile to give the impression of activity so that the administration can claim credit should inflation decline.
The present administration, in their anti-inflation program, appear-as far as the cabinet members and others are concerned-to be more and more as though they were TV actors playing out a script. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I would suggest, takes the role of Marshall Dillon, out to vanquish the imagined villains, the labouring man, the businessman, the municipalities and the provinces. He, of course, has his little entourage. Festus, in the script, appears to be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) limping along, meaning well but always fumbling and changing his mind. Jean-Luc Pepin, the board chairman, takes the role of Doc. His role is one of physician for all our problems. He is quick to prescribe aspirin remedies, but admits that he has no idea how to cure the overall disease of inflation. I am not sure who plays the role of Kitty in the program. It may be even Mrs. Plumptre, if you can imagine that.
As much as the administration may claim they are out to vanquish the villain of inflation, in the real world inflation always ends up vanquishing controls, if they are left on a permanent basis. The economies of western democracies are strewn with dead and wounded control programs that lasted too long. Controls only work on a temporary basis. Controls in themselves will not put an end to the inflation cycle. In fact, they may cause inflation to continue longer than they otherwise would. "Doc Pepin" will never put an end to the transfers of income and wealth that inflation brings. He will never be able to end the hardships inflicted by inflation on our poor and disadvantaged. Controls may be introduced appropriately as a supplementary or incidental device which for psychological reasons, at least, might assist the economy to right itself. Such controls must be subsidiary, however, to a tighter fiscal restraint and realistic growth in our monetary system.
It was on this basis that my party first suggested the imposition of an income control policy in Canada. We did that early in 1973. We based our proposition on the sound economic premise of having restraint in government spending and in the growth of our money supply. Had our approach of restraint in spending at the federal government level and in monetary growth been followed there is no doubt we could have shaved off the top of our inflation cycle and had less inflation today. Unfortunately, however,
Anti-Inflation Act
the present administration has subjected us to their control program for political reasons, not economic reasons. The administration is using this program to project an executive image of decisiveness in response to the public outcry to do something about inflation. In addition, they realize that the controls program shifts the focus of attention away from the real culprits of inflation-the government's own agency, the Bank of Canada, and the government's own spending-toward the private sector and the struggles between business and labour to maintain their income share.
The public relations' value is difficult to overestimate. Its ideal from the present administration's standpoint to have our commentators on TV and our columnists refer to labour or business leaders as being locked in confrontations against the public interest when they try to raise prices and wages. The administration's role then shows up as the protector, as the Marshall Dillon of the public interest rather than the culprit in the inflation process.
The electronic medium is perfectly suited to handle this shift in focus. Radio and TV people have a horrendous time depicting the complex process in which an undue increase in our money supply or federal spending creates inflation, but they have a very easy time depicting conflict between management and labour or consumer and supermarket. In this type of conflict the government always looks good. It is generally assumed they have no selfish interests, so they can appear to be the defender of the public and its protectors against selfish business and labour leaders. The Prime Minister and his officials wear white hats, carry halos and come on like Marshall Dillon with hundreds of deputized enforcers.
We were first told that the staff of the AIB would be 200 in number. At last count it was 583, and rising. After six months the number has reached nearly 600. Will it be 1,000 by the end of the year? At the highest point of the phase two control program in the United States the organization comparable to the AIB in Canada had only 700 people on its staff.
There is a growing indication that the government sees the control program in this country as a continuing one. Speaking in Toronto last weekend, the Minister of Finance told a meeting of Ontario Liberals that the wage and price control program might have to be tightened up so as to be more effective. He said that the program was, and I quote, "in a certain sense unjust to everyone", but that it had brought the rate of inflation down to about 9 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing but direct misrepresentation. There is no evidence that the program has materially reduced inflation. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
Let me cite two examples. I have already referred to the fact that the main reason for the decline in the rate of inflation is the drop in food prices. In the last three months, food costs declined to the equivalent of an annual rate of a 6.5 per cent increase, while the rest of the consumer price index package soared by 10.7 per cent. In the six months before the imposition of controls, the cost of living rose at an annual rate of 10.4 per cent. In other words, if you exclude the food component there is more inflation

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
today than existed prior to the commencement of the program.
My second example is this. Increasingly there is a tendency for wage settlements to be more generous than they might otherwise have been, since employers contemplate the AIB knocking down settlement levels anyway. There appears to be a shifting of responsibility from employers to the AIB in the blind assumption that the board will insist that its own guidelines should not be violated. However, we find that recent settlements approved by the board have on average been 50 per cent higher than permissible under the board's own guidelines.
Most alarmingly, there is increasing evidence that the government intends to continue the control program indefinitely, at least in part. Mr. Pepin speaks about the program having a gradual character and states, "It's only a dream if people start thinking of getting out of controls in 12 months or 18 months." The Minister of Finance has admitted to the committee that it is going to take a number of years to get inflation down to a level which in the government's view would justify dismantling the control program. The longer the controls continue, the more they will distort the economy. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I have moved, on behalf of the official opposition, that the anti-inflation program should expire on May 1 of next year rather than continue beyond that date.
Inflation in the United States is running this year at 6 per cent, compared to our own rate of 9 per cent. William Simons, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, has forecast that inflation in that country will be down to 2 per cent in a couple of years. In Canada, on the other hand, the government talks about 8 per cent inflation this year, 6 per cent next year and 4 per cent thereafter-figures substantially above the American level.
The AIB has introduced a high degree of confusion into the marketplace. There is presently a backlog of 3,000 applications for price or wage review. According to the findings of a Gallup poll released last weekend, 67 per cent of those questioned thought the program was unfair with regard to prices, and 65 per cent felt it was unfair with regard to incomes. In the absence of public confidence there is little chance the board will be able to function effectively.
Speaking of confusion, in the course of the question period today I asked the minister at least to clarify the unfortunate inclusion of charitable donations under the restricted expense definition found in the Anti-Inflation Act regulations. His reply confirmed my worst impressions. Charitable donations, as an item included under restricted expenses, are now put into such a category that businessmen, acting in complete sincerity, may find it difficult to maintain their programs of charitable donations. I say this because what the minister has chosen to do by way of these regulations is to lump a large variety of expenses together under the heading of "restricted expenses." He has lumped advertising, promotion and public relations, plant and office rearrangement, moving, landscaping and decorating expenses, with expenses incurred in research and development, management fees, including administration fees, technical assistance charges and accounting service fees paid to any person with certain

exceptions. To all these things he has linked charitable donations and, finally, training and retraining expenses.
The unfortunate consequences are these. As a company carries on its business it may find that through no fault of its own advertising costs have increased. The cost of research and development might go up because the company feels it needs to spend more money in these areas in order to increase its productivity. Yet under the existing regulations the extra money needed will have to be found in one or other of the categories to which I have referred. For example, if a company wishes to increase its research and development program it might well feel it has no alternative but to lower its charitable donations in the current year. When we consider that more than 50 per cent of the money received by charitable organizations comes from business and commercial undertakings, I think it is particularly unfortunate that the regulations should be drafted in such a manner, the consequence of which might well be a substantial shortfall in donations to charitable donations such as the United Way in the current as well as subsequent years.
Initially, as I have pointed out, the administration stated that the board would have no more than 200 employees. As late as last November, Mr. Pepin is on record as saying, "The members of the board have a strong preference for a small agency, thus keeping the bureaucracy to a minimum." Last week, however, when appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, he stated:
The original plan which called for a total of 200 officials was nonsense. It was simply a concept in the mind of one individual with no analysis of the situation at all.
It was then revealed that as of last month the board had built up a bureaucracy numbering 583 persons-and that figure is likely to be over the 600 mark by now. Besides the staff to which I have referred in the AIB itself, there is, of course, a staff in the administrator's office, in the office of the appeals tribunal and in other departments of government such as national revenue. In addition there is, of course, the provincial involvement. Speaking about staff, I think hon. members would be interested in an article that appears in the current, April edition of Executive magazine. It refers to the chaos existing at the AIB. The article has this to say:
Under the best of circumstances, the pace of expansion would have led to rather severe growing pains. But the differences among the board members and the lack of even minimal controls over the purse-strings have seriously compounded the problem. The growth has not been well orchestrated, internal co-ordination has been almost totally lacking, and personal empires are well under construction. In other words, the AIB's management is chaotic.
One sign of this is the high rate of turnover among the senior staff in almost every branch of the board.
Prices and profits: John Hague, the present director-general, is the second person to occupy the post. Hugh Bardon, his predecessor, walked out after a few weeks. But Hague himself is only temporary and he is expected to return soon to his regular job at the Canada Development Corp.
Compensation: James King already has returned to his consulting business in Toronto. He was succeeded by William Nelson as director-general at the start of March.
April 27, 1976

Communications: Michael McCabe resigned in February, being replaced as director-general on an acting basis by Kenn Prittie. A permanent replacement has yet to be appointed.
Administration: Ralph Blackwell, the present director-general, is the second person in the job.
Economic research: David Dodge is at least the second director-general; nobody can remember how many others have preceded him.
In that context, Mr. Speaker, can you blame the official opposition for saying that we should ensure that this unfortunate program should come to an end no later than May 1, 1977? The Americans, in their phase two program which ran from November 15, 1971, to January 11, 1973- about a 13-month period-took a much different approach from that which has been taken in Canada. Their program had three tiers of controls. The first tier, which involved 1,100 firms with $100 million or more in sales, covered 55 per cent of the gross sales in that country. Tier No. 2 covered another 1,500 firms which had sales of from $50 million to $100 million. This level caught 11 per cent of gross sales in the United States. The third tier, which applied to firms with sales under $50 million, involved only selected companies. In total, the United States did not attempt to control more than about 3,000 firms-a far cry from our approach.
In the American program, however, Mr. Speaker, they did attempt to control rents, with the result that 57 per cent of their field force was devoted to that field where they received 80 per cent of their complaints. We in Canada have passed rent control over to the provinces, yet our AIB staff is even larger than that in the United States if we look at the composite picture.
To date, the administration appears to have made three important mistakes in setting up their Anti-Inflation Board and the anti-inflation program itself. First, they did not provide for a total freeze during an initial 90-day period to allow for the forming of definitive rules which could be more easily understood. Secondly, they are allowing a highly discretionary approach to be taken in their decisions, with little consistency. Some wage and price decisions appear to be excessive, while others are unduly low. Thirdly, unlike the American approach, where about
3.000	firms were involved, the board has kept expanding their jurisdiction so that they are now reviewing over
100.000	concerns in this country. The workload and frustration that that will entail will become impossible. The administrative cost to businesses of complying with the controls will run into hundreds of millions of dollars.
In this connection, the United States has estimated that its control program may have reduced the rate of price and wage increases by no more than about 1 per cent, and that the main impact was at the beginning of their program. Against this one must consider the statement of John Dunlap, executive director of the cost of living council, when he appeared before the United States Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs on February 6,
1974.	At that time Mr. Dunlap had this to say:
One must consider the direct and indirect costs of the controls program. The direct costs consist of the administration necessary for the government and private sector to operate controls. The outlays of the federal government for implementing controls were $108 million for Phase II-
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the outlay for our program in Ottawa is running close to $20 million per year.
Anti-Inflation Act
Estimates on the administrative costs to business for complying with the controls regulation cover a range of from $0.7 to $2 billion, with the more realistic estimates at the lower end of the scale.
With 30 times the number of firms involved in Canada's control program already, the relative costs to Canadian companies may be truly staggering. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members should at least peruse the latest publication from the C.D. Howe Research Institute in a booklet "HRI Observations", which carries an article entitled "The Anti-Inflation Guidelines: Linking Wages to Productivity". I think this booklet sets forth some interesting perspectives and comments concerning this controls program, and on page 3 the following interesting statement is to be found:
-without an exceptional boost in productivity growth during the current recovery period, the guidelines will prolong the process of winding down the rate of inflation.
I think that the factual information given in this brochure should give everybody cause to be alarmed. Their view is that the 2 per cent productivity assumption that is built into the anti-inflation guidelines is not realistic in relation to productivity increases in this country. When the minister comments on my motion I should like to hear him deal with this question of productivity precisely.
Again on the question of confusion, I think it is interesting to note that not only did the government request the Anti-Inflation Board to comment on bringing various companies under the general regulation of the program-I am referring to the recent order in council directed at construction companies right down to the one-man company level, trucking companies, grain handling companies and shipping and longshoring establishments-but it has chosen to throw its net around the general insurance companies as well.
This is truly remarkable, Mr. Speaker. If you read the Anti-Inflation Board's recommendations regarding the inclusion of general insurance companies within the program, in effect the board stated that those that had automatically fallen within the guidelines-those with over 500 employees-did not dominate the industry sufficiently because there were so many other companies in the industry competing that the board could not effectively deal with that industry if the program were restricted to a relatively small number of companies.
The fact is that there are over 400 insurance companies doing business in Canada. What the government had failed to recognize is that the board was really basing its recommendation on the fact that they had found that most of those 400 companies were truly very competitive, and that unless they could control all insurance companies they felt they would be unable materially to alter the general carriage of business in the insurance industry of this country since the controls affected only a few of the big companies which, in percentage terms, represented only a small portion of the general insurance field. I would suggest that is a complete distortion. Reading it another way, the board should have said this is an industry that is truly competitive and does not need the control we are being asked to extend over it. To confirm this, I think it is interesting to note the statement by Mr. Humphrys, Superintendent of Insurance, before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs just this morning. I should like to quote what Mr. Humphrys said as follows:

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
The recent and current economic situation has strained companies' resources.
He was referring to companies active in the general insurance business. He continued:
Rising claims costs due to inflation and the resulting underwriting losses suffered have made it impossible to restore margins from retained earnings; at the same time the competition for capital and the poor profit performance have made it difficult to raise additional capital funds. This has caused some companies to withdraw from Canada and some others have had to impose restraints on the volume of new business.
Incidentally, on questioning Mr. Humphrys he stated that 27 companies to date have had to withdraw from Canada because the insurance business is so competitive they no longer felt they could continue to make money here carrying on with the general insurance business. Mr. Humphrys went on to state:
The situation has required, and is requiring, sustained attention by the department to see that unsatisfactory asset positions and operating losses are recognized and corrected within time limits imposed, in order to ensure that companies remain in a position where they are able to discharge their financial obligations to the public. We are re-examining the statutory requirements for reserves and surplus margins to be sure that they do not unnecessarily impede companies in providing insurance that the public needs.
Those are alarming words coming from the Superintendent of Insurance. He is stating that the losses sustained by these companies were something over $200 million in 1974, and almost $200 million in 1975, have resulted in these companies being extremely strained as far as their capital resources are concerned. To suggest that they be subjected to still more harassing control and regulation shows the ineptitude of the government's handling of this entire anti-inflation program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My friends to the left, in typical fashion, hoot and holler when I refer to the insurance industry. I only wish they would read into Hansard what happened to the British Columbia Insurance Company which tried to get into the insurance business and compete with private institutions operating in that province.
In conclusion, I hope that hon. members will support my motion. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) will undoubtedly understand the reference I am making to the United States experience in phase two of its anti-inflation program. The parliamentary secretary, with myself, attended a seminar in Washington in January, 1975. At that time we heard most of the officials who had been involved in the United States anti-inflation program and I think the parliamentary secretary will agree that if we are thinking of getting into a controls program in the foreseeable future, we should not. They said we should not get into such a program, but if we did we should make sure we have the co-operation of labour before doing so. What I find most remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is the way-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, following his thoughtful speech, would answer a question before sitting down?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) accept a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be willing to accept a question from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent). I am just finishing my remarks.
Specifically, what I am saying is that I hope the parliamentary secretary will pass on to the Minister of Finance the very good information we obtained in Washington about the handling of an anti-inflation program, with the earnest desire that the minister will wisen up and perhaps be able to handle this program in a more satisfactory way than to date. Above all, I wish to emphasize that the program should not continue longer than 18 months and should terminate on or about May 1, 1977.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech of some 40 minutes he listed the many objections he has to the program, suggesting it was not working in terms of prices and was unfair in terms of wages. He mentioned that the insurance industry was upset, and so on. For 40 minutes I heard nothing but criticism of the program. I should like to ask the hon. member why, in heaven's name, he wants it extended for another year?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, through no fault of the hon. member, he is not a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. This question was discussed at that standing committee and I tried the minister out on his willingness to accept various termination dates. I felt the only one we could possibly win on was May 1, 1977. The thought was that we should be thankful for small mercies if that was the chosen date for the program to terminate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I believe it has been suggested by the hon. member for York-Simcoe that motions Nos. 1 and 2 be debated together. If this is the wish of the House, the Chair has no objection to the suggestion. A separate vote should be taken on each motion. However, it seems to the Chair that motions Nos. 2 and 3 contain contradictory propositions. Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on that, as it would seem to the Chair that if motion No. 2 is adopted, that would automatically dispose of motion No. 3.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that one vote be held on motions Nos. 1 and 2 in that, as I have indicated, motion No. 2 is simply consequential on motion No. 1, and in the event that it is defeated we should then have a vote on motion No. 3. If motion No. 3 carries, I would suggest that this is an entirely separate matter from motions Nos. 1 and 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I believe the hon. member suggests that the House should debate motion No. 1 and motion No. 2 together, then vote on No. 1, which would dispose of motion No. 2 and No. 3 would be a separate vote. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In view of the fact that motion No. 2 is now included, I will read the motion. It is moved by Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Paproski:

That Bill C-89, an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, be amended in clause 11 by striking out lines 27 to 38 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) Where, at any time after August 31, 1976 and before January 1, 1977, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than 50 members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that this act shall expire on a date before May 1, 1977, that is specified in the motion, the House of Commons shall within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you provided the theme for my response to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) when you referred to him as having been completely contradictory in his motions. Indeed, he was contradictory to himself, to his colleagues and to his former leader throughout his speech. At the very start he got up to oppose the speedy passage of this measure. Indeed, he was only consistent, at least with himself, in the fact that he has been active in trying to prevent this particular bill from becoming law. He has taken every step possible to try to prolong debate on this matter, to prolong the committee hearings and in fact to prevent it from being carried out.
However, the hon. member has totally rejected the viewpoint of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), his former leader, or perhaps has revealed that that hon. gentleman was not genuinely expressing his party's viewpoint. Hon. members will recall the righteous indignation of the hon. member for Halifax, the former leader of the opposition, when he complained about the fact that the workingman in Canada did not have the right of appeal under this bill, or the anti-inflation law, and wanted that right of appeal established as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill proposes. The hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and other members have prolonged the debate to prevent the representatives of the workingman, such as the unions and other representatives, from getting the right of appeal which the former leader of the opposition once said he, at least, was interested in.
In dealing with the substance of the argument, as I have said many times before we have set out to put into play a planned and deliberate reduction in the rate of inflation in Canada and to take account of the fact that some people in the working force have not had the opportunity to catch up with the rate of inflation in the past; in other words, to try to reduce the rate of inflation in Canada by a deliberate program over a three-year period. We have sought to soften the impact of the program on the workingman in Canada by extending the period of time in which it would operate. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues would like to see a much steeper rate of reduction in Canada and much harsher measures taken to bring down the rate of inflation.
Once again, the hon. member for York-Simcoe in his participation in the debate this afternoon advocated a policy which would ensure a very high rate of unemployment in this country and would bring about a very great risk of the Canadian economy being forced into recession.
Anti-Inflation Act
The hon. member has often quoted with admiration the American situation and the fact that the rate of inflation in the United States at the present time is about three percentage points below the rate in Canada. I think we should recall that the United States has experienced a rate of unemployment of up to 10 per cent during the past 18 months and, unlike the Canadian economy which was reduced to a very slow rate of growth, but a rate of growth, over the past six months, the United States suffered no less than a 6 per cent recession during the past 18 months.
For my part-and I am sure members on this side of the House agree-it would not be our purpose to fight inflation by bringing about high levels of unemployment and recessionary conditions in Canada as one way of bringing about a reduction in our rate of inflation. That is why we reject the tight money policies, the restrictive fiscal and monetary policies which the hon. gentleman opposite advocates as the means to reduce inflation in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Then we do not have restraint.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We do indeed have restraint. The question is, are we to tighten up the economy and throw more people out of work? The hon. member for York-Simcoe would say, by all means do this and it is too bad for the workingman. He would say that we should tighten it up. That is not our viewpoint.
The hon. member used figures, again, concerning the number of staff in this particular organization and the number in the United States. During the course of the committee hearings he repeatedly produced figures and asserted that these were the numbers. He repeated the figure 700 as the number of United States employees involved in the program in that country. Of course, as was pointed out to him in the committee, he had-I am sure accidentally-only drawn the staff from one of the four United States' organizations responsible for running the American anti-inflation program. Indeed, at one point he picked out the number of employees from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as 250 and my colleague from Windsor pointed out that that was with regard to only one part of a departmental program which had very many more employees than that.
The fact is that there were many more persons involved in the United States. In the several agencies involved there were 1,000 persons under the anti-inflation program alone and three thousand more in the context of the internal revenue service. The interesting thing is that hon. members opposite are unhappy with this government for having adopted a selective incomes and prices control system. We have not adopted the type of comprehensive program of wage and price controls which hon. members advocated during the election campaign. They were going to control the whole economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For 90 days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says, "For 90 days". The hon. member for Edmonton Centre and the hon. member for York-Simcoe are therefore going against the former leader of the opposition, because during the election campaign he was talking about 22 months. Who is telling the truth? Members of the official opposition who proposed a comprehensive set of controls over the entire

Adjournment Motion
economy are now complaining about the size of the AntiInflation Board staff with relation to only a selective set of controls.
Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to the average rate of settlements decided by the Anti-Inflation Board, a reference made by the hon. gentleman. I just want to point out that he, perhaps inadvertently, was referring not to the total of the settlements covered by the Anti-Inflation Board, or income settlements covered by the Anti-Inflation Board, but to those cases only in which the question of the historical relationship arose. I will have something to say about the question of the historical relationship and the way the hon. member for York-Simcoe repudiated the stand taken by his colleagues from Vancouver South and Churchill earlier in the question period today.
First, I think one should note that with approximately half of the compensation returns in, we are covering about two-thirds of the workers under the anti-inflation program. About half of those compensation returns indicate settlements which are at or below the guidelines. It is true, with regard to the highly-publicized settlements such as in respect of the Toronto high school teachers and the pulp and paper workers, where the question of the historical relationship was raised, there have indeed been higher levels of settlement. The last people to complain about this should be the members of the official opposition. After all, they were the people who said during the question period this afternoon that the program was unjust because in respect of the workers in Thompson, Manitoba, the historical relationship had not been recognized. They cannot have it both ways. If they agree with us that there will be some transitional situations which occur, for example, in respect of those in the pulp and paper industry, then indeed there should be recognition of the historical relationship and in some of these transitional settlements it is appropriate to have some recognition of settlements above the guidelines.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could call it five o'clock and return to this matter later in the day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport-Atlantic region-Meeting with provincial ministers on highway program-trans-Newfoundland corridor study-government position; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-Administration of Justice-Suggested reference of gun control measure to Supreme Court to determine whether jurisdiction federal or provincial; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Finance-Suggested changes in equalization formula as result of increased energy costs-Request for report.

It being five o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall order No. 34, in
the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Shall order No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Shall order No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Shall order No. 24, in the name of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it has been agreed to stand all the other bills and call Bill C-247.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) is ready to speak on that bill.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS PROVISION FOR ABATEMENT OF NOISE LEVELS IN FACTORIES
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-247, an act respecting noise in factories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as spelled out in the explanatory note attached to it, is to combat a major health hazard in industry by requiring that the
April 27, 1976

noise levels in establishments having contracts with the government of Canada shall be a maximum of 85 decibels. The noise volume at 85 decibels is said by health experts to be "when you can hardly hear yourself talk".
Noise control has been a very complicated and controversial issue due to the complex nature of noise itself and its effects. Noise has been defined as any sound that is regarded or treated as a nuisance. But the degree of annoyance is not necessarily related to the intensity of sound. What may be music to one person is noise to another. Certainly, attitude of mind and environment are of major importance. This factor and others further complicate the debate raging on the best means of measuring noise, the most effective and feasible manner of protecting workers and the health effects of noise.
I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to become involved in that kind of discussion which brings in countless variables and employs scientific and technical jargon. I believe that kind of debate is too often used to slow down or halt noise abatement efforts rather than seriously attempting to find ways of controlling unwanted and excessive sounds. This "talk but don't act" mentality has resulted in slower progress in changing the law than technology's capacity to make more noise.
There can be no question of a man's right to work in an environment which will not harm him, and there is no doubt that noise which is loud enough and consistent enough will harm him. The degree of this harm and the scope of the health effects caused by noise-for which a wide variety of physiological and psychological effects have been postulated-is at present uncertain. However, one area where there is unanimous agreement is that noise can, and does, cause hearing loss whether it is temporary hearing loss or permanent hearing loss, or permanent injury to the inner ear. These effects are an established fact of living and working in an industrial society; there is no controversy over this point.
Another point that is not very controversial is how hearing loss occurs. The most common kind of industrial hearing problem develops when the tiny hair cells in the inner ear, which transmit sound pressure along nerves to the brain, are damaged. Exposure to high noise levels can cause these cells to become fatigued, resulting in temporary loss of hearing ability. The ear can usually recover, once the noise is removed, in a period ranging from minutes to days. However, if the noise is loud enough and long enough over months or years, the cells are destroyed and the damage is permanent.
At what level, then, does hearing loss begin? This point varies widely with individuals and it is often difficult to separate work-induced hearing loss from contributing noise factors off the job. However, in the summer of 1975 the U.S. occupational safety and health administration held 41/2 weeks of hearings which included 139 presentations of testimony. During the hearings the occupational safety and health administration presented estimates based on a sample of 19 major U.S. industries employing about 14.5 million workers. With this group it was found that a strictly enforced-I repeat, strictly enforced- 90-decibel limit of noise for an eight-hour work day would keep 463,000 workers, or 3.2 per cent of the work force, from suffering hearing loss after 40 years of exposure, still
Noise in Factories
leaving 130,000 at risk of hearing impairment. Lowering that limit to 85 decibels, according to OSHA, would prevent hearing loss for another 73,000 workers, or 0.5 per cent of the work force. The U.S. national institute for occupational safety and health estimate that as many as 10 per cent to 15 per cent more workers might suffer hearing loss if exposed to 90 decibels, instead of 85 decibels, over a working lifetime.
As I stated earlier, health problems may not be the only result of high noise levels. A number of experts have suggested that by acting on the nervous system, noise increases the pulse rate and may raise the chances of high blood pressure and the occurrence of stress, which could have measurable effects. However, while many noise abatement proposals mentioned non-auditory effects of noise, most are aimed only at preventing hearing loss since research on these other possible effects is still inconclusive.
Although Canada does not have specific legislation dealing with noise control in industry at either the federal or provincial level, there are protective legislative provisions at both levels of government as part of other statutes. Federal legislation for noise control, found under the Canada Labour Code as the Canada noise control regulations, exist as statutory orders and regulations. The regulations affect noise control and hearing conservation in federal works undertakings and businesses. The regulations state that where reasonably practicable, employers must not permit employees to work where the sound level is 90 decibels or more. Otherwise, permissible noise exposure is scaled from eight hours per work day at more than 87, but not more than 90 decibels, to zero hours at more than 115 decibels. A worker may be permitted exposure to 90 decibels or more where a suitable hearing protector is worn which reduces the sound level to less than 90 decibels, or where a hearing test establishes no hearing impairment for employees exposed to 90 to 95 decibels and regular tests are made.
The United States has a 90-decibels standard for an eight-hour work day, similar to that adopted under the Canada Labour Code and by several provinces. However, the currently developing goal in the United States for maximum industrial noise exposure is 85 decibels for an eight-hour work day. This standard is being considered for adoption by the occupational safety and health administration in Washington. It would appear that this level might very possibly be adopted, at least as a goal for the near future. In addition, the Soviet Union, Australia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden, East and West Germany, and South Africa have adopted the 85-decibel industrial noise limit.
It is clear that industrial noise control in Canada lags seriously behind that of a number of other countries, including the United States. The cost of inadequate noise control is high, not only in terms of health damage but also in the context of compensation payments. For example, between 1971 and 1974 the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario paid out more than $2.5 million to people who had significant hearing loss from noise damage. It appears, as Robert Baron says in his book "The Tyranny of Noise", that-

April 27, 1976
Noise in Factories
Society seems to look upon any degree of excessive noise as it now regards pornography-if it contains a modicum of social value, it is not obscene.
However, perhaps it is somewhat unfair to blame all of society for the lack of effective controls on noise pollution, for the bulk of the blame must lie with governments and corporations. Too often, noise abatement is presented not as an essential but as a luxury. But who considers the ability to hear a luxury? We have to stop weighing economic considerations against public health and welfare. Indeed, it sometimes appears that more emphasis is placed on reducing noise complaints instead of noise.
As I indicated earlier, there is considerable debate about the present noise limit of 90 decibels for an eight-hour work day versus the proposed 85 decibels limit. In the United States, a number of organizations including the environmental protection agency and the national institute for occupational safety and health are supporting the adoption of the 85 decibels limit. Most major labour unions are also supporting this standard. Industry, by and large, is opposed to the establishment of the 85-decibel standard, especially in older plants, on the understandable grounds that the program will be prohibitively expensive. Industry's spokesmen argue, instead, for the use of hearing protection devices such as ear-plugs and ear-muffs. Labour groups argue against the use of these devices on the grounds that they are often improperly worn and thus give insufficient protection. In other cases, because the devices are hot and uncomfortable over long periods, workers frequently refuse to wear them at all unless they are directly supervised.
It may seem much more practical to have workers wear ear-plugs or ear-muffs rather than spending millions of dollars to convert machinery so that it meets the minimum noise standards. While in the short run this may be the only alternative, I believe industry must begin to place emphasis on designing machinery which will be much quieter. I really do not believe industry will take this initiative until it is forced to do so. Corporations have always argued against pollution controls-and let us make no mistake that noise is a form of pollution-on the ground that such controls were economically not feasible. However, environmental studies have generally shown that without such controls the cost will be much higher. In an article by George Clack entitled "The Noise Control Controversy" he refers to a recent long-range study which shows the same is true for noise controls. He said:
Dr. Nicholas Ashford, from the center for policy alternatives at MIT, analysed the costs and benefits of compliance over various periods of time for both 90 decibels and 85 decibels limits. By placing a dollar value on the benefits of less worker's compensation, absenteeism, and mental annoyance, he discovered that after 40 years an 85 decibels limit would actually be cheaper than a 90 decibels limit.
In conclusion, I hope hon. members will see fit to send Bill C-247 to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for further study or, at the very least, the subject matter of this bill. If we fail to take some action on this matter, we may very well be condemning an untold number of workers to partial or complete deafness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-

shore (Mr. Robinson) on the introduction of this bill which, if passed, would be entitled "An act respecting noise in factories". The hon. member has made a good case for a proposition which we all support, namely, that in too many places there is too much noise pollution. One might say that at times it is not only in work places. I have seen places of entertainment and I have dropped in on parties which have taken place on this hill around the middle of December where I am sure the noise level was much higher than 85 decibels. There may be times during the question period in the House of Commons when the level gets fairly high as well.
At any rate, to be serious, I think the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has done a service in bringing this subject before the House and I hope the House will be willing in this private members' hour to agree to this bill and send it to the standing committee. I think it is appropriate that it should go to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration because it does relate to noise in work places.
If I have some misgivings about the bill, they relate to the narrowness of its application and to the lack of any provisions for its enforcement. I remind the House that we already have in the Canada Labour Code a part which deals with safety. Back in earlier days we had two or three separate federal labour codes and one of them dealt entirely with safety. That particular act has now been incorporated into the Canada Labour Code as a whole and it lays down conditions with respect to the atmosphere, temperature, noise and any conditions which affect the health of our workers. I can say from some experience that when that legislation was first brought before this House a number of years ago we were urged to get it through in a hurry because the Department of Labour wanted to get moving on it, and despite that, these many years later there are still factories in this country where there are health hazards of various kinds because the Department of Labour has found it difficult to enforce the provisions of that act.
But this particular bill which is now before us does not provide for any enforcement provisions at all. It is limited in that it refers only to those factories which get federal government contracts, and I think we should go much further. That is not to be taken as a stand against the bill. I think the idea in it is a commendable one and I want to see the bill go to committee. However, I hope that in committee we might find ways of incorporating this into the Canada Labour Code so that the attempt to avoid noise pollution will be made not just in those factories which get government contracts but in all work places which come under federal labour jurisdiction.
I was critical a few moments ago with respect to the tardiness of the Department of Labour in putting into effect the provisions regarding safety which are in the Canada Labour Code. On the other hand, I know that genuine efforts have been made by the federal Department of Labour in co-operation with the various provincial departments of labour to get safety accepted and practised in all work places. I have the feeling that this little bill, standing by itself with no provisions for enforcement, will not do the job. What we need to do is put into the Canada Labour Code itself these provisions regarding 85 decibels
April 27, 1976

over an eight-hour period, being all workers should be asked to experience, and I hope that if we could get it into the labour code with provisions for enforcement, the excellent proposals of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore could be implemented.
So I commend my hon. friend across the way for bringing in another useful bill. He will be running up something of a record if he gets this bill through today. He got one through a short while ago. All power to him. We on this side of the House do not have that experience very often. However, it is high time we did something about noise pollution in Canada in all kinds of places. Because this is a small beginning in that direction, we are glad to give our support to Bill C-247.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the preceding two speakers and to say in a few words how this bill relates to the federal Department of the Environment. Under the Government Organization Act, 1970, the Minister of the Environment is charged with the responsibility to initiate, recommend and undertake programs and co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada which are designed to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards relating to environmental quality, or to control pollution and promote and encourage the institution of practices and conduct leading to better protection and enhancement of environmental quality.
Consistent with this mandate, between November, 1972, and January, 1973, departmental staff conducted a series of bilateral meetings with all provinces on the subject of environmental noise control. These meetings led to arrangement of a conference of federal and provincial officials in Ottawa on May 1, 2 and 3 of 1973. With the exception of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, all the provinces were represented. At the federal, level, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Privy Council Office were represented. The provincial representatives were unanimous in requesting the permanent establishment of a federal-provincial committee on noise to act as a forum for the exchange of technical and other information on noise and to assist in the development of proposals to improve the collective capability to manage noise problems in Canada.
At the meeting of federal and provincial ministers of the environment on May 8 and 9, 1973, several provincial ministers strongly endorsed the formalization of the federal-provincial committee on noise. Formal appointments to the committee were made during the summer of 1973 and the first meeting was convened in April, 1974. Two technical subcommittees have been formed, one dealing with general aspects of community noise and the other with specific noise sources.
We consider such federal-provincial interaction to be essential in developing an effective and nationally integrated approach to noise control, particularly since we are dealing in an area of mixed or overlapping jurisdiction. We believe that our program proposal provides for an effective
Noise in Factories
approach to promoting and stimulating efforts in this area and in bringing together the various agencies, both federal and provincial, having responsibility and authority to effect the desired control measures.
Of course, Environment Canada's primary interest in the noise control field is directed to what may be termed "environmental noise". Environmental noise may be considered as noise which may be perceived over a relatively wide area and is harmful or disturbing to individuals or to local ecosystems. Bill C-247, on the other hand, appears to be directed to the control of "occupational noise". Environment Canada's interest, then, is somewhat peripheral, recognizing that occupational health and safety are a more direct responsibility of the departments of labour and national health and welfare and that provincial jurisdiction is also involved. However, it must also be recognized that reduced noise exposure levels in the work place may in some instances also result in reductions in noise in the environment surrounding a particular industrial activity.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I shall not, to describe many other activities of the Department of the Environment and the requirements and procedures that have to be followed and that are established relative to noise pollution specifically. I could talk about the environmental protection agency and all that, but I shall conclude my remarks simply in an effort to accommodate the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill because I am in perfect agreement with the general thrust of the bill itself. Therefore, I shall not prolong the debate. I will simply say that it should be noted that much of the legislative jurisdiction over occupational noise rests with the provinces. That is going to be a problem.
Bill C-247 proposes limits for noise in industrial establishments working on government contracts. Noise control of the type considered could be introduced through requirements written into the contracts rather than through a new federal act. It is specified in clause 3 of the bill that subject to section 4, noise levels shall not exceed 85 decibels. There are various types of decibel representation of sound and the type of decibel should be clearly indicated in a noise specification of this type. Also, the effects of noise depend, among other things, on the duration of exposure to the noise. A proposed noise limit such as this one should indicate the duration of the noise exposure, as is done, for instance, in the Canada noise control regulations of the Canada Labour Code. It may have been intended that the decibels in clause 3 of the bill be A-weighted. A short exposure to 85 A-weighted decibels of noise would not have deleterious effects on human beings, and in fact such short exposures often occur in harmless occupational and non-occupational situations.
Officials of the Department of the Environment will continue to work toward the implementation of an effective national program in environmental noise control, and will work in close co-operation with officials of the Department of Labour and the Department of National Health and Welfare in overlapping areas of interest related to occupational noise and to the direct and indirect effects of noise exposure on human health.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words
April 27, 1976

Noise in Factories
to say on Bill C-247 introduced by our colleague for Toron-to-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), an Act respecting noise in factories.
I want to mention that there is already a regulation known as SOR 71-584 of the Canada Labour Code on noise control. That regulation relates to noise control and hearing conservation in federal works, undertakings and businesses. Of course, it would be interesting if that regulation were extended and enforced also in all provinces so this problem of outmost importance could be solved.
The schedule refers to the sound level in decibels and the maximum time of exposure. Well, the bill introduced by our colleague is very interesting of course, but perhaps not as complete as it could be, as one of the hon. members who spoke before me suggested. It is for that reason that we agree to have it sent to the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so it can be considered more in depth and its full scope examined. In this way, we could see whether it would be possible after hearing witnesses on the subject to prepare a report allowing us to give this bill a new orientation and make it more complete.
Therefore, I think that all parties agreed to send the bill to the standing committee. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is as follows: Mr. Robinson moved:
That Bill C-247, an act respecting noise in factories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order. It should go to the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct; it is the committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration that is the recommendation with regard to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Have we unanimous consent for the change?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion is that Bill C-247, an act respecting noise in factories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent).J


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I had referred to the very obvious difference of opinion between the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on the one hand, who is critical of the Anti-Inflation Board because it exercised its judgment, to quote his phrase, in a highly discretionary way with little consistency-those are his words-with respect to the historical relationship of certain of the collective bargaining units that had come before its attention, and the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) earlier today not because the Board had not exceeded the guidelines, but had not exceeded them by enough. They felt the Anti-Inflation Board had not gone far enough beyond the guidelines.
I think the answer was given by himself, although he obviously did not understand it, to the hon. member for Vancouver South in the very question he asked, in which he said, "But what if you are not to allow it to Thompson, are you not going to allow it to Snow Lake, Lynn Lake and a number of other mining communities in northern Manitoba?" That is the exact point. If one has to repeat it again and again throughout the work force, where is the restraint? Where are we going to have restraint on incomes in the work force? If you have a continual pyramiding of labour costs in our community, let us not kid ourselves, people will have to pay for it and it will add to the level of inflation in Canada.
His question involved another contradiction. Again the hon. member for Vancouver South obviously did not understand it. He said he was concerned about the work force leaving Thompson and going somewhere else. Where else-Snow Lake, Lynn Lake, or the other communities? If all those communities are restrained in the same way, to what avail is it to leave one for the other? That is the exact point of applying a general system of this kind to restrain incomes throughout the community.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe made some reference to the American anti-inflation program. He has come back
April 27, 1976

from there and apparently is an expert on this question. I think it is fair to point out to him that that program was in effect for nearly three years, August 1971 to April 1974. It included a whole range of remedies, including not one but two freezes, and various kinds of selective controls in that period of time. Therefore there is obviously no single answer involved in how to bring about an effective mandatory controls program of this kind except to point out that, whatever one may say about the American experience, it lasted generally as long as the period of time contemplated under this particular program.
The hon. member made some reference to the fact that there are 100,000 firms now covered by the provisions of the controls. Perhaps he was being a little disingenuous in that. He referred to the fact that the vast majority of firms had been added as a result of the judgments of the AntiInflation Board with regard to association bargaining situations, the situation where a group of employers and firms are associated to bargain as a group with a group of employees, with a collective bargaining representative on their side.
The important fact to bear in mind is that those involved in this association bargaining process, firms, and in many cases the employees themselves, wanted the anti-inflation program to be extended to them as well so that it would not break up what in their viewpoint had been regarded as an advantageous way of dealing with labour relations. Therefore when the hon. member refers to 100,000 firms, he is obviously exaggerating. To be more honest, he should refer to about 143 associations which bargain collectively with their employees for the purpose of determining their wage levels.
The final point he made was with regard to his question during the Question Period about charitable donations. As I pointed out at that time, the government has indicated a certain level of restricted expenses so as to get around the situation where a firm could decide to increase its prices, with the consequent cost which would have to be borne by the consumer, and at the same time escape the profit restrictions of the anti-inflation program for the years of the application of the program by increasing its expenses a certain amount. This could be done, for example, by advertising promotion, expenditure on research and development, charitable donations, and action in a number of other areas. Clearly, restraint provisions inherent in the profit controls under the anti-inflation program would not be effective in holding prices down if firms could increase their prices and escape the profit control by that kind of practice. It is for that reason the guidelines provide that the over-all category of these restricted expenses may not be increased in any one year at any greater rate than the increase in the total returns to the firm.
The hon. member laid some store on the argument that it was regrettable that charitable contributions or expenses incurred on research and development might be reduced. Well, I suppose that if a firm were to decide to cut down its charitable contributions and increase its advertising promotion or its expenses on public relations, or if it wanted to increase its expenses on landscaping or decorating, which is another area of restricted expenses, or its expenses in connection with conventions for so-called edu-
Anti-Inflation Act
cational purposes, it could do so. But let it not do so with a high moral tone pretending that the anti-inflation program was curtailing it in that regard. It is the firm's own priorities which determines whether money is put into landscaping, for example, rather than into charitable contributions. Hon. members should bear in mind that if a firm feels constrained to curtail charitable donations because it has to increase expenditures in other areas, this is an indication of the firm's own priorities.
The bill before us will extend the benefits of the appeal provisions to certain people affected by decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board and will provide certain additional legal measures to make the present anti-inflation program more effective. This measure has been outstanding for some time now, during which period the rights of appeal of certain groups have been abridged. I will terminate my remarks at this stage in the hope that we may secure early passage of the legislation in order that those rights might be available to persons affected by the Board's decisions.


John Edward Broadbent: At the
outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the New Democratic Party's support for the bill before us. I do so at least in part for the reason that we can claim to have had something to do with the origin of the bill in the first place.
The House will recall that about two months ago, as a result of the settlement in the Irving case, we moved a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26 calling for an emergency debate on precisely this issue, the case of workers in Canada not having any right of appeal at all. Certainly they had no effective right under the existing legislation. An emergency debate was permitted by Mr. Speaker at that time. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the amendments to the bill which are before us. But before doing so I must say I have never listened in all my life to such a contradictory speech as that presented today by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who used his full 40 minutes castigating the whole antiinflation program. There was nothing good about it, in his view.
The hon. member listed objections which have arisen because of the lack of efficacy of the price control program; he listed objections based on inequities in terms of the effects on wages and salaries of Canadians from coast to coast; he complained about the effect on the corporate sector. In short, he said nothing good about the whole measure. He then presented an amendment which would have the effect of extending the life of the bill, permitting this measure to remain as part of the law of Canada, for fully another year. I would presume, Mr. Speaker, that only a member of the Conservative party could adopt such a contradictory position on a measure of this nature. He cannot have it both ways. Either the anti-inflation program embodied in the law of Canada at the present time is on balance a good program and acceptable to a party or to a member of the House of Commons and is therefore supportable or, on balance, the program is bad for whatever variety of reasons, in which case a logical mind or logical part would reject it.
I repeat, the spokesman for the Conservative party rose in his seat and spoke for 40 minutes against the bill, then made a proposal which would lead to its maintenance on

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
the law books of Canada for fully another year. If any speech was attempting to have things both ways, then surely the one we heard from the hon. member was doing so. I hear an hon. member to my right protesting; he is shaking his head and presumably he agrees with the hon. member for York-Simcoe. He asks, "why not have it for a year?" I say to him that if a kick in the head is bad twice, it is no reason for him to accept being kicked in the head once. The Conservative member again insists that it is good to have one kick in the head. Well, that may be true for the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Speaker, but it is not true for the New Democratic Party. We said when this measure was first announced last Thanksgiving, that it was bad in principle. We said so when the bill was introduced shortly afterward, and we say so again tonight. What is bad for two, three or four years is, for us, equally bad for one year. You cannot have it both ways.
Because I intend to move a sub-amendment which I hope will be consistent with what I have to say, and one which goes to the principle of the legislation which is embodied in the proposal put before us by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I want to say something very briefly about the existing legislation and its effects on the people of Canada.
It is, I think, worth noting, that the Gallup poll seeking the opinion of the people of Canada on this legislation recently revealed the conclusion that 65 per cent of Canadians think the program is unfair in terms of wages and salaries. Second, 67 per cent of Canadians think the program is unfair in terms of its effect on prices in Canada. This may well have been the reason why the hon. member for York-Simcoe made the kind of speech he did. He is now catching up to the people of Canada. They are feeling its effects. If they were here tonight they would obviously be voting against it. Certainly they would not commit the absurdity of speaking for 40 minutes against a measure and then, in effect, voting for its continuance.
The people of Canada now realize the program is unfair in its impact on wages and salaries. The rulings of the board in this area have been remarkable for their inconsistency. One has only to name a few categories of workers in highly disparate occupations and the facts speak out to support my statements. We think of the librarians in Toronto, and of the miners in Thompson. Just in the last few days we have been talking about the miners. The minister a few minutes ago scoffed at the suggestion that the workers in Thompson might leave Thompson because of the grossly unfair wage settlement which was imposed by the Board. The Minister of Finance asked, "Where are are they going to go?" He listed a whole number of places to which they might move and implied they weren't going anywhere.
Just for the minister's information, in case he is not aware of them, here are some figures with respect to the rate of labour mobility in Thompson, Manitoba, in the very company affected by the decision. In 1970 that company had a 124 per cent turnover in its labour force, in 1971 it was 112 per cent, in 1972 it was 101 per cent, in 1973 it was 84 per cent, in 1974 it was 130 per cent, and in 1975 it was 118 per cent. These figures are significant. They illustrate that Thompson is an isolated community, one to which most working people do not readily go. One of the major

reasons for considering a move to that difficult northern environment is that at least the wage or salary offered will afford some kind of compensation for such a move.
I also want to put on the record the comparison with other workers in the same industry who live in Sudbury, Ontario. These workers are getting a higher rate of pay. It is with this group of workers that the Thompson workers should have been compared for historical reasons, and the board should have reached the same settlement and given them the same rate of pay. There is not the same isolation problem in Sudbury. Workers in that community in 1975 had a labour turnover of only 6.7 per cent. Compare that with the turnover in Thompson, Manitoba, for the same year of 118 per cent. Surely even the Minister of Finance can see the significance of these two different sets of figures. In the one case it is unpleasant and difficult to work in terms of accessibility to other populations living in reasonable climatic conditions; in the other case such problems do not exist.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if that AIB had an ounce of intelligence in terms of dealing equitably with this group of workers, it would have assured that in its decision of recent days the Thompson workers in Manitoba would have been given an increase fully commensurate with and equal to the remuneration received by their fellow workers in Sudbury who are doing the same kind of job. That is only one glaring and unfortunate illustration of the kind of inequitable decisions we have been getting from the AntiInflation Board.
Another vivid example is a decision announced the same day affecting the uranium workers in the Elliott Lake region of Ontario. These workers are susceptible to cancer and silicosis to a degree way out of proportion to almost every other category of worker in Canada. There is every reason to believe, now that it is common knowledge among the people of Canada, as it should have been a long time ago, that the pension plan that was negotiated by the steelworkers union in Elliot Lake on behalf of its workers, as part of the package considered by the AIB, was an essential feature so far as the work force was concerned. This was a provision for early retirement for the workers in the uranium industry. To put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, early retirement is essential to many of these workers if they are to avoid getting cancer or silicosis.
Be that as it may, in making its ruling on the package settlement for the workers in the uranium industry the Anti-Inflation Board did not consider this fact, even though it knew full well that in considering financial benefits one includes pension plans as well as hourly pay rates. If the board gives a much lower settlement than is fair and equitable, inevitably it will mean that the pension plan will be affected and that workers in those circumstances will suffer a deterioration in their health, resulting-and I say this bluntly-in premature death for a number of them. This illustrates how serious is the AntiInflation Board's decision, yet the government had done nothing about it, saying benignly that it will leave it to the board and hope for the best.
I am not going to take the time to go over the whole range of decisions that have been made in past months; I
April 27, 1976

cite here but two glaring and unfortunate examples. The general point that I want to make is that at the outset of this program, in view of the way it is set up and in view of the legislative provisions, the New Democratic Party said that the people who would be most seriously and adversely affected by it would be the working Canadians, the ordinary people on wages and salaries, the majority of whom are not even members of a trade union, like the steelworkers who at least are able to go to bat and fight against the board, as in the case of the unfair decisions affecting the workers in Thompson and Elliot Lake. Most ordinary Canadians do not even have a union to do this kind of work for them.
There are now over 5,000 decisions which have to be made by the board. In the meantime hundreds of thousands of workers across Canada are waiting for a decision to see how their income and livelihood will be affected. A more monstrous bureaucracy one can hardly imagine, Mr. Speaker.
What about prices? The whole thrust of the program was geared toward bringing down prices in Canada, but what is the record after the legislation has been on the law books of Canada for six months? The fact is that the very prices the board was set up to control or bring down have gone up. Discounting the effect of food prices from the recent cost of living figures which were published in the past two weeks, which you must, Mr. Speaker, because the program does not control prices of food at the farm gate, you will discover that the very items the board was set up to control have led at this point in our history to a greater increase in the rate of inflation than the increase last year when we had no such program. Could a more damning comment than that be made about the efficacy of this program? The fact is that the very items this program was set up to control, those that affect the cost of living, are now increasing at a more rapid rate than they were in 1975.
The only prices ordered rolled back in the more than six months of existence of the board have been the price of beer sold by one brewer in the province of Quebec, and secondly-and this one almost brought tears to my eyes- Imperial Oil, that poor petroleum corporation, was not allowed to increase the price of a gallon of gasoline recently by IVi cents but was only permitted an increase of one cent a gallon by the board. That was really touching.
The reality of the situation is that the government is committed in principle to allowing this same petroleum corporation, Esso, and all the others, to increase the price of oil at the wellhead up to the world price level. Within the next two weeks there will be an announcement by the government that oil companies in Canada will be able to increase their prices by $1.50 to $2 a barrel, I predict, and this increase will be passed on to the consumer. As a result poor old Esso, which got an increase of only one cent of a gallon in the recent decision of the AIB, will be permitted within a couple of weeks to increase more than a hundred fold the price of oil which every consumer will pay for, whether he pays for it by driving his car, heating his home, or by buying products made by industries that are dependent upon oil for their energy.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, in more than six months of existence only two price rollbacks have been ordered by the AIB. One rollback was in the price of beer in the
Anti-Inflation Act
province of Quebec, and the second was a half cent reduction in the increase in the price of oil by the Esso Corporation.
I noted with interest, that Mr. Pepin, the Chairman of the AIB, recently said that we could expect an escalation in prices during the latter half of 1976. The reason, he said, is that the corporations will by that time understand the law and its complexities much better than they do now. Is that not again moving? They are going to come to a better understanding of the law of Canada during the next few months, and therefore they will be more able to increase prices, and more able in many if not all cases to gouge the people of Canada because their lawyers and accountants will have a more thorough grasp of the legislation that is on the books! The forecast then is that the situation is going to get worse and not better in terms of prices for Canadians.
I have simply reiterated our opposition to the legislation. It was unfair and unworkable when it was brought forward in the fall. It has turned out to be unfair and unworkable ever since it has been on the books. It is something the Canadian population, in terms of the most recent Gallup poll, has seen to be unfair and unworkable. It is not something we in this party can put up with any longer. Therefore I should like to move an amendment to the motion we are debating, as follows:
That Motion No. 1 be amended in line 1 of the proposed new subclause (2) by changing "1977" to "1976" and by deleting all the words thereafter.
This amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Just before I sit down let me say I have no hope at all of the government ever changing its mind. A Liberal never does that unless he is going to lose a vote over something. I do appeal to the Conservative party for once in its history to show consistency. I urge in particular the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to re-read his speech and follow the logical conclusion. If he reads his speech and reaches the logical conclusion he will end up favouring this amendment, because if it passes it would mean at the end of this week, symbolically on May Day, this unfair and unworkable law presently with us in Canada would be no longer in existence.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the motions but down by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) I propose to address my remarks to the manner in which the AntiInflation Board has managed to become a bureaucracy of confusion, not only to those whom it attempts to regulate, but also to itself. This unfortunate situation is not surprising to many of us, especially in light of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the board.
In July, 1974, the present government, while allowing the Canadian economy to deteriorate to a position where drastic action was required, won itself an election by grandly denying that an economic problem existed. Leading up to that federal election we had a minority government and Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was forced to go to the polls by the opposition. The major issue was inflation, and the major proposal put forward by the then Leader of the

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Opposition was a 90-day freeze followed by selective temporary wage and price controls, and coupled with major economic policy initiatives designed to attack the root causes of our economic problems.
The Prime Minister was at his best, however, as he forayed back and forth across the country attacking, belittling, and ridiculing. Again and again he used the same catch words about these controls-hocus-pocus, baloney, and simplistic. He told the voters controls would never work. They failed in the United States and Britain, he said. You cannot control food prices, interest rates, housing costs, energy prices, dividends or the cost of imports. The only controllable area is that of wages, he told the people, and no self-respecting Canadian wants to see that.
As a result of this performance the Prime Minister returned to office with a majority and a mandate to refuse the imposition of controls. A scant 15 months later the Prime Minister came full circle and informed Canadians that his program of wage and price controls was the cure to the country's economic ills, economic ills which the Prime Minister found impossible to continue ignoring.
It was at this stage that the Anti-Inflation Board was created to regulate the economy single-handedly and slay the dragon of inflation. This Anti-Inflation Board was denied the advantage that a 90-day freeze had offered, and it was thrown into the task at hand to the sounds of confrontation from both labour and business as the Prime Minister threatened the nation with imprisonment for failure to comply with his ill-conceived and hastily prepared program. With a birth like that it is a wonder the board has even survived. That birth, again considering the haste with which the program was formulated, has resulted in the growth of a bureaucracy whose standards are double, whose rules are incomprehensible, and whose internal workings are chaotic.
It was said by the Prime Minister that all Canadians would have to tighten their belts and fight inflation together. Unfortunately the Anti-Inflation Board evidently failed to get this message, for it has been allowing far more generous pay increases in the public sector than in private industry.
A Financial Times survey of 104 wage decisions made by the board shows this divergence clearly. The survey showed 69 per cent of workers in the public sector have been allowed increases of 20 per cent or more, while raises for 79 per cent of employees in the private sector have been held to 15 per cent or less. In fact most decisions handed down from Ottawa have been in line with the pace of wage settlements before last October when the board was created.
This situation is particularly true for public sector employees who in several recent cases have won pay increases of 20 per cent or more, even through the guidelines the board is supposed to enforce allow first-year pay raises of little more than 10 per cent. The Times goes on to say that during the whole of 1975 wage settlements averaged 19 per cent for government employees and 14.2 per cent in the private sector. This is the situation the AntiInflation Board was brought in to control last October, with the wage ceiling set at a maximum 10 per cent for this year.

An analysis of 104 cases involving 57,000 workers meriting special consideration shows that in the case of first-year wage settlements the board has approved: Firstly, wage increases of 20 per cent or more for 15,000 public servants, most of them employees of Ontario school boards; and, secondly, wage rises of 15 per cent or more for 7,500 private sector workers; and pay hikes in about the same range as last year's settlements, 10 per cent to 15 per cent, for another 27,000 employees in private sector cases. A mere 1,000 private sector workers and only 500 government workers have been held to the government's intended guideline of a 10 per cent salary advance. Although the government is claiming that the board is achieving considerable results, it might pay to look more closely at these results.
Were it not for the drastic drop in food costs there would have been little or no improvement, and the minister and his colleagues would do well to resist the temptation to assume that the battle against inflation is half won. Although food prices at the farm gate are not controlled, the Anti-Inflation Board still claims some of the credit. It says controls on the profits of food processors and supermarkets helped keep prices down. That is possible, but I suggest the key element in the reduction of food costs has been a drastic drop in beef prices at the farm gate because of excess of supply.
I will come to the matter of confusion surrounding the Anti-Inflation Board rules in a moment, but first I think something should be said about the confusing bureaucracy from which these rules emanate.
In October last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) declared the board's staff would total less than 200. Today the board's staff stands at 600 and appears to be still growing. Board officials maintain that this merely reflects problems of the start-up period and that this figure will in fact drop sometime in the future, but no one knows when. In the interim they insist that the board is not now operating in excess of the 398 man-years it was allowed because some 200 employees are on loan from other departments. That comment is rather lame, however, since the salaries of those borrowed employees must be paid by the AntiInflation Board.
So far as accomplishment is concerned, the latest figures show that the board has processed 2,304 of the 6,139 cases submitted to it. The backlog of 3,845 cases is growing at the rate of an additional 150 a week. These figures are for the wage side of the business. On the prices side of things, only 179 of 1,040 compliance forms received have been processed.
What would be amusing, if it weren't so sad, is the fact that the board's present workload and backlog do not yet include the impact of the additional 41,000 companies which the government recently brought under the controls. With figures such as these in mind it would be hoped that the board would present a cohesive and efficient organization to handle the responsibilities which have been so casually imposed on it. This, unfortunately, does not seem to be the case. For example, in the April 26 Financial Times it is reported:
April 27, 1976

There has ... been considerable turnover at the most senior administrative levels and some insiders say the organization is far from crisp.
'We're constantly flying by the seat of our pants', says one official. 'Everything is improvisation, which is inevitable because we had to start from scratch with the vaguest of guidelines. But under pressure the decision-making sometimes gets so slap-dash that it's frightening.'
Another official stated, 'The organization is still pretty hectic. People come and go, bringing their own ideas and approaches. That means things still tend to change from day to day.'
As a result of this situation and the increase in the number of the employees of the AIB, the Public Service Commission now is looking to its executive interchange program to find 60 or 70 professional accountants whose employers might be willing to loan them for a year.
As an illustration of the way business feels about the regulations they have been handed, I quote this excerpt from an article in Executive Magazine entitled "Chaos Rules at the Anti-Inflation Board":
Employers already have spent enough time studying the regulations to realize that the rules at best are unclear, and, at worst, are totally incomprehensible. To take just one example, manufacturers are faced with three different rules in figuring out the maximum profit they will be allowed. The problem is in determining the appropriate rule to apply in each part of their business. The regulations provide a process of elimination, based on the extent to which the company can allocate its costs to separate items of production. If you can allocate costs to individual products, then you use one rule. If you can't do this but you can allocate costs to individual classes or lines of products, then you use another rule, and so on. The trouble is that this selection procedure is a concoction of economic theory and bears little relation to normal business practices-the test is not whether a company actually does allocate its costs in the specified ways, but whether it can do so.
And every single manufacturer in Canada meets that requirement-it can allocate its costs to every individual product, even though the method of doing so might be crude or unrealistic. To take the regulations literally, all the other rules of profit calculation would be irrelevant. The next step is to start digging through the Anti-Inflation Board's interpretation bulletins for clarification, on the assumption that the government must have had some reason for including those other two rules. This isn't the place to discuss in detail what the relevant bulletin has to say. But it has the effect of making it almost impossible for a company to use the first rule. At this stage the bemused company abandons the written rules and turns to the AntiInflation Board staff for help. The fact that even the accounting and legal experts are having such difficulties in making sense of the regulations should help to identify the most serious and possibly fatal flaw in the entire anti-inflation program. The government forgot that it was not writing a new Income Tax Act. To design its new system, it hired people in the business of either finding or closing loopholes in the tax system-in other words, tax experts from both inside and outside government. These wizards drew on their wealth of experience and concocted the predictable brew: a maze to beat all mazes, a monstrosity guaranteed to remain undeciphered for years after the anti-inflation program goes out of existence.
Of course the Anti-Inflation Board cannot hope to be the complete answer to Canada's economic ills. The government has continually refused to recognize that different monetary and fiscal policies must also be adopted, as well as an improved viewpoint on the part of government itself.
Government is the single greatest contributor to Canada's domestic inflation. Rather than control its own skyrocketing spending and growth patterns, it continues to drain money away from the investor and the saver-private and corporate-to pay for its own extravagance. I do not intend to go into this aspect of the problem in any detail, Mr. Speaker, but I think that certain brief points must be made.
Anti-Inflation Act
Canada is a capital intensive country. That means that the creation of more jobs and expanded business relies heavily on the infusion of new capital in the expansion of existing commercial facilities and the creation of new ones. If this money, through severe corporate and private income tax policies, is kept from being re-invested, then Canada's inflation and unemployment problems can in the long run be expected to become worse.
In conclusion I think it must be recognized that government, especially this government, has not even attempted to attack the root causes of inflation. An over-supply of money, badly conceived tax laws, and government growth are all matters that the government has refused to act upon. The Anti-Inflation Board, with all of its own inadequacies, cannot hope and should not be expected to solve the problem. At the same time the Anti-Inflation Board is the only possible means by which Canada can establish a more sensible framework for wage and price decision making. It must set targets for behaviour that can be used as a replacement for the discipline and mutual trust that only spring from the adversary system. In other words, the board is not in itself a cure for inflation. It is simply a way of cooling expectations and a means of buying time until some of the fundamental causes of inflation can be corrected.
The government has chosen to introduce a system of complex controls and to impose them for the relatively long period of three years. Both their complexity and duration are unnecessary, but the key problem facing the government is to make the program work. The Anti-Inflation Board will have to overcome some serious handicaps. It was introduced hurriedly and without a temporary freeze on prices and incomes. The result was that neither the government nor the board had the opportunity to develop a philosophical and economical framework for what it must do.
The board's first decisions have created confusion about the way in which historical wage relationships will be allowed to influence wage increases. In short, the board has failed to establish its own credibility by making decisions that are perceived as being fair and consistent. The challenge to the board must be to apply the guidelines in a way that maintains the spirit of equity. The use of mandatory wage and price controls is a new experience for Canada and we must resist the tendency to expect the controls to solve the inflation problem.
The final cure for inflation will ultimately lie in the way the government conducts its stabilization policies-monetary policy, energy policy and fiscal policy. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge the House to consider favourably the amendments presented by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the amendments presented by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). This gives us a chance to discuss the Anti-Inflation Board and its activities so far. One very sobering result that has come to light is the obviously great difficulty the Anti-Inflation Board has in attempting to monitor wage rollbacks in various parts of the country and also to establish historical wage rates in various parts of the country. Of course in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic
12936

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Affairs all things were honey and roses with the AIB officials, but certainly potential troubles loom high on the horizon.
The staff of AIB has already been tripled and one meets people working for AIB in the most unexpected places. There is a large backlog of unresolved cases, and the ad hoc nature of the whole operation results in increased difficulties because no one knows where the Board is going. This has a damaging effect on all the decisions being made on what individuals and companies, employees and employers, should do to meet AIB regulations. Indeed my own observation is that it is likely that many if not most professionals will have to curtail their workload this year in order to stay within the guidelines or at least not get into trouble with the Board by producing too much.


Mr. Benjamin:: No more house calls.


William Gordon Ritchie: That is right, no more house calls in the middle of the night.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You don't make them anyway.


William Gordon Ritchie: There has been some improvement in the cost of living index, but as has been stated before this is only evident in the price of food, and if there were no drastic drop in the food component of the cost of living index there would have been little or no improvement in the index. One of the key elements, even in food costs, has been the drastic drop of beef prices at the farm gate. This has come about only because the beef industry is now in a state of liquidation and the herds in North America are being scaled down to a level consistent with the market, which has put many beef producers out of business. Most experts in the cattle industry feel that the price of beef should be nearly 50 per cent higher to make it once more profitable. Therefore in the long run so far as beef is concerned the present drop in the price is unlikely to remain down for many months.
Public acceptance of AIB actions has by no means been unanimous. Obviously unionized labour, as has been well documented, has taken an antagonistic view and has withdrawn from the Canada Relations Council, the body on which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) put so much emphasis as a means of preventing disruptive strikes.
Professionals are also finding it difficult to comply with the regulations, and while there will be no organized confrontation with the government there is no doubt that their productivity will fall to a certain extent. Although we may decry what organized labour is doing, we have to realize that it represents a very important segment of our community, a segment which is vital to our national economy. They represent the mining and transportation industries, to name but a few, and they are necessary to produce the goods that Canada needs to export to preserve its standard of living. There seems to be no doubt that AIB regulations will dampen the productivity of many Canadians, particularly in the vital goods segments of our economy.
It has been increasingly recognized that there is not much point in curtailing wages and prices if it is going to

result in decreased productivity in our industrial and export segment. People in the Economic Council of Canada who have studied the Canadian labour market have found significant indications of where the increases in wages have concentrated in our economy. Between 1961 and 1974 substantial modernization and productivity gains occurred in agriculture, forestry, and mining. Real plant and equipment per person employed increased by over 80 per cent in all three industries, compared with 30 per cent in manufacturing and less than 5 per cent in the wholesale and retail trades. This process involved the substitution of machines for manpower. As a result, by 1974 average hourly earnings in forestry and mining were 180 per cent and 150 per cent higher respectively than in 1961.
The construction industry recorded equally substantial wage gains. By contrast, money wage gains in the services sector by 1974 amounted to less that 120 per cent of the 1961 level. This indicates that the supply of blue-collar workers and unskilled labour to the logging camps, mines and construction sites from rural towns and farms or from abroad has shrunk measurably. In 1974, for example, weekly earnings among service workers averaged roughly 50 per cent of the earnings in construction, compared with 67 per cent in 1961. This is an important thing to consider when dealing with the Anti-Inflation Board's decisions which seem to be concentrated on rolling back wage increases in the productive goods section of our economy.
Since 1974 we have seen the loss of exports of highly manufactured goods chiefly because of the Canada-U.S. auto pact deficit and the end of the defence production sharing agreement. Export flows are now dominated by food and industrial materials. Mr. George Post, vice-chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, has said that much of the growth of exports has involved raw materials, or products in which raw materials were a significant part of the total value.
Canada also seems to be rushing headlong into the establishment of the so called post industrial society, with a majority of its work force employed in the services sector and a diminishing minority of its workers in the goods producing sector. This aspect of the change in our economy seems to be evident in the problems the AIB is having. It has been especially counterproductive in its decisions concerning wage settlements affecting the goods producing segment of our economy, such as in the now famous Irving case where the wages of workers in the pulp and paper industry were rolled back considerably. It seems to be an over-reaction by the board and, whatever its outcome, it can only damage an already hard pressed industry.
Also there has been a rollback in the wage increase by Denison and Rio Algom. The increase exceeded the guidelines but it was in line with earlier settlements reached by International Nickel and by Falconbridge. With the rollback order some workers have already began to switch to INCO and Falconbridge where they can earn $2,000 more if the rollback remains effective. This is what happened to the Wartime Prices and Incomes Board, that is, workers moved laterally in order to increase their income. Even if the AIB is supposed to observe historical wage relationships, apparently it does not recognize the importance to Denison and Rio Algom of paying competitive wages. In fact it seems obvious that AIB will have to have a much

greater knowledge about a whole lot of things of which it is seemingly unaware.
A further increase in AIB's personnel does not seem to be the answer. It is too much to expect that officials, give*n the complexities of today's business activity, can rule on the many problems with any degree of consistency or accuracy. In effect the AIB, through its government appointed administrators, is substituting for the judgments made in market place. Certainly market place judgments may not always be perfect, but they are still better than judgments made away from the market place by civil servants and by people unaware of all the circumstances of the case.
Consider the case of the Thompson mines at present. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) asked where they would go. I can tell him that they are already going to Fort McMurray. Some workers have gone to Sudbury, and many are leaving the mines to return to farming. The action of the AIB in instituting the rollback of the settlement can only cause great consternation. Even Premier Schreyer, who has not seen the light as his federal leader would want him to do, and who is an ardent supporter of controls by government, has suggested that the AIB erred. Telegrams to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the possibility of a massive group of workers descending on Ottawa to present their case indicate the workers' dismay at this ruling by AIB.
The Thompson complex contributes around 5 per cent of the total economic activity in the province of Manitoba. If the workings of this complex are seriously compromised, it can only be described as disastrous for the economy of Manitoba and the economy of Canada in the long run. The AIB again failed to take into account the historical relationship of INCO of Manitoba with Sudbury, and already INCO of Manitoba is losing some of its workers to INCO in Sudbury.
One of the most disturbing features of the AIB actions has been its tendencies to exert its powers to control wages in that segment of our economy which produces the goods to fuel the progress of our economy, particularly exports.
In an article in the Financial Times of Canada of April 26 statistics were produced to show that the AIB has been far more generous in increases for the public sector than in the private sector. They made a survey of 104 wage decisions reached by the board. It indicates that 69 per cent of public sector workers had been allowed increases of 20 per cent or more, while raises for 79 per cent of employees in the private sector have been held to 15 per cent or more.
Furthermore, the survey raises the question of whether the board is able to influence wage settlements as the awards handed down from Ottawa have been in line with the pace of wage settlements before last October when the board was created. A notable example which I mentioned previously was pointed out. The wage contract of Denmi-son Mines was cut from 16.8 per cent to 10.9 per cent, although the historical relationship with other workers was acknowledged and the firms were known to hold and contract skilled employees. On the same day the board announced an approval of a 16 per cent salary raise for employees of the Dryden board of education. Indeed it is
Anti-Inflation Act
becoming increasingly doubtful whether the board is in any way reducing inflation. In fact, it may be making it more likely.
When the government has aimed for an inflationary target of 8 per cent, the board has allowed raises in excess of 10 per cent, and in over half the cases raises of over 15 per cent. The board seems to be rolling back wages in the goods producing sector, upon which we rely, in favour of the service sector. It is felt generally at the present time that our goods producing sector is not functioning as well as it should.
I should like to speak for a moment about the problems of professionals. No matter what way the attempt is made to control professionals, it seems to me that it will be at best a very indiscriminate operation. Most professionals will obey the AIB guidelines, but they will obey them by reducing the amount of productivity they could attain. It is better to take a month off than run the risk of having not only the results of all the extra effort confiscated, but to find that there is a severe penalty for that extra productivity. Obviously in many instances professionals will have increased their incomes by more than $2,400, and this would include those who have stayed rigidly within the guidelines or who work in schedules set by the provincial governments.
Some of the problems professionals will run into are becoming obvious. Let us consider the example of a professional in my province of Manitoba. The AIB ruled that professionals who practise under the various government schemes and who, for example, are not opted out physicians, will come under the safe haven rule, and they will have minimum compliance regulations with perhaps a nominal reporting record. However, for those physicians who may have opted out of the provincial scheme although there may not be any greater charge than the provincial paying agency is making, the AIB has indicated that it intends to throw the book at them and pursue them energetically in order to make sure that they do not overstep the income guidelines. In doing this the board is following the advice of the government of Manitoba which does not like opted out physicians and other like professionals. I think that is an indication that those who are in practice outside, or those who are on their own, will fare much worse than those who have remained within the government fold.
Much depends on the forms which will be issued to professionals. Almost certainly they will be so complicated that the AIB officials will be able to convict or find a professional guilty under almost any circumstance. By and large, professionals will be at a considerable disadvantage because they will not be able to afford the large battery of accountants and legal advisors which large concerns are able to have at their command. To a large extent the individual professional will be controlled by the corresponding officials in the AIB who will, in many cases, have to make a fairly arbitrary decision because it seems obvious that it would be almost impossible to break down the income and arrive at a fair assessment. I would not blame the offical for this, but this is just the nature of the problem.
The limit of $2,400 may seem to be fair and equitable because professionals on the whole do make good incomes,
2 1804-57'/2

Anti-Inflation Act
but on closer examination it will probably be counter productive. In the province of Manitoba, which has the highest income tax in Canada, an individual making over $28,000 per year retains only 37 per cent of his extra income, so that out of a $2,400 increase he will, in effect, retain a little over $900. If he had an income gross before tax of $30,000 with a net take home pay of perhaps $16,000, with only a $900 per year increase he has lost considerably in his actual income. There certainly would be no point in his continuing to increase his productivity, and he would have to organize himself so that his income would fall below the $2,400 increase, or at least not above it. The balance of his efforts would be directed into other fields such as more holidays, more hobby work, more time spent for his own personal enjoyment. This might be a good thing for the individual concerned, but I doubt if it is very valuable for the economy of the country.
I believe this legislation will be a disaster when the final assessment is made. It certainly seems to discourage productivity, and we have a problem of Canadians investing outside Canada. There has been a trend in the last few years toward greater investment outside Canada by Canadians, particularly in the United States. I support very strongly the idea that this legislation should be reviewed in 18 months, with the possibility that it be terminated, Certainly 18 months is long enough for this legislation to be in effect before it is reassessed.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to participate in the debate on the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I sat in this House and listened to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) with great interest. He is a man of many words, and I leave it to the Canadian people to determine whether he ever says anything. However, he made reference to the inconsistency, or the alleged inconsistency, of the position taken by the hon. member for York-Simcoe vis-a-vis the amendment.


John Edward Broadbent: You were right the first time.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: His reasoning is as follows: how could the hon. member for York-Simcoe, representing our party, stand in his place in this House and debate for 40 minutes against the program and then bring in an amendment which in effect allows it to live for a year?


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Explain it.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: To the Leader of the New Democratic Party that is an inconsistent position. Well, that is the ostrich approach. The fact is that we have the program, and in reality Bill C-89 will pass in this House in the same way Bill C-73 passed because of the Liberal majority.
In his speech the Leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to kicks in the head and that we do not want any kicks in the head, but we will take one if we must. That is the point. We have the program. We have to take our kicks because of the government, not because of our decision, so it is better to restrict the kicks in the head than to leave it open-ended.

I hear a friend on the government benches say we are bickering among ourselves. Mr. Speaker, the positions taken by the New Democratic Party from 1972 until the present time seem to affect the decisions of the government more than the positions taken by my party. The government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) ought not to make bad friends with the New Democrats; they never know when they may need them again.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They will get in bed together again.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: When considering Bill C-89 I cannot help but think that the Minister of Finance is similar to old Christopher Columbus. He set out to explore new worlds and new concepts, plotting a new course. I would say the Minister of Finance is our Christopher Columbus, plotting a new course for Canada. When old Chris set out he did not know where he was going, and when he got back he did not know where he had been-and he did it all on the people's money!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I would ask the Minister of Finance to take a sober second look-perhaps a sober first look would be more accurate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Macdonald for Senator.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I cannot imagine any man in the position of the Minister of Finance, or anyone on the Treasury benches, setting out upon a program without taking stock. I realize the minister had problems back last October when he was in a kafuffle and did not know where he was going or what form the program would take. They hustled it through the House and through committee. Had they at least taken stock at committee stage last fall and listened to some of the suggestions of members of the official opposition we would not be back in the House tonight debating Bill C-89.
I ask the minister, instead of hustling this bill through tonight, instead of hustling the amendment through, would he not now stop and take stock? I can assure him that the affairs of this nation are of interest to the opposition parties as well as to the government. We will help. We will give the kind of concrete and sensible suggestions and amendments that will make the program work.
When we pause to take stock of where we are today we find there has been no progress, no improvement in economic conditions in Canada. I shall not speak on the effects on labour as I think the position of labour and the rough justice meted out to it have been well expounded already.
So far there have been only three rulings by the AntiInflation Board in regard to prices. How can we talk about the success, or the appearance of success of the program when in fact there have only been three rulings? The Leader of the New Democratic party pointed them out- indeed I believe he only pointed out two, Esso and beer. Being a man of abstinence and not consuming alcoholic beverages, that latter one does not concern me. We would have to say, however, that there has not been any progress so far as restraining prices is concerned.

In the election back in the spring of 1974 the prices and incomes policy that this party suggested was to be for only 18 months and was to begin with a 90 day freeze, a period that would allow the government to put into place a program to fight inflation. I think it is agreed by most economists and most members of this House that the government's price and wage control program, or anti-inflation program, does not in itself have any effect on the causes of inflation. But the causes themselves must be attacked, Mr. Speaker. In taking stock surely the minister must have in mind programs that would get to the root causes of inflation.
The whole area of money supply has been discussed in this House previously. As a concrete suggestion I urge the minister to take some time to consider the position of Milton Friedman who suggests that inflation is always a special and monetary phenomenon. He stresses the impact of an abnormally high growth in the money supply and translates that into the effect on falling trade and the surplus of Canadian funds outside Canada, particularly in a time when there is an unfavourable balance of trade. We are facing a trade deficit of around $5 billion this year. Milton Friedman has a great deal more to say about this matter and I wish the minister would take heed of it.
I believe we need a responsible and realistic policy on money supply. I am not advocating zero growth in money supply, Mr. Speaker. I realize that a growth of 7 per cent or 8 per cent is necessary, and I realize what follows a tight money supply but surely the minister understands what follows if you have an accelerated or abnormally high rate growth of money supply such as we are having now, of 16 per cent or 18 per cent.
If we are to get at the roots of inflation I should think the minister would want to take stock of his fiscal policy. I know that speeches are often made in this Chamber that are frankly political in nature. On this side of the House at least we do not participate in that kind of political partisanship, but nevertheless it sometimes appears in the House. Notwithstanding that, it seems to me that a fiscal policy ought to be at least consistent with the kind of restraint that the government expects from the Canadian people.
I think it is wrong that the government expects the wage earner to restrain his income to increases of 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent, depending on whether the historical relationship clause applies, while on the other hand it allows government expenditures to rise to 16 per cent, without the effect of supplementary estimates.
I have some sympathy with those economists who say that a tight fiscal policy will have some negative effects on unemployment. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about the negative effect of a real restraint policy such as federal spending on unemployment, then we also have to take into consideration the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada tabled in this House. That report suggested that the $4 billion to be spent on unemployment insurance this year ought to be tied to productivity. The report made some concrete suggestions, and I know that many who served on the Economic Council of Canada would have liked to have made the recommendations far stronger and far more decisive than the watered down recommendations that finally appeared in the report.
Anti-Inflation Act
I would ask the minister to take stock of the non-productivity of the unemployment insurance program and tie it back to productivity. The Economic Council of Canada had a great deal to say about the effect of productivity on international trade and our trade balance and competitive position in respect of world trade. I ask the Minister of Finance to take stock, not of this piecemeal, fly as you go, on the job training, but of the total program that reflects the studies, positions and suggestions, not only of opposition members but of people across the nation. I might make one suggestion to the minister. Perhaps he ought to fire all the economists on his staff, save one. At least then he would only be confused once.
When we consider the effects of the anti-inflation program, and particularly the amendment before us in relation to Bill C-89 which deals with the time element for the law of the land to be effective, it is important to point out that we in the opposition are not talking about the termination of the program. We ought not to be fooled or misled into believing that all we want is a commitment from the government in respect to the anti-inflation program. That would be deceiving.
It is not the program that we necessarily want ended because the program itself is arbitrary and can be changed by order in council. The existing law of the land allows the cabinet to write their own policy, and it can change day by day. The provisions of Bill C-73, which is now the law of the land, in no way specifies, outlines, details or establishes, except in the widest parameters, the specifics of the program. Therefore we are not asking for assurance in so far as the existing program is concerned because it can be changed. What we are asking is that the law of the land terminate in a year.
We on this side are not unreasonable. If in a year's time the government's program is working and it is getting in place the programs it ought to be getting in place, it will not only be helped by the Canadian people but by members on this side. We will give it the full measure of credit. If at that time the weight of argument warrants an extension of the program, we will be prepared to give that kind of extension. However, in the true parliamentary tradition, we stand opposed to the open-endedness of this kind of arbitrary legislation.
If the legislation were specific, that would be one matter, but it is not. It is arbitrary in so far as I pointed out that it is really a prerogative of the cabinet. It is that kind of arbitrary power which is not consistent with the parliamentary tradition. We have precedents for this kind of openended approach to legislation in our Defence Production Act. The former leader of my party made reference to that last fall when we were first discussing the anti-inflation program.
In conclusion, when this House recesses for the day, I ask the minister to find some corner of an office and, in the solitude of that moment, reflect upon the program and take the kind of stock I have been asking him to take. I ask him to give consideration to accepting some suggestions. The members on this side are sincerely interested in getting to the roots of inflation. Get a policy in place to fight inflation. We are prepared to accept the rough justice for a

April 27, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
specified period of time that Bill C-73 and the amendments to Bill C-89 provide.
I conclude by asking the minister to take this kind of sober second thought and accept the kind of suggestions that we on this side offer in a most sincere way, with humility, dedication of purpose, and conviction of presentation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). He has put forward an eminently sensible amendment to this bill. The effect is consistent with the position our party has taken with respect to the anti-inflation program and this type of legislation right from the beginning. In other words, the effect of this amendment will be to limit the application of the act for a period of about 18 months.
This has been the position of our party. It is consistent with the position we took during the last election under the able leadership of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber. We owe him a great debt of gratitude because he stood in the forefront of displaying candour to the Canadian people. Although we suffered electoral defeat on that point, it is now recognized universally, even by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that the hon. member for Halifax gave to the Canadian people the candour that is expected of political leaders in this country, as opposed to the type of flipflopping we experience with the present government.
I am interested in the amendment put forward by the leader of the NDP. It seems to be an expression of frustration on his part. I know that he wants to ingratiate himself with a very substantial portion of his support, the organized trade union movement, which has come out very strongly against the anti-inflation program. He finds himself in a bit of a conundrum. He has joined with the trade union leaders of this country to indicate his opposition to this program.
The amendment of the leader of the NDP would terminate the program on May 1 of this year, in effect an immediate termination. However, he is faced with the conundrum of having to deal with his provincial premier colleagues in the NDP who have wholeheartedly embraced this scheme. They have apparently co-operated with the federal government with respect to the implementation of this program affecting matters under provincial jurisdiction.
I appreciate the fact that the leader of the NDP finds himself in this difficult situation. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are some very serious deficiencies in the program the government has brought forward, he should realize that, generally speaking, there is among Canadians support for an anti-inflation program.


John Edward Broadbent: Not this one.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is we have this government. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) just indicated that we have a situation and that we have to be pragmatic under certain circumstances. We face a government which is determined, using its brutal majority, to bring

forward a scheme which was ill-conceived, hastily drawn up, and is a reversal of the position it took at the last election, a program which suffers from a lack of credibility in the eyes of the Canadian people by virtue of that very fact. Our party has taken the position that, notwithstanding the blemishes in the plan, we ought to give the government a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate it will work over a reasonable period of time. Thus, while we support the plan we consider ourselves free, in the meantime, to draw attention to what we consider to be its deficiencies.
As I pointed out on second reading, if we ever get into a situation of the kind to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) alluded in his remarks at the end of last year, if we get into a system of permanent controls or an altogether different economic system in Canada, it would be very easy indeed for the government to abdicate its responsibility in the area of fiscal and monetary measures and rely exclusively on a system of controls which, I suggest, would not get at the root causes of inflation and would bring about more problems than it solves.
It seems to me, if I may say so without imputing motives, that the government is attempting to gain the benefit of the traditional advantage inherent in Canada's relationship with the United States-that of sharing any upturn in the U.S. economy. After all, between 60 and 70 per cent of our trade is carried on with the United States, and it is my impression that in bringing forward this program the government had in mind the hope that the economy will follow the trend in the United States, that the rate of inflation here will decline. Things are promising for our neighbours south of the border, and indeed I believe the prospects are not all that bad for us-we may experience an upturn here; all hon. members, I am sure, hope that the inflation rate will go down and that our economy will prosper. In any case we can do a great deal to help by limiting the period of application of wage and price controls. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to placing a limit on this program.
When I read the statistics with respect to the terrific backlog of cases now facing the Anti-Inflation Board I can only conclude that the proposal put forward by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe is really a favour to the government, because if this plan continues for any considerable period of time it will be necessary to extend the scope of the scheme, expand the administration, and increase the size of the bureaucracy required to operate the system.
When the program began it was said the total number of staff likely to be needed by the Board would not exceed 200 persons. On the basis of the figures now available with respect to the backlog it appears it will be necessary to increase that figure very substantially-not tenfold, not even twentyfold, but a hundredfold in due course if the plan is allowed to carry on for an unreasonable length of time as suggested in Bill C-73. That is why the proposal put forward by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe is one which should be embraced by the government; it would permit it to break away from this program and get rid of it within a reasonable period.
I want to direct these remarks to the minister, since he is here, and to indicate my sympathy with the Leader of the
April 27, 1976

New Democratic Party in the unfortunate position in which he finds himself, one which makes him uneasy and nervous since he has to justify his own position as leader of a national party on one hand while trying to support the position of his colleagues in the provincial parties on the other. I must say, though, that I agree with him to this extent: the program is ill-conceived and should probably not be supported for the period originally intended. We should face the issue and say that now is the time to bring the program to an end.
As I say, the problem we face now is the program's lack of credibility. The indication I have received as a result of questionnaires put out among my constituents is that while they support an anti-inflation program they have great difficulty in accepting the veracity and good faith of the government with respect to its actions; they find it difficult to understand the reason for the continuous and continued growth in government expenditures and the fact that government expenditures do not seem to be subject to the same rules as are expenditures in the private sector; they find it difficult to reconcile the government's calls for restraint with the increase in its own spending. So I say, in all sincerity, that if the Minister of Finance really wishes to do a service to his portfolio and to his country he will use his influence with the Prime Minister and his other colleagues, as well as with his caucus, to secure support for my hon. friend's motion. I personally feel it is worthy of support.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words.


An hon. Member:: Of wisdom?


William James Kempling: Well, let us see what they are when they come out. Speaking to the motion put forward by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe I want to say that we are being entirely consistent in putting forward this motion. The economists to whom I have spoken, the people who have had experience of the application of controls, tell me that 18 months is the longest period for which a program of this kind can be left in place. The longer it is in place the more difficult it becomes to remove it.
This is the dilemma the government faces at the present time. It does not know what to do after the program ends. It is in a quandary. I recall very vividly a question it directed to us during the last election campaign: what are you going to do when the control period ends? Now, of course, it has that problem itself.
One of the points that we disliked very much in Bill C-73, the original anti-inflation legislation, was the open-ended provision whereby the legislation could be extended indefinitely by order in council. To us, Mr. Speaker, this sounded like permanent controls, and to people across the country who were broadly concerned about controls it also sounded like permanent controls. Recent comments by columnists and various commentators in this country on the progress of the anti-inflation program have confirmed that, in their view as well, this program is one of permanent controls. I believe the labour movement generally perceives it to be a program of permanent controls, which is why it is so opposed to it.
Anti-Inflation Act
I believe only seven out of the ten provinces of Canada are committed to the anti-inflation program, and I think that without exception those provinces that are have placed a limit on their commitment. I understand that this is 18 months, though in one case I believe it is 24 months. Gefterally speaking I think we can say that the provinces want the program to end after 18 months.
In Bill C-89, which motion No. 1 is endeavouring to amend, there is provision to end the program prior to December 31, 1978, and I have been wondering why that provision is in the bill. Obviously it is in the bill to give the government the option of ending the program providing it finds a way to slip out of it easily and knows what to do when the program has ended.
The matter that really concerns me is this: we started out with three main points. There was an export levy, a limit on profits-and by a mathematical calculation that was supposed to control prices-and, of course, we had a limit on wage increases. Why the export levy was imposed at the very beginning is something I shall never understand, but however it has been removed. We now see a great deal of pressure building in the business community to modify the profit control provision or remove it. As a matter of fact the minister stated, I understand, that he is prepared to look at this question in October of this year. If that section of the act is extensively modified, then the only thing left is wage controls, and I do not think that is acceptable. It may be acceptable to some people, but I do not think that generally across the country it will be acceptable and that the legislation can continue if it controls only wages. There is the dilemma that we are facing.
I understand that the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), has moved an amendment that would end the legislation on May 1 1976.


Mr. MacLean:: May Day.


William James Kempling: Yes, it is, and I am sure that he will be out waving the Red Flag with all the rest.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He may even be dancing around the Maypole.


William James Kempling: My colleague has taken the words out of my mouth. I am sure he will be dancing around the Maypole. This is a very contentious issue for the mainstream of supporters who gather around him, and in order to try to make himself far more credible he attacks our speakers and accuses us of being inconsistent. That is a lot of nonsense. Certainly we are being consistent. We said that we believed in an 18 month control program, and this is exactly what a termination date of May 1, 1977, will give us.
I think it is generally agreed today by those who have carefully studied the program, even by people in the AntiInflation Board itself, that had there been a 90 day freeze at the very beginning-and I think the reason there was not a 90 day freeze is that it would have been an absolute copy of the main recommendations that we made and it was just too hard for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to swallow that-then the program may have had a better chance of succeeding than it has right now. However, the

Anti-Inflation Act
Leader of the New Democratic Party, in order to try to remain a little bit credible to his people, says we are not being consistent in asking for a May 1, 1977, end to the program. It is he who is not being consistent, as he rarely is in many of the things upon which he comments.
The concern of people across the country to whom I have talked-and I have travelled a fair bit talking to quite a few people in labour and business-is that we are in a real decline. We are not pulling out of our recession. We see countries around us, like the United States, making really significant gains in their economy. We see more people being employed; we see a prime rate of 5'A per cent in the U.S., and we see a great deal of industrial activity taking place. One of the things I always watch for very closely is orders being placed for machine tools, and I think they are at their highest level now for several years. That is an indication of industrial activity down the road. Some of us who recently visited Japan saw a definite movement in their economy as well. Though they are planning for a slow growth period to about 1985, there is a definite movement and they are making progress.
In each of these countries, as well as others that have had control programs, it was found that the best way to control inflation is by means of good, strong fiscal and monetary policies. I know that those words have rolled out of the mouth of every politician in the country for several months now, but if you take politics out of it and look at inflation without politics this seems to be the solution that most countries have favoured.
I do not believe we are making much progress in this regard in Canada. We find our interest rates are high. This makes it difficult for businessmen to borrow money to expand their plant. We find a limit placed on profits and we find little effect on prices. This is why we feel the program should end on May 1, 1977, after an 18 month period. It has not gone the way we would have liked but it has been an interesting experiment. I think it has had some restraining influence; most of the provinces have cut back on their budgets.
Speaking in Toronto the other day the minister mentioned that if the provinces and municipalities would cut back on their budgets the anti-inflation program would have a much greater effect. A number of them have done this, and are endeavouring to continue next year and down the road. Perhaps the lesson of inflation has been learned by a great number of people. Having had this experience for 18 months, then I think we should end this on May 1, 1977. That is why I support the motion. With these few remarks I will give way to my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), or whoever happens to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, very rarely have I entered into debate with almost unanimity of support on catching the eye of the Chair. I am glad I caught the eye of the Chair in order to take part in this debate on the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for

York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who has tried to put a limit on a program of a government that in some ways is almost limitless.
I can understand the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moving an amendment to restrict the time period of the Anti-Inflation Board. From the purport of his amendment and the motion of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, it would appear that they both like May 1 as the date for the conclusion of this program, but the amendment refers to this weekend, the day following the day we must file our income tax returns. After you file your income tax return you are prepared to accept almost anything.
Having seen the lack of objectivity on the part of this government I can understand why the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would move such an amendment. That hon. member was seduced by the government time and time again in another parliament between 1972 and 1974 when the respective parties were colleagues together in incest, but in terms of parliamentary progress did not produce a thing except dissension among the Canadian people. That hon. member wants to dance around the Maypole on May 1 after we pay extravagant taxes to finance a government that is almost unfinanceable. We have spent the money and I think it is a late hour in the day for me to have much sympathy for the problems of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). We have had other ministers of finance, some of whom are my friends and some of whom are my enemies in a political sense. I always have sympathy for ministers of finance.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) just a moment ago tried to be economically objective. He tried to separate economics from politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is my good friend, the Ms. from Saint-Michel. She is one of the dynamo kids over there. The fact of the matter is that we have seen the government dance around the Maypole many times when fighting a campaign that has deceived the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I say to my friend, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, who had to go outside to regenerate himself after trying to be too objective in taking politics out of economics, it is almost impossible to do that with a government that has been so intellectually dishonest with the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We as Canadians in this parliament of Canada are trying to make work something that is almost unworkable.


Miss Begin:: Shame on you.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let me say to my friend, the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), that I would like her boss and my Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), to start to tell the people of Canada from coast to coast what they have to do in the fight against inflation. This is not something the Minister of
April 27, 1976

Finance, that poor man from Rosedale, has to do, and it is not something the Anti-Inflation Board has to do. This is something that each individual Canadian has to do if the fires of inflation are to be dampened. Perhaps we should do this on May Day following April 30 when some of our expectations have been dampened as a result of paying our tax bills.
My Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of all Canadians campaigned in 1974, and was anti-controls and anti-Stanfield. This man requires some intestinal fortitude, although he has the force of persuasion to a limited degree. The fact of the matter is that he should try to do a sales job across this country from coast to coast. I wonder why he does not try.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He doesn't know how.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let me say to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that he may know how, but I think he is fundamentally embarrassed in trying to take the message to Canadians to tighten their belts. I have lost 12 pounds because I had to pay my tax bill. How many other people have tightened their belts as much? I suggest that the government should start by tightening its belt.
I wonder if Bill C-89 or any of the mammoth works of the mammoth man from Rosedale are really going to do anything about the forces of inflation. There is one thing I am sure of, and that is that we have given our implied approval to the government in trying to do something. We advocated these controls in 1974 when we were scorned and laughed at. The people did not believe us then.


An hon. Member:: And they don't today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let me say to the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) from that great province of New Brunswick, who is one of my finest colleagues-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is ten o'clock tonight, but it is ten o'clock also for this government, and we know what the Canadian people will want to do after that deception of 1974. 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.

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) is here. I had hoped he would
Adjournment Debate
have attended the committee but I knew he had to be in the House. I hope his very capable district director will be able to influence him regarding the very excellent presentation I made on behalf of the lobster fishermen of Newfoundland.
Let me get to the point of the debate tonight which has to do with transportation. On March 29 I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) because of my concern about the deterioration of the highway system in the province of Newfoundland and in the Atlantic region generally. I had in mind particularly the presentation by the ministers of highways and transport ministers of the Atlantic region regarding a highways improvement or strengthening program, similar to those presented in briefs by other provinces of Canada. The minister in reply indicated that his discussions with the provincial ministers related more to the issue of support for the movement of freight within the Atlantic region, and possibly to new programs using freight assistance more adequately for the development and improvement of the Atlantic region.
The minister also in his reply confirmed that a brief had been presented on highway strengthening and indicated that he would undertake a further examination of the brief before responding. Just today I had occasion to present the problem to the Canadian Transport Commission at the hearings of the transport committee, and in my representation I referred to the Trans-Newfoundland Transportation Corridor Study which made certain recommendations in compliance with the very objectives I preach tonight.
In addressing myself to the problem, and to the parliamentary secretary who represents the minister, I say there is a deliberate thrust by the CNR to downgrade rail freight and express service in Newfoundland. I suggest it is just as deliberate as was the thrust to downgrade the rail passenger service in that province back in 1969. Evidence exists that the CNR is deliberately moving to road transport in spite of denials to the contrary. There is evidence that traffic loadings are decreasing to justify the lay-off of personnel. Statistics prove that loadings in Newfoundland are increasing and yet the CNR is moving to road transport. At the same time the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland is being overtaxed by increases in rubber traffic. There have been increases in the last five years of almost 1,000 per cent, much of which is due to the fact that the CNR is contributing to that effort.
At the moment the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland is deteriorating to the point of no return, in fact to the point where soon it will be dangerous for persons to drive their cars on the highway because of the increase in road traffic. This is as a result of the increase in container traffic and the traffic which is being released from the rail traffic which we have in abundance. I say it is a condemnation of the government and the Ministry of Transport that the situation has been allowed to develop as it has today. Nothing is being done about it.
It further disturbs me to read news releases to the effect that many millions, indeed billions of dollars are being provided in other provinces to strengthen highways, to provide road link-ups, and to provide access roads for the development of the rural and industrial economy.
12944

April 27, 1976
Adjournment Debate
For some reason or other those who profess to know are ignorant of what is required by all regions of the nation to provide a basis for our economy. It becomes increasingly obvious that the province of Newfoundland will wait until all other provinces are looked after in respect of Canada's transportation needs.
The Atlantic region transportation ministers have submitted a brief to the Minister of Transport requesting support for the needs of Atlantic Canada. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would give me some hope concerning his minister's intentions to show that the Atlantic region, and particularly the province of Newfoundland, are still part of Canada. I hope he will indicate that Newfoundland will receive its just due in the contribution that our central government makes not only in respect of a strengthening program for its highways but more important in respect of the need for a recommendation concerning a transport system not only from Vancouver to Halifax but indeed to the province of Newfoundland.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I desire very much indeed to provide my hon. friend with some of the hope to which he alluded in the final moments of his remarks this evening. Further to the comments he has made both tonight and in this House on March 29, I should perhaps remind the House that it was on March 10, 1976, that the highway ministers of the four Atlantic provinces first presented a joint report to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) which is entitled "Atlantic Provinces Primary Highways-Ten Year Program". This report is a statement of needs as seen by the provinces and was prepared subsequent to previous meetings between the provincial ministers and the Minister of Transport. The report is presently under study by departmental personnel in the Ministry of Transport.
With regard to recent highway expenditures in the Atlantic region, these have been made mainly through special and subsidiary agreements between the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the respective provinces. In this connection it is interesting to note that in 1974-75 federal highway expenditures amounted to $18.2 million in Newfoundland, $1.3 million in Prince Edward Island, $1.4 million in Nova Scotia, and $18.1 million in New Brunswick. It is likely that 1975-76 expenditures will be in the same order of magnitude.
Concerning the standardization of truck weights we have now reached the point where these are all now at a minimum of 20,000 pounds for a single axle load with the exception of Newfoundland where the figure is 18,000, and at a minimum gross vehicle weight of 110,000 pounds, with the exception of Nova Scotia where it is 80,000 pounds. Completion of standardization of loads limits can be expected to result in increased economies for truck transportation which is one of the objectives of the federal Ministry of Transport and, I am sure, of the provincial ministers involved.
With regard to rail freight and express service in Newfoundland, may I assure the hon. member that every effort is being made to provide adequate rail service to shippers and receivers in this area. The CNR has undertaken a number of initiatives recommended in the trans-Newfoundland corridor transportation study completed in 1974

to improve the transportation system. These actions include the construction of a new express freight shed at Cornerbrook, increased capacity of the rail car wheel-set transfer operation at Port aux Basques, and the establishment of a freight planning group in St. John's to improve the scheduling of traffic.
In general, and in conclusion, I want to assure my hon. friend that the Government of Canada has substantially supported Atlantic region transportation and will continue to do so in the future.


FINANCE-SUGGESTED CHANGES IN EQUALIZATION FORMULA AS RESULT OF INCREASED ENERGY COSTS- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps very appropriate that my question, following the one of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), should deal with energy because I think the two problems that are plaguing the Atlantic economy right now are the great and continuing difficulties we have had with transportation and transportation costs and with energy and the great impact which rising energy costs have had on the Atlantic region in the last three years.
Hon. members will recall that on April 5 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) whether, in view of the meeting of the first ministers that was taking place that week, there would be some consultations with ministers from the Atlantic provinces with respect to the suggestion of the minister of finance in Ontario, Mr. McKeough, who had suggested that there might be a consideration of some alteration in the equalization formula, particularly with respect to the skyrocketing electrical costs in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. To a lesser degree, of course, this affects Newfoundland and New Brunswick, and I think it has some impact as well on one or two of the provinces in western Canada.
The Minister of Finance at that time was not able to give me that assurance. He said he would be discussing the matter generally with his colleagues but that this might be a question which could be resolved prior to the meeting of first ministers on energy at the beginning of next month. Therefore it is doubly appropriate that I raise this question tonight because in a little more than a week's time that meeting of first ministers will take place.
However, it is extremely disturbing to be raising the question following the announcement of the energy policy by the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) this afternoon. To my mind the statement by the minister this afternoon showed an almost complete lack of awareness or sensitivity to the energy problems of Atlantic Canada. When the minister indicated this afternoon that eventually there would be a move on his part to raise the price of domestic oil to international levels, and that one of the purposes of increasing domestic energy prices would be to reinforce efficiency and conservation, it seemed to me that the minister was trying to make a virtue out of the hardship that will obviously be created for many of the people already living on low incomes, some of the lowest incomes in the country, and in those regions in the country that can least afford to protect themselves.
April 27, 1976

Quite frankly, I was shocked at the insensitivity of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in suggesting that. It is similar, of course, to the further part of the answer which the Minister of Finance gave me on April 5 when I asked about some assistance with respect to the conversion from expensive electrical generation to lower cost forms of electrical production. The answer of the Minister of Finance referred quite specifically to nuclear power and the CANDU reactor, particularly the one which is contemplated for New Brunswick, yet the Pointe Lepreau reactor, when it comes on stream, will produce something like 600 megawatts compared with the estimated potential of the Fundy tidal power operation, which could produce something like 4,000 megawatts.
When we examine the statement of the minister this afternoon there is no mention of the possibility of proceeding as quickly as possible with Fundy tidal power development. There was certainly no mention of it by the Minister of Finance the other day, even though he must be well acquainted with its potential, having served in the portfolio of Energy, Mines and Resources.
All in all we are faced with a situation in which there seems to be no awareness yet by the government that there are consumers and producers living in my province of Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia who are paying as much as 200 per cent to 300 per cent more for their electricity than those who live in parts of southern Ontario, or even in some parts of the province of Quebec. This further emphasis on disparity and economic and social hardship for the people of the Atlantic provinces is unacceptable, and quite frankly I find it illogical. The government, having moved some time ago to standardize a base price for the cost of petroleum products, whether it be in eastern or western Canada, is now making the assumption that what it can do in one area with respect to petroleum it cannot do in another, and that is in the area of electical generation and electrical costs.
If there is to be a consistent approach in this respect, and if the government believes that one price for petroleum products should be established, even if that price is an increased one, as was suggested by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this afternoon-but it would be a price which would be equal and fair for consumers from coast to coast-surely the logic of that, which I think has been generally accepted on all sides of this House and by all Canadians, is equally true with something as basic as electricity costs. I think it is an absolute farce for a government to expend something like $500 million in an attempt to reduce the disparities which exist between the poor and the rich regions of this country and then say that it is in no position whatsoever to act with respect to the enormous burdens which are being placed on the backs of consumers in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the other poorer provinces. I hope the parliamentary secretary can give us a definite assurance tonight that this kind of insensitivity and illogical approach which is presently being taken will in fact be altered at the first ministers' meeting.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Adjournment Debate
Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) noted, some provincial finance ministers have raised at their last meeting the issue of electricity prices in the Maritimes. The problem is due to the fact that the production of electric power in these provinces relies more than anywhere else in Canada on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels account for 100 per cent of the electricity produced in Prince Edward Island, 62 per cent of that produced in Nova Scotia and 38 per cent of that generated in New Brunswick. Oil prices have increased and this has had a direct impact on hydro rates in these provinces.
I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Maritime provinces are not the only place where the cost of electricity has gone up. Other provinces have known similar increases as a result of rising price. Electricity rates in Ontario have gone up by about 15 per cent during the last two years and they are expected to go up by 25 per cent a year during the next three or four years. Quebec is in a similar situation.
The federal government is aware of the problem in the Maritime provinces and it has taken certain steps to rectify it. The hon. member may not be aware of all the efforts made by the federal government to help the Maritime provinces has concerns energy supplies.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is already working actively at finding solutions to the problems of electricity production in those provinces. The present policy of the federal government consists in financing 50 per cent of loans granted at the lending rates which apply to Crown corporations for the first 600 megawatts, CANDU reactor obtained by a province. In this respect, the government has granted a loan of up to $350 million to New Brunswick for the construction of a reactor at Point Lepreau.
Under this treaty, a loan agreement was signed by AECL and the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission by virtue of which loans amounting to $30 million were granted in 1975-76, and loans are expected to amount to $70 million in the current financial year. It will cover the interest.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the agreement reached by New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the federal government, we will take over 50 per cent of the cost of technical, economic and financial feasibility studies on the harnessing of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy, as mentioned by the hon. member.
In the province of Prince Edward Island, the federal government is financing electrical connection between the island and the continent. We have agreed to grant, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, an $18 million subsidy and, through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a $9 million loan. That connection is expected to be completed by October 1976; it may not reduce the cost of electricity on the island but it will have a stabilizing effect in that the province will become less dependent on fossil fuels for its energy production. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is committed to implementing a single price policy-
2 1 804 - 58(4

Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF GUN CONTROL MEASURE TO SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER JURISDICTION FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if I seem a little out of breath it is because I just ran over from the committee that is considering Bill C-83.
I want to deal tonight with questions I asked on April 6, 1976, as reported at page 12501 of Hansard when I put this question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to the Di Iorio and Gerard Fontaine case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial government should have the right to conduct a criminal inquiry within the terms "administration of justice of the province".
This bill is now before the committee and if anybody had heard the proceedings at committee tonight they would wonder how the bill ever got out of this House-except by closure. From page 47 to page 53 the bill deals in brief with the fact that the federal government is giving power to the provinces to investigate crime and hold criminal inquiries. The fact is, however, that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the province of Quebec, and any other province, under our constitution has that power. That means that when this bill left this House through closure, eight of its pages were redundant because the provincial governments already had the power it proposed to give to them.
I should like to read briefly from the judgment of Mr. Justice Pigeon of the Supreme Court of Canada. At page 13 he said:
If it must be said that such an inquiry prior to any charge being laid under the Criminal Code comes within the description of "administration of justice in the province", not of "procedure in a criminal matter", I cannot appreciate how one may take a different view where the object of the inquiry ...
In other words, the province of Quebec had that power. I should now like to read from page 14 of the judgment where he says that under the British North America Act the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction but questions of criminal law fall under the ambit of federal jurisdiction. The judge said:
... "administration of justice" in all matters civil and criminal, which has consistently been held to include the detection of criminal activities.
He held that this falls within the admit of the provinces.
I should like to read from the judgment of Mr. Justice Dickson of the same court, who said:
First, I cannot subscribe to the view that administration of criminal justice is for parliament alone to prescribe.
It is also for the provinces. I would also like to quote from page 12 where the same judge said:
It seems late in the day to strip the provinces of jurisdiction in respect of criminal justice which they have exercised without challenge for well over 100 years.
Part of that bill now deals with provincial inquiries. It has gone to a committee for study. The Supreme Court of Canada in its judgment constitutionally says that lower is well within the ambit of the province of Quebec. If it had not been for its inquiry we would never have found out that carcasses were being sawed up, ground, and turned into hamburgers at the World's Fair to be sold to the public of Canada. They had the right to make that inquiry.
It is beyond my comprehension as a parliamentarian of this House for some considerable length of time that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Liberal government would challenge the province of Quebec on the right to conduct that kind of inquiry. I can only say they wanted to cover up something they knew Quebec was bringing forth.
The main point I want to make is that two thirds of the bill dealing with control of guns is a matter of administration of justice falling within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The fact is that much of that law that says it can be done by order in council, such as the cost of licences, the administration, all of which is defined in the bill, falls within the ambit of the provinces.
I was at the committee. I wish Your Honour were on that committee because it is a big circus. The greatest defence we had was to move that the motion be not read a second time. My guess is that tomorrow morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will fire the Liberal members of that committee because their questions are right on. They pointed out that gun control is not only within provincial jurisdiction, but is unworkable. There are so many anomalies it will not do anything to solve crime. That is the reason why I asked that question.
Bill C-83 was produced for one reason. It is a legal poultice to try to get the Canadian people to believe that the government is doing something to solve crime and to cover up the fact that it brought in a bill only two and a half years ago regarding penalties for murder which it will not carry out. I end with this sentence. This bill is to cover up for the fact that the government will not carry out the law that it brought in with reference to murder.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am responding to my hon. friend on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and his parliamentary secretary. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.
As I begin, I remind the Chair and the House that I will be dealing with the substantive matters of both law and procedure which the hon. member raised in his original question in the House before the Easter adjournment. I will not direct my remarks to the rather extraneous and gratuitous references which the hon. member has made, particularly in the closing part of the speech which he just delivered.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on April 6, 1976, asked the Minister of Justice if the government intended to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the provisions in Bill C-83 relating to the ownership and handling of firearms for determination of their constitutional validity. The hon. member formulated his question after having referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in the cases of Di Iorio and Gerard Fontaine.

April 27, 1976

There is, of course, no relation between the Supreme Court decision in the Di Iorio and Fontaine cases and the parts of Bill C-83 relating to firearms. The Criminal Code always has had provisions dealing with guns. There has never been any suggestion that these provisions would not properly fall within the meaning of the words "criminal law" as they appear in section 91, sub-paragraph 27 of the B.N.A. Act. The proposed measures relating to guns in Bill C-83 extend and modify the existing provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with guns. It must be submitted that parliament is competent to enact such legislation as being legislation in relation to Criminal Law.
It has been held by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Canada that the words "criminal law" in the
Adjournment Debate
constitution mean the criminal law in its widest sense. It has also been held that the power to legislate in relation to criminal law is not restricted to defining offences and providing penalties, but it also includes the power to legislate for the prevention of crime. The precise point involved here was very aptly dealt with by the Imperial Privy Council in the case of Proprietary Articles Trade Association versus the Attorney General of Canada, particularly in the judgment of Lord Atkin. His Lordship's statement is a lengthy one and I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting it in full. However, the hon. member for Calgary North is a man learned in the law and I am sure he is fully conversant with Lord Atkin's speech and will find it constructive in this connection.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, April 28, 1976